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

Clavdia chauchat

Clavdia chauchat (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diffs Highlighting Clavdia's Behaviour

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please review my block of Clavdia chauchat

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Til Eulenspiegel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is this going to go anywhere?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Khabboos

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

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

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

Other disruptive edits include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Block proposal

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

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

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

You said that the user has lied.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CensoredScribe's categories

Forgive me for not knowing the correct page to request assistance for wikihounding. Ryulong is reverting all of my recent edits; I have informed Jimmie Wales that Category:Slave owner is valid. It is an embarrassment to Wikipedia this wasn't already a category. They are also reverting my edits to terrorism; Category:Individuals designated as terrorist by the United Kingdom government is as valid as the one for the U.S. CensoredScribe (talk) 06:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

(I have moved this entry from the top of the page to the bottom, where new threads should go - it is unlikely to be noticed at the top)

CensoredScribe, if you think a category is valid, argue the case for it properly. 'Informing Jimmie Wales' isn't the way to do it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

CensoredScribe has a history of creating categories that do not meet Wikipedia's standards, and in the past couple of days created and curated the following:

• Category:Slave owner (adding the first four American presidents to the category)
• Category:Terrorist
• Category:Individuals designated as terrorist by the United Kingdom government (only previously inhabited by Osama bin Ladin)
• Category:Fictional religious figures
• Category:Fictional headless
• Category:Fictional heartless
• Category:Fictional characters with ki abilities
• Category:Artificial souls in fiction
• Category:Fictional characters who absorb souls

He also saw fit to attempt to repopulate the long and repeatedly deleted category Category:Fictional terrorists. It seems that he decided to beat me to the punch about starting an ANI thread on him after I found out he tried to whine about me to Jimbo. What we need to do is prevent CensoredScribe from continuing to make bunk categories that are only populated based on his own personal interpretation of the work of fiction or history. How the hell is Optimus Prime a religious figure? Really.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Also Category:Fictional multidimensionals? Category:Homonculi in fiction? All this? CensoredScribe, really. And based on the thread I found on his talk page started by SummerPhD that this is not the first time CensoredScribe has been brought to ANI and that I am not the first person to have to clean up after him.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I was going to wait a bit on this, but I guess while we're here... Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive827#User:CensoredScribe_overcategorizing This has been an on-going problem. (Having not examined Ryulong's edits, I have no opinion on them specifically.) See also: User_talk:CensoredScribe#Category:Fictional_sexists, User_talk:CensoredScribe#Inappropriate_categories, User_talk:CensoredScribe#Category:Brain_transplant_in_fiction, User_talk:CensoredScribe#Category:Body_swapping_in_fiction, User_talk:CensoredScribe#Your_categories, User_talk:CensoredScribe#Category:Fictional_characters_with_radiation_abilities, User_talk:CensoredScribe#Categories. As most of Censored's categories were "created" merely by populating them and deleted by depopulating, we don't have as many deletion discussions as we would otherwise. Nevertheless, there seems to be an inordinate need to run around cleaning up some frankly absurd categories. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I missed a couple: User_talk:CensoredScribe#Category:Alternative_reproduction_in_fiction, User_talk:CensoredScribe#Category:Fictional_sexists, User_talk:CensoredScribe#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Category:Single-race_worlds. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I've now unpopulated Category:Synthetic biology in fiction and Category:Fictional soulless. These categories are all ridiculous. This all reminds me of Tyciol (talk · contribs), too.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, in this edit to Jimbo's talk page, CensoredScribe claims he was blocked previously, when no blocks can be found on his account. This suggests that he is a sockpuppet of an editor we have previously banned.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Another relevant thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive822#CensoredScribe.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Um, it does seem that CensoredScribe misunderstands what Wikipedia is for: Category:Fictional headless - for "characters in fiction without heads"? Presumably including Thomas the Tank Engine, 'Thing' from the Addams Family TV series, and the sentient ocean in Stanislaw Lem's Solaris. Possibly usable as an addition to the existing classifications in Jorge Luis Borges' Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge, but of precisely zero encyclopaedic merit. While I could imagine that there might be a case for the first two categories listed above, the rest appear to be junk. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Try Levineps (talk · contribs): Levineps was blocked in December, and CensoredScribe (talk · contribs)'s sudden interest in creating oddball categories manifested itself in January. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Levineps/Archive. --Calton | Talk 06:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

CensoredScribe was active as early as March 2013, though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes. And to repeat: "CensoredScribe (talk · contribs)'s sudden interest in creating oddball categories manifested itself in January". CensoredScribe category edits in 2013: zero (0).--Calton | Talk 07:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

People without hands is a category; religious figure should have been called fictional founders of religions and fictional subjects of prophecy. I admit that like alternative reproduction it is far too vague to be of use. Similarly sexist is too subjective; unlike the soul categories which are more akin to super powers; souls being more of a fictional physics issue than having anything to do with emotions like sexism. I think anyone who spent time looking for Osama Bin Laden would not contest he was considered a terrorist in the U.K. I think the U.S. terrorism category without a solid definition of terrorism is effectively a murder death killer list. CensoredScribe (talk) 07:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You created Category:Mythological rapists, Category:Fictional telekenetics, and Category:Artificial uterus in fiction. What purpose do these categories serve?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Note: second category speedy moved to Category:Fictional telekinetics due to spelling error. — Scott • talk 22:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I am getting the sense from you that the main problem here was that he started categories about science fiction, and since science fiction is a fundamentally worthless genre and interest, he should be banned from adding anything more about it. But I think it is interesting to compare and contrast the myths and stories of mankind, and I hope these categories flourish. It is difficult to populate any category fully, but I think these have a fair chance of becoming relatively complete. Wnt (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

@Wnt: Seeing as Ryulong edits actively in the manga, anime, and video game spaces, it has nothing to do with whether science fiction is fundamentally worthless. Please do not assume such. --Izno (talk) 13:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

There's some serious overcategorization, no doubt, but (I've said this before, perhaps in another ANI thread?) that's not to say that all are worthless. Mythological rapists is a viable and important category, as is Mythological rape victims. Did I see someone say "science fiction is a fundamentally worthless genre"? I don't like to invoke IDONTLIKEIT or use profanity, but what the fuck? Drmies (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

That was just me getting high on the dramatic atmosphere of this place; my intent was to criticize the way in which someone is being treated as if they actually did something wrong based on no tangible criterion that I can see here. Wnt (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Alright then. Come down from that cloud or my boss, an expert in science fiction, will egg your house--and he doesn't stop at $20,000. Drmies (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Formal proposal for a topic ban

I think, given what we've seen here, and given the comments in the last ANI thread [16], that there are quite sufficient grounds to make a formal proposal that CensoredScribe be topic-banned from creating new categories. It is totally untenable to allow such time-wasting behaviour to continue.

• Support as proposer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support, as none of the categories created by CensoredScribe have any purpose on Wikipedia whatsoever and he refuses to acknowledge his misdoings.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support. This is really becoming ridiculous. I also suggest that CS watch out for the boomerang (it's not often that you see an editor tell on himself). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 09:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

  I changed the section title as it was just my username and this was becoming more about him.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support, the categories CensoredScribe creates are ridiculous and the articles he populates those categories with hardly ever make sense. I would point out though, that his editing in other areas is sometimes equally problematic, so I'm not sure if this solves the problem or just moves it to another area.--Atlan (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support as random, useless, bizarre categories have no place - they're meant to categorize by common traits. CS simply refuses to stop when asked nicely and as such, protection is required ES&L 09:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

  CensoredScribe has run off crying to Drmies now.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

  Take it easy, Ryulong. Everyone sometimes needs a shoulder to cry on. You may visit that happy place too, if you like. I think CensoredScribe is of good faith, though I also think they're out of their league in category creation. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

  Well he tried Jimbo before you.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

  Seems like progress is being made. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 22:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support - haven't got anything more to add than what people have already said, other than that this behaviour is utterly inappropriate. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't know how Wikipedia got to be a place where people feel afraid to start a category, but can go ahead and spam an infobox linking 200 songs to 200 other songs by the same author so that nobody can look up on Google what the two have in common because it's all a mass of false positives! There is nothing against policy about these categories - no reason why having them would harm the encyclopedia - just a few editors saying they're outlandish. Why can't you be happy enough crowing about how Wikipedia will never have a category about slave owners (which is a disgrace) without having to wreak vengeance on the guy who suggested the idea? Wnt (talk) 11:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Policy? "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia". [17] The creation of arbitrary and nonsensical categories is incompatible with the stated objectives of the project. And of course its harmful - readers don't expect to be confronted with nonsense in articles, and such material distracts from useful content. As for the 'slave owner' category, if you think it is merited, argue the case for it properly. Come to that, a topic ban as I proposed it wouldn't actually prevent CensoredScribe doing the same thing. Which is exactly the point I made when CensoredScribe first posted on Jimbo's talk page - whining about 'censorship' before you've even put forward a rational argument isn't the way to achieve anything.AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• The "slave owner" one is a potentially valid category. "Mythological rapists", however, is most certainly not, nor is "Artificial uterus in fiction" - the last one being utterly bizarre, and there are no logical reasons for it that I can think of (and very few illogical ones either). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Rape in mythology is a topic of serious scholarly research, as the most basic search of academic literature will show you. It stands to reason that a classification of mythological rapists could be encyclopedic. But you know what? This is a discussion that should be held at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, where those with interest in and knowledge of the subject matter are more likely to see it, not here at WP:ANI where content disputes have no place. This goes for many of the other categories mentioned here. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Some of the categories people are complaining about here seem quite sensible, at least at first glance. These are clearly content disputes and should have been taken to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, not depopulated and immediately speedy-deleted in violation of WP:CSD#C1. Category:Slave owner in particular was speedily deleted only a couple hours after being depopulated, making this at best administratorial negligence and at worst willful abuse of the tools. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• As above - what possible purpose could "Artificial uterus in fiction" serve? None whatsoever. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • If you're familiar with the literature (or lack thereof) on the subject, then I defer to your judgment on this particular point. (For all I know artificial uteruses are a common enough theme in science fiction that a category might be useful here.) However, given your comments upthread I suspect your (and others') opposition is grounded less in subject-matter knowledge than it is in some personal disdain for the topic. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
    • That's ridiculous. What subject matter do people have a disdain for according to you? Fiction? Artificial uteri? Greek mythology? Sword fighters? That's a pretty disdainful person, that dislikes such a wide variety of subjects.--Atlan (talk) 13:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It's probably a bad idea to risk siccing a pack of hounds on good content, but we actually have an extensive section of Artificial_uterus#In_fiction. Now of course, CensoredScribe's mistake was that he tried adding such articles to a category. Had he merely created a navbox template with a link to this article section at top and each of the thirty articles linked at bottom, so that anybody on Bing trying to look more about the artificial womb in a Philip K. Dick novel would get tons of hits about Dune and Star Wars, well that would be the way things are done around here. Wnt (talk) 14:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Rather than trying to tar me with the "he doesn't think the category is valid, therefore he hates the subject area", a little research would show that I voted to delete one of the other rape-related categories. Artificial uteruses don't justify an infobox or a category, so you need to stop trolling, Wnt. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I did not specifically say that you are biased. I suspect bias, but how can I tell? The problem is, when you make a statement that they don't "justify" a category -- what is that based on? Is there some verifiable source, some policy test, that clarifies that it is a bad choice, or is it personal opinion only? Because if you could point to such a criterion and tell people to use it, you'd have something a lot more effective than a purely arbitrary topic ban on one editor. Wnt (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Update: Xezbeth, the administrator who deleted Category:Slave owner agrees that it should not have been deleted under WP:CSD#C1; however, they since discovered that it is a minor rewording of a category which was already legitimately deleted via CfD. Still I think we should take it on good faith that CensoredScribe, like Xezbeth, was unaware of this previous discussion before creating the category. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

  That didn't stop him from trying to populate Category:Fictional terrorists after being told multiple times that he was cherry picking, and that the category has been deleted multiple times.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, deleted multiple times. To precise, a total of three votes for deletion at [18], which have been used to justify deleting the category three times. So there are as many people who saw fit to start the category on their own initiative as ever voted to delete it! I recognize that Category:terrorists may be problematic on account of partisan differences, BLP, etc., but fictional terrorists usually come with a clear label. Wnt (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know. The Shredder, Lex Luthor, Doctor Robotnik, and Sylar from Heroes don't seem to have much in common nor have they ever been explicitly called terrorists.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

These are per-article content decisions: add that article to the category or not. They shouldn't be made by having someone barely think about it and say, oh, it would be hard. I bet that if they are terrorists, the die-hard fans who frequent such articles could rattle off chapter and verse where there was an APB out on them for it. In any case, trying to add things to this category is in no way "bad behavior", it is just a content decision he made differently from you. It isn't right to say that you disagreed with somebody ten times, so you can block him. Either have a clear policy you can say he broke and which people making categories need to learn and be able to apply on their own, or else just accept he disagrees with you. Wnt (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Did he make these edits in good faith? Yes. Is he breaking things more than he's fixing them? Yes. Can we solve this by topic banning him from creating categories (without some sort of vetting service or someone to consult and ask "do you think this sounds like a good category idea? here are some pages I think will fit")? Yes. I don't see any loss here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

How does he go from edits in good faith to topic ban? How does he go from making edits you disagree with to "breaking" things? You seem to be implying that his editing on the point was hopelessly incompetent, yet I see no objective standard to support anything but that he had one opinion and you had another. I see no advice I could give for editors to become more "competent" at adding categories except to "do whatever ryulong says, and try to guess what he doesn't like, and preferably, never touch a category at all for any reason whatsoever." Wnt (talk) 05:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

AFAICT, no one is saying they are editing in bad faith, this seems to be entirely about competence. How to be more competent? They need to stop with the WP:SYN. A (the Emperor had "slaves") + B (Darth Vader killed the Emperor) = C (Darth Vader is a fictional abolitionist). A (Darth Vader used a Light Saber) + B (a Light Saber is kinda like a sword) = C (Darth Vader is a fictional swordsman). A (something like a religious "prophecy" in the prequals said a figure would balance the Force) + B (Darth Vader was maybe sorta kinda that figure) = C (Darth Vader is a fictional religious figure). There are plenty more in that one article. There are plenty of similar stories in other articles. It's clearly been a problem and will clearly continue to be one as they show no sign of stopping. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, the thing is, all the categories involve some amount of SYN, even something as simple as "American abolitionist", because a source may not use those two words in a row. There are indeed huge problems with POV controversies, like the people who for a while had Islamophobia as a variety of Racism, at least on Commons. And even though Anakin Skywalker did say "I had a dream I was a Jedi. I came back and freed all the slaves...", listing him as an abolitionist is still pretty questionable. The thing is, I don't see why the "questioning" has to amount to a ban, rather than simply a contrary edit. I doubt the categories can live up to the same standard as other encyclopedic content, nor do they. Wnt (talk) 06:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support There's no reason to create utterly useless and nonsensical categories for us to waste time cleaning up. Time for CS to start doing something more constructive. Weak oppose Changed to weak oppose per not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Admiral Caius (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Some of the categories are bogus, no question, but some are borderline and a number of them seem perfectly valid to me. I also agree with the point that this is first and foremost essentially a content dispute that should be handled via Categories for Deletion. Matt Deres (talk) 17:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Without going on at great length, I find at least some of the categories to be creative and useful and I think the others should be handled through CfD rather than mass revert. In particular, I found myself defending "Fictional religious figures" (though I think needs clarification, perhaps "Figures in fictional religions"?) to Ryūlóng at Yoda before they mentioned this discussion to me. Dwpaul ^Talk 17:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose and instruct the editor that since there is an opposition to their activities, they must read carefully the rules about category creation and discuss with other wikipedians the proposed categories. Also (I didn't check myself) we probably have to clarify our rules about "fictional" categories. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support This editor has had plenty of opportunity to read the relevant policies but instead of trying to understand the policies they are now WP:FORUMSHOPPING for more inappropriate cats in threads like this one Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment#Categories about amputations and souls. There are so many ways to edit productively around here that a ban regarding cats may let CS become a better editor in the long run. MarnetteD | Talk 19:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support, since this editor's activity is a timesink; reviving the SPI may not be a bad idea either. Miniapolis 22:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support - I agree with Drmies that there doesn't seem to be any bad faith on CensoredScribe's part, but also that he really doesn't seem to understand why what he's doing is disruptive. I'd say that there is a CIR problem here, and would suggest that he be given an "out" from the topic ban if he is taken on by a mentor well-versed in the intricacies of categories. That is, put the topic ban in place, with the standard 3 or 6 month time period, but allow him to petition for early release from the ban if he's found a mentor to tutor him. BMK (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm glad someone finally mentioned that wikipedia has a page called categories for discussion; which during the last thread no one ever brought up. I kept wondering what that page was called. Googling categories for creation or category proposals does not bring up the right page, you have to use the word discussion. Thank you for directing me to the correct page to propose categories Psychonaut. I do not contest a block from editing fiction, wikipedia is not a place to rant about how bad the star wars prequels were on multiple levels; though most of the categories I added to starwars are still up there because they were correct. However I will oppose a block to any other topic; including mythology where I have contributed lasting well referenced material of use to others. Most of the worthlessly vague, obscure and subjective categories like fictional sexists alternative reproduction in fiction and single race planets I depopulated myself once I realized how few examples there were. Artificial reproduction in fiction became two definable categories however, artificial uterus and homonculi in fiction. I do suspect that half these categories involving souls is the reason such a fuss is being made; I have probably qualified for the goth cup preliminaries by now. The creation of Category:Slave owners being opposed strikes me as extremely disturbing, it's probably because it will be the single largest category on Wikipedia if made; given how recently slavery was made illegal. People considered terrorists by the UK government is as valid as the category for U.S. terrorists; by which I mean they are both worthless categories. Terrorist is as subjective as sexist; those terms describe emotions not actions. The category terrorist would have terrorists by country as a subcategory; otherwise Osama Bin Laden is going to be listed as being two dozen different categories of terrorists for each country that considered him as such. As the page Definitions of terrorism says, "There is neither an academic nor an international legal consensus regarding the definition of the term terrorism." That terrorism requires an extra page just for definitions should be the proof of how poorly thought out, extra legal and unencyclopedic the concept is. Wikipedia would not start listing people as thought criminals or murder death killers if that was the term being used in the media; because that's dumb; like the word terrorism. What other pages actually do this? It's even worse than the pages titled blank controversy. CensoredScribe (talk) 01:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

