Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Cassianto (talk | contribs)
37,340 edits
Undid revision 644451506 by Lightbreather (talk) reserved for talk pages
Line 2,128: Line 2,128:
* '''Oppose'''. This doesn't assume good faith on anybody's part. Eric probably won't interact with these two, anyway, if he doesn't want to interact with them. [[User:Epicgenius|Epic Genius]] ([[User talk:Epicgenius|talk]]) 19:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''. This doesn't assume good faith on anybody's part. Eric probably won't interact with these two, anyway, if he doesn't want to interact with them. [[User:Epicgenius|Epic Genius]] ([[User talk:Epicgenius|talk]]) 19:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', IBANs are nonsense obstructions to getting any genuine issue resolved. If an editor is found to be at genuine fault then an appropriate topic ban or site block should be imposed. people with interaction bans cannot work on the same articles simultaneously. [[User:GregKaye|Greg]][[User talk:GregKaye|Kaye]] 20:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', IBANs are nonsense obstructions to getting any genuine issue resolved. If an editor is found to be at genuine fault then an appropriate topic ban or site block should be imposed. people with interaction bans cannot work on the same articles simultaneously. [[User:GregKaye|Greg]][[User talk:GregKaye|Kaye]] 20:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

====Would someone please close this discussion====
{{Help me}}
Would someone please close this discussion? [[User:Lightbreather|Lightbreather]] ([[User talk:Lightbreather|talk]]) 20:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


== JHunterJ ==
== JHunterJ ==

Revision as of 20:27, 27 January 2015

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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.

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

    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

    WP:CIVIL, edit warring, and user talk page violations by The Banner

    This post is a request for a simple warning to the title editor on the subject of edit warring, civility, and adherence to WP:CONSENSUS, and that he be required to remove material added to his user Talk page stating his intent to disregard WP:CONSENSUS and expressing a negative view of other editors in apparent violation of the user Talk page guidelines.

    On the article Organic food, The Banner repeatedly restored material to the lede that had been removed by other editors, who had offered the explanations that it was poorly sourced and covered material not addressed in the body of the article as required by WP:LEAD. The material was repeatedly restored with the explanations:

    • That the removal of the material in question was "annoying"
    • In response to a request that he discuss his concerns on the Talk page, he reverts again stating that the editor (myself) making this request was engaging in "whitewash"
    • Reaching his third reversion and unable to continue, he finally comes to the Talk page and again accuses me of "whitewashing inconvenient information".

    This event seen in isolation is certainly not the largest behavior issue of the month at Wikipedia, and I probably did not help the situation by failing to recognize that an edit described by The Banner in his edit summary as a reversion actually contained new citations. But it is troubling in the context provided by his user page, which

    • States that he intends to pursue his individual ideas about what is best for the encyclopedia irrespective of consensus. As I understand it, this is a violation of user page guidelines
    • Features a picture of an individual being run over by a truck, with the caption "Unconventional but effective support for Wikipedians involved in the War against Vandalism, POV-pushing, Spamming and bad faith edits". Overall the page expresses a lack of confidence in other editors with respect to their good faith and / or competence and reinforces the previous comment about ignoring WP:CONSENSUS.