  Comment This guy strikes me as pretty reasonable. I am wondering whether anyone tried to discuss the issue with him before hitting with a sledgehammer? If yes, them why it is not mentioned here? If not, then someone needs a good slapping by a wet trout for not following the dispute resolution guideline. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

  Did you see that there are several threads on his talk page on this subject, to which he did not respond? BMK (talk) 02:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

  There was also a previous AN/I thread he was notified of, but did not participate in . BMK (talk) 02:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion says the page is only for deletion, merging, and renaming it does not mention proposing new categories. Ryulong said oppose twice, also I did not say John Adams was a slave owner because he never was; he opposed slavery. CensoredScribe (talk) 02:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

And then there's this. While this discussion is on-going, we have a new category with one member. The category might make sense. However, the one entry does not, unless a "Mudokon" freeing other Mudokons can be said to be part of the movement to end the treatment of people as property. (Yes, I'm risking my creds to say that Mudokons are not people.) Heck, maybe we should add him as a fictional animal rights activist? - SummerPhD (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

On the plus side, at least he's discussing this one first. SMH - SummerPhD (talk) 04:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support per MarnetteD and others. Previous warnings seem to have failed, and there were some rather odd categories created by CS. APerson (talk!) 03:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
• Strongly support a topic ban or mandatory adoption (not it). Continuing to add WP:SYN categories while this discussion is on-going seals it for me. They simply do not see what the problem is. As a result, there is simply no way to not expect this to be an on-going problem. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support unless Drmies' suggestion below gains traction. I wasn't paying any attention to this until I discovered the creation of Category:Mythological abolitionists with the editor adding this to Moses using the edit summary "Super best friends :0". Now at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 February 1. Dougweller (talk) 06:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I'd like to see some data on this concept that a ban will make some a better editor; it's seems more likely to me that a ban is likely to make someone a non-contributor. NE Ent 12:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Why would you think that the purpose of a ban is to "make someone a better editor"? The purpose of a ban is to stop disruptive editing. Sure, it may, perhaps, have the secondary effect of making the banned editor think about their behavior, so that when the ban is lifted they're more apt to edit productively and harmoniously, but that's not the primary purpose. We don't get to the point of discussing a ban until disruption has continued despite efforts to halt it short of banning. Recall, please, that WP:Wikipedia is not therapy.

    In any case, if it's improvement of the editor that's wanted, either Drmies' proposal below, or my suggestion of linking the lifting of the ban to mandatory mentoring heads in that direction - but the primary purpose of both is to stop the disruption inherent in the editor's behavior. BMK (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't find the argument for a topic ban convincing. He created one WP:POINTY category, but several others which look plausible to some people. If he does something obviously pointy again, he will probably be blocked. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Some of the launched topics are stupid, others like "Slaveholder" unquestionably encyclopedic and "Terrorist(s)" at least highly arguable and very likely encyclopedic. No evidence of ill intent towards WP; certainly nothing to merit a topic ban. Carrite (talk) 05:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support. User seems intent on categorising WP to his own (mostly) bizarre rationales & needs to desist. 94.194.24.46 (talk) 09:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support. The user's inability to pause and review the utility and application of a new category before creating it has become disruptive to the community due to the volume, if nothing else, and needs to be managed if they cannot do it for themselves. I had assumed good faith on the user's part until I read this [19]. Clearly CensoredScribe is aware of what they have been doing regarding edit summaries; using them to either mislead other users regarding the contents of their edits or as a platform to justify those edits instead of engaging in debate on the relevant talk page. They are now attempting to use the promise of ceasing their abuse of edit summaries as a bargaining chip to obtain a lesser sanction than a topic ban. This does not instill confidence that they are approaching these discussions in an open way. Bowdenford (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban, it affronts sensibility to ban a user who's never been blocked for disrupting the topic where the ban is being sought. I may have supported a short term, preventative block, but a ban is way over the top at this point; in my opinion.—John Cline (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
• Comment What are people's opinions about the creation of User:CensoredAssurity80 just this morning? TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 15:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support – This sudden mass-editing of categories and disruption through this mass-editing is becoming too excessive. Epicgenius (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

A different tack

Preface: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion has been pointed at as a venue for discussion. Perhaps there's a better one, I don't know--certainly there's a better place than my talk page. Following some discussion on my talk page, "Administrators Noticeboard Incidents", and my questions about CensoredScribe's Category:Slave owners (where they, by the way, indicated they wish to continue their work), and considering that many editors here think that CS is of good faith and their contributions (possibly) valuable:

• CensoredScribe is limited to creating categories that have met with consensus, at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion or another appropriate venue, be it a Project talk page or ____ (fill in the blank).

In other words, prior approval is the name of the game, a restriction that will of necessity limit their work and thereby the disruption caused by creating all-too many categories (analogous with the injunctions we've placed on individual editors regarding mass-deletion nominations). That the mass creation is disruptive is agreed on by many editors, it seems to me, and limiting CensoredScribe in this way could forestall a topic ban, which many editors seem to agree is too draconian. Drmies (talk) 05:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Drmies, I think Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Categories is the venue you are grasping for. Ironically, several categories that have been labeled "disruptive" here, would likely have been created there! And before labeling CensoredScribe's categorization prowess "utterly inept", you should have a gander at some of the category and redirect suggestions posted there. Yet, to my knowledge, a total of zero topic bans have been issued to date. Frankly it's not as disruptive as some have implied to create poor categories. There's a cadre of gnomes out there who exist to improve poor categorization; and poor categorization is better than none at all.—John Cline (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support I'd prefer this although I've voted for the topic ban as well, hope that's not too contradictory. But we really can't have silly categories such as Category:Mythological abolitionists and almost insulting edit summaries such as "Super best friends :0". Dougweller (talk) 06:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support this as well. It's essentially the same as the topic ban; they can't create a category without people agreeing that it is valid first. The only difference is that this allows them to create the category themselves, and not have to get someone else to do it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support That sounds quite fair. I'll stop abusing the edit summary as well. CensoredScribe (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Like Dougweller, I support this option as well as another way of curbing this behavior, but my support is contingent on the findings of the SPI. If it is determined that CS is Levineps, then my support for this option, as well as my suggestion for a mentoring "out" made above, are withdrawn. If an admin or the SPI should determine that Tranquility of Soul is CensoredScribe socking, same deal, whether or not the puppermaster is Levineps. BMK (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Barring solid proof, the Lewineps accusation seems unreasonable - aside from being someone else in hot water over categories, I see no similarity in the edits I looked at. Lewineps was splitting and combining other people's categories, stepping on some toes in the process. CensoredScribe by contrast seems genuinely interested in creating a useful classification of prominent themes in mythology and fiction that can be used as a sort of thesaurus by authors and humanities researchers looking for inspiration. Wnt (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I am afraid that it needs to be noted that, in spite of Censorscibe supporting this proposal, the editor made no attempt to discuss C posted at CFD and five minutes later (before any response could be made) created this Category:Teleportation in fiction. I can find no prior approval for this cat and, as it is a day after the editor agreed to these restrictions it is getting harder to AGF. If C can't follow the restrictions that C agreed to then I would suggest that the topic ban proposal above may be the only thing that will correct this situation. MarnetteD | Talk 21:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I did not think this would be a contested category as there was already a page teleportation in fiction. I have brought the discussion up at categories for discussion. I did not think DC and Marvel comics wizards would be contested as the counterpart to witches. Nor did I think that fictional zoos would be questioned given it has a clear definition and alien zoos was an accepted category that I created. I will propose all categories at the categories for discussion page; not just the more outlandish ones. I also think fictional gladiators and bio terrorists should be categories that should include alien arena fighters. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

As shown here Special:Contributions/CensoredScribe you posted at CFD and 5 minutes later you created the cat. There was no prior approval which is the restriction that you aupported. Per WP:OTHERSTUFF just because an article exists does not mean that a category should be created. More than one editor has pointed out that you continually ignore WP:OR and WP:SYNTH both in the creation of cats and in placing said cats in wikiP's article. I can only agree with Ryulong's assessment regarding your judgement. MarnetteD | Talk 22:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support Many of the categories have been quite bad, but a couple have actually been useful. For instance, Category:Nanotechnology in fiction is a solid category, that could be easily populated without violating WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I therefore agree that pre-clearing categories is preferable to an outright topic ban. Monty₈₄₅ 23:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
• Clarification required - CensoredScribe, to assist with considering if the suggested course of action would be appropriate to the situation, based upon you comments above please clarify the following:
  

1. Are you saying that unless there is agreement to your creation of categories being limited only to those that meet with consensus (as opposed to a topic ban) you will continue to abuse edit summaries?

2. Would the type of categories which you would be asking users to spend their time considering in an attempt to build consensus include such things as "alien arena fighters" and similar? Bowdenford (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I've already complained about the Starwars prequels, other franchises have weak entries; however I only made particular note of Starwars. I would not abuse the comments section to say that instead of four next generation movies it should have been 2 Deep Space Nine and Voyager films because the story of TNG was finished after 7 seasons. Nor would I be mentioning Alien 3's many other scripts. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Further clarification required - Your response regarding edit summary abuse is disingenuous at best and does not answer the questions.
  

1. I am not asking for a particular example of how you might undertake not to abuse the edit summary for particular articles in a particular way (which would leave those articles in particular and all other articles open to continued edit summary abuse by you in countless other ways). The question is, are you prepared to stop edit summary abuse, period, without limitation and irrespective of the outcome of the proposal under discussion?

2. I am hard pressed to determine from your reply to point 2 any way in which you might consider applying some sort of test or value judgement process to the potential worth of new categories you think of, prior to deluging users with a multitude of consensus enquiries/requests. Given your current, prodigious output, it seems reasonable to ask if the community would be treated to any restraint on your part at all or if you would continue using the shotgun principle, in that if one in ten applications obtains consensus that's good enough for you no matter how much work it creates for others sorting the silver from the dross.

3. It seems reasonable to ask that if you wish users to give an opinion regarding the suitability of your potential new categories for inclusion on WP, then you should at least be prepared to provide them with a sensible, cogent rationale in each instance regarding why you think they would improve the project. As an example, then, would you say that this pro-argument of yours [20] would generally represent how you would approach this process? Bowdenford (talk) 09:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Because it's essentially the same thing as a topic ban. The only truly disruptive category he created is given as an example over and over. Given how the dramaz erupted over obvious ok stuff like the nanotech in fiction (see sub-section below), I think this proposal is likely to function simply as an excuse for some to hound and oppose him at every step, no matter how reasonable categories he may propose. Someone not using his real name (talk) 10:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • That's not exactly a show of good faith toward the community. There are plenty of editors here (including me) who approve of some of CS's categories. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

New account?

Tranquility of Soul (talk · contribs) appeared in my watchlist today, having created several new categories and adding them to several pages. Examples include Category:Fictional characters with photographic reflexes, Category:Fictional gladiators, and Category:Fictional bio-terrorists.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

That does seem suspicious. There's some overlap in the category interests, and both accounts occasionally forget to pluralize (cf. Category:Slave owner and Category:Fictional botanist). From recent messages on CensoredScribe's talk page we can see that they're aware that sockpuppetry is prohibited, so if Tranquility of Soul is theirs then they can't plead good-faith ignorance. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

An SPI report is here. More evidence would be useful. BMK (talk) 09:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not tranquility of soul, though I can understand why you might think that. We have similarly unique names, forget to add an s, and create unique categories for fictional characters like fictional gladiators and fictional bio terrorists. If it had been me though after botanist would have come other academic disciplines, such as Category:Fictional translator for Uhura, Hoshi Sato, C3PO and HK-47 for example. However I don't believe tranquility of soul has made any edits to science or mythology have they; I didn't even edit fiction until recently. Also the first botanist I would have added would have been Poison Ivy (comics), like how she was one of the first people I added as an eco-terrorist. I would have listed wonder Superman, Mongul, Red Sonja, Wonder Woman, Mojo (comics), Samurai Jack, and Beta Ray Bill as gladiators as well because of war world and bills appearance in planet hulk. I also would have tried to get Darth Vader Obi-Wan, and Padme listed as gladiators because of the arena scene in episode II is clearly only in there because of Ridley Scotts Gladiator like Mr. Plinket says. Also I would have said in the inappropriate edit summary that Coroscaunt was L.A. from Blade Runner without Harrison Ford or interesting architecture. At that point I would have complained in the edit summary and suggested in a reboot Anakin was just a Luke aged gladiator when they first meet him; because a chariot race with pod racers would have made more sense than pod racing or an arena on there own. Probably add Ashoka as a slave Anakin meets, set the scene on Tattooine to make it look similar but not too much like Jabbas palace; and to quickly get that plot moving within the span of three films that have to work on their own and not as parasites. In addition I would have added a sub category to fictional gladiators for Soul Calibur characters who are all gladiators in the story mode. CensoredScribe (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

This doesn't actually help your case such that you shouldn't make categories like these.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Please remember that we categorise things by what they are defined by, not by what they were in one episode or issue. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

CensoredScribe hasn't stopped

I just saw that he made Category:Teleportation in fiction and Category:Nanotechnology in fiction and he had populating several dozen pages in it that I'm currently in the process of removing. He has clearly not gotten the message from this discussion.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I posted on the categories for discussion page about this. I went through a list on this page Teleportation in fiction, this is a very common theme. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You are under discussion here and you continue to create categories that fall under this discussion. You have been told to stop but you continue. Do you not see a problem here?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

It seemed to me most people thought I was doing an alright job. I didn't think teleportation and zoos would be contested as I didn't make up any new extra vague words like soul absorbing terrorist synthetic biological gangster multidimensional. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

This whole thread concerns the fact that your judgement on these matters cannot be trusted. Not only that, but your judgement when it comes to pre-existing categories is questionable. You've added characters to categories based on single instances in their long history of being labeled something. Superman's a slave because of something that happens in a short storyline. You make a bunch of characters labeled "Fictional war veterans" because they are fictional characters involved in fictional wars. Frankly, all this is showing is that you should be banned from anything to do with categories whatsoever.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I see a problem -- Ryulong is being way too aggressive to an editor trying to contribute in a manner that is, at worst, harmless. Teleportation in fiction .. Star Trek, of course. One of the attractive young witches in Charmed -- probably some comic book characters? And that's just off the top of my head. Since we've had Category:Dungeons & Dragons character classes since 2006 (I know, i know, other stuff exists...) it's hard to see the real problem. NE Ent 22:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong, please stop tagging CensoredScribe's categories for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#C1. As has already been explained in this thread, that criterion does not apply since the categories have not been empty for four days. Nor is there any precedent for depopulating or deleting categories simply because the creator has violated some self-imposed topic ban. Your actions are coming across as very vindictive. —Psychonaut (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

How are they vindictive? He's being told to stop multiple times and he's not stopping. And you were the only one to bring up the CSD issue. No one else seems to note that. And two of the categories I tagged were never populated to start with.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, tagging a category that was JUST emptied with C1 is perfectly acceptable. An inteesting quirk of the C1 tag is that, even if you place it on a category that was just emptied, it won't actually appear in the "tagged for speedy deletion" log until four days have passed - it's a note that "this category is empty, delete in four days if it still is". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Honestly a lot of the editors involved in this come across as wikitalibans to me. Yes, offensive general insult on ANI, but I feel it's justified in this case. Category:Nanotechnology in fiction appears justified because there is real stuff in Category:Nanotechnology. Category:Teleportation doesn't exist (thankfully) but surely there are plenty of fictional representations and I can think of some Star Trek episodes where the entire plot relied on some teleporter accident. I thought it made no sense to have two categories for stuff like Category:Shapeshifting and Category:Shapeshifting in fiction (both created by editors not involved in this latest drama) but even in that case the consensus was against me. This kind of discussion belongs at CfD. I see a lot of needless personalization in who did what that goes in circles. A bunch of people really need to drop their WP:STICKs. Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