    I respectfully request a simple warning regarding adherence to WP:GF, [[WP:CIVIL}, WP:CONSENSUS and that he be required to remove material stating his intent to disregard WP:CONSENSUS from his user page. With respect to my own behavior in this incident, I'll stipulate that it was not by any means perfect, and that I undertook 3 reversions in 24 hours for what I believe to be the first time in my career as an editor here. I'll do better in the future. Formerly 98 (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It would be far better when a large bunch of editors start looking at what is really happing at the article Organic food. To my opinion the article is hopelessly POV and unnecessary vague and negative due to the constant removal of anything positive. The article is victim of misusing of WP:MEDRS, that is used to remove everything what can remotely seen as a health claim, like the chemical contents of an item. Even when you publish a statement sourced by an item published by an university or agricultural college, it can be removed as being in conflict with WP:MEDRS (while organic food is about agriculture, not about health or healthcare).
    The article is completely ring fenced and there are always a few people at hand to step in and help out. The consensus Formely 98 is not a real one, just one of a good organised and very loud group. The many discussions on the talkpage are proof of that.
    In fact, in this case it is Formerly 98 who is POV-pushing and removing a sentence that is backed up by three sources. And he removed it without an explanation but with a warning that I could be blocked. That warning is what is very friendly described as "unfriendly behaviour", I have saved him the word starting with a "b" and containing a "y". This AN/I discussion seems the reflection of an editor not winning the discussion on arguments... The Banner talk 17:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Banner became frustrated a long while ago in the organics articles, that other editors (Like me) insist that health claims about food need sources that comply with WP:MEDRS, and he has taken to personal attacks about "whitewashing" etc for quite a while. He has been asked many times to stop. Difs of his disruptive comments:
    It just goes on and on (there are many more of these). I've just been letting it go as I have had enough of drama boards. But Formerly just asked Banner to strike Banner's last personal attack of "whitewashing" which Banner blew off, writing "Why should I? You have already brought me to AN/I, so let us see how that ends up". Since he seems unable to contribute constructively to the topic anymore, I suggest a topic ban for him. Jytdog (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And this fits perfectly in the way the people operate there. This is not trying to discuss things, this is plain bullying. The Banner talk 01:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, just give me that topic ban. I accept it. The only thing it proves is the moral bankruptcy of the CABAL operating at Organic food, who do not care about the encyclopaedia. Too bad they sacrifice a potential good article to their own ideas and refuse to start meaningful discussions, bu know how to waive with policies, guidelines and essays to bully everybody away. Is six months enough for your vindication? The Banner talk 02:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The Banner on the chance that your opening words were not meant in irony: if you will agree to voluntarily stay away from the organics topic I will withdraw my recommendation and we can avoid more drama. Do tell. Jytdog (talk) 07:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not frustrated about MEDRS, I am frustrated about the misuse of MEDRS to remove everything that is positive, making this article overly negative and vague. The Banner talk 04:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The Banner (and to explain the background a bit more for the closer) I understand that you really believe that eating organically produced food makes you healthier. But the science doesn't support that belief. Most of that is just due to the messiness of reality -- the variability of the food produced by any method, and the difficulty and expense of studying the effect of eating foods so barely different, in such a way that produces really definitive results. Based on WP's PAG, we just cannot make the kind of definitive statements you want to make, based on your belief. I am sorry you are so frustrated with that, and I am sorry that you have allowed your frustration to make you a disruptive presence in the organics articles. You really threw down the gauntlet when you refused to strike your personal attack and wrote "Why should I? You have already brought me to AN/I, so let us see how that ends up". In my view that leaves the community little choice but to pick the gauntlet up and topic ban you. Jytdog (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a very interesting statement that you make here. In fact you say that the scientific research is unreliable due to many factors that can not be taken into account when testing food due to the messiness of reality. Still, you use it as a reason to remove sourced content. Why?
    I have many times asked for a proper reasoning about why WP:MEDRS is used on an article that is clear in the remit of agriculture. The answer was always health-claims. But unfortunately, the definition of "Health-claim" commonly used is rather fuzzy. And it is interesting to see that many so called "health-claims" are rejected due to the scientific research that you just called unreliable due to the messiness of reality.
    It is also interesting that you now go into personal remarks about what you think I believe. Unfortunately, you are wrong in your line of thinking. Combined with the "gauntlet", I just see a failure of AGF. It would be rather spectacular when I get a topic ban due to the sourcing of unsourced text. The Banner talk 17:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban. The Banner has been edit warring on this page in the past (though never quite crossing 3RR ) and warned about it [1]. The main issue appears to be that the editor is very reluctant to go to the talk page as multiple reverts seem to occur first when a dispute arises rather than going to the talk page once a dispute is apparent. These edit summaries demonstrate the main incident I've been involved in:
    1. Myself asking for discussion on newly added content without a source: "removing per WP:STATUSQUO. If it's going to be included, continue to discuss and reach consensus on the talk page on an appropriate source and proposed content relevant to the source."[2]
    2. Reverted. My response: "Multiple users have pointed out issues with the sourcing of the content on the talk page. Please join the conversation rather than edit war."[3]
    3. "Reverted. My response: Again, please join the discussion on the talk page if you feel strongly per WP:BRD. We need a source, not reverts here." [4]
    So, that was three times I had to ask for talk page discussion where everyone else was at least while The Banner kept reverting. This was awhile ago, but it looks like this pointy behavior is continuing. Looking at the user's block logs for things like edit warring, disruptive editing, and battleground mentality, they should know better, but it doesn't seem like past history or more current warnings have helped in this article either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban as well as a block. Editors should be given a second chance but not when they are not going to change and keep doing the same thing after being blocked. 23.27.252.213 (talk) 12:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Topic Ban As constant violation of WP:3RR, WP:CIVIL, and WP:CONSENSUS is unacceptable.Weegeerunner (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support banning this user completely This editor has an overall detrimental effect on Wikipedia. I have had a lengthy series of interactions with this user. In general he has been the least WP:CIVIL, the least collegial individual I have met in my 7 years on Wikipedia. He is a mass editor, primarily interested in inserting his WP:POV, his censorship, executed by his deletion of content. His constant tactic is to attack his accusers. I have collected a legacy of his hostile interactions with other users, which when I had it as part of my sandbox he successfully had deleted. So I have a lengthy page off line documenting at least 38 hostile interactions with other editors. Just let me know how to post that for your reading enjoyment. His favorite targets are relative novice editors. He is an excellent wikilawyer. He knows his tools, his intimidation tactics have scared most of them away--many have gone away permanently as in, they have stopped editing for wikipedia. I wasn't intimidated and spent weeks trying to protect content he was trying to delete (what he below calls following him around). I was successful 100% of the time in AfD debates-which shows the standards of work I deal with and shows how misguided he is. He still succeeded in speedy deletions, changing tactics before I could jump in. And ultimately he succeeded in attacking me. He found a friendly admin to tell me to back off, which I courteously did.
    The Banner has been blocked already 10 times that I can find. The user below has shown a link to each of those blocks. What were the reasons? Disruptive editing, 3RR, Personal attacks or harassment.
    The main message is: He has been given multiple second chances. Lightweight punishments keep getting suggested. He does not learn from them. Below he is literally sticking his tongue out at me; at all of the disciplinary actions that have taken place previously. Childish but true. They have had no effect. Look at the overall product of his work, you will find single minded obnoxiousness. His path of destruction will continue until we do something serious. He is the worst form of cyber bully and wikipedia does not need this as a representative. Reporting of the facts of his actions should not be regarded as a personal attack. Trackinfo (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I do think that this narrow topic ban would help. See his mass deletion of relevant content in nearly all topics you can think about. Also how fast he is given warnings and blames others of an edit war etc. I support Trackinfo s opinion. FFA P-16 (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything from "Support banning this user completely" to the signature was added by Trackinfo; it's not that the siteban advocate failed to sign. Trackinfo, go to Special:Contributions/The Banner and underneath "User contributions" you'll see a section For The Banner (talk | block log | uploads | logs | filter log), or something like that; that's the easiest way to reach https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AThe+Banner. Nyttend (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting, how many times are you going to ask for my complete removal, Trackinfo? You did it already several times and they all failed. Could you please be a bit more realistic and stop following me around? You have been warned before by an admin: [5] and here [6]. The Banner talk 03:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never asked for you to be banned completely in this forum before. On insignificant AfD and talk pages, yes. Now is the appropriate time, when others are also showing serious issues with your consistently bad attitude. Now is the time for someone with authority look at your overall negative body of work. They should look at your consistent incivility. Look below at your responses to Jytdog. That is a typical reaction from the Banner. His talk page is archived, 47 editions so far. Go to any one of them and you will probably find at least one other editor complaining about his edits, usually about deleting someone else's contributions, usually followed by uncivil conversation where Banner is always in the right (though he can be quite civil when his opponent retracts). His edits are constantly against the consensus of others involved with those same articles, but only one dominating personality can win those arguments, with Banner calling the other party on accusations of the techniques HE USES to bully his opponents. The concept is called Psychological projection. Look beyond this one case, this is a bad apple. And Banner; while I may not be bothering your daily activities, if you are not banned; each time you are brought back to ANI (and you will be, you've been here often) I'll be back urging your removal. The short message that you've never listened to, I'll say it here publicly: Clean up your act. More than 50 people offended by your "work" telling you that your deletions are improper, that you are obnoxious, uncivil, disruptive etc etc are not wrong. Everybody else is not crazy. You are. Trackinfo (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose The diffs demonstrated do not strike me as particularly astounding. The editor seems to be arguing against consensus in certain discussions, and the conduct represented do not strike me as particularly horrible or aggressive. One editor against five is in the minority and as long as they accept that consensus is against them, then that's fine. They are not disruptive. That's what has happened so far with what I garner. Additionally, people citing WP:CIVIL really need to point out -which- diff that's about. The ones presented do not make me remark that 'The Banner' is uncivil. Also, people citing 3RR edit warring violations need to cite reports where they actually reported them. Tutelary (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tutelary thanks for your comments. Based on what is presented here I see how you could say that, as I neglected to bring evidence of disruptive behavior to the articles themselves. Here is some (by far not all) evidence on that front:
      • reverts removal of OR with no edit note
      • adding biased sourced (http://www.organicitsworthit.org)
      • edit warring to keep biased source
      • jumping in in order to edit war with edit note "no need for censorship of positive things"
      • again jumping in to edit war and again on same content
      • again jumping in to edit war with edit note "Sorry, this relevant as the MEDRS-guys often claim that a difference is not significant when they remove sources not to their liking"
      • there are many many more of these. Basically as the editing community (what he calls "the MEDRS guys") works to keep the article neutral and accurate and well-sourced, Banner operates disruptively to try to keep non-neutral or badly sourced content in the article. His behavior has just devolved to disruption. I haven't even pulled in things from the other organics articles yet. Thanks for raising the question of editing behavior. Jytdog (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, Jytdog, my complaint is that you are NOT keeping the article neutral but overly negative by refusing information and sources. You are trying to win a content conflict not by addressing the stated concerns but by chasing away critical editors or in my case trying to topic ban me. The Banner talk 23:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I have been tolerating your disruptive editing and uncivil behavior. Again, you really threw down the gauntlet when you refused to strike your personal attack on Formerly and when he asked you to strike, wrote to him, "Why should I? You have already brought me to AN/I, so let us see how that ends up". You have lost your self control and are revelling in it. In my view that leaves the community little choice but to pick the gauntlet up and topic ban you. Jytdog (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And again you are showing plain bad faith by assuming something that is not even close to the truth. The Banner talk 12:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not true? Difs.
    1) you again make personal attacks about whitewashing in edit notes and on Talk
    2) you are directly asked to strike the accusation/personal attack by Formerly a first time and again a second time
    3) you write "Why should I? You have already brought me to AN/I, so let us see how that ends up"
    very true and backed by difs. and i have provided diffs above of disruptive Talk editing and disruptive article editing. its all there. I am not assuming anything. And with RfC/U gone, this forum is the only we can deal with your pattern of bad behavior. Again, you basically dared WP to take action against you instead of simply striking your personal attack and changing your behavior. I think it is time the community took action, since you cannot control yourself. Jytdog (talk) 13:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring to your bad faith statement You have lost your self control and are revelling in it. And why are you not commenting about the part of research that is unreliable "due to the messiness of reality". Did you corner yourself with that statement? Come on, Jytdog, the only thing you want is to shut down a critical voice. Not because I am disruptive but because I am inconvenient. The Banner talk 12:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The diffs are there to see and I am describing your pattern of behavior. Jytdog (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The lack of self reflection on their behavior is more evidence that this topic ban needs to be placed. Yobol (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And do you really think a topic ban will improve the article? Or is it just step one to scare away all other critical voices? Jytdog stated above that most scientific research is unreliable, still only scientific research more or less positive is shot down, not the scientific research that is more or less negative. The Banner talk 13:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue here is your behavior, not the article's content. Jytdog (talk) 14:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the problem is the content and the use of different systems to measure notability of new info. The Banner talk 23:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Support a narrow (article specific) topic ban. Those advocating community bans here are among the first to resort to personal attacks, confess to collating "sh*t-sheets" and have atrocious AFD contribution records as immovable inclusionists. But the attitude here with regard to specific topic areas is problematic and Jytdog has made a reasonable case for a topic ban, limited to those articles where there have been problems. But anything broader than that seems unwarranted. St★lwart111 08:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've amended my position (reversed it, if you would). The ongoing discussions here have been enlightening and I'm quite glad they've remained open. What we've seen since my first contribution (2 weeks ago) is further and further refinement of the "issues". They still include The Banner's behaviour (in part) but watching those pushing for his topic ban interact without his active involvement in the area suggests there are other major problems here and many of them relate to content, not conduct. Those that do relate to conduct apply equally to some of those of both "sides". A plague on both your houses, if you like. There are many who seem to jump to personal attacks before WP:BRD and The Banner has been one of them in only a handful of related instances. I no longer think that applying a topic ban to him alone would resolve any of the substantive issues here, and so doing to would be contrary to our policies. This needs broader and more broadly applied restrictions. St★lwart111 11:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I would define the topic as "organic food". Concretely that would be Organic farming, Organic food, and Organic milk. Those are currently the articles about organic food where Banner has been acting disruptively. I would also include Organic farming as the same kinds of disputes have broken out there and that would be a place where Banner could easily carry on this behavior. Jytdog (talk) 13:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC) (amended per below Jytdog (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]
    Thanks for supplying evidence that this is just a case of silencing. In regards to Organic farming, I have never edited there so I don't know why you think I was disruptive there. My last two edits on Organic milk were in July 2014, reverted by one Jytdog. Before that I have an edit in December 2013 and a few older, nearly all reverted. The Banner talk 13:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good point, that you have not edited the Organic food article. I amended the statement above. My apologies.Jytdog (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we institute topic-bans to prevent disruption so including an article in a topic ban because someone "could easily" be disruptive there is unlikely to be supported. It's not something I would support anyway. Organic milk looks similar - he has edited there, but not disruptively and not extensively. The problematic article would seem to be Organic food. St★lwart111 14:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Some comments by The Banner mentioned here indicate the editor is trying to "defend" the topic in general, so I don't think discussing a topic ban outside of just the article is entirely out of the question. Considering the editor has had problems with similar behavior in the past based on their block logs and those comments they've made, someone could make a decent case that the behavior is likely to keep occurring in closely related topics. That's also partly because there are a few different organic related articles out there. I'd personally just look for broad topic ban on organic food, but if the narrow approach is pursued, a short leash approach should be taken through a very direct warning that more bans will follow if problem behaviors pop up in other related articles as part of the remedy. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And other articles/topics can always be added later if Jytdog's predictions prove accurate. If The Banner wants to prove him right and so migrates the same behaviour to other articles, he would only have himself to blame. St★lwart111 23:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. I'd just like to stress my main point there was that there's a history of this behavior not improving despite blocks already. A topic ban helps, but is a band-aid for a more widespread problem. Because of that, an admin warning would seem like a good minimum action besides a narrow topic ban in case the behavior isn't changed for the nth time. The behavior appears to be relatively widespread in addition to the very pointed examples for this article, so it seems like some ratcheting up is needed if these cycles of block/bans and going right back to the behavior issues afterwords continue. No one has really made a great case for wider community bans like you mentioned (nor do I think they are called for right now), but it does seem like there's enough to keep a short leash if this behavior keeps coming up in the future elsewhere. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is in WP's interest to ban him from the organic food topic, but even just a ban from Organic food would be an improvement. Jytdog (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A neutral article is in the interest of Wikipedia, not silencing a critical voice. The Banner talk 23:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way: this edit, in which you removed a POV-tag, is rather symptomatic for what is happing on this article. I am definitively not the only one critical about the neutrality of the article. The Banner talk 22:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is why ANI can be difficult. Mr. Guye reliable sources say that we cannot say that organic food is healthier. That is exactly the point here. Your "probably sure" is not how we do things in WP. Please actually read the article and the sources cited there, and please see the discussion on the talk page about sources. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Remember that this conversation is based on editor behavior. If it were just a content dispute, this conversation wouldn't be at ANI. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL, only because you refuse to admit that it is in basic just a content dispute. Talk:Organic_food#Neutrality is again evidence how MEDRS is misused, in this case to brush away a POV-tag. The Banner talk 23:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is how you behave in content disputes as outlined above. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting, so permanently saying NO in a content dispute is allowed, as that is what happening here. See for example this one: You can't place a POV flag if the basis of the POV challenge is a challenge to WP:MEDRS. Its wikipedia policy. {https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organic_food&diff=642669126&oldid=642668116] In my opinion, that is misusing a guideline (as MEDRS is not a policy as claimed but "just" a guideline) The Banner talk 00:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. If The Banner has long-term civility and edit warring issues across the encyclopedia, then first of all a topic ban from natural foods is not going to address that. Second, I would question (but have not checked) how many of those editors favoring a topic ban are the ones who are having a content disagreement on this article, or who have had run-ins with The Banner in the past. That certainly entitles them to an opinion, but inasmuch as they are involved and there is clearly a heated content dispute afoot, that kind of !vote is not an appropriate way to apply behavioral sanctions. At a very minimum, anyone deciding the issue should discount the vote and look at their actual edits and comments. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      My brief experience wading into this article suggests there is a serious problem with POV editors camping out to establish a scientific rather than encyclopedic approach. As such, I have re-added a POV tag. This is all a legitimate matter of content discussion, but not a good place to allow a science cabal to assert ownership of an article about a subject largely outside the scope of science. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I have been further warned not to add a POV tag. My attempt to describe the science there as science, etc., have been reverted. It's clear that there's a weird ownership issue on this particular article of smarmy science types who believe that the supremacy of peer-reviewed journal articles extends to food and taste. It's bizarre. Whatever civility problems The Banner may have, they've hit a dysfunctional editing environment here at this particular article. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      And going against that is what is called "disruptive behaviour" here... The Banner talk 14:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Wikidemon the proposed topic ban is focused on the problem I am aware of. I interact little with Banner and have no comment at all on Banner's behavior elsewhere. That is a distraction from the issues at hand. Further, long-term disruption by an editor cannot be boiled down to a "content dispute". That is a mischaracterization - this is about behavior, not content. My sense is that you have not spent time investigating the history of the article and the discussions on Talk and the way that Banner has behaved, nor looked at the diffs we have provided. I encourage you to do that before you make the kind of judgement you are making. Jytdog (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I would be frustrated too if an article was hijacked in this way on my watch, and I am indeed somewhat irritated by my brief exposure to the dysfunctional editing environment there — I just have the good sense to recognize lost battles rather than WP:BATTLE them. So, again, if TheBanner has a long term editing problem with how they react to reasonably perceived unencyclopedic editing practices, in this case a misplaced scientific focus of an article about food, then that ought to be addressed dispassionately by uninvolved editors, not used by the editors in question to enforce their point of view. Possibly this is no more than a dispute over the subject of the article, with neither side blinking but one side having a local consensus by numbers. The page is just fine as an article about the scientific evaluation of foods certified as organic, it would make a fine subsection or child article. It could be that the broader topic including the history, economics, production methods, politics, culinary evaluation, social perception, and so on, is a different article. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    When it comes to actual content, you're butting heads with very similar issues that editors have when first entering topics such as climate change, evolution, etc. Working in scientific topics is tough, especially when it's a new area for an editor. Folks at the talk page have discussed how you can start into the topic if you want, but being an encyclopedia means we reflect the science as our focus, and that has been upheld time and again. [7] Those are all things that if you want to discuss, that's better left at policy pages or the actual talk page. Here though we are discussing the behavior of The Banner. Whether a content dispute is "valid" or not is irrelevant when we're discussing when an editor acts inappropriately. Inappropriate actions are so whether someone thinks they are justified or not. There are dispute resolution options when someone wants to approach things civilly, but the whole case being brought here is that the user does not approach things civilly and users are tired of that specific disruption. If it was a content issues, we wouldn't be at this noticeboard. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikidemon I have looked over your contribs and I see you like to write about gastronomy, and were probably expecting a more "foodie" article on organic food. The essence of organic farming and organic food is its "purity" - that food produced organically is better (for the land, for the workers, for the consumer) because of how it is was made. In my view, people who want to learn about organic, want to understand how it is different from conventionally produced food. Much of that is handled in the organic farming article but things specific to food are addressed in the organic food article. Whether there are differences between organic and conventinally produced food, and what they might be, are questions that can be investigated with science. Now there may well be a "foodie" orientation that could add value to the article - I am not sure what that would be, but maybe content about organic restaurants, content bringing in overlaps with the Locavore movement (it appears that what differences in taste with regard to organic may be attributed to those overlaps)... stuff like that. There are ways your perspective could add value to the article. But that stuff is quite separate from what Banner has been doing, which has been disrupting the article because he has wanted content to be included that organic food is more healthy and that eating it makes people more healthy, and those claims have generally not been supported by reliable sources, and Banner has turned to disruptive behavior in protest. Jytdog (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And again you are making things up, Jytdog. It is not a protest, it is plain concern about how a few people can keep an article POV and overly negative by applying a guideline (not a policy as is often claimed) that should not be applied at all. And what you do is just trying to silence a critical voice. The Banner talk 11:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • My point on the topic ban proposal is exactly as I say, that: (i) if The Banner's run-ins with other editors are broader than this one topic (which they may be if you do an archive search , then shooing them away on an article-by-article basis isn't useful; and (ii) complaints and !votes coming from one side of a POV dispute should be weighed carefully. The whole question of science and food comes in only inasmuch as this is a bona fide POV dispute, not one editor pushing fringe content. Being an encyclopedia means applying a scientific POV to claims about science, not to all of human knowledge. Whereas the "essence" of the organic food movement may be about meeting consumer desires for health, and environmental and social responsibility, the realization of those desires is an industry, a certification, distribution and retail channels, and a genre of food, which means that any intersection with science is only partial. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What I have been saying all along is we should look at this user's overall pattern of negativity. I have zero involvement with this topic. A small topic ban will not solve The Banner's general hostility to the opinions of other, well meaning editors (essentially forcing his POV); his constant incivility; and his mass deletion of relevant content. I fear this is about to fall off the ANI list into the archives with no resolution and he'll continue to get away with this pattern of activity . . . that is at least until he is back here again--as the above notation demonstrates he's apparently been in ANI 48 times already. Trackinfo (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And what is the relevance of that? Are you so desperate to get me blocked that you start using every form of harassment to get what you want? While you have been warned by an admin to stop harassing me multiple times? Want to keep gambling with that? The Banner talk 12:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I do think that this narrow topic ban would help at the article in question at least. Problems in other topics just establish the editor has been made aware of the problem behavior many times for the purpose of this ANI. If someone wants to pursue issues in a wider range, probably better to take a similar approach to WP:ROPE and see what happens after action on this specific topic. This has been open for 11 days now with one oppose actually asking about behavior with some good conversation following that, so maybe it would be helpful if an admin would give their assessment of consensus at this point unless more folks have comments on The Banner's behavior? Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree WP:ROPE would give everybody a chance to either see a correction in his behavior or to finally rid ourselves of him. What it takes is follow up. Like I said, he's been in ANI 48 times, this has been here you say for 11 days and yet nobody has taken the action to look at his record. Yes, its massive. He is on the cusp of being a top 1,000 editor and there are literally thousands of edits he's made that are protested by other editors; in hostile retorts to those protests; or defending his actions here and elsewhere. So let him hang himself, but it takes serious follow up, essentially a full time job. I tried to follow him for just a short period of time and it is too much labor to fight every hostile thing he does. And he bites. Of course, I'm not an admin. I did it the right way for an editor. For each erroneous deletion, I came back with multiple sources. That takes the defender much more work than his snap delete policy. So the investigation could be exhausting. He is great spouting off policy excuses, he will wikilawyer you on every point, repeatedly, but its all Bullshit. When do you say, enough is enough? He has already used up more than enough rope for me. Trackinfo (talk) 09:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Trackinfo, how many times are you warned to stop harassing me? I guess you did not get that message at all. The Banner talk 12:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    So folks, my appeal to get an Administrator to seriously look at this guy will get you this: "Stop icon This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. The Banner talk 12:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)" Trackinfo (talk) 14:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't forget to tell that admin Drmies has already told you twice to stop harassing me. Trackinfo! The Banner talk 16:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note - Banner's disruptive behavior of making personal attacks has been continuing, even as we are discussing his behavior here:
      • dif not getting it, saying this ANI is about content. "I have accepted by now that it is hopelessly POV and that you can get topic banned by pointing at that. "
      • dif just today: continuing the personal attacks, "Because you fail to acknowledge that it is in fact a content-conflict as that would be inconvenient for your cause". He doesn't even understand the problem. WP:IDHT Jytdog (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Irrefutable proof of...something.
      • Jytdog, are you serious? You call those statements "personal attacks"? The Banner does, it is true, use strong language every now and then, but I see nothing here that is even worth discussing, and I get the feeling that some (who aren't editors of that article, for instance) are just looking for an excuse to get Banner in trouble. Now, if the aggravating circumstances are to be found in some words and a picture on Banner's user page, I suggest that Formerly 98 removed the image from their talk page that proves without a shadow of a doubt that they are a troll. I'm kidding. Drmies (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You have to admit, I'm a good-looking guy....:>) Formerly 98 (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Formerly 98, I was pleased to be able to copy something fun and immediately appropriate here. Thanks for making my argument for me! Seriously, I don't think you'll gain much traction here from Banner's user page, which is probably why no one who isn't involved with the organic bit seems to have commented here... Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe its just me Drmies, but I'd say there is a difference between posting a tongue-in-cheek self portrait on one's userpage, and declaring one's intent to ignore Wikipedia guidelines and edit war on the other. Formerly 98 (talk) 04:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been stressed multiple times above and elsewhere to The Banner that a content dispute is not an excuse for behavior like this, but they keep going back to saying this is just a content dispute. Attempts to direct them towards the issue of their behavior in a helpful and good faith are met with hostility as can be seen in the responses throughout this poist. In the example diffs I gave above, I also left The Banner a warning on their talk page after constantly refusing to come to the article talk page, followed by The Banner leaving a warning on my talk page about edit warring for trying to get them to start discussing [8]. I tried to stress that the reason their reverts were being reverted was because they were ignoring repeated requests to come to the talk page [9], but it seems by that exchange that this user is more interested in going after those who point out their problem behavior. As Jytdog mentioned, definite IDHT behavior than acknowledging a problem, so it doesn't seem any amount of discussion will alleviate the issue, hence why we're here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kingofaces43, what I see is three diffs from August of last year where you revert the addition of apparently verified content with a somewhat lame reference to STATUS QUO--one man's status quo is another man's impeding progress. If those reverts are the extent of Banner's disruption (a half a year ago), well...and have you noted that, if Banner is edit warring there, then you are too? Drmies (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Drmies, I wouldn't call it blatant edit warring on my part (at least in comparison). How else are we supposed to respond when an editor ignores a current ongoing discussion? Remember that each time I had to ask for the talk page discussion to continue or for The Banner to rejoin the conversation rather than edit war contrary to the current discussion. The whole problem was that The Banner was trying to circumvent the discussion. The spirit of WP:EW is that we try to engage in discussion when there is a disagreement on content (as I was doing). I was trying to re-engage The Banner in discussion to bring them back to the conversation each time rather than trying to fight for content. Perspective matters here, so it's helpful to remember there was already discussion going on before the linked reverts.
    Basically, another editor added the content unsourced, discussion ensued. They brought some sources they thought would work, but the sources didn't' support the content as there was some orignial research going on to make the statement. There was quite a bit of discussion about this under the Perceptions heading I linked you to. The Banner had been involved in that conversation too, so he knew about it. At that point there was no consensus for a source that worked for the content and we were in the process of finding sources that would work. That's why I removed the unsourced content (the status quo comment) citing the ongoing work at the talk page since we were actively trying to rework the content and find sources. That's pretty standard practice for challenged new content, especially if unsourced while its being discussed and reworked. Keep in mind this was all before the reverts by The Banner, so there was plenty of talk page discussion. Then he tried to reinsert the content with the source that had been challenged already. I reverted pointing him back to the ongoing talk page discussion that he had already been involved in, but the reverts continued. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Also just to be clear, I never claimed this was the only incident of disruption at the article. I just gave it as a single example of the problematic behavior that I've experienced to keep things concise. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Drmies thanks for commenting, and for injecting some fun into the discussion. {i love that self-portrait :) } As I wrote above, I've been ignoring Banner's constant focus on contributors not content on Talk and the nasty remarks he keeps making, and his edit warring to retain any piece of crap content that is added as long as it is "positive" about organic food, and have asked him to contribute constructively. But when he threw down the gauntlet I felt he crossed the line. He has thrown AGF completely out the window and has not used any DR processes and has just degenerated into disrupting the article. It's time for him to go. At any point in this discussion he could have said, "hey, ok, i've been acting like a dick because i'm frustrated. sorry, I will use DR processes and chill out on Talk." he has come nowhere even near that - instead he is now making martyr-ish remarks. really it's time for him to be topic banned. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jytdog, I just don't see it. We've topic-banned plenty of people on this very board, but I don't see how Banner's behavior is a matter of reproach in the first place. I have skimmed the talk page and I may have missed a note or two, but what I expected to find there was some serious hardcore discussion of sources, and I don't see it. And the other thing I expected was maybe an RfC or two about the specific wording of this change or that, and I don't see that either. One could easily flip the tables and say that one editor is here being gang-tackled by a group of editors who also (note Kingofaces's linked edits) removed sourced content--and, one should add, this is supposed to be a two-way street: did you all seek dispute resolution? Finally, I don't see the personal attacks or the persistent focus on contributors, not content, that Banner is accused of. Can we not use our time more productively on the talk page? Have you considered 3O, or soliciting the opinion of some MEDRS experts? Later, Drmies (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for asking questions here Drmies (I'd rather see that than just support/opposes). I won't have time to respond to much else than this until later, but if you're referring to my three diffs up at my support post, you might have misread the situation. The content was originally unsourced by another user, and some discussion was already ongoing with multiple editors at the time before The Banner even added it, but there wasn't consensus that it was appropriate for the content well before my links. We basically were discussing a lot, but The Banner seemed to decide to just go ahead and add/revert the sources and content in. It's a little ways back (and a bit of read), but the conversation was here [10]. I'll comment on the other things later tonight when I'm back if no one else addresses them by then. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Hi Drmies, we have been putting up with this for two years now:
    • in November 2012 Banner first edited the article, leaping into an edit war (see the history here, around November 2012 to include sources like http://www.factorfizzle.com to support content on the safety and nutrient value of organic vs conventional food.
    • Banner's first comment on the article Talk page was also back in November 2012, and he asked, "why MEDRS"
    • his first response to the first answer went right to "Blatant nonsense" [11]
    • Actually I was wrong about no DR. Zad68 opened a mediation that failed back in December 2012 over all the ruckus and edit warring Banner caused then.
    • there were efforts to frame an RfC (here and here that failed - and if you read those, you can see why.
    • I got involved in late December and suggested a compromise - namely to handle "chemical" differences (of which some can actually be identified) separately from "health differences" from eating organic (none have been identified) (see here). That compromise has endured since then.
    • but Banner has been railing against the use of MEDRS for health claims about organic food for two years now. Please walk in our shoes. And you are ignoring his dare when asked to strike yet another charge of whitewashing: "Why should I? You have already brought me to AN/I, so let us see how that ends up". So what will the community do? How do we live with this guy who cannot hear that we need to use MEDRS for health claims? (a two year case of IDHT) Those are not rhetorical questions - I am really asking for your advice. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting approach. Why don't you tell that I initiated a possible RfC twice but that "you guys" (to give a short summery of the different people involved) could not accept my proposal? And why is there constant trouble at Organic food about stuff being removed? Quite often it were others adding stuff and seeing it removed on grounds of "failing MEDRS" or the polular "WP:OR". Is it not possible that something is wrong with the tight application of MEDRS when so many people have trouble with it? Only this year (just 19 days old) it happened to three other users to see their edits reverted by mr. Jytdog. We are talking about food, but sources from agricultural colleges and universities are often rejected as unreliable of failing MEDRS. And scientific research was, according to you, unreliable due to the "messiness of reality" but still you accept some scientific research, especially when it is vague or negative about organic food. You should apply the same rules for all scientific research, not cherrypicking the best ones for your goal. The Banner talk 13:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    MEDRS is policy. If you don't like it, the appropriate response is to work to change the policy, not to ignore it and and attack the characters of those who apply it. That's pretty much the way it works here and at any other organization for that matter. If you decide the rules don't apply to you because you don't agree with them, sanctions usually follow. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    (MEDRS is a guideline, Formerly!) There is so much more to Banner's bad behavior. I guess I am going to have to catalog the whole ugly history. That will take some time. But here is another example - a totally WP:POINT-y nomination for deletion back in November 2012. Sheesh. And it hasn't gotten much better. I will bring a whole slew of diffs on Talk and the article later. Jytdog (talk) 14:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you really that desperate to get me topic banned that you have to go back more then two years to find excuses? Sheesh. The Banner talk 01:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's called "establishing a pattern". If it goes back two years, then the time period is not the deal-killer you're making it out to be; quite the opposite, in fact. --Calton | Talk 05:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You can also look at it from the other side: they claim that the article is neutral and the use of MEDRS is valid. But there is a pattern of other people who also claim that the article is not neutral and that the application of MEDRS is at least heavy handed. The Banner talk 16:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Questions?. I'm a little surprised there hasn't been any action yet after this long considering we've had pretty clear personal attacks/civility issues and edit warring The Banner resorts to, especially when consensus is against them due to reliable sources, due weight, etc. Considering that, are there any questions about something that isn't clear about the specific behavior issues for other folks reading here? What exactly are people looking for to make a decisions one way or another?
    The Banner just can't accept that their behavior in attempting to deal with content they disagree with is problematic and tries to claim they are being attacked instead in some fashion instead of trying to avoid the behavior problems. [12] Past history (apparently 48 ANIs) shows this behavior is a persistent problem, so I'd like to see if we can get some kind of resolution so those of us at the article don't need to keep putting up with continued personal attacks and aspersions whenever we do something The Banner doesn't agree with. It seems we have more than enough for the proposed warning by Formerly 98 at a minimum, and a topic ban seems like a no-brainer for anyone who's had to deal with the behavior first hand at least, but what kind of information are uninvolved editors looking for? Hopefully answering that can bring this to a close if something is unclear. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - A topic ban is drastic and excessive for this incident on organic foods. The inserted statement at that article, while true, is vague in meaning, so it says little. I've also seen problems around MEDRS, as I have a history with it, and have seen other editors have a history with it. There were times where I believed there was false consensus, and eventually seen those articles grow more neutral. I've seen editors come and go, and had this belief there was NPOV, when they inserted something reliable, but it was removed because it wasn't a review, or they didn't have access to the review. The whitewashing remark looked like the perceived actions, and not necessarily a personal attack. I propose resolution to seek out a good source to include what organic has over natural foods. - Sidelight12 Talk 04:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As has been mentioned before, this has been an ongoing issue, not an isolated incident just to make sure that is clear. From your response, it seems like you might have taken just a glance at a few things (completely understandable given the length of this). The reason The Banner is being discussed is because of their behavior, not a content dispute. Voicing a concern of whitewashing is one thing on a talk page (variable in appropriateness), but edit warring citing white washing by users rather than specific reliable source or weight concerns is a problem because it contributes to the history attacking editors. The snipes are very directed at editors and not content if you follow the diffs and the talk page discussions linked above, and below by Jytdog. What do you think is the best way to prevent the behavior issue regardless of dispute with that in mind? Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I'm just an outside observer here but I've been on the receiving end in the past of what felt like a tag-team effort by Jytdog, Formerly98 and KingofAces43. Spending a few days studying their edit histories is very informative. They, plus some other editors like Yobol(and a few others), seem to work as a team. That's my impression. And their edits tend to be beneficial to the big end of town, never the other way around. It could be coincidental, but thought it worth mentioning. Under these circumstances, Banner should receive the benefit of the doubt. MLPainless (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a quick note for anyone trying to determine consensus, but it would seem like MLPainless has a separate ax to grind here as they aren't commenting on The Banner's behavior in their opposition. They've run into frustration in tackling WP:FRINGE topics at Talk:Vani Hari and Talk:Sunset Yellow FCF somewhat recently, which is what their above comments are based on. The editors that have interacted with MLPainless are largely from over at WP:MED (e.g. [13]) when problems at those articles were discussed there, and those editors came to check things out.
    As a science editor, I for one get very tired of people passionate about a topic casting aspersions like above (shills, white-washing, etc. from some other editors) whenever they don't agree. It's a distraction at best, which is why we're hoping for some kind of action in the case of The Banner to get them to stop the behavior. If they actually want to discuss content instead of lashing out, then that's what we're looking for. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's an example of what I mean: within 3 hours of my comment above, user "Formerly 98" went through my edit history and deleted/modified edits I made at Atrazine, edits that tended to raise some flags of concern about a hugely profitable pesticide. If you look at that article's history, you'll see him and Jytdog (and Kingfaces43) removing all possible comments that cast a negative light on Atrazine. Their editing is almost entirely exonerating of the chemical, despite numerous primary studies showing problems. Those studies, even when there are several, by different researchers, all pointing to a similar conclusion, are tagteam deleted on the grounds of "not a secondary or review study". And even when I included a review study, it was deleted on the grounds that the review study was "polemic".
    Now I don't care that Wikipedia is being expunged of any trace of doubt about profitable chemicals, and that all evidence for organic food is being deleted under the guise of MEDRS, but I'm not going to resile from commenting that it is happening, and that it's a shame. I've also looked at Banner's history and I really cannot see what the fuss is about. He can be a bit gruff, but not to the point of topic banning. This seems like yet another content dispute in which the corporate view is being rammed through. MLPainless (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Banner's history on the article and Talk

    This is quite a wall of text. but it seems that folks aren't getting the history here. So here it is.