  On top of the fact that CensoredScribe makes up categories for really trivial and niche things, he also populates existing categories with articles based on his own interpretation of the source material or his knowledge of instances of things in single episodes that do not define the article as a whole. Superman is a fictional slave because for a short storyline he was enslaved. Fry from Futurama is a fictional war veteran because he enlisted in the army for one episode. None of this makes sense and is why we need to reign his actions in.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

You have a valid point for Superman not being considered a slave. However the fictional veterns are correct, as are the categories for nanotechnology and teleportation. You just keep reverting them; I am going to ask you be blocked; as has been suggested to me. CensoredScribe (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

That was a sockpuppet and therefore the post should not have been made.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

User:CensoredAssurity80

This is bizarre, this person claims to be me an alternate account for me. I noticed this on User talk:X96lee15 where Ryulong has posted several times. The account is one day old; I'm guessing this is Ryulong. How exactly did CensoredAssurity80 make an alternate account in my name? Wouldn't they need access to my account to do that? Is this tied to when I wasn't blocked for a week but was unable to logon or post from my IP? CensoredScribe (talk) 15:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

This is related to this other thread. He did not "make an alternate account in your name". He impersonated you and just added {{alternate account}} to his user page. And I would not impersonate you or anyone. I have no use in reverting one of my own edits.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong is edit warring with CensoredScribe

I would appreciate it if the valid categories I add to are not reverted by Ryulong. May this user be given some kind of sanction or simply asked to stop? I don't particularly mind a free 100 edits to my edit count for edit warring however. CensoredScribe (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Would you stop making new threads when this is related to the last one? You made a bold edit adding a bunch of categories to pages where frankly they do not belong. I reverted you once. Then you began the edit war by reverting me back. Sonic the Hedgehog does not contain cyborgs. Superman and the Martian Manhunter are not "fictional slaves". If you believe that the categories (that you did not recently create) that you added to these pages are valid despite the fact you were reverted, begin a discussion on that article's talk page regarding the use of that category on the article instead of insisting that you are correct in your judgement when this entire thread has a dozen people who believe your judgement regarding categories is not up to par.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

If I look at both of your contributions, it's clear that you two are spending today reverting each other on dozens of edits which could result in a block for either one of you or both. I urge you both not to stalk each other's edits and focus on the discussion here and making other positive contributions, not policing each other's behavior. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

CensoredScribe is being investigated here for his improper creation and implimentation of categories that violate WP:SYN. I reverted him twice over a two day period because he reverted my initial revert.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I will stop the endless cycle of reverting Ryulong reversions; however Ryulong has started to remove more of my categories such as mythological rape victims. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

None of those pages had the word "rape" on it and those that did were using the archaic form of the word for kidnapping.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong has broken the 1RR they are on

I would like to not have my valid edits reverted. CensoredScribe (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Care to provide difs for the 1RR in place, and the instances he broke it? Sergecross73 msg me 16:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not under 1RR restrictions. CensoredScribe, you have been lied to by a sockpuppet of the user discussed in this other thread. Stop making new threads when they are related to the one about you.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Break

Seven subsections? This is really becoming ridiculous. And yet no one has moved a single inch since this discussion started... Epicgenius (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Three of these subsections are because CensoredScribe decided to make entirely new threads related to this issue rather than commenting within this thread and I moved them here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I thought this thread was only for discussing whether I should be blocked; or should have article category creation restrictions, not for discussing whether you should be blocked or have some kind of sanction. Yes seven is too many, this could have been 5 subsections, which is still a ridiculous number just not quite as ridiculous as 7. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Why did you feel the need to constantly make new threads on what was essentially nothing? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Wiki-star

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

In his actions towards me, he constantly informs users who I appear to be arguing with that I am not to be trusted ([21], [22], [23], [24]) and blindly reverts edits I have made ([25], [26]). And then there are just taunts he makes towards editors he is in disputes with ([27], [28]).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User talk page protection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reverting talk page edits

Over the past two months, I've somehow been included as collateral damage in a talk page edit war with Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and various sockpuppets of Dragonron (I believe – there may be more than one user involved on that end). Initially, Ryulong and I had a disagreement on whether or not a reference should be included on an article ([29]).

When Ryulong would revert my change to the article, the sock would post to my page informing me of the revision. Typically I ignore talk page messages such as those, but I do not delete them because I'm a firm believer in anti-censorship. Ryulong would notice those posts on my page (I assume by looking at all the sock's contributions) and revert them. I took offense to those revisions per WP:TPO, specifically "Editing—or even removing—others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection." I have clearly objected to Ryulong editing my talk page and have told him so (via edit comments and through talk pages) but he continues to revert the original posts ([30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]).

Discussed compromises

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

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

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

My compromise currently is for me to moderate my talk page to remove any posts that reference him from a confirmed sockpuppet if he promises to not revert my talk page anymore (he's welcome to post there on new/existing topics). As good-faith gestures, I've already remove posts that were obviously trolling ([38]).

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:Banning policy states "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule." While it does go onto say "This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert." There has not been one message left on X96lee15's talk page that has fallen under this "obviously helpful changes" category and there is no exception made for comments left on user talk pages. And X96lee15 is indeed conversing with the editor ([39], [40]). He does not realize that this is the banned editor, but at this point he should expect that any brand new account or IP that comes to his page is a sockpuppet, particularly if the IP is in the same range as every one before it. He may want to assume good faith, but when it comes to someone who has apparently been harassing one of our users for 8 years there's no real good faith to have anymore.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Abusive administrator threatening editors for hurting their feelings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Nyttend warned WilliamJE about personal attacks: [41].
• WilliamJE removed the warning with an edit summary saying: "Take it to ANI. Your behavior on the page is reprehensible and you're an administrator. This is the 2nd time you've threatened me with a block for calling you on your bs."
• Nyttend gave WilliamJE a final warning on personal attacks
• WilliamJE removed it; edit summary reads: "Take it ANI or resign as administrator."
• Orlady noticed that edit summary on WilliamJE's talk page (which I had watchlisted in August 2013 in connection with an unrelated dispute where I was sympathetic to WilliamJE's position) and posted "Edit summaries can also be personal attacks -- such as this one: [diff]. I strongly recommend that you restrain your animosity."
• Interactions continued at Nyttend's and Mark Arsten's talk pages.
• After Nyttend posted on my talk page to thank me for getting involved, WilliamJE posted a new diatribe against Nyttend on my talk page.
• Perceiving the comments to be a continuation of personal attacks, escalated to the new venue of my talk page, I went to WilliamJE's talk page and posted an "only warning" regarding the continuation of his personal attacks. (Text included: You've already had a "final warning," so I could block you right now. However, I don't like to do that to productive contributors, so I'm hoping this warning will make a bigger impression on you, coming from a different user. If you persist in your obsessive (and apparently baseless) personal attacks on User:Nyttend, you should expect to receive a forced vacation from Wikipedia editing. )
• WilliamJE removed the warning (edit summary: Take it to ANI) and promptly returned to my talk page to make a series of three edits in which he added to his bill of particulars against Nyttend [42]. That evidence of his commitment to continuing the attacks on Nyttend, immediately after my warning, led me to conclude that it was time for an enforced wikibreak to help him calm down, so I blocked him for 24 hours for personal attacks.
• The rest of the history that I know about is on display at WilliamJE's talk page and my talk page (scroll down to find the several relevant sections).

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

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

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

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

See [43], Didn't last long [44], [45]. Voceditenore (talk) 10:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

What's conspicuous about this discussion is any lack of mention of what these personal attacks were. As far as I can tell, at least one of the precipitating incidents was Nyttend starting a deletion discussion of Wirtland (micronation) and then trumping that by laying a redirect over it without discussion. [46] Another user reverted that, Nyttend undid that, and then WilliamJE reverted that with the "take it to AFD" remark— which was entirely appropriate. This turned into a templating fight between the two and then devolved from there. WilliamJE's behavior was hardly exemplary but after all the whole dramafest could have been avoided by letting the AFD run normally. It took admin powers to make the conflict stick the way it did, and handily Orlady was there to supply them. And equally Kumioko was available to come and complain and therefore take the blame, whether he had anything to do with it or not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Block proposal

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

---

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

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

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

Kumioko is not ranting just at ANI (see [47]). That said, my interest is in seeing Kumioko blocked. If the IP continues to edit after that, he can be blocked for evasion.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nyttend abusing his tools

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

---

It's a very simple case. He issued[48] me a level 3 NPA warning on my talk page. What in these here[49], here[50], here[51], here[52], and here[53] here[54] posts that were my times addressing him before the warning merits a level 3 warning. Nothing at all.

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

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

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

Calling people "jerks" and "assholes" is not acceptable. Doing so while attempting to show that others are being abusive is not going to win you any points.[55][56] Yeah, you feel you and others been attacked/wronged/whatever. It's not an acceptable response. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

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

He lies too in message that came along with the level three warning[[57]. To quote word for word- 'Let me be substantially firmer than I was before. You completely failed to observe that I never even edited the AFD, but you recklessly accused me of vandalism. You completely failed to remove the AFD template from the page, but you accuse me of disrupting it by making edits without explanation. As WP:WIAPA says, "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" are personal attacks, and you accused me of making a bad-faith nomination when I never made any nomination at all. Just read his edit summary of this edit[58]- Nominating for deletion. He issues a level 3 warning saying he never nominated anything for deletion. His edit history says that isn't true at all. Also the statement 'You completely failed to remove the AFD template from the page is a lie also. I removed the AFD tags completely with this edit[59] He didn't give any rationale for a nominating for deletion see posts here[60] and here[61] or for his converting the page to a redirect in this edit[62] other than saying 'better idea yet'. His grounds for me making personal attacks in the warning are total bs. The abuse of warning tags should have gotten him a block alone....William 20:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verasafe

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

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

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

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

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

Well, more vigilance besides mere tagging is needed given weird edits like [63] [64] (both of those have been reverted), obvious double !voting (same user/sig), repetition of "sources have been found! see above!" with no specifics etc. I have been involved in quite a few company AfDs lately, but this one seems to exceed the usual level of questionable (desperate?) tactics. Someone not using his real name (talk) 11:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Review of block and admin authority

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disruptive IP editor on Talk:Wolf attacks on humans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harassment by user: Uyvsdi

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

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

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

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

• Comment. Just in case you are referring my edit summary comment here: [65], it quotes the IPs attack here: [66]. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

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

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

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

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

Plea for help with Eskimo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Philip Seymour Hoffman

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

William's was made in jest, in an attempt to supportive. See [67] NE Ent 11:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Those Woody Allen allegations, again

Due to an article and a blog posting in the New York Times, the "sexual abuse allegations" that came out of the Woody Allen-Mia Farrow custody dispute are receiving a lot of attention today. Just two weeks ago, in a related dispute, the consensus/conclusion was that the longstanding treatment of the subject in the Allen article was appropriate, and that adding to the article to place greater emphasis on "unproven court-rejected allegations" was not appropriate absent clear consensus.[68] There are also allegations that Farrow is pressing a campaign to deny Allen award recognition for his most recent film, and that the NYT journalist involved has a serious conflict of interest.[69] On BLP grounds, I've removed several changes made over the last 24 hours, whether supportive of or rejecting the allegations (see my talk page comment [70][71], but I now believe that, absent temporary full protection in the state before the recent publications, the article will be a battleground and fall out of compliance with BLP. The situation is a BLP nightmare, and just trying to discuss the situation without referring to inflammatory accusations on both "sides" has been difficult. I believe that temporary protection and a period of careful discussion are called for, rather than what could easily become a free-fire zone. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

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

potential slander of identified living person on abandoned userpage

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

---

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

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

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

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

Two editors, an IBAN, and a possible case of hounding/baiting

At the advice of policy wonks Johnuniq, Bbb23, and DangerousPanda I am bringing this matter to ANI rather than to AN. The case, involving Skyring (goes by Pete) and HiLo48, is this.

On 4 November 2013 I closed a lengthy ANI discussion and logged an interaction ban between the two. The particulars of that discussion are on the record: it was painful, and there was considerable doubt about Skyring's editing and ways of interacting. At any rate, the ban was logged. Since then each has complained to me about the other: I warned Skyring once and then blocked him briefly, a month later I think; recently I warned HiLo but stopped short of blocking him.

But now disruption has risen again, with a thread started by Pete on Talk:Soccer in Australia. HiLo argues, in a nutshell, that Pete has followed him there, and with some reason. Pete has only one single edit in the article, a revert of HiLo (from August 2013, before the IBAN), against 40 by HiLo, going back to 2010. The talk page is similar: 24 edits for Pete, going back to August 2013, and 375 by HiLo.

So, the question is, is the section Talk:Soccer_in_Australia#About_time_we_talked_about_the_name_again, started by Pete on 1 February, to be taken as indicative of him following (hounding) HiLo to one of the latter's favorite haunts, and thus perhaps of baiting him? It should be noted that the section discusses the whole soccer/football naming controversy, in which HiLo has been outspoken and on the record. In other words, one could expect that this important matter would attract HiLo's attention, and an IBAN preventing him from participating in that thread takes one of the longstanding voices in that debate out of the equation.

Let it be noted, but I need to wrap this up, that NE Ent left Pete a note on his talk page that supports the notion that this was inappropriate on Pete's part (correct me if I'm wrong, Ent), and that Johnuniq and DangerousPanda subscribe to that idea too. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort, Drmies. Just let me clarify there. My interest is not in the sport, so I'm not active on the article page. Rather, the question of the terminology is what arouses my interest, and that is confined to the talk page. In fact it is pretty much what the talk page is all about, and I urge editors to take a look for themselves. It is painful.

My contributions there have been ongoing for some time. August 2013, going by the page history and this diff. There may be earlier edits, but that one predates the IBAN. Further discussion on the RFC for name change, where I supported the current title. After doing a little research I find that "Soccer" is now deprecated amongst media and sports organisations, accordingly I now support a name change to reflect the changed reality.

This seems to be a majority position amongst editors, going by the !vote taken. There are some points raised in the discussion immediately preceding, where my position is made quite clear: we should set aside our own personal opinions and look for good sources. My feeling is that whatever I might have called the game fifty years ago as a schoolchild in Victoria, the name has changed, especially over the last few years,

Do we have any guidance on where to proceed? My understanding is that both participants to an IBAN are able to participate in !votes for RfCs and so on so long as there is no interaction. I think every editor involved is entitled to a voice in that sort of discussion, and if any editor were to lodge a !vote in the ongoing "Gauge Support" discussion I would not seek to have it removed on a spurious technicality. It is a matter of fairness and commonsense. --Pete (talk) 00:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Pete's response here is effectively the same as it was on Drmies's talk page. I find it disingenuous at best. I think there are several of us in agreement that what Pete did was "wrong". The harder question is what's the remedy, and we may find significantly more disagreement there. Not being a policy wonk (no matter what Drmies says), my view is that Pete violated the WP:IBAN, either its spirit or by implication. If HiLo had responded directly, he would obviously have violated the ban, and I think Pete was goading him to do so. (BTW, I have no history with either editor that I'm aware of, or at least remember.) It reminds me of the I Love Lucy episode (everything does) in which Lucy bets with Ricky that he can't lose his temper for 24 hours and he bets that she can't not buy a new hat for the same period of time. During the next 24 hours, Lucy keeps doing things to try to make Ricky lose his temper. He comes close but always pulls back. I heartily recommend this episode for anyone interested in implied IBAN violations.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)Skyring's contributions on Soccer in Australia are within the allowed activities of WP:IBAN. However, given their lack of prior interest in the subject, as documented by Drmies with the cool tool, the strong opinions at the ANI discussion which lead to ban, the vast size of both Australia and English Wikipedia, in which to engage in questions of terminology, the number of editors already having a robust discussion of the issue, I would say it's of minimal benefit to the Encyclopedia to focus their efforts there; given the potential for conflict between two editors who just don't get along I requested they strike their comments and disengage. NE Ent 00:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• If anyone wants to take the trouble, they might review Special:Contributions/Skyring and see if there is a net benefit from Skyring/Pete's presence—I suspect the answer is no. At a minimum, I support an indefinite topic ban for Skyring regarding soccer/football and its naming controversy. At Drmies' archived talk, I noted (at 1 January 2014) that, checking the entire history of Talk:Soccer in Australia showed that:
  • HiLo48 made a total of 303 edits starting in October 2009, with 111 in December 2013 and none in 2014. In the December edits, 19 mention "soccer" in the edit summary.
  • Skyring made 3 edits in January 2014, 3 edits in December 2013, and 5 edits in August 2013, and no other.

I have seen enough of Skyring's style to know that his recent interest in the topic of soccer is almost certainly gaming the system to irritate his opponent—HiLo48 always participates in a new outbreak of the soccer/football battle, but he cannot participate at the moment because the section was started by Skyring. Of course no one can prove that this is an intentional tactic by Skyring, however proof is not needed since all the community wants is drama reduction and productive editing, and anything that might be baiting should be stopped. The great soccer/football debate will continue without Skyring's participation. Skyring will use any opportunity as seen at User talk:Drmies#Sorry to bother you again where Skyring just happened to have noticed that his opponent has commented at User talk:Spinrad (which has a total of five edits in its history)—in the comment, HiLo48 has technically breached the IBAN, but it is such a harmless explanation that only someone going for blood would seize on it. Johnuniq (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Drmies is well aware that we monitor each other's contributions. As for "going for blood", in the section linked, I requested a gentle reminder and that no further action be taken. I don't want to see anyone in trouble, but I do want the personal attacks to cease. That's why I supported the IBAN in the first place. --Pete (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

checking the entire history of Talk:Soccer in Australia showed that: HiLo48 made a total of 303 edits starting in October 2009, with 111 in December 2013 and none in 2014.