    • article Banner came in hard and edit-warring, pretty much vanished, and has come back since the fall getting more and more nasty.
    • talk page

    Am just giving sections for the hell that broke loose when Banner 1st entered the article, with much vitriol on his part.

    There you go. You can see the whole thing there. Like I said - came in ugly. got frustrated, and now comes back mostly in WP:POINT-y ways, making personal attacks and disrupting discussion. Please topic ban him. I will settle for a strong warning to 1) stop discussing contributors and discuss content, with a topic ban the next time he does so; and 2) to use WP:DR tools to deal with his concerns instead of venting on the rest of us and edit warring. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It is a nice list of my edits. I guess each and everyone was reverted...
    And it is interesting to see that Jytdog gets irritated when I used his own words "due to the messiness of reality" to question the content of the article. I am willing to believe the "due to the messiness of reality"-statement but than it has to be applied on all content, not just the inconvenient content. The Banner talk 00:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I note an interesting gap between end of August 2014 and beginning of November (after almost daily attention in August) in his attention to the article that corresponds to my issues with him. Starting September 1, he nominated a slew of articles for deletion, documented by @Tomwsulcer: here that I suggested were, as a package, in bad faith. I explained my concern on his talk page. Tomwsulcer also commented and was deleted. @Milowent: also tried to talk sense to him to deaf ears here. I laid it on thick here and his response was to delete it within 5 minutes. He went through the four stages of warning me in 6 minutes here to here, which is certainly not the way the system is intended but got to the point that by the technicality he could use the stop or get blocked threat (which he used repeatedly, see above). So I had an active, conscious vandal, deliberately trying to force his POV through AfD nominations. I challenged all his bad faith AfD nominations the proper way, by adding sources he deliberately failed to find from the first pages of Google when attacking these articles. I won every case, which clearly shows he is the one out of line. Originally I tried to show how each individual bad faith nomination was not a singular event but part of a package. Apparently according to user:Drmies, disclosing these facts, suggesting the offender should be stopped, are personal attacks. So I had to back off. I gave a few key notations in this summation for brevity, there's plenty more.
    The general point is, he didn't calm down and stop being obnoxious, he only diverted his efforts toward me for a couple of months. When I backed off, he turned his attention back to the article in question. There is an obvious pattern of behavior here. He's a moving target causing trouble to multiple users wherever he goes and as I have said above, is in need of serious disciplinary action (or psychological help) beyond this one complaint. Somebody please go through his history (contact me and I'll be glad to guide you to the dirt I have, both my interactions and his conflicts with more than 30 other users) and make a reasonable determination if we want this person constantly making hostile edits and interactions as a representative, as a member of our team. Do we want him to take ownership of any article he chooses to get involved with? Do we want more 3RR violations, more civility disputes, more wikilawyering to force POV and points into articles of his choosing? It is obvious even from his comments here, he will use any tactic and tool possible to bully his "opponents" to get his way. If you just topic ban him on this one topic, it will not solve the problem, he will just take his show elsewhere. After he has assaulted another editor with his barrage of tactics, they might get to the point that they find their way back to ANI with him and we do this dance again. Trackinfo (talk) 11:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact I was trying to ignore your silly quest to get me blocked. I tried to ignore your personal attacks and harassment. But yu won't give up. And accusing me of a bias against articles related to pageants is not true. There is clearly a problem but you seem to ignore it. And the problem there is, amongst others, this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrdhimas/Archive. And yes, I have send your attack page to MfD (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Trackinfo/sandbox/Banner). How long do you want to go on and on and on? The Banner talk 05:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I forgot to note above that I made a good faith effort to discuss this issue headon with Banner and with the new editor I mentioned above, Redddbaron (a farmer who is new to WP and its sourcing guidelines). That discussion is here: here] It sadly devolved into personal attacks. Jytdog (talk) 14:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It would have been better when you offered this link: Talk:Organic food/Archive 5#concerns about bias...., an interesting story of not listening to the real content problem. You are willing to listen to everything, except anything that questions the application of MEDRS and flawed neutrality of the article due to the strict application of MEDRS. You talk about everything here, except the content problems. The Banner talk 05:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    requesting close

    This has gone on long enough and we have crept to the top of this page. Can an admin please review and close? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I just requested a close at the "request close" board here. Jytdog (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Winkelvi

    User page

    Winkelvi (talk · contribs) is using his User page to criticize, without naming him, User:Coretheapple, with whom he is an edit-war over on Bess Myerson, currently discussed on WP:AN3. Winkelvi has used his user page to criticize other (unnamed) editors, in violation of WP:POLEMIC, one month ago over an incident reported here, and was told, here, this was a violation, and an admin reverted his User page. Seeing the new attack, I reverted it twice, making sure the edit history was clear as to the reason. Winkelvi insists on keeping the attack. At this point, I leave it to admins. Choor monster (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Untrue. My comments in my user space are not now and never have been directed toward any one editor. Choor monster is, in my opinion, using the AN3 report to attack me there and here as well as harass me at my User Page by editing it not once, but twice (the second time after I told him to stop). This report and his edit warring at my User Page is about retaliation and trying to create drama in my direction, nothing more. Choor Monster wants to see me blocked and punished, plain and simple. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    POLEMIC applies regardless if it is directed at one editor or a group. -- Calidum 18:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, it doesn't matter whether the criticism was introduced with specific others in mind or not. Quoting from WP:POLEMIC as to what's not allowed: "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws." Choor monster (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Diff added: [14], note that the problematic language is more than just the words currently at-issue (ie, bolded by the diff). The words which were added during the WP:AN3 dispute are the one's I can confidently identify with the dispute. I presume the other attack language was added over some other incident, but I have no interest in tracking this nonsense down. Choor monster (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Just saw the "ping" of my user name. As I understand it, the language in question is [15]. Yes this is obviously a guarded reference to my report at AN3, but given his past record at that board, and his being blocked based on a "list of diffs" at that board in the past, I'm not sure how anyone other than Winkelvi is harmed by drawing attention to it. Coretheapple (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not a question of harm, whether to others being attacked or to Winkelvi embarrassing himself: it's simply not allowed. His restoring the polemics is explicitly considered a form of disruptive editing. See link above to last month, when similar "anonymous" childish polemics on his user page were noticed and deleted by an admin. Also note Winkelvi's edit summaries: massive hypocrisy as he claims WP:OWNership. Choor monster (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I never did get why the original POLEMIC complaint here did not rate compared to the previous POLEMIC referred to above that was removed. At least his newest criticism of editors comes with a soothing nature illustration. Perhaps it's a defense against trouts? Choor monster (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    He is using his userspace to criticize, without naming, me now. [16] This revision was added after he was warned for edit warring again just yesterday and asked to stop editing All About That Bass for a week at User talk:Winkelvi. - Lips are movin 07:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The user has just confirmed to the WP:WIKIHOUNDing accusations by reverting me here. Note that they never edited this page before that one and out of nowhere reached to revert my contribution. MaRAno FAN 08:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit summary says that he is removing content not contained in the cited source. This is not wikihounding. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether it's a good or bad edit is irrelevant in the definition of wikihounding. In fact, part of the reason WV shows up in ANI a lot is because of his atrocious habit of prolonging conflicts with specific editors. He'll be in some conflict, repeatedly Template an opponent (usually unaware of any hypocrisy on his part), asked to stay off the opponent's Talk page, respond by saying it's his right and duty (again, pure hypocrisy), and then find (or even bait) some borderline infraction of the opponent so he gets to Template the opponent's Talk page again. Not officially wikihounding, no, but his inability to rise above "nyeah nyeah nyeah" behavior has become endlessly tiresome. On his Talk page right now, his left hand is promising to never edit war again because he really really gets the message, while his right hand is defending his (for-now-blocked) aggressive, incompetent, and ultimately pointless reversion of a minor addition to Sally Field. Choor monster (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes of course it's wikihounding. If I did that I'd be roasted over a slow fire. Re your Sally Field reference, I think you're referring to this revert. He is correct that it is unsourced. On his user talk page, he defended that by paraphrasing WP:BLPSOURCES. However, by so doing, he shows that he does not understand BLPSOURCES. Policy requires removal of material "challenged or likely to be challenged." But the passage in question says that Sally Field was going to host TCM! It is not at all controversial or likely to be challenged. He should have tagged it (or better still, taken a few seconds to find a source, such as [17]) and not hit the revert button. This kind of thing keeps on happening again and again, and Winkelvi reacts by apologizing profusely to administrators, pledging on a stack of bibles not to do it again, and then doing it again. Coretheapple (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikihounding is defined as introducing conflict on more than one page beyond any initial interaction, pages that could only reasonably be found by scanning an editor's history. I haven't see that: WV is careful to stick to one new page per opponent.
    (I replaced my "reversions" with "reversion".) Note that his previous reversion on the Sally Field article cited WP:CRYSTAL incompetently: forward-looking announcements are allowed. That's right, he edit wars without knowing policy. A few weeks ago, he edit-warred deleting references because he was unaware that foreign language sources are acceptable.
    I think nothing less than a 1RR restriction on WV will work when the block is finished. And he has to permanently agree to stop misusing the word "vandalism" and "harassment". And probably respect every last request to stay off User Talk pages. Otherwise, these time-wasting absolutely repetitive reports are just going to keep on coming and coming and coming. Bleah. Choor monster (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the wikihounding rule is quite that narrow. If I check out the contribs of a user I'm in conflict with and then pop up to revert him, I'm at least violating the spirit of the rule and gaming the system. MaranoFan is no angel but he's not a serial vandal who needs to be followed around to revert misconduct. Coretheapple (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If by "hound" you mean this little guy, well sure. Choor monster (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's about right. Coretheapple (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not involved in any of the pages mentioned here, but I have encountered Winkelvi (aka WV) at 2014 Oso mudslide, where he was notably aggressive with contentious edits, several times amounting to edit warring. This is a persistent behavior; the comment by Bbb23 (below) that "Winkelvi can be difficult at times" is an understatement. I think you will find Choor Monster's comment prophetic: without action beyond temporary blocks (which WV admittedly just waits out) these reports will "keep on coming and coming and coming". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Bess Myerson

    No doubt administrators have been monitoring it and the article for a couple of days now, Coretheapple. Yes, there are "issues". Not the least of which is your refusal to work cooperatively with and cease being uncivil toward me. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, then it is a good thing they are there. Peace. Coretheapple (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, to clarify: when I said there are "issues," I was referring to the copyright violations that you have said are present in the article. You said in a talk page post a few hours ago: Oh, and one more thing: interestingly, the Miss America webpage for Bess Myerson has content that identically matches and almost identically matches what's in the Myerson article here. I don't know when it was put in or who did it, but obviously, it will have reworded here considerably when the article is unlocked. Can't have any more copyvios and verbatim lifts of content from online sources than we already do, eh? You have not substantiated this very serious claim, by providing the name of the webpage and the text that was you say was duplicated, so that it can be fixed. Also you imply that there are other copyright issues that would also need to be addressed if they exist. I raised the issue a few hours ago and you have yet to address this issue. But yes, there are editor behavior issues, that is correct. Coretheapple (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Winkelvi has made 57 edits to the talk page of Bess Myerson[18] and 117 edits to the article itself in just the last two days,[19] six of which have been explicit reverts. I believe that Winkelvi should take a long break from this article (and possibly others as well) or the community should separate him from the topic. His obsessive editing of the article and talk page has not improved it, only disrupted it. I attempted to address this problem on this talk page only to be told that my comments were "inappropriate" and that I was trolling and creating drama. Further, the editor has tried to make a number of false claims against Coretheapple to distract us from his problematic behavior, while at the same time, running to an admin's talk page to try and start a false RfC against Coretheapple. I'm wondering if this is a returning user with a cleanstart account, because this bad behavior seems very familiar. Viriditas (talk) 04:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have no idea why Viriditas believes his unsolicited opinion on my editing is relevant or why he thinks he knows what he's talking about in regard to any of the things he mentioned above, but he's getting so much wrong, it's nearly comical. Out of the blue (never having edited the Myerson article, that I can tell), he came to my talk page not once, not twice, but three times with claims that I was harassing Coretheapple. Which is totally incorrect. His edits to my talk page (where he admitted in the first comment, "I don't know what's going on between you and Coretheapple...") are found here [20]; [21]; [22]. His comments were totally inappropriate and became harassment, in my opinion (as are his comments above, the more I think about them). As far as the RfC he referenced where I was asking for advice at an administrator's talk page, the RfC was to be about a content dispute, not Coretheapple. Lastly, his suggestion I am a sock is ridiculous and I'd really appreciate him striking the accusation above. What he's doing is, in my view, surreal drama. If there was truly an issue with my edits or alleged disruption at the Myerson article, I would have been blocked for it days ago. For whatever reason, it appears Viriditas is interested in seeing me sanctioned for something, anything he can come up with. And I have no idea why. Like I said, this is all out of the blue. And weird, if you ask me. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Addendum: Looking more closely at Viriditas' Wikipedia history raises more questions for me than gives answers. I was looking to see if he and I had ever really crossed paths in the past (possibly explaining his need to see me sanctioned). In so doing, I couldn't find anything where we had actually edited articles together previously, but I did find a VERY extensive block log that ranges from 2007 until September 2014. His longest block was three months for edit warring and disruptive editing. A one week block was for "feuding with another editor, persistently making unsubstantiated accusations, and other disruptive editing" (sounds not much different from what he's doing to me). Of the 12 blocks he's received in 7 1/2 years, the majority are for edit warring (what he's accusing me of), most are that coupled with disruptive editing, several are for behavior toward other editors. Considering this record and the drama that goes with it, I should not be surprised that he is coming at me in the fashion he is. Although I still don't know why he's decided to target me. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    As mentioned to winkelvi directly on his talk page (although Im sure he will delete it ) An IP account does not indicate vandalism, nor should it. This is discrimination. If you feel that ever user of wikipedia should have a registered account then lobby wikipedia to change the rules and block all IP users. You shouldnt take it into your own hands to revert all changes by IP's because they are IP's . or fail to check their sources because they are IP's. Or generally mistreat users because they are IP's .You should treat IP's the same as registered users until there is an offcial wikipedia statement that says IP's should be treated in a different way to registered users. You shouldnt unilaterally impose your own predujiced policies. WInkelvi (see his contrib history / diffs) repeatedly picks on noob IP users and scares them away from wikipedia by his bullying / edit warring tactics. I find this unfair and disproportionate.181.64.192.86 (talk) 03:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment from new drive-by: I was alerted to this discussion by a respectful and non-canvassing message left on my talk by WV, who I don't think I have met previously. I took a look at the Myerson article, and it seems to me that the resolution of this issue is pretty much what is happening: full protection of article, with all edits subject to broad consensus (not necessarily unanimity) until everyone has settled down and learns to work together. Seems that is the solution. I find that topic bans are not terribly useful or helpful, they just provide more fodder for drama. A grownup to monitor the dispute should settle this. I don't see much more than the usual spat between two editors who are both convinced that they are correct and are getting pissed off at each other. Montanabw(talk) 19:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Two editors? You should look closer at that page and this discussion.I am an uninvolved editor, as is Viriditas, and the talk page shows WV at loggerheads with various editors. Since you were explicitly canvassed by Winkelvi your comments should not be considered even if they reflected reality. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am discussing the original dispute between Coretheapple and WV. I've never met either of them before. The fact that one of them asked me to swing by does not negate my views. AGF. Montanabw(talk) 08:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC) Montanabw(talk) 08:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    At Talk:Bess Myerson and in the article, it has been Winkelvi versus myself, User:Bus stop, User:Alanscottwalker, User:7157.118.25a, User:NE Ent, and User:Classicfilms. Coretheapple (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As I was named here, I guess I should respond. Mountanbw's, opposing of article bans on principle is not responsive to the issues at hand (and I hope will not be taken into account), if you oppose them on principle then get such bans stricken from policy. In the meantime, the User:WV's behavior will more than likely continue dragging the editing environment down and it is small limited actions such as this that can turn it around before it is too late. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I can respond as well. I dropped by the page a few days ago and made a lone post about the substance of the debate. From my perspective CoretheApple does appear correct that Bess Myerson hosted Miss America contests, and there is good sourcing supporting that.[23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] I don't plan on getting involved other than to briefly share my take on the evidence though, evidence that hopefully helped resolve the contention. --7157.118.25a (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    WV "versus" NE Ent? Who knew? Certainly not me. I started discussing the edit after seeing this here thread (see Talk:Bess_Myerson#Break) and it didn't seem terribly difficult to come to a resolution. If "You've persuaded me with logic. Thanks for taking so much of your time to help work this out. I appreciate your patience, kindness, and efforts." is what "versus" looks like I should find more "enemies." NE Ent 00:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, it's that it took AN/I involvement to get to that minor edit, that demonstrates the disruptive problem with the WV approach. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring to your opposing his plagiarism claim via this comment. Was I mistaken? Do you think there was plagiarism? That's the most important thing to come up on the talk page and, as far as I can see, not a single editor supported him in that. Coretheapple (talk) 00:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    WV falsely accused me of being an SPA when I made some edits to the Mike Huckabee page that he didn't like, right after I started an account. That's why I dropped by the Bess Myerson page when seeing him involved in a controversy on it, I was curious to see if he treats everyone like he did me. Given my past history with him I don't think I should be voting on this. I'll admit I am not thrilled with his approach however, and that is putting it mildly. --7157.118.25a (talk) 04:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. Looking at the link NE Ent provided above, I found one exchange that makes me question WV's competence to edit -- or simply a willingness to be a rules-wanker: Classicfilms points out that Myerson is dead, & thus WP:BLP no longer applies, to which WV states "BLP articles remain BLPs and BLP policies and guidelines stay in place in regard to the article for up to two years". Uh, BLP means "Biography of a Living Person", & the exception WV quotes is for contentious content. Stating that a Jewish person encountered anti-Semitism in the 1940s is not contentious -- & was a very common occurrence. (BTW, it is generally accepted that African-Americans encountered prejudice in the 1940s, too.) -- llywrch (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. As noted by the diff's WV turns the uncontentious into the contentious - thus they need to reform or they will be regularly seen as incompetent or disruptive - the pedia does not need such contention over nothing - we have enough of the other kind. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    ... which I would suggest is unlikely to happen if warnings of edit warring are followed by still more warnings when he edit wars and violates 3RR. Or as happened today, something a little less than a warning. I've lost count as to how many warnings he's received for edit warring. Two in the last month I believe, before this latest episode? Coretheapple (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Bess Myerson topic ban

    Winkelvi's obsession with Bess Myerson has led to him making hundreds of disruptive edits to the article and talk page in only a 48 hour period. This obsession has disrupted the topic area, created animosity among users, and led to him making numerous false allegations and accusations, including edit warring. Winkelvil's obsessive behavior, lack of good faith, and inability to recognize the views of others requires some time away from this topic to allow editors to work harmoniously again. Therefore, I propose a three month topic ban for this purpose. Viriditas (talk) 05:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Strong support as proposer. The disruption of Talk:Bess Myerson is the worst I've seen in a while. Winkelvil lacks the core competency needed to edit and discuss in this topic area. He has wasted the valuable time of many editors and has taken zero responsibility for his role. A topic ban is the best solution at this time. Viriditas (talk) 08:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Obesession"? What obsession? I was editing the article just as much as Coretheapple. Less, I'm pretty certain. Further, his claim that I have made 100s of disruptive edits at the article is absurd. Look at the Bess Myerson article history, look at my edits there. 117 edits at the article, and very good edits to boot. Coretheapple has 152 edits at the same article Viriditas claims I'm "obsessed" with. The surreal nature of Viriditas' proposal and accusations against me boggles my mind. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Your disruption was recently substantiated on the 3RR noticeboard, and the current talk page features it in spades. Further, several editors have repeatedly asked you to modify your behavior, including myself and Cullen, and your response in both cases was to tell us to fuck off, metaphorically speaking. Neither my behavior nor Coretheapple's, or anyone else's for that matter, is the problem here. Viriditas (talk) 07:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support The false plagiarism claim, discussed on the talk page here, is just the latest indication that this editor is disruptive to an extent that can no longer be tolerated. His attacks on Viriditas' character are par for the course. Coretheapple (talk) 15:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh God. I just reviewed the talk page, as I wanted to edit the article and it is fully protected. The discussion here is pinged. Normal discussion on that page has completely broken down, and this editor's utter absence of clue is appalling. Support topic ban, a permanent one. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I don't see anything here that needs to be handled at ANI. This topic went from alleged user page probblems and POLEMIC to "false" claims of plagiarism on the Myerson page. I see several editors here who don't like the way Winkelvi conducts themselves. Mind you, Winkelvi can be difficult at times, but this report is not even constructive.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Why the scare quotes? It was a false report. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 18:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I was never really sure about that "polemic" claim, but the points that Viriditas makes are well-taken. He is not an editor of the article, does not claim previous interaction, and evidently became concerned after seeing the activity on the talk page. Ditto Figureofnine. I'm also wondering why you don't feel the plagiarism and copyvio claims were groundless, as they clearly were, and were disruptive and above all were total wastes of time. At the most there is one phrase in the article that might need tweaking. But his claiming, in an highly inflammatory manner, that "the Miss America webpage for Bess Myerson has content that identically matches and almost identically matches what's in the Myerson article" and that there were "copyvios and verbatim lifts of content from online sources" was jut plain false. If the false plagiarism/copyvio claims were the only problem I don't think we'd be here. Coretheapple (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Distracting material. Please return to Bess Myerson issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    I "get" WP:RS just fine. As someone on the Autism Spectrum who sees the world differently than neurotypicals (such as those in this thread), I'm just seeing RS from a slightly different angle. And there's nothing wrong with that. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am an old goat with bad eyes who sees the world even differently than you do. But I am bound by site policies and so are you. Coretheapple (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am an old goat with bad eyes as well. And I never said nor implied I'm not bound by policy. In fact, as someone on the Spectrum, I'm likely much more aware of the "rules" in relation to my behavior in Wikipedia as well as in life. That's a hallmark of those of us with ASD. We are honest, we are straightforward in our behavior, and we are rule followers who have a hard time fathoming why anyone wouldn't be. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a hard time fathoming why you are giving us a self-serving description of your character. The only thing that matters is your behavior on the page. Coretheapple (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Because the only thing that makes sense to me regarding the treatment (behavior) I've been receiving and the accusations I've been subject of since I came to the Myerson article is that my motives and edits at the article as well as my comments on the article talk page have been completely misunderstood. If that's the case (and I believe it is), then explaining and asking for some understanding is warranted. Wikipedia editors aren't expected to androids that respond and behave in a canned manner, every one of us is a human being with a life story. It stands to reason that our life stories will color our editing as well as our interactions with other editors from time to time (or even more often than from time to time). The editors that don't fall into the typical category... are they to be dismissed and tossed aside and topic banned or should they be accepted and worked with in spite of their differences and the misunderstandings that may surround them? Sometimes I think Wikipedia editors get so wrapped up in editing and the various peripheral things surrounding their efforts that we forget everyone here is a real human being. What's more important, editors or edits? Remember, without editors there would be no edits. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Winkelvil, you are not medically qualified to assess the mental states of other users, and even if you were, you would not be able to do it in this thread. Your comments about neurotypicals in this thread is so far over the line, that I think you should be indefinitely blocked until you are able to understand and recognize the problem. Viriditas (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Neurotypical" is not a reference to "mental states", it's a common term used that references those not on the Autism Spectrum. Apparently, from your comments, it's obvious you know nothing about Autism. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Your medical claims couldn't be less relevant to this discussion. I am sure that there is a neurological explanation for much misconduct on Wikipedia. So what? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It most certainly is a reference to a mental state, and you have no business assessing, diagnosing, or commenting on who is or who isn't neurotypical in this thread. The only business you have here is responding directly to the concerns about your behavior, which, as far as I can tell, you have ignored, denied, distracted from, and brushed off. Do not make any further comments about autism or neurotypicals in this thread. You seem to do so only to denigrate others and justify your bad behavior. It's not acceptable. Viriditas (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    All I'm seeing is more ignorance on what Autism is ("medical claims" is one example). I'm also seeing yet another misunderstanding regarding what I've said. Editors on the Spectrum are in Wikipedia, and it's time the neurotypical editors get used to it and start to understand what it means. Just like in the real world (which Wikipedia isn't). I will not be dictated to by a non-administrator regarding comments about ASDs in this thread or any other. It's not a verboten subject. Such demands are discriminatory and I hope someone with an influential Wikipedia voice takes notice. I will NOT be quiet about discrimination. Ever. I suggest all of you read User:ThatPeskyCommoner/The Autie Pact as well as Wikipedia:High-functioning autism and Asperger's editors and [31]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    But Viriditas is correct. You gave made no substantive reply. You HAVE brushed off, ignored, denied and distracted from the issues evident to NE Ent, Viriditas and myself, as well as to involved editor Core. Your invoking a medical condition is in extremely poor taste, and Viriditas is correct that you are in no position to diagnose the medical state of other editors, who may well be struggling more than you claim to be but are not advertising it quite as flamboyantly as you do. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (@NE Ent). It's a bit more than that. The user does not appear to be reading sources, or has been reading them and not understanding them, and generally ignoring/disregarding/not grasping what is said to him. I had never previously encountered this person until he appeared on my user talk page a few days ago concerning my edit summary here[32]. Ms. Myerson had suffered a bout of ovarian cancer, and someone had tagged it "When?" I looked at the reference at the end of the sentence, added when she had cancer, and said in my edit summary "Rather than tagging "when," more constructive to look at the footnoted article, which gives the date." Winkelvi went on my page to say as follows

    Re: this edit and edit summary [7], it's actually more appropriate to put the content in the article than in a footnote. Casual readers or readers unfamiliar with Wikipedia goings-on-in-editing are unlikely to look at a footnote and will wonder the same as I: when? where?. We're here to inform readers not force them to look deeper for content that can just as easily be inserted in the body of the article.[33]

    As you can see, I very clearly and explicitly did not call for text to be put in a footnote, and I did not do so. I simply said that the answer to the "when" question is in the footnoted source. There were two other replies, both misunderstandings on his part.[34] At no time did he acknowledge error or misunderstanding, he just charged on, and as far as I know he believes to this day that he was in the right. What happened on my talk page is no big deal, but having this person hammer away on the article talk page and in the article itself and not getting the point is disruptive. He blames this problem on everything and everybody except himself. Lamentably this editor's position seems to be that "that's the way he is," and I guess it's just our tough luck if he's disruptive. He is just a burden that we have to bear, and if we don't like it we can lump it. Coretheapple (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, looking harder I see there's an actual conflict between sources, which is I believe was the point WV was making. Obviously not a discussion for here. NE Ent 21:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, but you see, the problem was that WV treated the situation as a zero-sum game, that he was "right" and the various obits describing her as host were wrong, and said on the page[35] that "Myerson was never the show host" in the face of all the sources that were offered up. Coretheapple (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    NE Ent, I've worked on hundreds of articles. Sources tend to conflict everywhere, and I expect to find that problem in every article. It's not a real problem, because there are tried and true methods to determine how to best represent conflicting sources. For the most recent example of how User:Tryptofish and myself handled conflicting sources, see Talk:David_Rioch#Two_conflicting_sources. The point is that one does not need to disrupt a topic area and engage in edit wars to deal with this. The exchange between Tryptofish and myself consisted of only several comments, with collaborative editing continuing unimpeded. The problem under discussion in this thread, is not concerned with such easy issues. We are discussing the behavioral problems of a user who lacks the competency to deal with conflicting sources. Viriditas (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support The editor, WV, has shown incompetence - and is an edit-warrior,[36] and they should be embarrassed for the way they have handled themselves beginning with their attempt to censor the word "antisemitism" from the article,[37] and the statement in their first talk-page comment: "I hope to get to looking further into the references and finding the answers" Here's good advice, don't edit, if you have not looked into the sources. Then their flat-out contradicting the sources that use the term "host" in a way the editor personally disagrees with and their false claims of plagiarism against other editors p[38] [39], but most of all their utter inability to work with others. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What? 100's of words and days of arguing, for that? And the "host" thing is only the latest. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    One down and how much to go? We still have WV opposing the passage concerning Myerson's experiences with anti-Semitism, partly because we don't know that the "No Jews" signs she saw were directed at her! I'm serious.[40] Coretheapple (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Support Repeated edit warring from user:winkelvi and a complete disregard for other users. He does not appear to read sources, or revisions and just cares anout "winning". He does not understand the colaborative nature of wikipedia and is unwilling to concede academic points. I would ban him from the site for 10 days. 186.9.81.168 (talk) 03:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
    What analysis? And what does it have to do with scope? Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've unhatted the portion of this discussion in which Winkelvi gives essentially a "medical defense" for his conduct in the article. I agree that it is a distraction, but he really has nothing else to say, apart from attacking Viriditas. This discussion was hatted after Winkelvi made an appeal to BBB23, who is a participant in this discussion. Participants in discussions should not be moderating those very discussions to remove or hide material put there by the subject of the discussion. Winkelvi's response is very much relevant and that is his only response. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it's relevant. Whether it should be hatted or not is sort of a separate issue. Hatting does tend to "hide" material, and yes, it is used to hide irrelevant material. But when the irrelevant material is, essentially, the "case of the defense," then why hide it? It's a distraction, but that in itself is relevant, as it indicates how he behaves in talk page discussions. Winkelvi's response to this ANI report has been to smear Viritidas, who has never been in conflict with him so far as I know, and to bring this discussion to the attention of an editor he apparently is on good terms with.[41] The hatted discussion, which was commenced by Winkelvi raising his medical condition, was in sum and substance an appeal for sympathy on the grounds that he has a medical situation of some kind. But what I find a bit illogical is that he claims to have done nothing wrong. If he has done nothing wrong, then what is the pertinence of his autism or whatever it is he claims to have? He wants to have it both ways. Coretheapple (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Figureofnine, Coretheapple, I have reinstated Bbb23's hatting. There is no "hiding"--if something can be shown by clicking, then it is not hidden. The material is distracting and not to the point. You may claim that Bbb is involved because he commented, but I disagree: that does not meet the burden of WP:INVOLVED. Besides, you would then have to argue that the hatted material reflects poorly on Winkelvi and that hatting it somehow helps his case, and that Bbb is actively working to help his case--you will find that this is impossible to do. Finally, this is the Administrators' noticeboard, and if an administrator decides that it is a good idea to hat something, then you are just going to have to accept that. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Draconian solutions do not work as a rule, and where the reasoning does not remotely support a Draconian solution, I invariably oppose such. Bbb23 is correct here. Collect (talk) 12:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you been to the the Myerson talk page? An editor like this can exhaust other editors. This one reminds me of User:Wondering55. Users like that need to clean up their act immediately or they can be immensely damaging to the project. Ultimately he had to be sitebanned. What's proposed here is mild, not Draconian. He claims to have a form of Autism and maybe he's telling the truth. But we're not neurological professionals and it's not fair to ask us to carry that kind of burden. I wouldn't even attempt to edit that page with Winkelvi active there. Life is too short. Bbb23 says Winkelvi is "difficult." That's easy for him to say. How about a little empathy for editors who have to cope with the Wondering55s and the Winkelvis? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What's draconian about it? Calling it "draconian" does not make it so, and is not reasoning. The purpose of some time away from this topic, is so editor/and the Pedia may not wind up in more disruption. WV, edit warred, does not read sources or misrepresents sources; disputes that undoubted RS that contain the same things as other reliable sources should be followed, accuses other editors of plagiarism that is unsubstantiated, causes days of talk page back and forth over inserting an "a" before "host", when no one was opposed to an "a". Collect, it is your !vote that has provided no reasoning. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm separating this subsection from the one above it, as it was brought by a different user and is totally unrelated. As for the topic ban, I didn't originate this ANI (and to be frank I am not sure I would have come here in the first place, as this is really cut out more for the old "RfC/U," now terminated, than for a drama board.) Anyway, once Viritidas, an uninvolved editor, started this, I had thought that the Bess Myerson talk page spoke for itself. But it's not reasonable to expect editors to wade through mountains of text. If we need diffs of disruption and edit warring, we can start with this user's revert-warring. [42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51]. Now I raised this previously at WP:AN3,(see [52]) and the result was page protection. Winkelvi viewed that as a vindication of his "good editing," to use his words. I can provide further examples of his "good editing," and I guess it's necessary because I can see Winkelvi only worsening if his behavior is not curbed. He has absolutely no understanding of the disruption that he has caused, as borne out by the exchange here with User:Cullen328 on Drmies' talk page. Coretheapple (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: Topic bans generally don't solve the problem and usually are just fodder for others to keep baiting and attacking the person so restricted. Full protection of the article, applying the principles of WP:BLP to it due to being about a person recently deceased, applying WP:RS and WP:V appropriately, and supervision by a highly respected admin who has the authority to institute immediate 24-48 hour blocks for bad behavior should do the trick. Most of the time, people's tempers simmer down and they figure out how to work in an appropriate way. If not, WP:ROPE applies to escalating behavior. See my additional comments above. Montanabw(talk) 19:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This is fairly common behavior for Winkelvi, aggressive edit-warring based on misreading of sources, picking-and-choosing what can be used for sources, and so on. So a TBAN here is just a silly band-aid. Choor monster (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support This is a fairly narrow topic-ban; hopefully it will motivate Winkelvi to reign in some of the issues that have been charitably described as "difficult." OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. As if this couldn't get any stranger, Winkelvi has decided to take this puppy to 11 by claiming that the supporters of his topic ban are actually the problem because we're all supposedly autistic like himself, but we're hiding in the closet. According to Winkelvi, the problems he's encountering here are due to his detractors engaging in autistic-related behaviors.[53] Can we get an indefinite block now, please? It's one thing to obsessively identify with your own personal neurodevelopmental disorder as the total measure of who you are, but it's quite another to start diagnosing other editors. Viriditas (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And then there is his claim here that "there is still a less than AGF attitude toward us" in this discussion. "Us" being people with autism.
    That is outrageous on a number of levels. First, he raised the issue of his autism here as a defense for his bad behavior[54]. Basically his position here has been "I haven't done anything wrong, but if I did it's not my fault." Second, the reaction to his statements about his autism, even among his supporters, is that they are diversionary and irrelevant - clearly far short of "not showing AGF" to autism sufferers, whatever that means. After finding his play for sympathy here didn't work, and started to backfire, he has "taken it on the road," canvassing all the editors who signed some kind of autism declaration, and attacking editors here for discriminating against him based on his self-identified medical condition (which nobody here knew about until he raised the issue, and view as a diversion). Coretheapple (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Totally uninvolved editor. A topic ban is the last thing that should happen. Reading the talk page of the article and the edit history shows that there is a problem, not working together. This isnt all on Winkelvi, and some of the comments towards him show there is a war mentality tone on the talk page. Not enough to bring here, but its there. His edits dont appear to be that much of a problem, and he conducts himself well in a discussion. The page protection, forcing the editors to talk and agree, is probably enough. AlbinoFerret 17:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Winkelvi recently posted this on the talk page of a user he has canvassed, making reference to this discussion. Since he is posting on user talk pages in lieu of participating in this duscussion, I think this might be of interest:

    . . . Even more egregious is one of those editors stating I am "self-identified" as having Asperger's -- in other words, I really don't have it and am lying to gain sympathy. That comment really hurt when I first read it, but then I had to chuckle, because editing in Wikipedia could never be important enough to tell such a story. But, truth be told, to say something like that is just a slap in the face of everyone on the Spectrum, everyone with special needs whose disability or "different-ability" isn't immediately obvious. That kind of thinking, plus the general feeling expressed among a number of those in the thread that being on the Spectrum = incompetence and editing with them is a "burden" and "waste of time", is truly bigoted against those with special needs. It's discrimination, plain and simple.

    --Coretheapple (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, hopefully WV is actually listening - several see WV individually as incompetent because of how they have acted, and would say the same about any editor. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess the question is what to do. If he is topic banned, that's fine for Bess Myerson but then the problem gets shifted to another article or articles. There is a new report below on his behavior in Meghan Trainor, totally unrelated to Myerson or anything else. A review of the noticeboards show his name popping up again and again. There is this, for instance, on the Administrators Noticeboard in April titled, "Disruptive, Authoritarian Editor," brought by yet another editor involving yet another article and also seeking a topic ban. Coretheapple (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Despite being reported on here, this user is continuing to do the very same thing that several users are finding problematic right now on All About That Bass. Meghan Trainor articles are a mess as a result of this user. The user insists on content disputes every time he is reverted and then remains completely ignorant during the disputes itself. That and his constant "playing the victim" act and picking on and harassing other editors is essentially Winkelvi's problem, as well as his inability to admit when he is at fault. It really is time that an admin intervenes properly, if this issue has not only being brought up now but by several other editors on this very same noticeboard and others in the past - this user's disruptive editing is clearly a continuous pattern and should not receive lenience because he is a "Veteran editor" who plays the victim with his medical condition. - Lips are movin 18:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know the particulars, as I have never heard of this Trainor or her work in my life, but I do see a slo mo edit war at All About That Bass, the merits of which are beyond me. Realistically, editors are granted great leeway, and this one knows how to work the system so that, with one exception, his edit warring comes under the 3RR threshold and/or don't attract blocks. It is up to uninvolved administrators to determine if his serial "issues" need to be dealt with, or will just be shrugged off for another day. Coretheapple (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I'm now watching your page, having posted a note there, I noticed that he left you a canvassing warning[55] that warned you against posting inappropriately on user talk pages. In his notice he refers to this note by you on the WikiProject Songs talk page and this note by you on the talk page of a "list" article. Winkelvi just doesn't "get" WP:CANVASS, and putting that unwarranted notice on a user talk page in the midst of an edit war just inflames things. The fact that Winkelvi did this just after he himself was warned for canvassing[56] is discouraging. Coretheapple (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed the drama from both article pages, since it's clear this user is just being plain attention-seeking, throwing unwarranted warnings and accusations around and playing the victim. WP:CANVASS refers to user talk pages and bias, which these articles are clearly not. Winkelvi has even gone on to harass another user User:MaranoFan on his talk page and accuse him of tag-teaming. I honestly don't know in what aspect a user can be more disruptive and harassing than this one. Even with his "veteran editor" status which he has thrown around yet again on User talk:Winkelvi, talking down on other editors, the user persistently violates Wikipedia policies and contradicts them as evident in this new WP:CANVASS chapter of this user's drama. The user has made 13 reverts in the last 24 hours.- Lips are movin 06:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Canvassing

    I agree that this was canvassing. Winkelvi says, of course, they have no expectation that the reader will show up in their defense, but I am not convinced by that rhetoric. However, I also agree with Montanabw that this was "mild" canvassing, and it's certainly mitigated by the very subject matter--the Autie pact. Still, the timing of the message, with the threat of a topic ban hanging over Winkelvi's head, and the audience they selected, all add up to a (mild) violation of WP:CANVAS: that these messages were sent to a select audience " with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion". I do not see this as sufficient for a block, which at any rate would be punitive anyway at this point--but, dear Winkelvi, please let this serve as a warning. Thank you all, Drmies (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I happen to watchlist Buster7, with whom I have interacted many times, and what do I see but this post] from WV, citing their shared signing of some kind of autism declaration, seeking "advice" and linking to the "topic ban" discussion. It is not, of course, canvassing, he points out. Perish the thought.