Well, It's interesting that you should bring those contributions up. For starters, you say "none in 2014", but I count 76. Perhaps I could ask an independent editor to check my figures?

Looking at some of those contributions makes for interesting reading, coming from someone who claims they don't make personal attacks. --Pete (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

HiLo pointed out, on his talk page and here, that no evidence is given of personal attacks, and I think it's important to point out, for the new readers, that I see no personal attacks by HiLo on Pete since the IBAN. (That's the issue--not whether HiLo has been rude or whatever to other editors--that's unproven, you cannot make that case under your IBAN, and it's not of interest to this discussion--note after edit conflict and Pete's contribution.) It's not even really relevant here, nor is it relevant how exciting or important discussions on the Australian soccer nomenclature are. Indeed, I'm beginning to think that the lengthy commentary by Pete on this matter is intended to draw attention away from the actual matter at heart: whether we should see their interest in the Soccer in Australia article and its talk page as a kind of hounding/baiting. Drmies (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed a number of personal attacks directed against me since the IBAN began. Specifically on HiLo's talk page. I've drawn your attention to them, Drmies, asking that they stop, but you are a busy person, and doubtless have other matters on your mind.

I've commented on the baiting already. Where are the diffs? --Pete (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The diffs are given: edit counts by both of you in the article and the talk page, and your starting that section on the naming issue: first sentence, fourth paragraph of my initial posting. You have left a "What's going on" section on my talk page, the answer to which (if there was a question) is this very ANI report. You also posted "Sorry to bother you again", where you pointed to this diff, and I responded, as did Johnuniq in this very thread. You pointed at a possible IBAN violation (archived, I believe, on my talk page) and I warned HiLo. I do have other matters on my mind, one of which is that I'm getting kind of tired of this thread and responding to your lawyerish comments. And no, I do not believe you have responded in any kind of substance to the baiting issue. Drmies (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

My point was made before: There is nothing in an IBAN preventing either of us from participating in discussion. The key point is to avoid the other party. Editors do not "own" articles or talk pages, regardless of how many edits they make or who was first. In this case, both of us were active on the relevant talk page before the ban was applied and we have since confined ourselves to different threads. Call it lawyerish, if you must, but that's just a commonsense reading of the relevant policy: "Although the editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other in any way."

So where, precisely, is the hounding? Can you - or anyone else - provide a diff that is one party baiting the other?

If it is your contention that HiLo48 "owns" the article and its talk page, then I find that very problematic indeed. So do you, apparently. --Pete (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not contend that, but I am becoming more and more convinced that you posted on that talk page, seeking to overturn consensus on a topic where you had earlier sought confrontation with HiLo (your one edit to the article), in order to pull them out and violate the IBAN--yes, to bait them. And you're doing the same thing here: you know that HiLo is itching to rebut, and it's a good thing they're keeping their cool. You know, in this battle between the two of you I used to think there was equal blame, more or less. I don't think that anymore. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Looking at that talk page, it is quite clear that there is no consensus to be overturned - it is one long argument. My posts there are aimed at finding and presenting reliable sources showing that the name of the sport has changed. As I noted earlier - did you even read it? - there is no point to baiting the other party in an IBAN and then running to AN/I claiming a breach. That sort of tactic is easily seen through and would boomerang if either party tried it. You raised this AN/I discussion, requiring me to come here to rebut the charges made against me. I have stated my case, I have been honest, I have pointed to the relevant policy and asked for evidence. And nothing concrete is forthcoming but irritation. Which I share.

This comes down to a simple point. If the other party "owns" the article and talk page, then say so, and I will refrain from posting there any more. If not, then I am perfectly within my rights to take part in discussion on a topic which attracts me through my interest in language and popular culture. The mere act of posting is not baiting. I didn't mention the other party in any way, I didn't respond, I didn't interact at all. Go me. Go both of us.

And finally, yes, I very much prefer that all parties keep their cool. That's what this whole thing is about. That's exactly what I want. HiLo48 deserves praise for keeping calm and biting his tongue. May he ever continue to do so, and may we all of us continue to be civil in our dealings with one another. Thank you. --Pete (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Am I allowed to comment here? HiLo48 (talk) 07:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I think WP:BANEX says yes, and Pete already has. Drmies (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks. What personal attacks? That unsupported negative statement is the typical sort of nonsense that gets posted at AN/I without consequence. I have not communicated with Pete/Skyring since the ban began. I have made absolutely minimal comments about him. That disruptive statement alone is so unhelpful it should demand a serious consequence, quite apart from the other problem being discussed here. HiLo48 (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• I may be someone who is regularly opposed to HiLo's way of dealing with things, but even when I'm on the opposite side, this is one of the clearest gaming of the system attempts that I've seen in a while - as Johnuniq notes, it is hard to prove that this is intentional, but it is still obviously intentional. Skyring has contributed a miniscule amount to any association football/soccer article, whereas HiLo is far more regularly involved. Skyring being topic banned from anything to do with association football/soccer would be entirely appropriate. And yes, HiLo, you can comment here, since this is an ANI discussion about the interaction ban. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• HiLo48 has a perfect right to present his side of the story in his own words and he shall have no interference from me.

  To those whose mind is made up, there is no point arguing. Think what you will. For my part, I am perfectly within my rights under the limitations of an IBAN to participate in Wikipedia discussions on those topics which interest me, and while football does not, popular culture and language has been my fascination from university, and the question of what a particular sport might be called is an important and intriguing one. The name is changing within Australia and it affects not just the one article, but many others. If an Australian player moves to the European leagues during the offseason, does he play Soccer or Association Football and how do we describe him?

  It is not in my heart to goad or bait HiLo48 into breaking the ban and then pounce around and crow over it. Anyone who knows how Wikipedia works also knows exactly how that would play out here. It would be a pointless exercise and it would boomerang badly. If it happens, then it can be dealt with, but it also seems pointless to discuss something that hasn't happened, especially when other editors are projecting thoughts and motivations into my mind that do not, in fact, exist. "It is hard to prove that this is intentional, but it is still obviously intentional," one editor claims. Well, it's not. I know what's in my mind, and it is not that.

  I have looked carefully at the restrictions and exemptions of an IBAN and I see nothing there to prevent me from continuing my ongoing participation. Looking at the discussion page and archives for that topic, likewise. In fact it seems to me to be a good deal less restrictive than recent interpretations and if it is going to be enforced in a different manner to the words of the policy, then perhaps it is time to reword the policy.

  If anyone thinks that there is any baiting or goading going on, then let them put forward diffs. I'm prepared to stand by my statements. All I ask is that policy be followed, evidence presented, and that fairness prevail. For all parties. --Pete (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

  Perfect! You've got a convincing air of innocence gently blended with the wikilawyer's prove it! However, this is Wikipedia where the purpose is to build an encyclopedia, not to endlessly debate whether something looking like a turd really is a turd. Is there any reason to imagine that Skyring/Pete's continuing presence in soccer/football issues is required for the encyclopedia? Johnuniq (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

  From my perspective the answer is no. I am quite familiar with the events leading up to this case. In the past I have been extremely critical of HiLo48, but more recently I have come around to seeing matters differently. To be brief, in my view if Skyring/Pete gets off with a soccer/football topic ban he will be getting off easy. Jusdafax 06:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm reminded of a little kid who stands just 3 inches beyond where a dog's chain end, and, when reminded they were told not to tease the animal, says but you said I could play anywhere in the yard if I stand outside the dog's circle! Earlier in the thread [72] Skyring claims HiLo is monitoring their edits (they know that how?) and they "want the attacks to stop." These are violations of the ban. But the important thing isn't the letter of "the law" (WP:NOJUSTICE), but the spirit, and Skyring is clearly violating it. My first thought was along the lines of topic ban from Soccer in Australia, but I'm concerned that's just kicking the can down the road. Perhaps the interaction ban could be amended to include That means stay the heck away from HiLo48, cause the next time it looks like you're edging anywhere close to him we'll skip the three days of discussion and just jump to the point where we block you, for however long it takes you to get the hint. NE Ent 10:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll make a comment about process here. I'm looking at several editors using language related to their assessment of my motives and thoughts. The comment above is a good one "I'm reminded of a little kid..." Well, I'm not a little kid, I'm well into my fifties, and I'm not as naiïve as those assessments assume. Baiting the other party in an iban and then running to an admin or ANI with a complaint is not a winning strategy on Wikipedia, as I trust everyone here is aware. I certainly am, because I've now mentioned it three times.

I'm seeing guesses from editors here about my motivations and intentions that project "that little kid" onto me, and that's quite revealing. It's quite incorrect, because it's not in my mind to annoy or harass the other party, and I've asked for diffs to show the baiting. which have not been provided. Standing just beyond the angry dog's reach is a lovely image, but not really applicable here, where both parties are editors of many years experience and presumably able to control themselves. HiLo48, if I may mention him one more time in this thread, is not a barking dog and has in fact demonstrated considerable pride in his ability to NOT react. Those of you with experience will know that this is quite something, but some editors are treating him as if he were on the verge of snapping, and me as if I know this and am goading him that last little bit.

Neither of us are barking dogs or mischievous children. We are people of some maturity and we have both demonstrated restraint over the course of this iban. Sure, there have been some minor breaches, but at least on my part all I've ever sought has been a reminder of the rules rather than any sort of penalty.

So, instead of evidence - a deliberately provocative post, weasel wording, actual baiting or trolling or goading - I'm seeing statements based on emotional projection, revolving around little kids and barking dogs. These are actually quite insulting to both parties, and when I compare these imagined motivations against what is in my own mind, they are quite wrong.

Now, having said that, I can see where this is heading, and I'm obviously not going to change hearts and minds here and now, but I will flag my intention to appeal to whatever step is next. Presumably the Arbcom, and in that forum, we will be dealing more with procedure and evidence and less with emotion and gut feelings. There are some questions in my mind about the limits of interaction bans and "spirit of the law", mentioned above. That is intended - and worded - not to be pettifoggingly precise, but to minimise disruption, and I think it has worked very well in this case. Apart from presuming upon the good nature of Drmies with questions and minor complaints, and this current little dramafest, which in my opinion is quite unneccessary and irritating to all concerned apart from those habitual attendees here who cheerfully chuck in their five cents worth of psychiatric assessment. --Pete (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

Would people please specify a preferred outcome because the advice offered above has not been accepted, and this section is getting too long. A couple of us have hinted that more than a topic ban may be helpful—it might be more realistic to apply an indefinite block until it is clear there will be no further exploratory incursions. However let's just examine whether Skyring/Pete should be indefinitely topic banned from all soccer/football topics and discussions, broadly construed. Is the following correct (not including the views of the two editors concerned):

• No recommendation yet: Bbb23, Drmies.
• Support topic ban: Johnuniq, Jusdafax, Lukeno94, NE Ent.

Please make any corrections or updates required, and I hope others join the discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 11:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support ban and/or block. NE Ent 12:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for Skyring from soccer/football, because I find NE Ent's analogy cogent: "but you said I could play anywhere in the yard if I stand outside the dog's circle!"[73] The next time Skyring applies his wikilawyering and timewasting skills to this IBAN ("exploratory incursions"), I support a swift indef block. Bishonen | talk 12:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC).

Given that the discussion has progressed to this point, I boldly went and created a section for it. So to lay it out:-

1. Skyring, who signs as Pete, is hereby indefinitely topic banned from all articles relating to soccer/football. Attempts to skirt/wikilawyer around the topic ban will be met with escalating blocks.
2. Any future attempts to skirt the interaction ban, as viewed by the community, will be met with an indefinite block. The usual exceptions to IBAN's still apply but attempts to game those exceptions will also be met with an indefinite block

Does that about sum it up? Blackmane (talk) 13:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• It's strict but I think it's the only solution. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

As a general comment, it seems like the general understanding of IBan (outside of this case) is that 1) both editors can edit the same article, but not interact with each other. and 2) commenting in a thread started by the other is interaction 2a) commenting in any thread the other has commented in is interaction and 3) that includes RFCs or other "official" discussions. Would not just establishing that commenting on official proposals, without mentioning the other person or their argument is acceptable resolve the issue, and let HiLo comment on the RFC? Other ways of interpreting IBan seem to be subject to easy gaming - if you can predict which articles/discussions someone will like get their first and its locked out. Yes we can handle that with topic/community bans, but why not just drop the king of the hill game and make IBan deal with actual interaction? I suppose that does makes it a bit more subjective to enforce... Gaijin42 (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Trolling/BLP violations by static IP

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

An IP posted comments on a BLP arcticle talk page with accusations of <redacted>.[74] When I removed the comments they reinstated them[75] and placed a vandalism warning template on my talk page.[76] I request that the IP be blocked to prevent further disruption. TFD (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Incompetent editor who pushes fringe views

This is a complaint about User:Ret.Prof.

He repeats ad nauseam that same information about the Gospel of Matthew having originally been written in Hebrew, which multiple editors repeatedly told him it is WP:FRINGE.

Misunderstanding of basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines: at [77] does not understand that primary sources cannot be used to establish facts for Wikipedia, since it means indulging in original research, and he said that even after I explained him this official Wikipedia policy.

A case of WP:COMPETENCE: his ability to find, evaluate and render the viewpoints of reliable sources make me think that he does not have great scholarly abilities. I do not want to be offensive, but this is my sincere impression when confronted with his edits. There are some things which scholars consider as poor academic performance and one of them is misquoting the viewpoints of other scholars. If one consequently fails to render the viewpoints of the sources he is quoting, it smells either like poor academic performance or as academic fraud (like in trying to game other editors, who are required to assume good faith in citing sources). Proof: at [78] he misrepresents several sources, which specifically affirm the following information which severely undermines his own case:

Hence the quite confused tradition that it was originally written in Aramaic or even in Hebrew.

— Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching, 2010, p. 89

http://books.google.de/books?id=lXK0auknD0YC&pg=PA89&lpg=PA88&focus=viewport&dq=it+is+genuinely+true+that+the+apostle+Matthew+compiled

If this interpretation of Papias is correct, there are several historical problems. First, modern specialists in language hold that the author of Matthew wrote in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic. Second, most scholars accept the Two-Source theory (see Chapter 15, "The Synoptic Problem," in this volume). This theory requires that the author of Matthew knew and used Greek versions of Mark and Greek Q as sources. Third, the gospel contains sayings and sayings collections, but is itself not a collection of sayings such as Proverbs or The Gospel of Thomas. In short, Papias' description does not correspond well with the New Testament.

— Dennis C. Duling, p. 302 in David E. Aune, The Blackwell Companion to the New Testament, 2010

See http://books.google.de/books?id=ygcgn8h-jo4C&pg=PA302&lpg=PA301&focus=viewport&dq=%22Matthew+comes+from+Papias%22+Eusebius+trustworthy

In any event, Papias does not seem to provide us with the kind of information we can place a lot of confidence in. I should point out, in this connection, that scholars have almost uniformly rejected just about everything else that Papias is recorded to have said in the surviving references to his work.

...

If scholars are inclined to discount what Papias says in virtually every other instance, why is it that they sometimes appeal to his witness in order to show that we have an early tradition that links Matthew to one of our Gospels, and Mark to another? Why do these scholars accept some of what Papias said but not all of what he said? I suspect it is because they want to have support for their own points of view (Matthew really wrote Matthew) and have decided to trust Papias when he confirms their views, and not trust him when he does not.

The result of this quick examination of Papias is, I think, that he passes on stories that he has heard, and he attributes them to people who knew other people who said so. But when he can be checked, he appears to be wrong. Can he be trusted in the places that he cannot be checked? If you have a friend who is consistently wrong when he gives directions to places you are familiar with, do you trust him when he gives directions for someplace you’ve never been?

Papias is not recorded as having said anything about either Luke or John. I’m not sure why. But the bottom line is this: we do not have any solid reference to the authors of our four Gospels in which we can trust (for example, that the author is actually referring to our Matthew and our Mark) until closer to the end of the second century—nearly a full hundred years after these books had been anonymously placed in circulation.

— Bart Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted, pp. 107-110

He could have himself found out that these sources undermine his own case if he bothered to read more than one page shown by Google Books.