    In checking his contributions I see a slew of similarly worded posts seeking "advice" from other persons he has identified as sharing his alleged autism affliction. See also [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65]

    Note this follow up note[66]. No, not canvassing!

    Note that he completely misrepresents the character of the topic ban discussion. "Currently, there has been a discussion for a few days at AN/I regarding my ability to edit." It is a discussion of his behavior on one talk page, with a topic ban, not a block, proposed and discussed in the preceding section. The autism element was one that he introduced, and which I think is widely viewed, even by his supporters here, as totally diversionary and irrelevant. He is now exploiting that self-serving alleged medical issue in a sordid play for sympathy.

    I haven't much experience with WP:CANVASS, but if we're going to allow this kind of notice to other editors I'd like to cherry-pick some editors I think might agree with me, ask them for "advice," and coincidentally alert them to this discussion with a skewed rendition of events (and a caveat that it is not canvassing, perish the thought). If it is not allowed, I think a block is in order. Either way I'd like to know if this is allowable. Coretheapple (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Explicit violation. Winkelvi violated the canvassing guideline with the sole intent of influencing the outcome of the discussion in his favor. He performed a mass posting consisting of a biased message against the participants in this discussion. Favoring one side, he contacted a partisan audience of people who he felt would be sympathetic to a decision favoring his desired outcome. Viriditas (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note, I have warned Winkelvi here. If he does it again after receiving this warning, he could be subject to a block depending on admin discretion. I think the major problem that many of us have with Winkelvi isn't his personal struggles or mistakes, but the fact that he doesn't seem to learn from past errors and continues to repeat them. Wikipedia:Competence is required. Viriditas (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's Winkelvi's response to your canvassing warning:he deleted it. Coretheapple (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look, Coretheapple, whatever the merits of this complaint (I haven't read that far down yet), this is nonsense. You're suggesting--what? what are you suggesting? If Winkelvi deletes the warning, that means they read it, and that is all there is to it. You can draw any conclusion you like, but this kind of rhetoric seems to be doing nothing but poisoning the well, and it's really not helping your case. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    His referring to canvassing in his posts indicates that he is familiar with the rule already. So while this notice is appreciated I don't feel that it is necessary. Besides you can't "unring the bell," and his effort to skew this discussion through canvassing has already begun to work in his favor.[67][68][69][70][71]. His canvassing has already gotten him participation in his favor in two parts of one active partisan weighing in on these discussions, and more on the way I'm sure. The only question, as I said previously, is whether this is a violation of the canvassing policy, in which case what are the consequences for Winkelvi, or whether our lying eyes deceive us on that point. If they do, I'm off on a trek for "advice." Coretheapple (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I swung by here due to WV's post. If that was canvassing, it's not the worst I've seen. I'd give it a 3 on a 1-10 scale. (minnow slap) I know we are supposed to just post a link with a simple FYI, but WP:CANVASS is really a flawed policy that tends to be used as a bludgeon more than a shield. Here, I see a frightened editor without a lot of friends who is digging a hole and having trouble not digging. I'm looking at the situation neutrally, and IMHO, it's time to just get back to the page in question and if there was a problem on this user's talk page. Montanabw(talk) 20:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Montanabw, you are not doing Winkelvi any favors by serving as Exhibit A for how effective his blatant canvassing has been. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:AGF here, buddy, I'm not your enemy. Montanabw(talk) 08:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That may very well be, but Montanabw is an experienced editor and someone I greatly respect. We may disagree with her, but her points are worth considering. However, at least two editors have tried to approach Winkelvi in a friendly manner to help work this out (myself and Cullen), and we were both given the cold shoulder. Viriditas (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And that is a concern, as both Viriditas and Cullen are experienced and reasonable editors. Montanabw(talk) 08:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I could recruit a half dozen respected editors with the opposite position. That's why we have canvassing policy. Its purpose is to prevent consensus from being skewed just as Winkelvi is doing here. At best he is gaming the system. Canvassed input should be struck out and Winkelvi should be given an appropriate block. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CANVASS doesn't preclude alerting interested editors of a relevant discussion, the ideal is to notify people on both sides and without stating a position at the notification. Montanabw(talk) 08:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh please, you can't be serious. WP:CANVASS calls for neutral notifications to "concerned" editors, defined as follows: "Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article; Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics); Editors known for expertise in the field; Editors who have asked to be kept informed." None of the editors that Winkelvi notified in lengthy, utterly non-neutral polemics were even remotely "concerned" with Bess Myerson. None of them had edited the page or participated in any of the discussions on the page. They were selected because each of them, including yourself, had placed their names at User:ThatPeskyCommoner/The Autie Pact, in a completely inappropriate (and in your case, effective) play for sympathy from editors he overtly wanted to intervene on his behalf. To dispute that he wasn't canvassing, and that your posts on his behalf here haven't been the result of canvassing, is just plain silly. Coretheapple (talk) 04:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if the Wondering55 analogy that Figure made earlier is valid, as there are clear differences, but still I could go to the talk pages of all the editors who supported me on that editor and say, "Look at this ANI discussion.[link] Does this remind you of the lengthy dispute we had with Wondering55 over the Fort Lee lane closure scandal? Mind you, I'm not canvassing, not asking you to go over to the ANI discussion, and I am not contacting you because you are administrator. I am just wondering how to deal with this particular situation. Thanks in advance." (WV threw in the "administrator" language in his post on an administrator's talk page.) If that wording is OK, I'd like to know and I will act accordingly. I think it's canvassing, but maybe I'm wrong. However, if it is OK to "advertise" in this manner then I will do it too. But if it is canvassing, even a "three on a scale of 10" as one of the canvassed editors says, it needs to be dealt with. Coretheapple (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User name

    What Blackmane says. At best this is a tangential issue in this discussion. User name violations are a matter for the hardworking blockers at UAA who, I imagine, would not readily find fault with the name. BTW, have you noticed the check mark in Winkelvi's signature? A check mark is an angled symbol; see de:Häkchen (Schriftzeichen) for a more appropriate name than "check", or Dutch nl:Vinkje (symbool). Note how "vinkje" (Dutch) and "winkel" (German for "angle") resemble each other, and how none of it has anything to do with twins. Drmies (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    In addition to the above problems, there is also an issue with the chosen user name, "Winkelvi", and the policy of WP:IMPERSONATE. The name "Winkelvi" refers to the Winklevoss twins, and is only used to refer to them. It is therefore curious that the user has chosen this name in violation of the user name policies. Viriditas (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Isn't it a bit late in the day to be complaining about them after they've used this account name for two years? Blackmane (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no statute of limitations on Wikipedia. I just found four-year old vandalism in an article; should I just leave it? How about a sock puppet who's been getting away with it for three years? Should we just let them keep doing it? Your argument proposes a time limit on bad behavior, but there isn't one. I find it strange that the user is editing as "Winkelvi", when that name is used exclusively to refer to two BLPs. Why is the user allowed to use this name? Viriditas (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked this and the second thing that comes up for theis username is his Wikipedia userpage. The twins are Winklevii with two ii's. Legacypac (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, check again, making sure you eliminate wikipedia.org in your search results. "Winkelvi" with one "i" is just as common and is used quite often by media sources. More importantly, such a search result establishes that the name "Winkelvi" was in use to refer to the twins before the user created his account here. Viriditas (talk) 03:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikievi shows About 3,930 results (0.41 seconds) Did you mean: Winklevii. Wikievii shows About 36,200 results (0.24 seconds) Including results for Winklevoss. So Google thinks the ii verson means the Winklevoss twins, but that the single i version to be a mistake or this not famous user. So I think the accusation is a stretch. If you really want to fight it, there is a special board for that. Legacypac (talk) 05:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, actually Google thinks "Winkelvi" refers to the "winklevoss twins", as that terms shows up when you type "Winkelvi" and points to Winklevii. Clearly, the search results show that the term "Winkelvi" is widely used as a synonym. Further when you eliminate wikipedia.org from the search results, you find that "Winkelvi" was in wide usage before the account was created on Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, we don't need to use different "boards" to discuss this problem. The Wikipedia account name "Winkelvi" was created in April 2012, many years after the above sources had already used it and the term was in wide circulation as a synonym for "Winklevii" and "Winklevii" for obvious reasons (these alternate spellings are extremely common in English, for example, compare "Winkle-" and "Winkel-") Viriditas (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Google makes clear that "Winkelvi" refers to the twins, and has been used in that sense thousands of times. I wasn't clear on that until I saw the Google search results. Of course he turns up high in the rankings. Wikipedia always does. I don't have enough experience with user names to know if it's permissable, but let's be clear on that. Coretheapple (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The WP:IMPERSONATE link says, "you should state clearly on your userpage that you are unrelated to the well-known person." I'd say if WV adds that disclaimer, end of problem. Montanabw(talk) 20:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with your interpretation, and your tone is also not helpful to your own position, but this discussion is a side issue to the one above, I'm sure there is a better noticeboard for that concern than here. Montanabw(talk) 08:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My question is as it states, how it relates to your straw men is irrelevant. This extra section is classic ANI. One issue starts and is discussed then something else is pulled into the mix, then another and another until it gets to the point that everyone just gives up. Is their username related to the discussion about their behaviour? Somehow I don't think so, if you have a problem with Winklevi's username, raise it on WP:UAA. Blackmane (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    👍 Like Montanabw(talk) 08:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Meghan Trainor

    Neither this discussion nor the proposed topic ban has any legitimacy. The two principal users who suppport it are not here to improve the article or the project. They are fortunate not to have been blocked to date.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This editor began making my Wikipedia experience very unpleasant, starting with trying to dictate a consensus discussion against me on Talk:Meghan Trainor with some very snide remarks. He then went on badmouth behind my back, accusing me of sockpuppetry on User talk:SNUGGUMS and then on his own talk page which he later deleted. The user makes very insulting edit summaries, and seems to want to derail every article I edit, of which he has shown no previous interest in before. It is all very suspicious and coincidental. Meghan Trainor has now failed GA and is locked, and it seems Winkelvi has now shifted his attention to All About That Bass which is also conincidently now a GAN where he has again invoked in insulting edit summaries and snide nitpicking. Any unbiased editor will add all the above together and comes across this editor is going out of his way to look for drama with me or chase me away from editing and undermine my editing as much as possible. He has no interest in music or Meghan Trainor as visible in his previous contributions, yet now all of a sudden he does. The user continously warns me on my talk page every time I revert twice without breaking WP:3RR, ironically when he is doing the exact same on the exact same article, such as on All About That Bass. He is going out of his way to depict me as a "fanboy" who can't edit objectively which I am not and I am so sick and tired of this! His excuse on his talk page of Asperges should not allow him to obsessively single out and pick on other editors and insult them! Can an admin PLEASE intervene because one can only take so much! - Lips are movin 06:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    A few things in response:
    • I've never referred to this editor as "a fanboy who can't edit objectively".
    • Whomever looks into this editor's comments, please look at the talk page for the article All About That Bass here: [72] and see the interaction between him and me. You'll find none of what he's claiming. In fact, I go out of my way to explain to him in two separate replies that my comments and edit summaries are not directed and him at all.
    • This editor's frustration has been days in the making due to a number of talk page discussions where he has been using personal attacks against editors who don't agree with his edits and edit wars that he has been taking part in. Because he's new, several editors (including me) have been quite patient in trying to work with him and reason with him regarding his editing, edit warring, peacock wording, bloating articles, and the scathing talk page comments he directs at others. One look at the edit history of his talk page shows that he's received several warnings over the same articles, all related in one way or another to the singer, Meghan Trainor. (talk page history here: [73]).
    • I'd like to point out, as well, that the reporting editor who brought this here never informed me on my talk page (as is required) that he created this report. Weirdly, another editor moved this report from Lips to merge with this week old discussion. A report that (as another editor pointed out) is classic ANI: something gets reported, others keep adding to it with new and different accusations. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here he deleted his comment "Wow, Lips. You've only been here three weeks and you already have a fancy username signature three barnstars and duded up user page, you're nominating articles for GA status, and now you're going to DRN? That's quite a lot of Wiki-activity for such a newbie" after I replied and used the edit summary "removing drama" when he aggravated the drama in the first place with his comment.
    • On User talk:SNUGGUMS he wrote "Anyone think it's weird and a little suspect that someone who has been here less than a month is expertly decorating their user space and nominating articles for GA? Just saying."
    • On Talk:Meghan Trainor he made snide remarks to me "Please familiarize yourself with how to communicate appropriately and politely in talk page discussions. So much all bold lettering is basically the same as shouting." Yet editors on the same page called my editing "bullshit" and also used bold wording to highlight a point. He also went on to reply with remarks like "Obviously, she doesn't write all of her own music as you claim", "I have no idea. I thought we were talking about the Meghan Trainor article." and "An hour ago your proof that she qualified to be called a singer-songwriter was that she writes all of the songs she performs. That was quickly proven to be untrue. Now you're changing the criteria. Not too convincing."—all of which are snide remarks and ignorance to the fact of Trainor co-writing all her music.
    • He speaks of I've been warned "several times" yet I've only been unfairly warned by him twice and one other user once. Ironically, he himself is also edit warring on the same article, as well as number of editors who revert him, yet they received no warnings whatsoever.
    • He says I never notified him of my report of him on here, however, he responded before I could even do so. See the time difference between my report (06:14) and his response (06:27). Even more manifestation that this user tries to play the victim when he is at fault.
    • After I nominated All About That Bass for GA which I worked very hard on editing and am the primary contributor much like I was on Meghan Trainor, he decided to post the following on the article's talk page: Two topics "Long quotations" and "Very overwritten" and went on to deem it "basically one of the most bloated articles I've ever come across", and even went on to make this comment " I'm here to help expand and improve an online encyclopedia. Hopefully, that's your purpose for being here, too." He then claims his responses are not aimed at me and plays the victim when he very well knows I nominated both articles for GA and am by the far the biggest contributor to both articles as per each article's stats.
    • In his nitpicking of the article he used edit summaries such "remove peacocking" when that what he removed was in fact the precise wording of the source used and not WP:PEACOCK at all. He also goes on to say "This is an encyclopedia not a fansite" - a direct dig at me when I am by far the article's biggest contributor. He also insists that I am posting false information as to whether "All About That Bass" is one of the List of best-selling singles when it is in fact listed in the 6-6.9 million section itself. He also per his POV accused me of WP:OWN on Talk:All About That Bass and WP:OR on Talk:Meghan Trainor, and reverts edits I make on "All About That Bass" where unsourced content is added and then accuses me of edit warring afterward with a warning on my talk page when he infact has been reverted by another user as well.
    • Again, like I said, all these occurrences are all very coincidental. I am all for constructive criticism and improving of Wiki articles but the way this user goes about doing it is very suspicious especially since I edit mainly Meghan Trainor articles of which he has all of a sudden decided to "improve". This user has a habit of talking down on editors and throwing his "Veteran Editor" title around as done on another editor on Talk:Meghan Trainor, and generally is involved solely in his own provoked disputes and acts of "playing the victim". I see this user is also mentioned as a problem on this very same noticeboard, so he must obviously be doing something wrong. I also per accident stumbled upon this comment by another editor on User talk:Viriditas - " user:winkelvi is a bully and harasses everyone view Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Winkelvi reported by User:213.7.149.151 (Result: Semi) and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Winkelvi reported by User:Coretheapple (Result: Protected) or just look at his contrib history its full of edit warring disputes." which I also completely agree with.- Lips are movin 07:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This user is still partaking in an unnecessary edit war on All About That Bass and derailing the topic which is a WP:GAN, and insists on reverting unsourced content, factual errors, vague wording and non-song article MOS back into the article, and insists the formentioned be discussed on the article's talk page, but the user remains completely ignorant to these faults pointed out on the talk page, removes warnings from his talk page, and has already been reverted by 3 different users within the last 24 hours. See [75] and Talk:All About That Bass. A quick scan through This also reveals that I am not the only one experiencing these problems with Winkelvi, but several others are as well. - Lips are movin 18:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see Winkelvi's observations as constructive at the song article "All About That Bass". Anybody interested in Meghan Trainor would certainly be interested in her ginormous smash hit song, so it's not much of a case of hounding. My advice to Lips Are Movin is to accept the talk page advice at its face value, and try to see the article more objectively. It certainly was a patchwork quilt of awkward fan prose before you got to it, but you added long quotes[76][77] which were seen by Winkelvi (and myself) as undue or peacock or redundant, and when they were removed, you were able to work with that;[78] I suggest you continue to do so. Binksternet (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Binksternet: I do agree with some of the improvements Winkelvi has made such as the long quotations which you pointed out and I have stated so on Talk:Meghan Trainor, but his latest re-adding of unsourced content and unexplained removal of important content such as that is among the list of best-selling singles and the years of the album and EP's release, and adding of WP:WORDS and WP:VAGUE are against Wikipedia policies and can't be viewed objectively. This has not only been reverted by me but two other editors as well. - Lips are movin 19:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Binksternet and Lips Are Movin: I move that we immediately put a topic ban on Winkelvi for Meghan Trainor. The editor is currently disrupting Title (Meghan Trainor album) and we need to place the topic ban before he gets to work on derailing my GA Lips Are Movin. Marano fan 07:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor is now edit warring and disrupting Title (Meghan Trainor album), Talk:List of best-selling singles and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs. Clarifying that what Winkelvi is essentially doing here is defined as WP:WIKIHOUNDING. - Lips are movin 07:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Trying to keep Wikipedia encyclopedic is not wikihounding. Given Lips Are Movin and MaranoFan are Meghan Trainor WP:SPAs [79] [80], more neutral editor eyes on the articles would be beneficial. NE Ent 11:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @NE Ent: The point is that I don't think that Winkelvi's eyes are neutral either. He in fact seems to hold a grudge against editors of Meghan Trainor's articles. Also, I am not a WP:SPA, A quick look through my contribs will reveal significant contribution to Taylor Swift, Selena Gomez, Jonas Brothers and many other topics. Marano fan
    @NE Ent: If you perceive us as WP:SPAs, why don't you take your concern to the SPA investigators. You will find out that we are in fact not. I'm not surprised at your accusation either seeing you are one of the users Winkelvi WP:CANVASSED as stated in this section. Winkelvi has been anything but neutral to Trainor articles, persistently edit wars without consensus, and adds unsourced content, removes sourced content, adding WP:WORDS, WP:VAGUE, and is WP:HOUNDING editors involved on Trainor articles, especially me. O/T: Her articles are hardly non-neutral either. - Lips are movin 12:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    After dealing with tag-team edit warring from both MaranoFan and Lips Are Movin yesterday, I filed a 3RR report [81]. Today, I offered a good faith proposal to both accounts. No response as of yet. My hope is things will resolve as far as the edit warring and other editors being kept from editing the Meghan Trainor-related articles due to the ownership taking place there. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    ...with the result that you and another editor were warned for edit warring. Coretheapple (talk) 03:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Coretheapple, Binksternet, and Lips Are Movin:Winkelvi is back to making bogus rewording to a GA Lips Are Movin. We need to get an immediate TOPIC BAN please. The article is just on the verge of getting reassessed. Marano fan 05:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It is very time-consuming and frustrating to "co-operate" with an editor like Winkelvi, who is a persistent WP:WIKIHOUND evident in his latest dramas with myself, User:MaranoFan and other editors in Meghan Trainor-related articles. He is an edit warrior who has just been warned in his own report at WP:3RR. He insists on being ignorant and playing dumb regarding every single bickering dispute he begins which waste's everyone's time. The user has an inability of communicating with editors in a way that's polite and civil, and is blind beyond his own arguments in his self-created disputes. He needs to begin owning up to his behavior, stop playing the victim, contradicting and abusing Wikipedia policies such as WP:CANVASS like he did on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs. He continously throws warnings around unwarranted on the talk pages of users, but when he gets a warning he denies it, deletes it and uses a WP:PERSONAL edit summary when doing so. He continuously accuses users of WP:SPA, WP:OWN and WP:OR etc and needs to stop with his snide, WP:PERSONAL edit summaries and accusations, and arguing and singling out of editor's wrong-doings (and then later playing dumb to it) in a way that quite frankly rude and insulting - all the above is evident in the talk pages and revision histories of Meghan Trainor, Talk:List of best-selling singles, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs, All About That Bass and Title (Meghan Trainor album). I am very willing to cooperate with editors and have never had an issue with one before until this user. - Lips are movin 06:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Winkelvi is now edit warring with another editor and derailing Meghan Trainor again, despite a consensus being reached on Talk:Meghan Trainor, this after the article was unlocked last night. He has also decided to derail a GA-class Meghan article "Lips Are Movin", and has decided to add himself to every Meghan related talk page as a user who can help with verification when he himself has never added any sources and positive content to any Meghan-related article, except for derailing and causing animosity in every single one - even more evidence to his WP:WIKIHOUND behavior. - Lips are movin 06:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if he is, the way he is being baited, such as by giving him a taunting "barnstar," and this kind of thing, and bringing a case against him for 3RR on his own page (which is exempt from 3RR) makes it hard to identify what is happening. It muddies the waters and obscures his behavior in pages where he is the only bad actor. What is inescapable is that he keeps getting enmeshed in noticeboard squabbles over and over and over again, involving different pages and different sets of editors, such that it might at some point be necessary to to have an WP:Administrators Noticeboard/Winkelvi. Coretheapple (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Winkelvi's WP:WIKIHOUNDING of MaranoFan is essentially what's resulting in MaranoFan acting this way though. All he has done is create animosity and time-consuming drama across Meghan Trainor articles and for their contributing editors. - Lips are movin 15:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually consider what happened as WP:EXPLODE. Please forgive me for a brief panic attack. MaRAno FAN 16:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever. You guys have got to get a grip. At this point, regardless of the merits, this entire topic has become radioactive and I don't see any administrator wading through these discussions. Coretheapple (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Meghan Trainor topic ban