I wrote on Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_36#Gospel of Matthew:

As far as Ehrman's book is concerned, the quote starts with "Many conservative Christian scholars use this statement to prove that what Papias says is historically accurate (especially about Mark and Matthew), but that is going beyond what the evidence gives us." So, Ehrman does not claim that Papias would be accurate in his reports, except for reporting the fact that he knew people who knew the apostles or their companions. As shown from another source, Ehrman believes that almost everything else Papias told is inaccurate and there is no indication that Ehrman has changed his mind about Papias's reliability. So, you cannot make Ehrman say that what Papias reports about a Hebrew Gospel written by Matthew would be a reliable report. What Ehrman stressed is that Papias is not a reliable source for the authorship of the Gospel of Matthew and it could be even be inferred that Ehrman affirms that Papias is historically inaccurate (with the exception of knowing those people). Just read the quote above ignoring the parenthesis and you will see what I mean. So, using Ehrman to establish the historical reliability of Papias's report fails verification, it is using partial quotations to justify an idea that Ehrman rejects. So, I was at least right about misrepresenting Ehrman's view. That's why I said that I cannot assume a fair rendering of the viewpoints of those sources, either you have failed to understand Ehrman's point or you have willfully misrepresented it. At least you could concede that you have misread what Ehrman has to say.

— User:Tgeorgescu

The above allegations are simply false. Yes I am an old guy who sometimes gets confused but if you read my sources in their context you will see my references are solid. If I do make a mistake, I promptly apologize and fix the mistake. I enjoy scholarly debate and enjoy it when I "learn" something new. My edit history will support me. I am not perfect but neither do I fit the caricature presented above! - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with:

It is important to note that these sources are NOT saying that "Matthew's collection sayings in a Hebrew dialect" and the Gospel of Matthew are the same work. Indeed there is clear evidence that "Matthew's Hebrew Gospel" was NOT translated into what we call the Gospel of Matthew.

— Ret.Prof

I have a problem with:

Now, it has to be admitted that not everyone agrees. There are still some Christian scholars who believe that the Gospel of Matthew is a direct translation of Matthew's Hebrew Gospel.

— Ret.Prof

Namely, you did not say who disagrees and where. And, please, no sources older than 50 years.

I also have a problem with User_talk:Davidbena#Reliable Sources (there are sources from when my grandmother was a child or even before she was born). Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

And I find it disturbing that after more than five years of editing you still don't acknowledge the meaning of {{religious text primary}}. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

E.g., you still seem to think that Jerome and Eusebius wrote reliable sources, which could be used by Wikipedia in order to establish historical facts. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Coming back to your sources, their authors either say that Papias was mostly unreliable (as Ehrman said) or that Papias didn't speak of what we now call the Gospel of Matthew. Therefore, his testimony about the Gospel of Matthew is either unreliable or inapplicable (irrelevant). Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Some other users have already suggested a topic ban for this user, see Talk:Gospel of Matthew#Solicit a topic ban?. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: The problem has been going on since 2010 on multiple related articles and is intractable. There are chronic issues with misunderstanding (or misuse) of sources and behavioral problems as well. I would like to ask for the guidance of the community as to whether this complex dispute belongs in arbitration. Ignocrates (talk) 02:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor who has had nothing to do with that controversy, after reading the above, I would say yes, it sure sounds like a good candidate for arbitrating. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that arbitration is the way to go. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

"As an uninvolved editor who has had nothing to do with that controversy," - other than that two threads about use of WP:FRINGE sources and WP:UNDUE content in Bible topics are happening on the same ANI page at the same time. One editor accuses the unanimity of New Testament textual scholars of German anti-Hebrew bias, another editor accuses the unanimity of Hebrew Bible palaeo-botanists of anti-cannabis bias. But these are exactly the issues WP:RS, WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE are meant to cover. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Complaints about the FTN crowd pulling allegations of FRINGE out of their chutzpah to stigmatize entire bookshelves they don't like and "win" centuries-old debates the easy way has become a regularly recurring pattern, how many more instances will it take before FTN itself gets the scrutinizing case study it deserves? (especially in religion topics where FRINGE = a barely disguised euphemism for HERESY... For the first years of its existence, I remember when FTN would steer clear of asserting who the fringe and non-fringe was in religious debates, but lately it has been acquiring a new role for itself as the Arbiter of All Truth (TM)) Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

There are indeed century-old theological debates about some issues and we cannot claim that mainstream history would require that theologians revise their doctrines (while historical evidence may be important for apologetics, theology does not require historical evidence; all history books in the world cannot prove or disprove that Jesus is God, since that isn't a historical fact). But this does not imply that mainstream historians did not settle those issues as far as the secular academia cares. I don't deny that there are fundamentalist faculties who teach that "Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew", but for everyone else than fundamentalists and very conservative evangelicals the debate has been definitively settled. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's been "settled" with perfect "unanimity", because all those saying different aren't even allowed at the table - such is the nature of achieving "unanimity" these days. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

People who hold that historical criticism was birthed in hell and continues to be a Satanic plot are generally not allowed at the discussion table establishing the consensus in historical criticism. As User:Ian.thomson said, "If it does not walk like a duck, does not talk like a duck, and avoids ducks like the plague, there is little reason to assume its a duck. Or scientist, in this case." Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

As far as orthodoxy on all Biblical controversies hereafter being a matter to be ascertained only by "scientists" - so, exactly how many of the competing hypotheses have got past the experimentation phase in this case? Are we using real "scientific method" to determine which scholars are correct / incorrect, or just the same ol' same ol' "appeal to authority"? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Even if this view isn't unanimous, history is regarded as a science. Affirming biblical inerrancy as historical scholarship is beyond ludicrous. The mass of evidence that the Bible has errors (from minor copying mistakes to big theological contradictions) is simply too vast for biblical inerrancy to be considered true by mainstream scholars. Besides, scientists/scholars don't decide upon theological orthodoxy, since theological orthodoxy is in the eye of the beholder. So I do not say that Biblical inerrancy would be a problem theologically, I just say that history does not work that way. Wikipedia does not employ the scientific method, it is all the way for proper appeals to authority (i.e. reliable sources policy). Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

"history is regarded as science." Really? Funny, what I learned in school was that there are differing views of history. That different countries have differing views of history. That different scientists in the different countries are paid by their governments to research different hypotheses. And I learned that true "science" mainly applies to things where the "scientific method" is of any use to establish conclusions, although it is true that "science" in some eastern European countries has more taken the route of "appeal to authority" on other matters as well. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a red herring, I did not deny above that there are other views of history. East European scholarship is a red herring, too. Nothing of what you replied immediately above is germane to Ret.Prof's behavior. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Response to the POV Railroad

The "Anti-Fringe" POV Railroad is made up of two admins, six user accounts and an undetermined number of alternate accounts. (See WP:POV Railroad) It formed about 10 years ago and their stated purpose is to remove “fringe” (ie anything Hebrew or Jewish from Christianity). The most up to date reliable sources do not support their position. Nor does their definition of "fringe" line up with that of Wikipedia. They are in serious violation of WP:RS and WP:NPOV. See also Arbitration

Issue
I raised a concern that the following editas it was not properly sourced and explained edits at Wikipedia must be supported by reliable sources. I referred them to the first 15 pages of Throckmorton's the Gospel Parallels (All editions from 1957 to present) which give an excellent overview along the following sources.

• William Lane Craig & J. P. Moreland (Ed), The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, John Wiley & Sons, 2009. p 602
• Rochus Zuurmond, Novum Testamentum Aethiopice: The Synoptic Gospels, Franz Steiner Pub., 1989. p 31
• Sabine Baring Gould, "The lost and hostile gospels" 1874, Oxford University, Digitized 2006. p 122

I offered to provide further references if required. This would be no problem as every Biblical scholar is aware of the attestations to the early MSS (ie Matthew "wrote his Gospel in Hebrew in Palestine"). NOTE I did not revert the unsourced edit for I have voluntarily stepped back from editing this article last year because of the edit warring. This request on the talk page for a reliable source has given rise to the allegations that I am a time waster who is an incompetent editor who pushes fringe views. However there is much more to this 10 year old conflict than meets the eye.

Abuse of this noticeboard

• It is an abuse of the Administrators' noticeboard for a POV Railroad to act as 1)Accuser, 2)Judge & 3) Executioner
• It is an abuse of the Administrators' noticeboard to use it for the intimidation of other editors.
• It is an abuse of the Administrators' noticeboard to use cherry pick edits from a good faith use's history and take these edits out of context in order to deceive or trick others into thinking he is a problem user.
• It is an abuse of the Administrators' noticeboard to use it as a tool for POV pushing See User:Davidbena, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive235#Requesting a topic ban for User:BruceGrubb etc
• It is an abuse of the Administrators' noticeboard to use cherry pick edits from a good faith use's ancient history in order to deceive or trick others into thinking he is a problem user. Generally speaking accusations should be restricted to edits within the last twelve months.
• It is an abuse of the Administrators' noticeboard to use it to facilitate false personal attacks against fellow editors.
• Finally when an admin warns an editor about some behavior and the editor complies, it is an abuse of the Administrators' noticeboard to then use it as a basis for a ban.

WP:CBAN reads, "If an editor has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia, the community may engage in a discussion to site ban, topic ban, or place an interaction ban or editing restriction via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute."

Arbitration
Because the POV Railroad has abused this notice board in the past I request that the conflict be taken to arbitration and the ban against User:CheeseDreams, User:-Ril-, User:Cheese -dreams and User:John Carter be extended to include all remaining User Accounts from the Anti-Hebrew POV Railroad. I also request that present bans be strictly enforced.

Re vague allegations against me

During my break I asked a number of Bureaucrats and Administers to review my edit history to see if I had done anything to warrant being banned from Wikipedia. None of them could find any edits to justify the allegations of rudeness etc brought against me over the past year. Michael Q Schmidt looked into the situation and his response was “Your only "sin" has been to be calm and reasonable in the face of negativity." And “your edits based upon existing policy and guidelines are sound. Your stepping back from areas of drama is to be applauded.” User:Liz went so far as to describe me as a "mild-mannered user". However the POV railroad has become so very powerful that being "innocent of any wrongdoing" does not make much difference. Many editors have let themselves be intimidated! (see my talk page) I will give the last word to User:llywrch who best summed up the situation:. "There are gangs of editors who protect themselves & their friends, & I don't know what can be done about them. I wish these groups didn't exist, but they do & there is little interest in controlling them." - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The Blackwell source on natural theology has been evaluated at Talk:Gospel of Matthew#Clarification re Early Attestations. Otherwise, there is nothing anti-Semitic or anti-Judaizing about the sources used by the editors who challenge your views. The scholarly consensus is that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek, and the contrary view does not even qualify for a minority view. The users who oppose such fringe view don't do that for ideological reasons. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Again that is not true. I never got a source to support your edit that the attestations did not exist! Also, the most basic right of every editor is to be able to a request a source to back up an edit. To respond to such a request with a T-Ban is soooooo wrong! - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

What isn't true? The early church writers got their information from Papias, and as you have yourself admitted, most reliable sources tell that Papias does not speak of our Gospel of Matthew, besides Ehrman tells that Papias is unreliable except for the statement that he knew people who knew people associated with the apostles. You should at least quote some sources saying that Matthew did write the Gospel of Matthew, I guess there are fundamentalists who make such claims. I do not say that such sources would be mainstream, but at least you would make clear where you got your information from. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. It is easy to claim that a certain view is "fringe" when it does not agree with one's own hypothesis. My suggestion in this particular contentious issue and which might give the editors involved a greater propensity to be honest and impartial in their reporting, is for User:Tgeorgescu and User:Ret.Prof to go before one of the Administrator heads (bureaucrats) with their respective arguments outlined on paper using reliable secondary sources and showing why the Gospel of Matthew was or wasn't first penned in the Hebrew or Aramaic tongue. Clearly, the man observing these scholarly arguments will come to the conclusion that neither view should be considered a "fringe view," but each view has its own merits on which to stand, based on solid arguments. The end result of which being that Wikipedia will then be left with no other choice but to take a neutral stand in this particular issue, in accordance with its own policy WP:NPOV, rather than mislead its readership into thinking that there is some consensus amongst scholars as to the original work of Matthew. Davidbena (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I believe my references are strong and will stand the test of scholarly scrutiny. (See below) Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

(Note: I refactored the multitude of level-3 headings in Ret.Prof's response above, because they made it difficult to tell that they were all part of a single comment. BMK (talk) 04:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC))

No problem. You just made an old guy run and get his glasses. LOL Cheers Ret.Prof (talk) 04:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I am very concerned that User:Ret.Prof wants topics bans to be "extended to include all remaining User Accounts from the Anti-Hebrew POV Railroad" and mentions "two admins, six user accounts and an undetermined number of alternate accounts" without actually naming these users. These accusations should be properly documented, and the users in question named and notified of this discussion. StAnselm (talk) 05:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

A good point. That is why I believe this case should be moved to arbitration. A lot of work and care is needed with serious accusations. One mistake and I could be banned as an incompetent time waster who is "Judaizing" the faith. I think we both know that this is not simply about my request for references to back up an unsourced edit. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 05:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Let me add one thing that is very important. I am mainly concerned about Wikipedia's accuracy and I apologize if such a concern inadvertently offended others... as offending or conflict was never my intention. My intention was only to ensure accuracy and better the reputation of Wikipedia. Also editors now working in groups or as some call them gangs can grow to be a real problem for Wikipedia. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 06:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

About that unsourced edit: it is common knowledge for everyone who has read anything recent in historical scholarship about the Gospel of Matthew. Besides at the WP:FTN discussion which I have previously mentioned here I had offered a list of sources which support that viewpoint. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• If RFAR is going to be filed, then this thread needs to be closed as it won't get anything done. (But I don't want to do that without further input.) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 07:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose any WP:RFAR - Ret.Prof wants "arbitration" but that is asking a lot/too much of the half dozen exhausted editors who have been reverting these additions and fork article creations at roughly six-month intervals since 2010. A particular problem with a WP:RFAR for other editors is the enormous number of bytes - often reposts of same material can be seen today - which Ret.Prof posts. WP:RFC/U might be more appropriate, but all that is really needed is a simple small targeted topic ban - simply please stop adding lost Hebrew Matthew theories to New Testament articles. WP:FRINGE theories can still be added in pages on any notable individual author BLPs/churches which advocate the theory but is WP:UNDUE for major articles on the New Testament which need to be objective and represent the consensus of academic scholarship. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, you can surely advise ArbCom of your opinion, but whether they start a RFAR or not (once someone actually submits a request) is not something that can be voted down by the peanut gallery. I think the Igniocrates(sp?) vs. John Carter ArbCom was on narrow behavioral issues. Most areas of Wikipedia suffer from having fewer editors than some years bacj; at least that's my subjective impression. That's probably a good argument (in the opposite direction, i.e.) for not letting POV pushers own any area because one or two of them seem to have a much greater impact now than they had before. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Someone not using his real name then I am mistaken, I thought there was a point at the request for arbitration where others could voice an opinion against arbitration as too much hassle. Is there no way to prevent repeat insertion of a WP:FRINGE (see definition) view into articles without the drama of "arbitration"? Isn't WP:FRINGE sufficient to stop these edits? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure you want binding arbitration? The collateral damage is often serious. What other dispute resolution methods have the various editors attempted? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

As said, there was a WP:FTN discussion about inserting fringe views. And editors tried to convince him (through using talk pages) to desist from inserting fringe views. The new research he means is mostly Dunn. While Dunn is not fringe, he does not represent the majority view either. And I doubt that Dunn goes so far as to say that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew or Aramaic. Other sources were simply misquoted to defend a view that the authors are known to have rejected it previously and no proof has been offered that they changed their mind. Also, quotations used by him were too selective and just quoting stuff at distance of some paragraphs or pages shows that those authors don't say what they are purported to say, therefore his synthesis fails verification. It's like people misquote Obama trying to show that he is a Socialist. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

This paragraph is typical of the problem. Although it is all over the place, (See WP:POV Railroad) it makes me sound really, really bad!

• I do not believe Obama is a Socialist for the 401(k) of the average person is doing well. I am a Christian but I am not a "Waco bird"! See the box on the top of my talk page.
• The statement (further above) about primary sources is also wrong and is not supported by my edit history. WP:SOURCES states "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia." Also, it has been my policy to back up a primary source with a secondary source.
• The statement above that Dunn "does not represent the majority view" is also wrong. Indeed it can be fairly said that Dunn is one of the foremost scholars in the world today.