    The article has been page protected for the second time. Since no action has been taken, I am moving into an immediate discussion, which I have been asked to move here. @Lips Are Movin, IPadPerson, Joseph Prasad, 11JORN, and Btljs:

    @Chasewc91: I would just ask if you have completely summarized yourself with his edits. A lot of editors have had issues with him. His autism causes him to make repetitive edits of a similar fashion. A topic ban would probably help him recover from his obsessions and repetitions. He thinks of Wikipedia as his dictatorship when it is clearly not. MaRAno FAN 17:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support - His autism doesn't really give him any excuse for edit warring and other disruptive behavior. I left him a polite message on his talk page earlier, but he ignored it and harrased me on my talk page saying that I am not welcome on his talk page. User:MaranoFan then reverted the message, but then Winkelvi restored it, harrasing me again. I don't think he is WP:HERE to contribute to this encyclopedia in a orderly manner, so of course a topic ban would help. IPadPerson (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm not familiar with the Meghan Trainor situation. This ANI report originated when one user reported an issue with Winkelvi's user page. Viritidas then raised the issue of Winkelvi's conduct at Bess Myerson, for which I had previoussly and inconclusively reported him at AN3. The edit-warring, disruption, tendentious posts and various nonsense (such as a phony plagiarism complaint) that Winkelvi caused there seem to have dissipated at Myerson and Talk:Myerson for the moment at least. Meanwhile, other complainants have popped up on completely different articles but very similar complaints. If you search the noticeboards, there's a pattern of Winkelvi drawing complaints for various kinds of very similar-sounding problems, such as in this complaint here from a user named Vuzor in April entitled "Disruptive, authoritarian editor." That involved yet another set of problems in yet another article. There are multiple edit warring complaints, both by him and against him, including one in which he was warned just today.[92] But another editor was warned as well. There is a pattern here of Winkelvi inflaming situations and generally showing poor judgment. He shows absolutely no understanding of the animosity he causes and the degree to which it results in repeated and time-consuming disruption. Coretheapple (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I am uninvolved with the pages. I Oppose this ban because its a content dispute. The AN/I page appears to now be the latest battleground for this dispute. No party in this dispute is blameless. The wikihounding is baseless as the articles are all on one artist. One of the editors calling for a bloc/ban are overly involved in the topic "Lips Are Movin" is the name of a Meghan Trainor song, taking that name clearly shows they are a fan. Their edits all revolve around Meghan Trainor, her songs, her page, location on charts. This sounds to me like a clear showing of WP:Advocacy. Its clear that MaranoFan and Lips Are Movin have a shared outcome in mind by filing bogus 3RR reports linklink2 and commenting here. If anything a boomerang should hit them. AlbinoFerret 18:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @AlbinoFerret: The fact me and MaranoFan are fans of the artist have nothing to do with issue here. Meghan Trainor articles are anything but fan prose and we have hardly disputed or edit warred with any other editors until this user came and wrecked havoc everywhere. WP:WIKIHOUNDING states Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia. - which is precisely what this user has done to me and MaranoFan over the past few days. - Lips are movin 19:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I favor the boomerang. Lips and Fan are taking a bad situation and spreading the badness everywhere with their own brand of childness and logomania. Renaming headers here is just plain rude, and the refactoring was thoughtless. Filing completely spurious 3RR reports is time-wasting. And bringing up WV's A+ and remotely "diagnosing" his edits is absolutely beyond the pale. No exceptions. Accurate or not, it is 100% irrelevant: report on good edits or bad edits, good behavior or bad behavior. Choor monster (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The Bottom line: I (or Meghan Trainor-related article editors) don't hold any grudge against Winkelvi. But if he hadn't interfered, Meghan Trainor would be a GA today (instead of being fully protected for a month). I commend him for editing despite his medical condition and would greatly be interested if there was any solution without the Topic ban. MaRAno FAN 19:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

          • This section renaming was totally unnecessary and did not "avoid confusion" since there wasn't any. It was just childish venting. To be honest, if WV's "interference" prevented the article from being GA, nobody cares whatsoever, and nobody wants to hear about it. You're only convincing people you Trainor fans are ridiculously out of touch with how WP works.
          • In short, the grown-ups in the room were discussing WV, and then you and friends came in here and set a remarkably lower standard. Choor monster (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please be civil. I have renamed the section. Also, you are no one to judge a person's maturity based on their musical interests. MaRAno FAN 20:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am judging peoples' maturity here based on what they post here. Let me guess, Trainor fans are considered immature everywhere, and I'm just echoing that judgment? I wouldn't know, and frankly, I wouldn't care. Choor monster (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I would point out here that this person is completely ignoring my edit summary:"All the ...s and WP:PARAPHRASE needs to be worked out before this review sees the light of GA criteria." I did not blind revert anyone. [94] Also to point out, Winkelvi has been sucking up to this user for support. MaRAno FAN 20:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    One example where he has constructively edited does not make him innocent to where he has persistently disruptively, and unconstructively edited and harassed users.[95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108] - Lips are movin 19:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you provide evidence to these claims and accusations though? - Lips are movin 20:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:XS, WP:IDART, WP:EWS, and WP:ALWAYS. -- Calidum 20:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As an outside observer, the user interaction data regarding Lips Are Movin and MaranoFan are interesting. only (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also worth noting that Lips Are Movin's first edits were significant expansions to All About That Bass, and that s/he has edited Trainor articles almost exclusively – the lone exception appears to be Pretty Hurts (song). –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of the 800 or so edits only 20 or so are not on Trainor articles. This leads to the possibility of a WP:SPA. AlbinoFerret 02:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Winkelvi about whom this discussion is has disappeared. I plan on doing the same thing. Good luck to all of you. All the authority remains with administrators. MaRAno FAN 20:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment It seems as if Winkelvi is being wikihounded by editors, who are baiting and biting him to outburst; there also seems to be a lot of talking behind editor's back, and discussion of editors rather than editor's editing (which I find to be hypocritical of some who complained of said-behaviour being done onto them). And to those mentioning his clearly advertised Asperger's syndrome is quite disturbing. If you knew anything about said-syndrome, you'd know it affects how a person interacts in both social and non-verbal communications. The user's talk page has become a complete attack on the user, and baiting for him to react in a certain way. Per this, and what I've witnessed happening on Winkelvi's talk page, I oppose this block. livelikemusic my talk page! 20:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apologies for the blanking. Mobile Opera Mini tends to do that often during edit conflict. Anyway, I've said enough here. It's clear that Winkelvi has friends in high places and sucks up to them everytime he is reported at a noticeboard. I've wasted enough time on this WP:WIKIHOUND. - Lips are movin 21:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:WIKIHOUND is based on following another editor. Most of the time this is provable because editors edit diverse topics. But all the articles cited have to do with one musical artist, Meghan Trainor. Its just as likely that Winkelvi is interested in that artist, and not following you. I think the accusation is a solution in search of a problem. AlbinoFerret 01:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • But what's the point of doing that? It doesn't take much of a crystal ball to see that Winkelvi will be back before this or some other noticeboard, on the above articles or others, as surely as God makes little green apples. Last week he was warned for edit warring. Today he was warned for edit warring. He was warned previously. When do the warnings stop and the blocks begin? Coretheapple (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly what do you mean by "legitimate opposition"? This thread discusses just one editor in particular. IPadPerson (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean both Lips and Marano in a content dispute with Winkelvi, who voices legitimate concerns about the articles in question. Binksternet (talk) 06:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Duh. We have two fans here who are stifling the work of someone who (at least in that Title article) was actively trying to improve an article. See my note on Talk:Title (Meghan Trainor album): I didn't realize, when I was making a few minor edits, that I was really repeating some of what Winkelvi had been doing--in other words, good job, Winkelvi! I didn't know you had it in you! The baiting of Winkelvi and the ridiculous edit-warring on their talk page is just so much harassment (and bringing up the autism thing in this discussion is just a red herring). I have no opinion on whether the two fans are each other's socks or not, and that they're SPAs is of little concern (there is no "SPA investigator"), except that they know more about this bubblegum pop artist than they do of Wikipedia's guidelines.

      I've had my share of difficulties interacting with Winkelvi. They can be short-fused and a bit too tenacious, at least they have been like that in the past; I think they have improved a lot in the last year or so. And here, I think Winkelvi is just being harassed, that the thread is seen as a convenient hook to hang a content dispute on. It's shameful, and I want Lips Are Moving and MaranoFan to know that I have no problem blocking either one of them if they continue this campaign and this tag-teaming--and it seems that they have found a third editor, if the edit-warring on Winkelvi's talk page is in indication. Winkelvi, do not respond here or elsewhere to accusations about behavior; keep playing the ball, not the man. It's all about the bass--the rest is just so much treble. Some admin will come by and close this, and perhaps the rest of the thread. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Winkelvi, Lips Are Movin, MaranoFan all blocked 48 hours

    Related to the above sections, I have blocked the 3 parties for 48 hours for their continuous edit warring related to multiple pages over the course of the last week. As always, I welcome administrator review of my actions; though, I think this time some sort of consensus should be reached to undo the action as it has been the source of numerous discussions in the last few days. I won't be as avail in the next 12-15 hours, so decisions can be made without my input, if needed. only (talk) 11:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    MaranoFan is protesting his block on his talk page, but I would encourage people to look at his role in edit warring over the last two days and the multiple warnings editors gave him, asking him to stop. He ignored all of them. More recently, MaranoFan was reverting Winkelvi's user page in an attempt to harass him. It was my impression that unlike MaranoFan, who has become increasingly abusive, Lips Are Movin was making some progress in the right direction, but that editor didn't stop reverting when asked to take a break either. Winkelvi filed a false vandalism report against Lips Are Movin today, and then engaged in a bit of IDIDNTHEARTHAT when it was explained to him that Lips Are Movin was trying to redirect a page, not vandalize it. In any case, good blocks all around. Viriditas (talk) 12:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    All 3 are protesting; MaranoFan and Lips Are Movin officially through unblock templates, Winkelvi just through discussion at the moment. Again, I'll leave this up to consensus here as I will be sparse from here out for the rest of the day. only (talk) 12:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And, FWIW, the "blanking" by Lips Are Movin was a mistake, as the user neglected to add the redirect target, which was fixed in the subsequent diff by MaranoFan. This was explained to Winkelvi several times, but I'm surprised to see he's still calling it vandalism. MaranoFan should serve out the block; his/her behavior has been atrocious, ranging from edit warring to harrassment, to outright abuse. I won't comment on Winkelvi's block, but like I said above, Lips Are Movin has shown interest in improving his/her behavior. Viriditas (talk) 12:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure if this revert was one of the edits that resulted in this block, but if not, it is an example of the hair-trigger reverting and WP:COMPETENCE issue that was a problem at Bess Myerson. An editor added a sentence to an article, appropriately sourced and formatted: "As on January 2015, it has sold 171,000 copies in the US." OK, he made a mistake ("on" instead of "of"). Instead of fixing it, Winkelvi hit the revert button, with the edit summary, No rationale for content addition given, as written, difficult to understand. Since when does one need a "rationale" to add routine information to an article? The reverted editor responded with puzzlement on Winkelvi's talk page, and Winkelvi responded "You gave no explanation in an edit summary and what you wrote wasn't gramatically correct, making it difficult to understand. Please see WP:EDITSUMMARY and WP:COMPETENCE for more of an explanation." Did Winkelvi truly not understand this sentence and truly feel that it required a rationale? Does he really feel that such routine material needs to be justified in an edit summary, and that failure to do so warrants removal of the material? Coretheapple (talk) 14:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • He also has an incompetent trigger-finger regarding Vandalism. See [109] where he reported an IP for snarking on WV's Talk page about an instance of blatant hypocrisy. To WV, that counted as harassment in addition to vandalism. To the AIV admins, it was all just a waste of time. As for the supposedly bright line that 3RR crosses, by repeatedly going soft on him on something that definite, admins have taught WV the wrong lesson: he sincerely believes that the block is all about the bad reversion. Choor monster (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Winkelvi has agreed on his user talk page to EdJohnston's suggestion, and after his block expires will have a voluntary self-ban from all articles in which he has had disputes since June 23, 2014.[110] That would include Bess Myerson and all the other articles discussed here.Coretheapple (talk) 17:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Winkelvi has withdrawn his promise to stay out of articles where he has had disputes[111], and it is being argued out now on his user talk page. If I follow his argument correctly, he is upset that his promise did not result in an immediate unblock. He says, inter alia, I just feel duped, taken advantage of, and like a complete fool for doing what was asked. I believed it to be an actual agreement that would lead to being unblocked sooner. I don't like being made a fool of nor do I like being lied to. Because the other side of the agreement never materialized (and looks like it probably was never going to), I no longer feel obligated to follow through with my side of the agreement. Coretheapple (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for Clarification: Was There a Topic-Ban?

    I am trying to see if the moderated dispute resolution of Meghan Trainor can be resumed now that the three editors are off block. My understanding is that Winklevi, Lips Are Movin, and MaranoFan were all blocked for 48 hours for edit-warring. There have been repeated statements about a formal or informal topic-ban on Winklevi, but I see no evidence that any topic-ban was ever formally imposed or informally accepted. Is that correct? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    A topic ban was informally accepted yesterday, during his block. Winkelvi promised to abide by a voluntary topic ban from all of the articles in which he'd been involved in disputes[112], but then reneged after a few hours[113]. Coretheapple (talk) 00:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Then there is no topic-ban, so he may participate in moderated dispute resolution. Okay. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. But I would suggest reading all of the foregoing before diving into this pool. Coretheapple (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As the substitute volunteer moderator at the dispute resolution noticeboard, I did a general close of the dispute resolution of Meghan Trainor. The article is still currently protected. Discussion at the talk page can continue, as can an RFC either at the talk page or at a project page. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Closing discussed here. Coretheapple (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Way past sell by date

    Could someone else close down this twenty day old thread? If you can't get something to stick on an editor in one-third that time, it's time to gently set your stick on the ground and find something else to do. Note Coretheapple has been keeping the thread alive (see post above) and then claiming there's a "new" viewpoint [114] and canvassing others to comment [115] NE Ent 20:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh please. User:J. Johnson posted without anyone "canvassing" him.[116]. I posted a note on his page after he did that. You ought to know better than to make such an accusation, or to take it upon yourself to archive an ANI topic in which you vigorously side with the subject. The discussion has gone on a long time because of the subject's behavior and long record of disruption, most recently, per the conversation linked above, by behaving tendentiously at DRN[117] I know you like him and side with him, and that's great. I think that it would help the project a great deal more if you helped him, rather than inhibited discussion about the serial problems he causes. Coretheapple (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Extensive edit-warring, severe COI-violations and refusal to hear

    There is an apparent WP:OWN issue with this topic, but it won't be resolved in this discussion. Rene has been asked to read WP:RANDY (for consolation), WP:EW and WP:NOR. Martijn has a clearer understanding of Rene's view on the contentious content and Martin is less likely to restore misleading content to Wikipedia in future. So, I'm non-admin-closing most of this now. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    For a long time now, the article Christ Myth Theory has been the subject of intense arguments. That people have different opinions is not a problem, but the user Renejs is violating a number of policies, and openly declaring he will continue to violate policies because he stand for the WP:TRUTH. The most immediate concern is his extensive edit warring at the article [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125]. Even though several users have pointed this out on the talk page, Renejs declared he will continue to edit war because he is right. [126]. Another problem related to the same user concerns WP:COI. The user has self-identified as Rene Salm, one of the laymen who has published about this fringe theory (fringe is a non-derogatory sense, just indicating it is rejected by most scholars) and his Wikipedia account is an WP:SPA to try to make his theory seem more mainstream. At the talk page of the article, several users have tried to reason with Renejs and explain the policies of conflict of interest, gaining consensus, and abstaining from edit warring [127], [128] are just two of several examples. Having tried to reason with Renejs for weeks (even though several others have done it much more and much better than me), I told him yesterday as a final warning that unless he starts to abide by Wikipedia rules, ANI would be the only option [129], Bill the Cat 7 agreed [130] while Martijn Meijering proposed Renejs should self-revert and promise to start following the rules [131]. That would have been preferable, so I waited an extra day, but as Renejs just continues as before, convinced that his is the WP:TRUTH, there seem to be few remaining options. Last but not least, as CMT proponents always claim there is "conspiracy of Christians", I should point out that none of this is a comment on who actually is right or wrong, but on the never-ending policy violations by the SPA, especially coupled with his "promise" to continue to violate said policies.Jeppiz (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This is very much troubling. The most troubling diff is the January 2nd one where he says he will deliberately game the system by reverting to 3 times a day, opting that he has 'no other choice' to do such. This editor has been told repeatedly to stop, think, and listen and he seems to not think that they're actually saying that to him, or that it doesn't apply because he's right. A topic ban would be suitable, but I think that a 0RR restriction would be better; forcing him to not revert but discuss on talk page his changes, and try to get consensus for them would be better. That would negate all the reverting, and force him to present his changes on the talk page in an attempt to get consensus. Tutelary (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that is more troubling than the COI he rather clearly has on this topic. John Carter (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but technically, you aren't disallowed from editing the page, only strongly discouraged. The diff represented means that he's willing to game the system, violate the spirit of the edit warring policy, and ignore all objections. Tutelary (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, I would never bring up a situation at ANI where a serious user had a COI, so what triggered the report was the extensive edit warring, the "promise" to continue and the refusal to hear. But I think the COI is a an additional problem in this context, as it adds another dimension to the problem with the SPA.Jeppiz (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reviewing this user's talk page history, it doesn't look good. The user seems to regularly use a claim to expertise as a justification for OR and discarding other editors' opinions (eg [132]). I'm not sure a TBAN is the right approach here - the problems seem more fundamental than related to a particular topic. GoldenRing (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having reviewed the editor's entire history here, I don't know that he has ever really edited outside of the history of Jesus topic. His only apparent substantial editing in history was in regards to the Nazareth/Nazarene articles, which was apparently the topic of his published work. A topic ban from early Christianity would deal with all those problems, or, alternately, I suppose if we think of him as being basically an SPA on the topic of Jesus, a site ban might not be unreasonable. John Carter (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Declaring their commitment to edit war to push their version of the WP:TRUTH is grounds for a 0RR restriction or a topic ban in my book. Blackmane (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    In my defense, I'd like to say that (1) I wasn't the first to revert (that honor goes to Mmeijeri) and so don't think I started the "edit war"; (2) I was by no means the only one to revert. The list is as follows (with descending number of reverts): Renejs -- 8, Bill the Cat 7 -- 5, Mmeijeri -- 2, Jeppiz -- 2, Gekritzl -- 2, T. M. Drew -- 1; (3) I've been a very active explainer of my reasons on the Talk page, very solicitous to listen to others and follow logic in this discussion, not emotion. I started the RfC section to get input as to why we should keep the Grant statement at the root of this whole bruhaha--I've simply acted according to logic: there IS no reason to keep the Grant quote because nobody's offered a reason, while very good reasons have been offered to the contrary! (4) I've been a big provider of new information, gathering, compiling, and uploading the reference section "Citations Demonstrating Scholarly Support for the CMT" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christ_myth_theory#Citations_Demonstrating_Scholarly_Support_for_the_CMT); (5) I've tried to be cordial despite in-my-face insults like "Peddle your fantasies somewhere else", and Bill the Cat 7's claim of "consensus" without Gektrizl or myself included; (6) if you read the short explanations in the revert history, you'll see that I'm not focused on gaming the system but on the facts, using the words "provably false", "obviously false", etc. In fact, I think Gekritzl and myself are the only editors who have been 'content' oriented in this whole edit war, while all the other editors seem 'behavior' oriented and have forgotten that it should be about the facts. Here's the revert history with the explanations on the history page:
    - Mmeijeri 12:14, 30 December 2014‎ (Undid revision 640174799 by Renejs (That's arguing with the source, we'd need a reliable source who says it's no longer tenable)
    - Renejs 21:00, 30 December 2014 (This is fact, not argument (as the preceding section of this article makes clear). Harpur & Brodie have appeared as Jesus mythicists since Grant wrote!)
    - Jeppiz 22:51, 30 December 2014‎ (No need to repeat what has already been said. The text makes it clear Grant said this in 1977, and those two authors have already been mentioned.)
    - Renejs 00:07, 31 December 2014 (The problem is precisely that what Grant said is now incorrect. The whole paragraph on Grant should probably be deleted.)
    - T. M. Drew 03:22, 31 December 2014‎ (Grant's assessment is correct, and this sentence is not needed.)
    - Renejs 20:12, 31 December 2014‎ (The facts prove otherwise.)
    - Bill the Cat 7 18:42, 1 January 2015‎ (This is getting tiresome. CMT is FRINGE.)
    - Renejs 17:31, 2 January 2015 (Deletion of provably false statement.)
    - Bill the Cat 7 17:48, 2 January 2015 (It is provable. Take it to the talk page. If you want references, let me know.‎)
    - Renejs 18:31, 2 January 2015‎ (I'm got references supporting the CMT, too, and they'll be on the Talk page soon.)
    - Bill the Cat 7 19:18, 2 January 2015‎ (Yes, it's fringe. Take it to the talk page and see a whole host of quotes stating that it's fringe.)
    - Renejs 21:20, 2 January 2015 (Mmerjeri already asked you to please obtain a consensus first as per WP:BRD.)
    - Bill the Cat 7 21:55, 2 January 2015‎ (I did. We do.)
    - Gekritzl 22:08, 2 January 2015 (Not a fringe theory.)
    - Jeppiz 22:21, 2 January 2015 (A large number of sources have been given for the cat, stop the POV-pushing.)
    - Gekritzl 22:49, 2 January 2015 (A large number of sources are given supporting Jesus Myth theory, stop POV.)
    - Mmeijeri 19:46, 5 January 2015‎ (This is edit-warring, you do not have a consensus for this change.)
    - Renejs 20:10, 5 January 2015‎ (Obviously false statement is deleted (see Talk). Stop being obstructive and edit warring.)
    - Bill the Cat 7 02:18, 6 January 2015‎ (Peddle your fantasies somewhere else.)
    - Renejs 05:03, 6 January 2015‎ (Grant's "no serious scholar" statement is obviously obsolete, as everyone knows.)Renejs (talk) 05:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Grant's statement is actually true, if you read the entire quote...
    To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars'. In recent years 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus'—or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary. Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (New York: Scribner, 1995) p. 200
    Therefore, it is not obsolete. And it is certainly fringe, as practically all scholars say (click on the Show link to see the list). Rather than fixing the quote as it appears in the current article, he instead is trying to promote the CMT while misrepresenting what virtually all scholars have concluded. So, I think a topic ban is appropriate. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    One more note, because I don't wish to tire administrator's with this issue. . . You're moving the goalposts, Bill, and are now engaging in a bit of slight-of-hand. You know very well that those important additional words ("or at any rate very few") is not in the CMT article. So, all the reverts never go there. That's not what this is about. This is about the wiki article and what IT says (which is wrong today), not what Grant may or may not have said (misquoted or otherwise). The "status quo" wiki version everybody wants to reinstate (except me and Gekritzl) is:
    According to Grant, "modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory". He adds that 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' and says that the idea has been "annihilated" by the best scholars because the mythicists "have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary".[133]
    Not even the date 1977 is given in the above (that's found in the reference tag), so it reads as if the above were still current today, almost 40 years later. The nuts and bolts of this revealing issue are straightforward. According to the wiki version, Michael Grant (one of the most prominent classicists of his generation) asserted that "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus." (In fact, the quote ultimately wasn't by Grant himself--he was actually citing somebody else, as his footnote reveals.) Such an assertion has long been obsolete. Not one, not two, but at least three (and arguably more) "serious scholars" have now come forward and denied the historicity of Jesus. I duly brought up their names--Robert M. Price, Thomas Brodie, and Richard Carrier--all "Jesus mythicists" with Ph.D's in a relevant field. At this information, it appears that certain editors simply went ballistic. I provided a lengthy reference section of "Citations Demonstrating Scholarly Support for the CMT" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christ_myth_theory#Citations_Demonstrating_Scholarly_Support_for_the_CMT) in order to show that, indeed, there are numerous scholars who support this view today. I also started an RfC section (on the CMT talk page) inviting editors to give any reason at all why Grant's assertion--as stated on the wiki page!--might still be true. Nobody did. That RfC section is still there, by the way.
    The whole point, for me, is the admission that today we have multiple "serious scholars" who deny the historicity of Jesus. That is indisputable, and the CMT page needs to reflect that, and not continue saying "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus." In short, we can not revert to status quo! That's why I insist on deleting that assertion--it's false! We're not talking here about a carefully worded retrospective sense, e.g., "Though in 1977 Robert Grant stated. . . today a number of scholars endorse the CMT." That's something else, which no one has yet proposed. Everybody, instead, is insisted on retaining Grant's false wording (without any additional words). That's the problem.
    This is (or should be) a simple issue. I'm maintaining that a single critical assertion in the CMT article is no longer true, and I can easily prove my point--and have done so repeatedly on the Talk page. Astonishingly, however, other editors have ignored verifiability and made this an issue of revert warring and COI.
    I'm certainly not the most important element here, and have other things to do than edit Wikipedia. But I think Wikipedia is on the line in a small way, and in a sense so is its legacy. I can imagine--maybe a century from now--people saying, "Oh yeah. . . Wikipedia. . . Wasn't that the early digital encylopedia which couldn't handle controversy? Instead of keeping to its stated philosophy of verification, it caved to internal pressures--mostly of a conservative nature. The Jesus issue is a case in point. As late as 2015 Wikipedia still insisted there wasn't a single serious scholar who disputed the historicity of Jesus. Of course, there were quite a few such scholars by then--and had been since the turn of the millennium, if not before. . ." Renejs (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Quite a few" doesn't really mean anything. What's the percentage? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether Grant's claim is true (or even properly cited) doesn't matter. It doesn't even matter whether the quote should stay or go, that can be decided by the normal consensus process, including things like adding the "dubious - discuss" tag that cannot be removed without a consensus, and of course the various conflict resolution procedures. The point is that edit-warring is against the rules. Renejs has no special privileges that allow him to operate outside the rules that apply to everybody else. He cannot be allowed to impose his will unilaterally. He should self-revert, add a dubious tag and appeal to some conflict resolution board. If he refuses to abide by the rules, I think he should be blocked for 30 days to show him you cannot get away with blatant violations of the rules. That also gives the rest of the editors an opportunity to work out a solution. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never heard of a "dubious-discuss" tag. You know, I'm pretty inexperienced at Wikipedia. . . And I don't wish to claim "special privileges." The fact that these accusations are being leveled against me indicates that I'm not getting a fair shake. . . After all, don't you remember that it was I who started the RfC precisely to get 'input' on the Grant statement? That doesn't sound like someone who wants to "impose [his] will unilaterally." But you don't like the facts I'm bringing, so you want to ban me. I understand this perfectly.Renejs (talk) 06:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only do I not want to ban you, I'm bending over backwards to prevent that from happening. If you agree you aren't very familiar with Wikipedia policy, you shouldn't go around lecturing people about it and ignoring the many complaints about your policy violations by others who are familiar with it. You should now self-revert, declare your intention to abide by the rules, and be very hesitant to assume others are wrong if they say you are violating the rules. That may not be enough to prevent a block or even a ban, but it's your best shot. You are free to add a "dubious - discuss tag", or one of several NPOV tags. None of these can be removed without a consensus. If you don't know how to use them, you should spend some time googling and using the Wikipedia search function. Martijn Meijering (talk) 09:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Listen to Martijn here, OK? If you aren't familiar with policies and guidelines, then you certainly shouldn't be trying to impose your admittedly flawed understanding of them, or adding templates you don't apparently completely understand the usage of. Also, honestly, if you want to reduce the chances of some sort of sanction being imposed, you might really want to read WP:ADOPT and have a good chance of getting some help there. John Carter (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just like Martijn Meijering, this report has absolutely nothing to do with which version is right or wrong. The report is based on Renejs's behavior: repeated edit-warring, explicit "promise" to continue to edit war, and violations of COI. Content-related issues are irrelevant and belong at the talk page of the article.Jeppiz (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Itemizing the various proposals made of late to deal with this situation below. John Carter (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Good idea.Jeppiz (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed topic ban of Renejs

    • Proposed and supported by me and Blackmane above. John Carter (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support The user has shown beyond any reasonable doubt that he is on Wikipedia with the sole purpose to push his own POV, he has shown time and time again that he will edit war to do this, and he has vowed to continue the edit warring. I think that's enough, even without the rather blatant COI.Jeppiz (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support If he/she is here to build an encyclopedia, then he/she can edit other topics. If he/she is not, then he/she will go away, or breach the topic ban. If he/she learns to edit collaboratively, then in time the topic ban could be removed.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Edits by Renejs have been in good faith with supporting citations. GMarxx (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I don't see enough in the diffs provided to support a topic ban at this point. Renejs appears more reasonable than some of the interpretations of his diffs suggest. I don't know much about this area, but in the diffs provided above, some of the content he wants to include appears more neutrally written than the current text. --I am One of Many (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The complaint isn't about his views, it's about his edit-warring and other policy violations. He is not trying to win over people to his point of view, he is trying to force his views on the article and refusing to accept the status quo text until a new consensus has emerged. Edit-warring isn't an acceptable way to deal with a content dispute. Martijn Meijering (talk) 23:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, you are falsely accusing, Mmeijeri. I am not trying to "force [my] views on the article and refusing to accept the status quo text until a new consensus has emerged." There IS consensus on the Grant status quo version--it is false! Do you want a singing telegram informing you about this? EVERYONE has *already* agreed (even you, I'm sure). No one is contesting that there is at least one "serious scholar" today who espouses the CMT. No one challenges that Thomas L. Brodie, Robert M. Price, or Richard Carrier (at least one of these) is a "serious scholar." As a formality, I opened the RfC on the talk page precisely for this point (which is pretty obvious, anyway), merely for 'official' confirmation. In sum, then, there is no dispute regarding content here. Now, once Grant's statement is seen to be wrong today, then there is absolutely no reason for keeping this very serious (and easily proven) falsehood in the article. It needs to go immediately. (Once again, I caution that the Grant quote is not a historical statement 'from 1977,' nor does the status quo version have the words "or at least very few.")
    I think that this whole discussion and arbitration was wrong-headed from the start and that there never was cause for arbitration, which has IMO been trumped up. Jeppiz and Mmeijeri keep insisting it's not about content but about behavior. However, it is about *content determining behavior* (at least, my behavior). It is against my principles to revert to a statement which EVERYONE (including myself) has already determined to be false. I consider Mmeijeri's insistence on such a revert grotesque. If Wikipedia insists on retaining statements which have already been *proven* false, then I would want nothing to do with the encyclopedia anyway and a ban would be welcome to me. BTW, I can say that this Grant statement is a very rare case. I doubt I would (or could) be so insistent on any other statement. So, let's get beyond this and put aside a statement which everyone agrees is false.
    I'm afraid Mmeijeri's edits show rigidity and great difficulty "hearing" the other side. . . Once again, there has *already been consensus* that the status quo Grant statement is false (the RfC section simply confirmed the obvious). There is no voiced disagreement on this point. . . Thus, his insistence upon reverting to an obviously false statement is wrong-headed and could be interpreted as POV pushing--for it is not fact-based. Similarly for Jeppiz, John Carter, Bill the Cat 7, T. M. Drew, and the editors who refuse to part with a (cherished) statement by a well-known scholar from 1977--a statement that today is obviously invalid. Is such insistance not POV pushing?
    Mmeijeri seems philosophically opposed (and strongly so) to a change made in an article before the discussion phase has ended. I think this is theoretically correct. But what he refuses to grasp is that *in this case* there is no discussion--the status quo statement has already been determined false by EVERYBODY! No one (not even Mmeijeri) contests this. Thus, BRD is not in force. That's already past. Now it's time to reject the statement (or update it by consensus!) and move on.Renejs (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There may be a consensus that the statement as currently quoted is false, but not that it needs to be removed.
    Say no more. . . This is the problem--right here! You've got two parts to that sentence, Mmeijeri, and they don't go together: (1) There may be a consensus that the statement as currently quoted is false; and (2) but not that it needs to be removed. I say this: For heaven's sake, if there's "a consensus that the statement as currently quoted is false," then it needs to go! That's my point. You don't need TWO consensuses, one for the determination of falsehood, and another for the deletion. Someone else could come along and object that there needs to be a 3rd consensus, etc. etc. All this is unnecessary and nowhere in the Wiki policy, AFAIK. Somebody does, however, need to take action on the fact that a seminal assertion is false. That action is important. After all, what benefit is it if people work to determine if statements are true or false, and then but everybody dithers and no one takes action? [BTW--for my education--where does one find the "dubious-discuss" tag? I've looked.]
    You don't need a second or a third consensus, you need only one, but it's a consensus on the concrete change you intend to make. You can't just take a consensus on a related point and couple it with an argument that demonstrates to your own satisfaction that your proposed change is justified. You can try to make a Bold edit to that effect, but if someone reverts it, you can't revert that revert or otherwise reinsert your change without obtaining a consensus on the actual change, which might include an appeal to a conflict resolution board to obtain a consensus. It's a very simple system: you need a consensus for every specific change you make. You don't have to wait for it, you are encouraged to be bold, but once reverted you have to obtain a consensus first. As for the "dubious - discuss" tag, see Template:Dubious. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    [MM] By your own summary of the reverts there are at least four people who oppose the change, and you're the only one advocating it. The truth or falsehood of Grant's claim is irrelevant. We quote people saying false things all the time, as inevitably we must when we neutrally report on a debate where various sources disagree. Two sides that contradict each other cannot both be right, and yet we must neutrally report both. Also, even if there now was a consensus the line should be removed, that does not justify your earlier edit-warring. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me make this even clearer: you refuse to revert a change that four or five people oppose and only you support. Clearly, you do not have a consensus for your change, and therefore the status quo version should remain. Nevertheless you refuse to revert. That's edit-warring, even if you are right. The details of the case don't matter at all, this is a purely procedural issue. If you think five editors are ganging up on you to push a point of view, then you can add an NPOV tag, a "dubious - discuss" tag and appeal to one of our conflict resolution boards. Yet you refuse to do that, and insist on having things your way. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentI just looked though the article in question and I think that Renejs has some concerns, which don't justify bad behavior but may mitigate it to some extent. First, the criticism section does read as though people who put forward Christ myth theories are not serious scholars, which doesn't match the list of people and theories discussed in the article. Second, many of the sections with different theories already contain criticisms, so the article does, at least superficially, come across as non-neutral. I think it would be good for the article for all of you to give it another go with Renejs. If Renejs would agree to exercise patients and follow policy, then this thread should be closed. If that doesn't work, then a topic ban or more might be the way to go. --I am One of Many (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am certainly willing to work with others and exercise patience. But to do so we have to work together and listen to each other, not just make rules for others.Renejs (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid I don't quite understand your comment. First you say some concerns don't justify bad behavior but then you argue that in fact it does. I don't think this is the place to discuss the content, suffice to say that it's an article on a fringe theory and the articles mixes both serious scholars and conspiracy theorists, so it's true it could and should be approved. But I know of no Wikipedia policy that allow heavy edit warring because one is convinced one is right. In the absence of such a policy, I'm afraid I fail to see the point of the comment above.Jeppiz (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The bottom line is that after reading through this, I think you guys ought to give it another shot to work together. Renejs, from the his comments above and below appears to want to make it work. I may very well be wrong, but my gut tells me you might just be able to make it work. --I am One of Many (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been very willing to work with Renejs the whole time, and I think the others are too. The problem is not that we disagree with him (although we do), the problem is that he insists on reinserting a change that others have repeatedly reverted and otherwise objected to. He needs to stop edit-warring and try to obtain a consensus for the change he is proposing. If necessary, he can appeal to a conflict resolution board. If you want to join in the actual content dispute, you are more than welcome to do so, but on the Talk page, not here. The complaint here is his wilfully going against the consensus on the basis of an argument that he himself finds satisfactory but others don't. We aren't asking that he should stop arguing his case, but that he should stop edit-warring. You are not suggesting that he can unilaterally force a controversial change on the article before a consensus has been reached, are you? Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is really not the place to introduce the *highly charged* and probably complex issue of whether the CMT is "fringe theory". That category tag has already been the target of edit warring (it is presently not on the article) and clearly no consensus has yet been attained there (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christ_myth_theory&diff=639175941&oldid=639175067). Look, this very interesting article is really going to require the best in us all to attain NPOV. We all have a point of view, but I'm willing to work with you guys, if you're willing to work with me!Renejs (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, so do you agree to stop edit warring, revert your latest edit warring and to remove the sections about yourself from the article? Jeppiz (talk) 12:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad the admins have kept this discussion open. It's Jeppiz who was largely responsible for hauling me in front of the admins for POV ("The user has shown beyond any reasonable doubt that he is on Wikipedia with the sole purpose to push his own POV," above). But Jeppiz' own considerable POV is now finally coming through, as with his one-sided view of "fringe theory" just mentioned above. We all have POV! It's like a zebra's stripes. We just don't all have the same POV. But by working together, we cancel out each other's POV and produce an article which is (hopefully) NPOV and beyond the scope of any single user. That's the beauty of Wikipedia--when it's working. But for this to work, it's critical to keep editors of a variety of POV's on board. If a user like Jeppiz is on a crusade to eliminate people with opposing POV, then Wiki gets a weak, non-fact-based article like the current one on the CMT--outdated and skewed to the conservative side, as admin 'I am One of Many' has implied above: "First, the criticism section does read as though people who put forward Christ myth theories are not serious scholars, which doesn't match the list of people and theories discussed in the article. Second, many of the sections with different theories already contain criticisms, so the article does, at least superficially, come across as non-neutral. I think it would be good for the article for all of you to give it another go with Renejs." Speaking for myself, of course, I concur. This article needs me! We don't want crusaders chasing people away. . . I will be more specific--this article NEEDS my POV precisely to counter the POV of Jeppiz and a few others. Evidently, the article has lacked my POV for some time, because it leans to the right (as admin noted above) and is a decade or more behind the times. (We see it now: we're arguing about a Grant quote from 1977, and three-quarters of the "Further Reading" section is before 1950!)
    If Wiki wants NPOV articles on Jesus (which is obviously a very important topic) it must accommodate users with a variety of POVs. This is how the system works--one balances the other. Though I don't agree with your POV, Jeppiz, I'm still willing to work with you. In fact, I welcome your participation, knowing you will cancel me out and Wiki will benefit. But are you ready to work with me? That's the question. And, if not, which one of us should go out the door? Obviously, the one who is NOT willing to collaborate, the one who insists "my way or the highway". . .
    Specifically, I've already answered your edit warring charge. It takes at least two to do that, and I provided a list of edit warriors above (which includes you).
    I've also answered YOUR demand that I revert my last edit. This is a reversion to a proven false statement. Why would anyone want this? Insisting on a proven false statement from 1977 demonstrates a serious inability to live with the facts today. That's more than just POV. Inability to tolerate proven facts is a serious liability for an agressive Wiki editor like Jeppiz. I would suggest, that if Jeppiz cannot accept the facts that 'fringe theory' is still unresolved and that the Grant statement is categorically false, then HIS role and behavior pattern needs to be examined. (Incidentally, I have no such opinion regarding Mmeijeri, who seems to have the gift of pulling to the center from all sides. I just think he has a hangup on protocol.)
    As for the section on me in the article, if users think it should be it removed, then remove it! I will stay entirely away from that discussion, per COI. That doesn't interest me at all.Renejs (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no reason for him to remove the sections about himself, in fact I think he should steer clear of them. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I should clarify my comment re the topic ban. It is not to remove Renejs completely from the article indefinitely. I would only support a fixed length topic ban with the intention that Renejs go edit something that isn't as close to his interest and learn the ropes. This is true of most topic bans. Stepping away for a period to gain experience does work wonders as long as the Tbanned editor recognises the opportunity. Blackmane (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I have seen quite a bit of edit warring on the Christ Myth Theory page and a couple of others. This person is not here to build an encyclopedia, but to harass and edit war.--TMD Talk Page. 18:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose for now. Too drastic a measure to try first. I think Renejes persists in his behaviour because he is getting away with it: his edit has been on the page for over a week, even though at least four editors object to it. Giving him a final warning and blocking him for thirty days if he doesn't react could change all that. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • previously involved support This is a perpetual issue on this article, and we need to start being severe with those who are disrupting the process of building real consensus. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed 30 day block of Renejs