And so on, and so, and so on. Trying to answer all the allegations leaves one chasing ones tail and looking guilty of being an incompetent time wasting editor who pushes fringe views and therefore should be banned. (See WP:POV Railroad for more information.) The only fair way to deal with this problem this problem is at arbitration. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to your use of sources in order to show that Papias would be quite reliable (especially in respect to the Gospel of Matthew or whatever gospel he was referring to). Ehrman said that many scholars do not hold Papias to be very reliable. So, you were misquoting sources in order to boost Papias's reliability. Besides, judgment in respect to the relevance of what Eusebius and Jerome prove should be left to contemporary mainstream historians. You cannot cite some 1500 years old texts and expect them to pass for contemporary scholarship. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually I don't think James Dunn has ever supported the idea of a Hebrew/Aramaic original behind Matthew - at least I can't find any such on making a quick search. When RetProf refers to Dunn it's in reference to Dunn's ideas on the oral tradition. RetProf's talk about "new research" sometimes means Dunn's work on oral tradition, but in this case he's talking about superscriptions to ancient mss of the Gospel of Matthew that say in essence that the Apostle Matthew wrote it. The superscriptions are real enough, but there's nothing "new" about scholarly knowledge of them. What RetProf is doing is ignoring the existing consensus, which is that the superscriptions aren't reliable. Note that what he calls "new scholarship" includes works from 1801!" PiCo (talk) 12:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Dunn definitely does not say that the canonical Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew/Aramaic, he says explicitly that it was written in Greek (he even goes further, saying that Matthew only used Greek sources!), this is from his most recent book in 2013, strengthening his assertions from 2011 JP&G: "It will not do, for example, to argue that Matthew and Luke drew their non-Markan material from an Aramaic source, each making his own translation into Greek. That in such a case they would have ended up with more or less identical Greek for their independent translations is almost impossible to envisage. Much the more obvious solution is either that Matthew copied Luke, or Luke copied Matthew, or the source they drew on was already in Greek. Here the case for a Q document already in Greek becomes very strong" —Oral Gospel Tradition (Eerdmans, 2013), p. 295. The only "scholars" who say the sort of thing pushed here are those who teach at places like Wheaton College (Illinois) (where, for example, people who convert to Roman Catholicism are fired for not being Christian enough), although maybe someone could find an exception (no one has done that yet). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 00:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: A concern I have had about this long-running edit conflict is that not enough has been done to resolve the conduct issues. Rather than bring it to ANI in the past, Ret.Prof has simply been overwhelmed by a number of determined editors from WikiProject Christianity. Also, it's likely that the arbs would have rejected a RFAR as not ripe for arbitration. Now that this dispute has finally reached ANI, the community can weigh in with a recommendation. A targeted T-ban by the community assumes the problem is due to Ret.Prof alone and all the other parties have clean hands. I'll leave that to others to decide. I think the arbs would take the case if the community decides that is the best course of action. Ignocrates (talk) 14:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the kind words. And let me be the first to acknowledge I have much to learn. But neither am I the caricature described above! I too think the arbs would take this case if the community decides that it is the best course of action. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, one's patience has limits. This user has been told lots of times that the Gospel of Matthew being originally written in Hebrew is a fringe idea (and he has himself recently quoted scholars who also imply this), but does not want to learn and still pushes such fringe views at [79]. This edit is not even one month old, let alone over an year old. When users are confronted with people who just do not want to desist and do not seem to get the point even after it has been patiently and repeatedly explained to them, they could get angry and lambaste the offender. It's comparable to a troll eliciting angry responses. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

"has been told" - love it. The reason it's generally hard to find actual sources in scholarship calling something "fringe" is exactly because, true scholarship is rather hesitant to be reckless in tossing that pejorative around. If wikipedia reflected anything like true scholarship, it would not do so either. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Ret.Prof said he was a professor whose main area of expertise is biblical scholarship. Any such professor would be expected to distinguish by himself between fringe and mainstream and to know when to stop making baseless claims. To this I add that he has employed quotes from Ehrman in order to defend viewpoints which Ehrman overtly rejects. His allegations that a superscript would prove that Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew makes me wonder if he is capable of understanding how historical criticism works. If this isn't due to fideism, it is due to incompetence. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The Big Question: I think things have moved beyond the request I made in January at the talk page on the Gospel of Matthew for further references re an unsourced edit. Some have wondered why I just don't quit Wikipedia. I think the answer has to do with when I was researching the "POV railroad". Back in 2005 User:Melissadolbeer (a new user who left Wikipedia that year) said "This is so wrong; I feel as though I have been violated by Wikipedia." It is still on her user page. I believe editors at Wikipedia should never be made to feel this way. I look at the way User:Davidbena was treated his first month at Wikipedia. It was so very wrong! In my heart and soul I feel something must be done. I will probably be banned from Wikipedia, but quit...never! And I believe that if this goes to arbitration, the Arbs will be shocked and outraged and take strong action. Wikipedia should be a safe place for us all! - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Someone who does not agree with WP:VER, WP:SOURCES, WP:OR, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE is not welcome as a Wikipedia editor. This isn't a personal attack, it's just saying that Wikipedians aren't going to like such editor and such editors ain't going to like Wikipedians. This explains Davidbena's experience. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Again what you say is not true! User:Davidbena was new to Wikipedia. He joined Wikipedia Aug 22 2013 and you brought proceedings to ban him at ANI Aug 27! I believe this is an abuse of this notice board. I also reviewed your comments about him. WOW If you were not protected by the POV Railroad you would have a T-Ban by now. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

He submitted some articles at Wikipedia:Articles for creation, but some independent editors (unrelated to your accusations of cabal-forming) rejected his attempts to create articles because of his overindulgence in using primary sources. And this was the very reason he was reported here. In fact, I have nothing against a newbie who did not know the rules, made a mistake, was told what the rules are, learned the rules and obeyed them and the same applies to his own case. I do not hate him, I just insisted that the policy on original research isn't optional. If he wants to edit Wikipedia he has to obey this policy, if he does not obey this policy he should not edit Wikipedia. I don't force him to leave, he has to make his own choice, but he cannot eat his cake and still have it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Fringe:This ANI is all over the place now! Once again I sound really really bad:

• "NPOV means keeping fringe material out of a major article like Gospel Matthew - none of your material has any place in this article. Yourself and previous advocates of "Original Matthew" theories have tried repeatedly to insert the theory into this article and it has been repeatedly removed. And yet here you are filling the Talk page with more advocacy for this theory. What will it take to stop this? Are you ever going to accept that this fringe theory does not deserve a prominent place in major New Testament articles on en.wp?" In ictu oculi (talk) 22:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• "So we're back at this game are we? What has changed since the last time we reviewed the question at hand (see the archive for relevant discussion? Are we doing the old, look at all these wonderful WP:RS which exempts the material from the WP:FRINGE requirement again? That dog won't hunt and since we have been over this extensively before, rehashing old arguments is a variant of WP:ICANTHEARYOU, which is in turn a form of WP:DISRUPT, which leads us all traipsing over to WP:ANI to ask for a topic or article ban. OTOH, if there has been a shift in the scholarly consensus that now accepts the Hebrew hypothesis (of which I am unaware), then the article should incorporate the theory." Eusebeus (talk) 10:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment re POV Railroad:"User:Eusebeus, exactly. Unfortunately with User:PiCo semi-retired, User:History2007 retired, User:DougWeller on leave, I'm not sure how we can do this. One thing is clear, RetProf's firm conviction that the WP:TRUTH is that the "real" Gospel of the "real" Matthew is lurking in Hebrew fragments is just not going to go away. This is more than adequately covered in the article on the fringe theory, a single link is sufficient, but will RetProf accept not making a case for the theory in Gospel of Matthew article itself?" In ictu oculi (talk) 02:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• "So let me say this. Wasting editors time with this kind of cavilling nonsense is disruptive and uncivil. If you would like to craft a nice paragraph that notes how scholars have come to reject Papias' claims of a Hebrew original while mentioning that there is some scholarship that has tried to maintain the theory is fine. Statements like "Virtually every piece of external evidence we have from the first few centuries regarding the authorship of the Gospels concurs that Matthew's Gospel was first written in a Hebrew dialect" is, however, FRINGE-laden OR."

"Do we really need an RfC to determine that scholarly consensus rejects the idea of an original Hebrew Matthew gospel? No, because we can read. What we do need is a way to prevent disruptive editing from consuming the time of editors who, having committed to engage in good faith, are forced to take time to note that citing material that explicitly rejects the idea an editor is trying to promote, and having this advanced as a "shift in consensus", is nonsensical to the point of incomprehensibility.

In other words: you're being rude. So stop." Eusebeus (talk) 09:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC

• More recently (see above) "Well, one's patience has limits. This user has been told lots of times that the Gospel of Matthew being originally written in Hebrew is a fringe idea (and he has himself recently quoted scholars who also imply this), but does not want to learn and still pushes such fringe views at [1]. This edit is not even one month old, let alone over an year old. When users are confronted with people who just do not want to desist and do not seem to get the point even after it has been patiently and repeatedly explained to them, they could get angry and lambaste the offender. It's comparable to a troll eliciting angry responses." Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

This bashing re fringe went on and on! It was both abusive and dishonest for it did not conform to WP:FRINGE. The WP:FTN was quite actually quite supportive of my position re fringe. I have found the discussion very helpful. I agreed with User:Shii that a "fringe theory" is one that is outside of the responsible literature entirely. If Ehrman et al. cover it, that is at least grounds to mention it, as the question is one of WEIGHT, not FRINGE. (See PiCo, and IRWolfie ) Secondly, we I have come to the conclusion that Ehrman is a reliable source per User:Smeat75. Indeed Ehrman is a leading source. Although it looked to me as though Papias' statement that Matthew wrote his Gospel in a Hebrew was not fringe, I have volontarily chosen not to bring up Papias or edit the Gospel of Matthew. (Note * I did not surrender my right to make comments on the talk page re the "attestations".) The POV Railroad saw this good faith gesture as a weakness and "Here I am". I now request that this be brought to arbitration.

Excerpt from Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

Gospel of Matthew Re the Gospel of Matthew, most Biblical commentaries, dictionaries, encyclopedias, even study Bibles have a section on the Papias tradition which says that Matthew first wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. Google Books However there is a dispute as to whether this is fringe? The views of Papias were preserved by the early Christian historian, "Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 260–ca. 339 CE), generally held by modern scholars to be fairly trustworthy." Blackwell (2010) p 301 Papias meant that it is "genuinely true that the apostle Matthew compiled the sayings of Jesus" in a Hebrew dialect, (Casey 2010. pp 87-88) and the testimony of Papias explicitly and credibly traces its own lineage “directly back to the disciples of Jesus themselves.” (Ehrman 2012 pp 98-101) & (Edwards 2009 pp 2-3) The historical data is both "striking and incontestable". Virtually every piece of external evidence we have from the first few centuries regarding the authorship of the Gospels concurs that Matthew's Gospel was first written in a Hebrew dialect. The widespread agreement of early sources on a number of points is truly remarkable and "cannot be brushed aside, particularly since the discrepancies among these sources regarding other points strongly suggest that they are not, for the most part, simply copying one another." (Blackwell Companion 2009. p 602) In total there are more than 75 ancient witnesses who testified to the fact that this Hebrew Gospel was in wide circulation. Twelve of the Early Church Fathers testified that it was written by the Apostle Matthew. No ancient writer either Christian or Non Christian challenged these facts. (Edwards 2009 p 259, p 102 & p 117) See most up to date sources: David E. Aune, The Blackwell Companion to The New Testament, John Wiley & Sons, 2010. pp 301 - 303 William Lane Craig & J. P. Moreland The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, John Wiley & Sons, 2009. p 602 Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, HarperCollins 2012. pp 98-101 Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010. pp 86-88 James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. pp 2-3 See also older sources Issue Does the aforementioned scholarship on the authorship of the Gospel of Matthew fall under the category of WP:Fringe theories? Importance Although most scholars no longer believe that the Gospel of Matthew was a translation of Matthew's Hebrew Gospel, many do believe the Hebrew Gospel was the fountainhead or source of the Canonical Gospel of Matthew (hence the name). (See composite authorship) - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC) What are the grounds given by those suggesting that this is fringe? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Hmmmm My honest answer is there are not any. A NPOV discussion of the topic should have both those who support the Papias tradition and those who oppose. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC) If nobody has suggested that this is fringe, why are you asking here? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC) The above material was deleted from the Gospel of Matthew and on the talk page it was said to be fringe. Best you look at it directly for I would hate to be accused of misrepresenting their position. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC) So, in a nutshell, the question is: is the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis fringe, or not? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC) I think that would be off topic. The above scholars are talking about the origins of the Gospel of Matthew, that it was of composite scholarship of which Matthew was the fountainhead! Most most Biblical commentaries, dictionaries, encyclopedias, even study Bibles have a section in their article devoted to the Papias tradition in their articles on the Gospel of Matthew. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Ret.Prof, please do not edit your posts after people have responded to them. It makes understanding the flow of discussion difficult. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Sorry I forgot the link and to sign - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Looking at the Gospel of Matthew talk page it appears that grounds have been given for the suggestion that this is fringe. As to whether this is correct or not, I am in no position to respond, and I suspect that few other WP:FTN regulars are likely to be able to either - Biblical scholarship is rather outside the scope of the sort of issues usually raised here. Evaluating sources regarding a specialist subject such as this may well be beyond most of us, and I suspect that you might do better to take this to dispute resolution, rather than expecting any sort of 'yes' or 'no' answer here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC) You are correct. They seem to agree the matter is clear, has been resolved and is a dog that won't hunt! I remember Casey, Ehrman etc being debated "as fringe" in Oral Gospel traditions, the heated discussion on the talk page as well as the fringe notice board discussion (consensus Ehrman not fringe) and I even remember some discussion with User:Smeat75, User:Paul Barlow User:Salimfadhley, User:IRWolfie-, User:Eric Kvaalen, User:Shii and User:Stephan Schulz, BUT I have no recollection of a "Fringe debate" on Ehrman, Casey, Blackwell etc re the Gospel of Matthew?? Nor was it ever brought to Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard ?? Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC) After a somewhat confused start due to my typing skills, we must look at Wikipedia:Fringe theories and see if they apply here. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Allow me to jump in here and offer an independent perspective. There needs to be a call by neutral third party observers on whether the topic Ret.Prof describes, i.e. the content, is fringe. Taking this to dispute resolution implies there is a conduct problem. That is beside the point here. I believe an RfC was tried previously, but it was dominated by the very same people arguing strenuously for removal of the material. Ignocrates (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Well said and thanks for getting us back on track! - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC) WP:DRN deals with issues where there is no conduct problem. Someone should probably notify wikiproject Christianity, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC) This is a complex textual problem with a long history. It may well be beyond the scope of FTN. I agree that DRN would be a good next step to deal with the content part of this dispute. Ignocrates (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC) You are correct. I will notify wikiproject Christianity now. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC) On the Google Scholar search Ehrman states in Jesus Interrupted that Papias was rendering fourth-hand information and that there are multiple credibility issues with this information. The Hebrew Gospel hypothesis#20th century article states the 20th century consensus: there was no Hebrew original for the Gospel of Matthew. So, Ehrman isn't fringe, but he does not pretend that there were a Hebrew original for the Gospel of Matthew. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Yes, but what needs to be accounted for, speculative conjectures of modern scholars aside, is why Church Fathers from the earliest times right up to scholars at the end of the 19th century all thought there was a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. There is an abundance of primary literature attesting to that fact and many reliable secondary sources analyzing and summarizing that primary literature. Therefore, this should be discussed as a problem of WEIGHT rather than FRINGE. Ignocrates (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC) I agree, the term for that is historiography, and it is not only encyclopedic, but the stuff encyclopedias are made of: outlining the history of what people have thought, not only what some people say today. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC) There are multiple issues here. There is a difference between the claim that "there was a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew" and the "canonical Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew". No one has presented any relevant scholar who believes that the canonical Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew; probably because no relevant scholar actually believes that. The problem is that the material that is sought to be added [80] is so misleading as to leave that impression. Even the different claim that the gospel to which Papias was referring existed and was written in Hebrew is a minority opinion (Casey's). Ask yourself: What is the Casey- and Edwards-sourced material even doing there? Is it illuminating the topic of the article (the canonical Hebrew of Gospel)? Or is it talking about the separate topic of the Hebrew gospel, and just muddying the waters? The view of McGrew and McGrew that all the early external evidence agrees that the canonical Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew is completely fringe. Luckily, their view is not one of relevant scholars. They are not established critics of the New Testament. These remarks are merely incidental to their building of an Argument from Miracles (the subject of the paper). Neither are the editors of the volume (Craig and Moreland) established critics of the New Testament. And neither is the volume meant to be a source for New Testament criticism. The endeavour is metaphysical/theological in focus, not historical; and it is even one-sided at that (see Patrick Arnold's and Glenn M. Harden's reviews). What was said above that "The above scholars are talking about the origins of the Gospel of Matthew, that it was of composite scholarship of which Matthew was the fountainhead!" is just plain wrong. Only McGrew and McGrew are. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC) I agree. For something to be a fringe theory, it must be A) FRINGE and B) a THEORY A) FRINGE Matthew's Hebrew Gospel is not fringe as its existence is supported, not only by the above contested sources but also by older sources from Lessing to Ehrman. Davidson, (1848) p xii, Ebrard 1863 p 530, Baring-gould, 1874 p. 122 Nicholson 1879 p 26 Morison, 1902 p xxxvi Schoemaker 1902 p 199 Barnes, 1905 p 361 Cassels, 1905 p 420 Paralipomena by Pick 1908 Schonfield, 1937 p 246 Andrews, 1962 p 46 Harrison, 1971 p 152 Pritz 1988 p 83 Bütz 2009 p 176 Just a quick comment: Of all these books, only 3 date from the last half-century, which indicates that they're not quite the current state of play. The most recent is Jeffrey Butz, whose most recent book, The Secret Legacy of Jesus, "offers the thesis that the Judaistic teachings of Jesus were passed in underground fashion from groups such as the Nazarenes and Ebionites to the Founding Fathers of the United States of America, via the Cathars and Freemasons" (that's from his Wikipedia entry). I have doubts that Professor Butz is quite within the academic mainstream. PiCo (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC) How can you claim that a formerly standard theory is now fringe? I'd understand if it were geocentrism but this is literary theory, not hard science. It is at least a "former standard theory". Shii (tock) 06:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC) A theory is fringe if it has no significant backing by reliable sources. Many theories which were previously standard (or even still are in the sense that many people subscribe to them) now have no backing in reliable sources for New Testament scholarship. For example, it was a standard view that Matthew the disciple of Jesus wrote the Gospel of Matthew. Now no reliable source supports that theory; so how could it not be fringe? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 07:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC) I agree fully, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC) B) Theory Matthew's Hebrew gospel is not a theory but a "statement of fact". Virtually every piece of external evidence we have from the first few centuries regarding the authorship of the Gospels concurs that Matthew's Gospel was first written in a Hebrew dialect. The widespread agreement of early sources on a number of points is truly remarkable and "cannot be brushed aside, particularly since the discrepancies among these sources regarding other points strongly suggest that they are not, for the most part, simply copying one another." (Blackwell Companion 2009. p 602) In total there are more than 75 ancient witnesses who testified to the fact that this Hebrew Gospel was in wide circulation. Twelve of the Early Church Fathers testified that it was written by the Apostle Matthew. No ancient writer either Christian or Non Christian challenged these facts. (Edwards 2009 p 259, p 102 & p 117) This "statement of fact" may be contested. Scholars can debate whether or nor the "Gospel of Matthew" was a translation of the "Hebrew Gospel". They may argue that the Hebrew Gospel is the Fountainhead but they cannot say Matthew's Hebrew Gospel is theoretical. Therefore WP Fringe Theory cannot apply. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Well, not quite. The "fact" is not that the Hebrew Gospel existed; rather, it is that the Church believed it existed for 1700 years. Simply put, if the "mainstream" conjecture of modern scholarship is right, then 1700 years of Church history is wrong. Our job as an encyclopedia is not to elucidate the TRUTH of these two positions; it is to document the ongoing debate. Ignocrates (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC) I stand corrected. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC) There is a broad consensus that Matthew did not write the Gospel of Matthew. So whether Matthew's Hebrew Gospel actually existed (as in minority view), or not (as in majority view) is irrelevant in an article about what is now called the Gospel of Matthew, since if it ever existed it has nothing to do with what is called the Gospel of Matthew. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC) I agree that there is broad consensus that the Gospel of Matthew is not a a translation of Matthew's Hebrew Gospel. Casey, Ehrman & Edwards all state this. They further state that Matthew composed his Gospel in Hebrew and then Casey argues that Hebrew Matthew was the fountainhead or source for the Canonical Gospel of Matthew. Can you name any sources that disagree with Casey. Most Biblical commentaries, dictionaries, encyclopedias, even study Bibles have a section on the Papias tradition which says that Matthew first wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. They present both those who support and oppose Papias. We should follow the reliable sources and also write our article from NPOV Google Books - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC) That's not what Casey 2010 argues. Casey argues that Matthew the apostle collected sayings in either Hebrew or Aramaic to which Papias was referring and which were a fountainhead for some traditions, and these traditions were in turn sources for the canonical Gospel of Matthew. He is not saying that Matthew wrote a gospel or some such work in Hebrew and the author of the canonical Gospel of Matthew used this as a fountainhead or source. Such implies that what the apostle wrote was like Q or the Gospel of Mark, which is not what Casey is saying at all (in fact, he suggests that some of these traditions from Matthew the apostle made their way into Q [p. 89]!) But even this view of Casey has reliable sources that disagree with it, including sources which you have been citing: Duling 2010 (p. 302), Edwards 2009 (pp. 260–262). Try asking instead: What reliable sources agree with Casey on these points? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 09:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC) This discussion has become about SCOPE and WEIGHT, which can only be decided by consensus. Therefore, it should be ended here and continued on the article talk page or in DRN. Ignocrates (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC) I agree that the question is WEIGHT, not FRINGE - the meaning of Papias' statement is indeed discussed by just about every important scholar who writes about the composition of this gospel, but the important thing is that the overwhelming majority (and it really is overwhelming) don't see an Aramaic or Hebrew original behind it. We do discuss this in our article - we have a whole paragraph about it - and that's enough. PiCo (talk) 03:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC) I see no specific editor that asserts any fringe content. Is that correct? Is the discussion over as far as this noticeboard is concerned? I'm not sure how much this noticeboard can help rather than wikiproject christianity/religion. IRWolfie- (talk) 03:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC) I too agree that the question is WEIGHT, not FRINGE and I see no specific editor that asserts any fringe content. Still, we should keep the discussion open a little longer to make sure nobody is left out and that everyone who is interested has been notified. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC) There is a simpler point to be made: you have quoted some reliable sources in order to prove exactly what these sources disagree with. So, you made a misleading summary of what these sources actually say. Do you expect such edits to pass as good faith edits? You were either unable or unwilling to render the actual viewpoints of the sources and posited your own view as if it were the view of the sources. So, this is not a case of weight vs. fringe, it is a case of something made up against something verifiable. The point which you have made up is not supported by the sources, except by the fundamentalist Christian apologist. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC) In fairness to Ret.Prof, he brought this question to FTN because of a lot of loose talk on the article talk page about the fringiness of the topic of a Hebrew Gospel as a justification for the deletion of reliably-sourced content. I think we are in general agreement that this dispute is not, and never was, about FRINGE. The beginning of personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith signals the end of rational discussion, so I propose this emotive dialogue stay on the article talk page and we finish up here. Ignocrates (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC) @ Tgeorgescu - I just finished reading your comments, and I think I found the problem. You were reading from an older version of Ehrman. Please look at the following quotes, but sure to follow the links to see their context! Feel free to point out any errors, add any important material you feel was left out and of course add more up to date sources. Thanks for taking the time to join our discussion. Taken from David E. Aune (Ed), The Blackwell Companion to The New Testament, John Wiley & Sons, 2010. pp 301 - 303 Author and Setting The earliest surviving tradition about Matthew comes from Papias of Hierapolis in Asia Minor (modern Turkey) about 125–50 CE. His views were preserved by the early Christian historian, Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 260– ca. 339 CE), generally held by modern scholars to be fairly trustworthy. The “Papias tradition” says, “Then Matthew put together [text variant “wrote”] the sayings [logia] in Matthew the Hebrew [Hebraiois] dialect [dialecto ̄] and each one translated [he ̄rme ̄neusen] them as he was able” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.16). By “Matthew” it is very likely that Papias had in mind Jesus' disciple (Mark 3:18; Matt. 10:3; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). In Matthew – and only in Matthew – “Matthew” is identified as “the toll collector” (Matt. 10:3: ), the one previously said to have been sitting at the “toll booth” (Matt. 9:9:) near Capernaum (the northwest corner of the Lake of Galilee). The parallels in Mark 2:14 and Luke 5:27 call this toll collector “Levi,” not Matthew, but Levi is not in the disciple lists. Modern scholars usually interpret the Papias tradition to mean that Papias thought that Jesus' disciple Matthew the toll collector had assembled a collection of Jesus' sayings in Hebrew (or Aramaic, cf. John 20:16) and then others translated them. (quote from p 302) Taken from William Lane Craig & J. P. Moreland (Ed)' The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, John Wiley & Sons, 2009. p 602 We encounter a striking and incontestable fact. Virtually every piece of external evidence we have from the first few centuries regarding the authorship and composition of the Gospels concurs that Matthew's Gospel was the first written, that it was written in the Hebrew language...the widespread agreement of early sources on a number of points is remarkable and cannot be brushed aside, particularly since discrepancies among these sources regarding other points strongly suggest that they are not, for the most part, simply copying one another. (quote from p 602) Taken from Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, HarperCollins 2012. pp 98-101 After quoting the Papias tradition which states "Matthew composed the sayings in the Hebrew tongue" Still, on one point there can be no doubt. Papias may pass on some legendary traditions about Jesus, but he is quite speciflc—and there is no reason to think he is telling a bald-faced lie—that he knows people who knew the apostles (or the apostles' companions). This is not eyewitness testimony to the life of Jesus, but it is getting very close to that. Where conservative scholars go astray is in thinking that Papias gives us reliable information about the origins of our Gospels of Matthew and Mark. The problem is that even though he “knows” that there was an account of Jesus's life written by Mark and a collection of Jesus's sayings made by Matthew, there is no reason to think that he is referring to the books that we call Mark and Matthew. In fact, what he says about these books does not coincide with what we ourselves know about the canonical Gospels. He appears to be referring to other writings, and only later did Christians (wrongly) assume that he was referring to the two books that eventually came to be included in Scripture. This then is testimony that is independent of the Gospels themselves. It is yet one more independent line of testimony among the many we have seen so far. And this time it is a testimony that explicitly and credibly traces its own lineage directly to the disciples of Jesus themselves. (quote from pp 100-101) Taken from James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. pp 2-3 This is corroborated in Ecclesiastical History 3.39.7 and 14, where Eusebius says that Papias confessed to having received the words of the apostles from their followers. Of course, if John the Elder was in fact John the Apostle — although this seems unlikely — then Papias's testimony comes directly from the apostolic fountainhead. It is in any case very early, within living memory of the apostolic age. Eusebius records Papias's relevant testimony: “Matthew organized the oracles (of Jesus) in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as he was able.”8 This testimony does not specifically identify the Hebrew work of Matthew as the Hebrew Gospel, but it is reasonable to equate the two.9 Papias's primary intent seems to have been to emphasize the Hebrew composition of the work. (quote from p 3) Taken from Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010. pp 86-88 Papias attributed the collection of some Gospel traditions to the apostle Matthew, one of the Twelve, who wrote them down in Aramaic and everyone 'translated/interpreted (hērmēneusen)' them as well as they were able. There is every reason to believe this. It explains the high proportion of literally accurate traditions, mostly of sayings of Jesus, in the 'Q' material and in material unique to the Gospel of Matthew. It also explains the lack of common order, as well as the inadequate translations of some passages into Greek. (quote from p 86) It follows that this is what Papias meant! It is genuinely true that the apostle Matthew 'compiled the sayings/oracles in a Hebrew language, but each (person) translated/ interpreted them as he was able.' Moreover, the Greek word logia, which I have translated 'sayings/oracles', has a somewhat broader range of meaning than this, and could well be used of collections which consisted mostly, but not entirely, of sayings. It would not however have been a sensible word to use of the whole Gospel of Matthew.It was later Church Fathers who confused Matthew's collections of sayings of Jesus with our Greek Gospel of Matthew. (quote from p 87) It is upon this basis, that Casey after studying composite authorship in the Second Temple period comes to his scholarly conclusion. The Gospel of Matthew is the product of composite authorship of which Matthew's Hebrew Gospel was the fountainhead. Hence the name Gospel of Matthew as Matthew was probably a major source. Now I hope this clears up the confusion. Thanks for being patient with an old guy who was clearly overwhelmed! Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC) @ Ignocrates Thanks for restoring sanity when needed! - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Please note this is just an excerpt. Going to the source ie Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard would be good - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Consensus I have just read through all this verbiage. WOW!!! The consensus seems to be that even a dim witted old man has the right to 'waste' people's time by requesting a reliable source for an unsourced edit without fearing a T ban. As to my request for arbitration re the POV Railroad close but not quite there yet! - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I've checked the first five results from the link you made you think that it wouldn't be fringe. The results are:

"We must concede," he wrote, "that the report that Mt was written by Matthew 'in the Hebrew language' is utterly false, however it may have arisen." W.G. Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament, rev. ed., trans. Howard Clark Kee (Nashville: Abingdon, 1975) 49, 120-21.

But Papias' statement involves more problems than it resolves. ... At any rate, the canonical text of Matthew is and always has been the Greek version. Our commentary proceeds on the assumption that the Gospel was composed in Greek. ... But no responsible scholar claims that we now have access to the original Hebrew of Matthew's Gospel.

It is questionable, however, whether Papias is to be interpreted in this way and, even if so, whether Papias can be trusted regarding this information. ... (1) our Greek Gospel of Matthew is not the translation of a Hebrew or Aramaic original;

Thus even for the most of the more conservative scholarly commentators, while varying in their views of Matthean authorship or influence, acknowledge that the matter is uncertain (Carson 1984b: 19; France, 1985: 34; Blomberg 1992a: 43-44; McKnight 1992: 528). Likewise, some scholars who reject Matthean authorship are troubled by the antiquity of the Gospel titles and the tradition of authorship; Luz complains that too many scholars simply ignore these difficulties (1989: 94-95).

The fathers, from Papias to Eusebius, who perpetuated the old tradition regarding the Hebrew Gospel, themselves rest their assertion on tradition, i.e., on reports that they had heard. And none of these fathers, not even Papias himself, was able to name a single person who had seen — not to say handled — this alleged Hebrew Matthew. The reports of the fathers regarding a Hebrew "Gospel" must be considered as hearsay, unsupported by a tangible fact and contradicted by all the probabilities involved as well as by several uncontested facts.

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Next step: mediation, arbitration, or what?

• (Introduced a new subsubsection to try to focus attention on getting an outcome: Just to keep minds concentrated, Ret.Prof says he wants arbitration. PiCo (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC))

I haven't read every single comment but from past familiarity with this dispute, this seems like a content dispute, about reliable sources and interpretation of sources. This isn't a disciplinary matter that should involve the big admin stick. It is complex, involves a variety of editors and viewpoints, it should head to mediation (preferably) or arbitration, not ANI.

Bottom line: I don't see "blockable" behavior here and most actions coming out of ANI cases result in blocks, editing restrictions or are a stalemate with no consensus. The charges brought up against Ret.Prof by Tgeorgescu are layered and complex and I don't think the blunt tools of administrators is the best solution for this impasse. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. So that means mediation I guess, either informal or formal. Maybe I should take the initiative, since RetProf began by objecting to a specific reversion I made of one of his edits. Before I do, any other views? (If you agree with the idea of mediation, do you tink it shld be formal or informal?) PiCo (talk) 03:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Looking for venues to carry this forward, came across the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. It's apparently for deciding on questions of due weight, which is what I personally think is at stake here. The step after that is formal mediation: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. This involves a formal committee with binding results, and is the last stage of content dispute resolution, when all else fails - so I think the time for this has not yet come. If there aren't any persuasive arguments to the contrary by tomorrow my time (AEST), I'll start a mediation process. That gives RetProf in particular time to respond here. PiCo (talk) 04:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

All this time, and I never realised you were in my time zone... StAnselm (talk) 05:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Us old guys sleep all the time. Keeps us from being Incompetent ! - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Leave it to Liz to come to our rescue. I think what she says makes a lot of sense. I would prefer formal mediation for three reasons:

1. This dispute has been going on for a very long time
2. Besides this notice board, our dispute has gone to several other notice boards (See excerpt from Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard above)
3. The result shall be binding and will bring this to an end.

Finally I would prefer LIZ to oversee the start of the mediation process. No offense to PiCo but she is neutral. She also has a great intellect and a kind heart! - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: The discussion at FTN brought out some important points. One of them was a suggestion made by Til Eulenspiegel to create a new article on the historiography of scholarship on the Gospel of Matthew. Such an article would be a valuable addition to the encyclopedia, and it might satisfy both sides of the dispute. With respect to formal mediation, I think it's a great idea, and I suggest contacting Keilana to act as the mediator. She is one of the most accomplished mediators we have here, and if anyone can mediate this complex dispute, it is her. Ignocrates (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation is preferable to informal mediation in a complex case like this one because it is privileged communication. Therefore, it can't be used as a soapbox to pile up "points" that can be used later as evidence in arbitration. While formal mediation is technically non-binding, every participant is supposed to make a good-faith commitment to achieve a result as though it were binding. If it becomes obvious to the mediator that one or more of the parties are unable to do that, the mediator will simply stop the process. Declaring that one of the parties is incapable of or unwilling to accept a mediated solution before even trying is a statement of bad faith. Ignocrates (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment I object to the statement that this is a content dispute. It is not. One determined editor who consistently appears promoting the same discredited viewpoint is not engaged in a content dispute. One determined editor who uses walls of text to obfuscate and prevaricate is not a content dispute. One determined editor who engages repeatedly in ICANTHEARTHAT and similar kinds of behaviour when presented with overwhelming evidence to refute his contentions and whose capacity for passive-aggressive querulousness is apparently tireless is not a content dispute. This is disruptive editing of the kind that makes it difficult for other editors to continue. Ret. Prof. has been repeatedly engaged in good faith on the questions he has raised. You are not allowed to game the system by simply stating the same thing over and over again every six months by gussying it up as a content dispute. It is not. Repeated patterns of disruptive behaviour are exhausting for other editors and detrimental to the aims of the project. This is clearly blockable behaviour and I suggest that as such, a topic ban with sanctions be enacted here at AN/I as a result. Eusebeus (talk) 15:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

This simply is not true. Please look at:

1. Excerpt from Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard above
2. My edit history
3. The WP:POV Railroad

But if you want to take this to arbitration, that is still ok with me. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban Ret. Prof. as a POV pusher and cherry-picker of sources Ret. Prof usage of sources is truly disgusting, the cherry-picking is atrocious. In the RS/N thread above, he quotes only those paragraphs that support his POV. He "forgets" to include paragraphs that say the theory is a minority:

• The Blackwell Companion to The New Testament cites pages 301-303, but he forgets to quote from page 302 several sentences that contradict very strongly his position: "First, modern specialists in language hold that the author of Matthew wrote in Greek, not hebrw or Aramain. Second, most scholars accept the Two-Source theory (...) This theory requires that the author of Matthew knew and used Greek version of Mark and Greek Q as sources. (...) In short, Papias' description does not correspond well with the New Testament. (...) [The author of Mathew] wrote very good Greek."
• The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology Ret. Prof. cites page 602 to support his theory, but on the same page it says that the opinion has a lot of problems and is held only by a minority of scholars.
• James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. pp 2-3 states in the introduction that he is holding a minority opinion, and mentors told him that he could ruin his career by publishing his book
• Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching he cites pages 86 and 87, but in page 87 "When applied to our Gospel of Matthew, this tradition is complete nonsense, as most scholars have recognized. Our Gospel is not only written in perfectly decent Greek, it was partly written by an author who was revising our Greek Mark into better Greek (...) It was therefore written in Greek. (...) How could such a grossly confunsed view of our Gospel of Matthew have arisen"

formal mediation is not binding and doesn't address editor's behaviour. This is no longer a content dispute, Ret Prof has failed many times to make a content-based argument. He is just resorting to WP:ICANTHEARTHAT, refusing to read sources provided by others, cherry-picking sources, cherry-picking new sources when the old ones are debunked, incorrectly claiming that his position is clearly supported by sources, eroding other editors' patience, and re-inserting his edits again and again until everyone gets tired of reverting his incorrect edits. This tendentious editing is a blockable behaviour, and worthy of a topic-ban.

After this disgusting show of cherry-picking, I wouldn't trust Ret. Prof with interpretation of any source. If he is a good-faith editor, then he is completely unable to read sources without filtering everything through his bias. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

That simply is not true. My interpretation of the sources is solid. Look at them as a whole! In any event I have little doubt that I would prevail at either mediation or arbitration. I suspect that is why the POV Railroad wants me banned NOW. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The facts speak by themselves. You imply refuse to accept what sources say. Count me as part of that mythical "POV railroad" that wants you banned from wikipedia. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Confused: If you feel strongly that "your interpretation" of the sources is the only right one, why are you so concerned about going to mediation or arbitration. If my understanding of the reliable sources (or lack there of) is as bad as you say, then you will prevail... and I can leave Wikipedia secure in the knowledge that I was fairly judged an "incompetent" who used "fringe". Seems reasonable??? - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

And please bring Ret. Prof. to arbitration. He has filled this thread with such walls of text and excuses that we are unlikely to get anything done here. It's obvious that the community can't handle this guy. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems we had an edit conflict. (Both writing at the same time). I am glad you support arbitration. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: With respect to editor conduct, I would like to ask a rhetorical question, as a thought-starter. Is it appropriate conduct for a small group of editors to follow an editor around Wikipedia and delete everything they write? Just wondering. Maybe some of the arbs reading this would like to ponder that question as well. There seems to be a reluctance on the part of the WPC crowd to engage in arbitration, and I think I can understand why. If one of the hard-asses on the committee becomes the drafting arb and chooses to dig into the root causes of this dispute, very few of them will be left standing. Ignocrates (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Propose closure

• I proposed this be closed as it's a majority of the same editors arguing their content POV to be correct and the other to be fringe. Don't care if it goes to Mediation or Arbitration, it just doesn't belong here. This is a content dispute and administrator's do not have any authority to determine content beyond what any regular editor might. This dispute takes a deep understanding and knowledge of thousands of years of historical and theological issues that need structure. Attempts by the subject of the thread to argue their point are unfairly criticized as "walls of text" despite them only being a few short paragraphs. Not sure when a pony wall started counting for 'walls'. Arbitration rarely decided who is 'right' and more often decides who behaved 'wrong'. By my count, Ret.Prof. wouldn't be singled out by Arbcom. With all of that in mind, and with consideration for the 0 progress this thread has made so far, I propose this simply be closed.--v/r - TP 20:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Dranias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Since I made the comment above, the editor claiming to be Nick Dranias has added this statement: [[81]]. I believe he is escalating his attempts to intimidate, not "cooling down" as I had hoped would occur. In this comments, he twice accuses me of "false and defamatory statements" - legal terms and ground for lawsuits. This is in addition to earlier comments about libel and others, which were not directly aimed at me. In the same edit, this person claiming to be Nick Dranias accuses me of "disappearing my user account" for some unstated nefarious purposes. I think the situation is getting worse, not better as I had hoped. James Cage (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Repeating and expanding on "false and defamatory" charge here: [[82]]. This person claims to be a lawyer, and it wouldn't be that difficult for him, or for someone else reading this, to find me in the real world. I now believe that these charges are a considered attempt to intimidate, and not just something brought on by a moment of frustration. James Cage (talk) 14:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• It appears that Dranias's concerns leading to accusations of "defamation" might have originated in the use of the term "self-published" in an edit summary: [83]. An edit summary… Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The actual definition of defamation includes an intent to cause harm. See [[84]]. If the editor is the subject of this article, he is a lawyer, and knows this. He now seems to be implying that I defamed him with pure intent, which is impossible. But he posts a self-serving and incomplete definition of the term in a forum for non-lawyers. He continues to repeat accusations that I defamed him to non-lawyers, who might not know the real definition. To his "actions have consequences" comment at the AfD page, he adds statements like "everything you do in the real world" above. I now believe this is an attempt to intimidate me and the other editors at the AfD page. James Cage (talk) 15:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• Coming late to this discussion, I have to say that although Nick Dranias obviously needs to learn "wikispeak", many other editors here are not formulating very carefully either. The sources in the article were NOT all self-published, nor would it have helped if a Google search had dredged up primary sources. What the article contained were sources that were not independent from the subject of the article and what is needed to show notability are secondary sources from a third party (i.e., independent sources). Dranias is an expert in his field, so actually if there do exist things that he self-published, those could conceivably be used as reliable sources here (but for other topics than himself, except for non-controversial information). Also, when communicating with newbies, I always immediately explain that "notability" has a peculiar meaning here on WP and has nothing to do whatsoever with merit, good or bad. Using correct "wikispeak" and explaining the WP concept of notability immediately to a newbie might have avoided some of this drama. --Randykitty (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Please note that in this edit nd in subsequent edits on his talk page (and subsequent edits there) I did attempt to explain these matters to NickDranias in some detail and without depending on wiki-jargon. I think these posts did some good, but not right away and the user seemed to remain rather aggressive. Read the exchange for yourselves. DES ^(talk) 17:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Legal threat by Nitin.mittal998

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

---

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

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

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

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

User:Doctothorpe is apparently another brand new WP:SPA account related to the admin protect on 12th man (football), now in violation of WP:NPA and WP:AGF, see [85]. Unclear WP:SPI, as most of the edit warring was via IP.

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

Personal attacks on TheRedPenOfDoom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WIll an administrator please close

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[86]]

[[87]]

[[88]]

[[89]]

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

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

"Are you blind or just retarded?"

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

---

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

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

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

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

Malfunctioning bot

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

108.49.183.32

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

---

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

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

User:Tigersuperman

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diffs of the cover-up:

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

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

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1 January

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

5 January

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

13 January

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

14 January

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

30 January

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

31 January

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

1 February

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:DagosNavy

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

---

Extreme harassment [91], >10 reverts on [92]. 83.223.124.17 (talk) 01:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mass article moves without discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:DigDeep4Truth insists on maliciously accusing me of "lying"

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

---

User:DigDeep4Truth has been posting ranting tirades about the KKK on article talk pages where they're completely irrelevant ([93], [94], [95], etc.). Because I've removed some of these tirades from the article talk pages, and have also pointed out many factual errors of his -- concerning subjects which he is quite ignorant about, but seems to think of himself as some kind of deeply-knowledgeable authority figure -- User:DigDeep4Truth has chosen many times to accuse me of lying or deliberately uttering things which I know to be falsehoods ([96], [97], [98], [99] etc.).

I warned him about violations of WP:NPA and WP:AGF as early as my edit summaries on these edits [100], [101], and also warned him on "Talk:Timeline of Palestine" ([102]), and left two pointed warnings on his user talk page: [103], [104].

This eventually pretty much stopped the nonsense for about two days, but today his spitefulness seemed to overflow again, and he accused me of "lying" two more times: [105], [106]. My patience with User:DigDeep4Truth has now officially expired, and I would greatly appreciate it if someone could remind him of Wikipedia policies in a way which I'm unable to do as a non-administrator... AnonMoos (talk) 09:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

---

Please see this: [107] and [108] (you don't have to read all of it. Just the ending paragraphs on this links)

I'm getting really tired of this user on Wikipedia who seems to have an infinite supply of stupid arguments that are obviously bordering on trolling and disrupting Wikipedia's goals. He keeps trying to remove a reliable source. He keeps claiming Cambridge University sources are "fabricated" because they are "reprints" of journals. He's also blatantly claiming that historian Simon Digby is not a historian despite the Indian Express and numerous other sources and evidences saying that he is. I've had it up to here with him. Have a look at this discussion, where it beggars belief starting from line 409. Other editors have also claimed that this user is being deliberately disruptive [109] [110] [111] and making absurd claims on sources. StuffandTruth (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that he's attempted to WP:CANVASS twice, even after I gave him a warning not to [112] (warning) [113] (second warning). StuffandTruth (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The user in question has been quite disrupting. Tendentious editing and persistent POV-pushing,[114], [115], [116], [117], [118], removal of sourced content.[119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128]. -- Tobby72 (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me jump in (although it might be out of place in the nature of this discussion) and say my piece. Blademulti is a problem editor. Across wikipedia they engage in battles and enrage editors over tiny things. The HEAVY POV pro-Hindu or Anti-Abrahamic thing is starting to be a problem. And while we all have our politics, when it is so single focused that it will bend light to win for the cause I think it is a problem. All over Wikipedia [129]--Inayity (talk) 09:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Site ban for Bladesmulti

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

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

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

Have a look at why this user was blocked on Wikipedia. WP:NOTHERE [130] StuffandTruth (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some more edit warring here (again), and adding POV (again) without any sources [131]. StuffandTruth (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note: More edit warring here [132]. Bladesmulti, after his block, is back to his usual self (and now ironically claiming references are not reliable only because he's too lazy to look them up. He did this with the Digby piece until I made an easy search on Cambridge to show that he was lying, as he had claimed the source did not exist). He is deleting reliable sources claiming they are "not notable" and he's doing it above again with blatant POV pushing, refusing to let others edit and add differing opinions. StuffandTruth (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

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

(edit conflict):::You can be edit-warring without making 3 reverts on one page. Reverting the same material after being unblocked often leads to a block. And I'm beginning to think I've seen enough also. Today Bladesmulti writes at Talk:Persecution of Hindus "Removed Medieval. Because K.S. lal's figure were about population of Indians, not about Hindus, all historians, critics, regards them as "decrease of Indians", not "hindus". So it has been removed." At RSN on the 26th he wrote "As per Negationism in India: Concealing the Record of Islam, it has been cited, that the estimates by K.S. Lal refers to the 80 million death of Hindus though" (and this seems to be correct, see [133]. So his removal of the Medieval section from Persecution of Hindus which mentioned used Lal and Digby makes no sense. I still haven't seen an effort to justify his charges that the Digby source was fabricated despite asking him to explain what he meant. Dougweller (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Seems strange. You might have problem with the edits. Having a look at your edit history, you just removed the sourced content[134], "fringe paragraph", without gaining any consensus. On that whole page you seem to be making red edits for months. Have you read.. "While the burden of establishing verifiability and reliability rests on those who are challenged about it, there is usually no need to immediately delete text that can instead be rewritten as necessary over time." When you edit years old edit, you should not certainly remove them, and follow WP:DNRNC. But you seem to be edit warring, and not adhering WP:NPOV. Noteswork (talk) 10:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

OccultZone and Bladesmulti Sockpuppet?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Temporary resolution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Ram Charitra Dwivedi

User:Ram Charitra Dwivedi account has existed for two days. Of the 5 total edits that it has made, 4 were vandalism (two large scale) including [135]and the 5th was creating a user subpage which the Wikipedia software has put a warning on which I don't understand but which seems to say has malicious code. North8000 (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

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

fact that are treated as agenda

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

---

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

talk page: https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%97%D7%94:%D7%99%D7%A2%D7%9C_%D7%92%D7%A8%D7%9E%D7%9F#.D7.A4.D7.95.D7.A2.D7.9C.D7.94_.D7.A9.D7.9C_.D7.92.D7.A8.D7.9E.D7.9F_.D7.91.D7.A0.D7.95.D7.A9.D7.90.D7.99.D7.9D_.D7.A4.D7.95.D7.9C.D7.99.D7.98.D7.99.D7.99.D7.9D

under section: פועלה של גרמן בנושאים פוליטיים

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

admin user: Ldorfman

the text entered is: ב-20 בינואר 2014 החליטה יעל גרמן, שרת הבריאות בתקופה זו, שורת החלטות שקוממוTemplate:הערה אלפי זוגות בישראל. החלטות אלו לא איפשרו לזוגות שמתקשים להביא ילדים יותר מ-8 נסיונות להרות מטיפולי הפריה חוץ-גופית ולהתנות את המשך הטיפול רק לאחר אישור ועדה חיצונית. Template:הערה נכון לרגע זה החלטות אלו, שעוררו ביקורת ציבורית, נותרו בעיניהן.

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

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

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

File:Godzilla2014Poster.jpg

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

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

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

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

On this note, I would like to request whatever may be tacked in the Administrators toolbox to address ZScarpia edit[136] which I find to be disruptive. He was fully aware of the unresolved discussion taking place on talk(since he started it), but instead of exercising patience, and exhausting like the rest, he deiced to take it to the mainspace and impose his desired version there, also providing no edit summary.--PLNR (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Woozle effect

Some eyes on this:

Woozle effect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

would be appreciated, as it's been discussed on reddit and is attracting weirdness and an associated AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woozle effect. Thanks. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• I've semi-protected: too much IP disruption. Perhaps someone can check to see if the current version is the best, or if perhaps some unverified content should be deemed trivial and not of encyclopedic value. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Eyes on this would be good.

What I want to say is that it is difficult if not impossible for any average Wikipedia user to navigate the enormous numbers of policies that guide Wiki adding. AND YET, I learned a long time ago, that Wikipedias were called to IMPROVE and ASSUME GOOD FAITH not just REVERT.

THE WORLD CANNOT BEGIN TO TELL WIKI how obnoxious your REVERT HAPPY editors are. OR HOW THEY VIOLATE "IMPROVE" and "ASSUME GOOD FAITH".

Nevertheless, the truth is that the page for Woozle Effect is FINE. Google Scholar lists 440 examples of it being used in academic papers. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=woozle&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C3

IT is on it's face notable in academia.

BUT the best exact specific precise accurate correct strict rigorous particular methodical categorical rigid way to express that to make every wikipedia editor happy is WAY BEYOND ME.

What I note is that long time wikipedia editors LOVELOVELOVE their revert skills, and then their threatening people with various bans who disagree with that.

So eyes on this page please, because it is clear that the AFD is feminist inspired reddit brigaded vandalism.

And yes, I assume that any edit I place at wiki anywhere imncluding this one will result in a deletions and a threatened ban. Because that's how wiki rolls.

184.101.115.101 (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• "feminist inspired reddit brigaded vandalism"? Whatever. This IP added this section, rightfully removed by Alf--now tell me that this was not an expert usage of the revert skill. Also, no one's threatening you with a ban; you're not being oppressed. Drmies (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • It's not whatever, and this is precisely why you were wrong to insert yourself into it. I documented the reddit feminist brigade of this page at the AFD discussion. You can see it for yourself here: http://www.reddit.com/r/againstmensrights/comments/1wxaoa/discovered_wikipedia_page_with_clear_mra_bias/?sort=confidence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.101.115.101 (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• You know what ("you" in general, not the IP editor), perhaps semi-protection is too heavy-handed. If any admin thinks it so, please go ahead and change it or remove it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Sepsis II

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

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

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

Additionally, it is possible that Sepsis II is a sock him/herself of a banned editor. I've repeatedly asked Sepsis II if s/he has ever edited under a different username, and I've gotten no response. As other editors have said, Sepsis II needs to come clean on his/her past user history, or we're going to keep having these same problems and outstanding concerns. Looking at Sepsis II's contribution history [137], it is clear that Sepsis II had previous experience before initiating this account. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Complaint about Swedish Wikipedia Admin.

I am a new contributor to the Swedish Wikipedia Användare:Anösteratter, and I tried to ask an admin (as well as a few other users) for editing tips, but Användare:Tegel has blocked me, calling me a troll, and a vandal. Unless he has got the wrong person, I am very annoyed. I made a different account to try and edit properly and Tegel blocked me again. I appealed against the block but he rejected it. I am frustrated. What can I do about this admin on the Swedish Wikipedia? --Bästkerring (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Here? Nothing. Hafspajen, do you now where this editor might turn to? Drmies (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)