    My actual proposal is to give him one final chance to do the right thing. This probably involves having an administrator issue a final warning. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That is what I'm proposing. Over the past few days the disruptive behaviour has been dialed down, perhaps in reaction to statements made here. If so, I'm happy to see that, but the text that was edit-warred into the article over the objections of four or five other editors still remains in the article and that still needs to be addressed. Ideally Renejs would take it out himself (and in that case we don't even need an explicit administrative caution), but if he doesn't someone else needs to do it and then he does need to be warned that further edit-warring will not be tolerated. I don't know if 30 days is the appropriate length of a block in case of further violations, and maybe it doesn't need to be spelled out in the warning.
    Also, note that while the content disagreement may be fairly routine, the user conduct has not been. The complaint here is about highly disruptive user conduct, and the details and nature of the content disagreement are not relevant to this complaint, though they are obviously relevant to an eventual resolution of the disagreement itself. If you read his statements in this ANI thread, you'll see he has blatantly denied existing Wikipedia policies! Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Meijering, I think you're confused. You're also getting a little wild. You write that "the text that was edit-warred into the article over the objections of four or five other editors still remains in the article and that still needs to be addressed." But I've NEVER put any content into the CMT article. Check my contributions. FYI, my participation in the group edit-war got an obviously false statement by Grant OUT of the CMT article. I didn't put anything in. My last revert was on Jan 6 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christ_myth_theory&diff=641192563&oldid=641176576. Also, since then I haven't touched the article until today when I updated a reference tag.

    Admins: this is transparent harassment from Meijering. I'm surprised he's been able to continue doing it for so long. I think it's time to institute formal harassment proceedings against him (because he's really persistent) and I'm asking you directly how I might go about doing that. You can contact me on my user page or how you think appropriate. Wikipedia:Harassment defines it as "a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always) the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely." This is exactly what's been happening to me, and there's a growing record of it right here on this page. There are consequences, too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment#Blocking_for_harassment. Meijering has now graduated to inventing dirt to throw at me, and he's trying to hoodwink you admins. I think that's getting pretty serious.

    As for conduct, I find the conduct of Meijering absolutely inexcusable.

    Renejs (talk) 04:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Contrary to your assertion you have edit-warred two changes into the article: the removal of Grant's statement that no serious scholar has put forward the CMT and you've added a rebuttal, both of which changes survive in the latest version, in altered form. Both changes have been repeatedly reverted, and reinserted by you.

    You don't seem to know the difference between removing something and putting it in. And what "rebuttal" did I put in? Are you inventing again? (Time for chicken soup. . .)

    If you read my posts on this thread, you'll see that contrary to your assertion I've not at all been concerned with trying to get you blocked, but simply with getting these edit-warred changes reverted, at least until there is a consensus for a new version. In fact, I have been bending over backwards to offer you a way out.

    I prefer you to stop bending over backwards and start making sense.

    Since you claim none of your edit-warred changes survive in the latest form of the article, I'll now feel free to remove them until there is a consensus that supports them.

    You don't seem to have yet figured out what my "edit-warred changes" were. They were the removal of one obviously false sentence from Grant: "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus." That's it. Nothing else.

    If you revert them again (as opposed to arguing for them on the Talk page), that will be (yet another) crystal clear case of edit-warring, which should have consequences.

    Dunno what you're talking about. The only thing I'll definitely revert out is the Grant statement if you're foolish enough to put what everyone considers an OBVIOUS FALSEHOOD back in.

    If you don't, then this thread will serve as a record of the complaints about your behaviour and your responses to them in case the disruptive behaviour resumes.

    I'm happy to let this page stand as a witness to my behavior. You're the one being disruptive. This would have never happened had you not taken it to the admins and continued to prolong this charade for two weeks.

    I've stated several times now, if you don't resume edit-warring and your edit-warred changes are removed, I see no reason for sanctions at this time.

    Before anyone cares what you think, Meijering, first you have to demonstrate that you're rational.Renejs (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    How the others who support sanctions will react to this is for them to decide. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Meijering has just reverted to the old Grant statement which 100% consensus considers false (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christ_myth_theory&diff=643228427&oldid=643128901). This needs to be noted.Renejs (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a consensus that the statement is false in its abbreviated form, but not in its full form.

    Precisely. And this matter is emphatically over the abbreviated form--not the "full form" (which has never appeared in the CMT article). There's a big difference between the two. Please don't muddy the waters by confusing them. If you want the "full form" (with the words "or at least very few") then you'll have to propose that on the talk page--and get consensus. We already have consensus that the short form is false and needs to go.

    A more proper response might be to provide the full quote. But more importantly, there is no consensus that it needs to be removed. An attributed quote by a reliable source is still a notable view, even if it is false, and it is only reported as such, a view, and not in Wikipedia voice.

    WRONG. But we all thank you for (tacitly) admitting that Grant's assertion is false. After two weeks, this is progress. . . Now you will need to convince everyone that Wikipedia should keep a false assertion which is not labeled clearly as such IN THE ARTICLE--for example: "According to Grant (writing in 1977), "modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory". He adds that 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus'--but this view is now false, for several "serious scholars" today indeed endorse the Christ myth theory. Grant further writes. . ." Of course, this is not what you're proposing, which is why your arguments for defending the "status quo" wording have no merit. I think you fundamentally misunderstand Wikipedia if you think that it will tolerate a false view 'in the guise of' a correct view, regardless of your specious recourse to "Wikipedia voice" (!). All editors have every right--indeed the duty--to revert your insertion of false material out of the article.

    Also, there is implied consensus for removal of a statement which is acknowledged by all to be false. I've noted this before but you continually fail to hear: no one needs (or should wait for) a 'second consensus' to remove false material. This is contrary to wikipedia policy. Once material is acknowledged false, it needs to go. Your bringing in arguments about "notable view," "interesting" (you mentioned this on the talk page), etc. are just more casuistry ("the use of clever but unsound reasoning").

    I reverted the text to the WP:STATUSQUO version, thereby reversing the changes that were edit-warred into the article over the objections of four or five editors. Reverting these edit-warred changes is not itself edit-warring. If a new consensus develops that the quote should be removed, either because it is false or for other reasons, then that's fine with me. Right now there is no such consensus and reverting to the status quo is entirely appropriate. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you're careful to cover your butt and make sure nobody might think you're breaking any rules. . . And all the while you do something much worse: you break the spirit of Wikipedia by continually refusing to admit fact-based information into the article.Renejs (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you increasingly sensing, Meijering, that only you are insisting upon "a new consensus"? You need to self-revert and not start a new edit war by having inserted obviously false material of a very inflammatory nature into the CMT article.Renejs (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed site ban of Renejs

    • Suggested by me above, but not necessarily supported by me, who would prefer a topic ban if anything, based on his edit history showing him to be basically an SPA on the broad topic of the existence of Jesus.John Carter (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me, how is repeatedly inserting a change that no one else supports and several others object to acting in good faith? I agree we should not be contemplating a site ban now, but I don't understand how people can say that without also pointing out there do need to be sanctions, because this blatant edit-warring is unacceptable. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This "wikihounding" of myself by user Martijn Meijering (Mmeijeri) has gone on long enough. I appeal to the administrators, whoever you are, to adhere to Wikipedia policy and not to invented "protocols" by Meijering or anyone else, especially when they don't understand Wiki policy themselves (see further). Meijering has now emerged as the main engineer of sanctions against me, continually forcing this issue. He says it's not about content (the Grant citation in the CMT article)--but it is--and he's getting weirder and weirder, writing things like "Whether Grant's statement is true is utterly irrelevant"(Talk:Christ myth theory#RfC: Is the 1977 statement "no serious scholar..." by M. Grant in the "Criticism" section true today?) Such an attitude is astonishing when Wikipedia is about verifiability and getting statements as correct as possible. The critical 1977 Grant citation in the CMT article ("no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus") is causing this brouhaha, though it has already been verified FALSE by everybody today!

    I have been hauled in front of arbitration for removing the above proven false statement by Grant. This is, however, entirely correct Wiki policy, especially when there is consensus--and there has been consensus (contrary to Meijering's obstinate insistence on the contrary)--because NOBODY thinks the Grant statement is any longer true (or that it has been for quite some time)! In Wikipedia one is supposed to remove clearly false material. When I first removed this assertion, I explained why--first in the brief edits, and then on the talk page. Because of resistance, I finally instituted an RfC section on the CMT talk page to confirm the (obvious) incorrectness of Grant's statement today. But Meijering, Jeppiz, and others still resisted, and they even hauled me in front of the admins for this. Meijering wants to go through some kind of arcane process and "try to obtain a consensus for the change he is proposing"--when, of course, we already have complete consensus. He writes: "If necessary, he can appeal to a conflict resolution board"--but these are all his own false protocol requirements.

    In fact, a statement doesn't even have to be provably false to be removed--just unsourced: "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability). What is Meijering going on and on about here! I am being wikihounded, plain and simple. . .

    Meijering writes that I cannot "unilaterally force a controversial change on the article before a consensus has been reached"--but, once again, no one doubts that a consensus HAS been reached. This is what he refuses to see. We're talking about removing information from an article which is simply and easily proven false. (At least three PhD's in the field now ascribe to the CMT, and at least one has since the 1970's--the New Testament scholar Fr. Thomas L. Brodie).

    Here is Meijeri's convoluted solution (?) to this matter, which he astonishingly considers "very simple": "You don't need a second or a third consensus, you need only one, but it's a consensus on the concrete change you intend to make. You can't just take a consensus on a related point and couple it with an argument that demonstrates to your own satisfaction that your proposed change is justified. You can try to make a Bold edit to that effect, but if someone reverts it, you can't revert that revert or otherwise reinsert your change without obtaining a consensus on the actual change, which might include an appeal to a conflict resolution board to obtain a consensus. It's a very simple system: you need a consensus for every specific change you make. You don't have to wait for it, you are encouraged to be bold, but once reverted you have to obtain a consensus first." Sounds pretty damn complex to me, especially when we're dealing with a statement by Grant which the consensus has already determined to be untenable.

    Meijering makes such a big deal about Wikipedia policy when he himself doesn't understand it, as in his misinterpreting RfC policy (Talk:Christ myth theory#RfC: Is the 1977 statement "no serious scholar..." by M. Grant in the "Criticism" section true today?--scroll to bottom). He continues to imperiously foist his OWN requirements for FALSE 'protocol' on me. The only reason I can see for this is presumably to attain compliance of behavior or even a topic ban. This is tantamount to censorship of the users which, of course, amounts to censorship of Wikipedia (POV).

    Finally, Meijering and Jeppiz come out with one ridiculous assertion after another. Here are a few:

    --Meijering: "The details of the case don't matter at all, this is a purely procedural issue."

    -- Meijering: "Whether Grant's statement is true is utterly irrelevant" (Talk:Christ myth theory#RfC: Is the 1977 statement "no serious scholar..." by M. Grant in the "Criticism" section true today?)

    --Meijering: "Whether Grant's claim is true (or even properly cited) doesn't matter. It doesn't even matter whether the quote should stay or go. . ."

    --Jeppiz: "this report has absolutely nothing to do with which version is right or wrong."

    I rest my case and probably deserve a Barnstar. I'm being wikihounded and appeal to the admins to deliver a severe warning (at the very least) against Meijering and Jeppiz concerning their aggressive and unjustifiable behavior. It would be a most serious matter if any of the admins allowed themselves to be swayed by a wikihound like Meijering, one who is an active, aggressive, and controlling editor who is apparently closely patrolling the Jesus pages on Wikipedia.Renejs (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Four or five editors have reverted Renejs's edit, only he has supported it, yet he keeps reinserting it and it is still on the page. It's crystal clear that there is no consensus for his change. Also, I'm calling for the lightest possible sanction: a final warning telling him to revert his controversial change until there is a consensus for that specific change, as opposed to some related issue he thinks is decisive. If he refuses, I'm calling for a thirty day block.
    I'm starting to wonder whether it was a mistake to bring this to the general section as opposed to the edit-warring / 3RR subsection. There is a clear violation of 3RR, which I thought was intended as a bright line. Can some administrator step in and take action? Is there anything we still need to wait for? A controversial change has been edit-warred into the article by a single SPA with a COI, over the objections of four or five other editors, and it has remained there for at least a week or so. I'm not sure why people are voting on the various proposed sanctions, especially the involved editors (myself included), since I thought this wasn't a vote. Are we waiting for some kind of quorum of administrators to weigh in? Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think WP:ROPE might be applicable here. The longer he refuses to revert himself, the stronger the case against him gets. John Carter (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to add that Meijering (user Mmeijeri) has been accused of bullying in the past:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mmeijeri#Me.2C_.22constantly_mentioning_other_editors_by_name.22. Renejs (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI: The user making that accusation (Homni) is a sock puppet of PennySeven and has been blocked indefinitely. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You were still bullying.

    And I see that you yourself have refused to self-revert, heatedly saying "don't lecture me! . . . I don't have to undo my revert". See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mmeijeri#Fractional_Reserve_Banking You're evidently a hypocrite too.

    There as here I was insisting on a consensus for a controversial change. So, no, I did not have to self-revert. The reason you do have to self-revert in this case is because in your case the sequence was: bold edit by Renejs (fine), reverted by someone else (fine), reinserted by Renejs (edit-warring, several times in fact). You are not supposed to reinsert a bold change that has been reverted by someone else before obtaining a consensus. You are welcome to make a Bold change, and everybody else is welcome to revert it if they don't like it. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    And what about your history of obstinately refusing to "get the point"? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Failure_or_refusal_to_.22get_the_point.22) See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mmeijeri#Second_WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT_note . Here the user even said "we are all going of die of old age on this." See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mmeijeri#Comment_from_PirateButtercup

    And I see you've resisted changes to the Grant quote before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mmeijeri#Second_WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT_note Renejs (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose Conceding some commonsense exceptions, we don't usually start with the nuclear option when dealing with a problem editor. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • oppose no evidence of problem editing outside the area. They are currently a WP:SPA. give them some WP:ROPE. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Don't see enough to take a drastic step. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 13:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • SNOW Oppose Site bans are reserved for the most tenacious of problem editors, generally only after they have gone prolonged periods of time violating behavioural guidelines with no sign they will ever internalize our policies and procedures. Renejs certainly does have a long way to go with regard to understanding how our content decisions are made on this project and contributing appropriately, and some kind of sanction (if only a temporary block for the next revert violation) may very be in order, but he hasn't begun to approach the level of disruption that has traditionally been reserved for site bans. Indeed, those kinds of decisions are rarely considered to be in the purview of ANI and I doubt any admin is going to act to try to impose such a massive punishment based on the behaviours being discussed here. Snow talk 16:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Oppose This seems like a routine content disagreement to me. If it really isn't, administrative caution or censure should precede any block or site ban, except in some dire emergency of which this clearly isn't. BlueSalix (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Not enough disruption to warrant this. In fact, I don't see any evidence of this user editing disruptively anywhere else. We can probably do a temporary page ban or temporary block, though. Epic Genius (talk) 03:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Clarification request

    User:Renejs, can I ask you to clarify some things for me? I've just read through the above but haven't gone through the article's talk page recently.

    • Above, the "no serious scholar" comment appears to be attributed to Michael Grant and Robert M Grant. Is one of those a typo or have I misread?
    It's Michael Grant. The edition I possess is Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels. Charles Scribner's Sons (New York, 1977). The paragraph in question is on p. 200. It reads (note the two inner quotations!): To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars.' In recent years 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicy of Jesus'--or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.Renejs (talk) 09:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have I got this right: we were quoting Grant's 1977 "no serious scholar" statement unmodified, despite Grant having in 1995 modified his comment with "or at any rate very few"? (It's bedtime here.)

    --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The important words "or at least very few" are in the original quote, but have never been included on the CMT page (to my knowledge)--a very tendentious omission. Also, the CMT version has (equally tendentiously) omitted any mention that the citation is from a 1977 publication, which leads the reader to suppose that it is a recent quote from a reputable scholar alive today and not from about 40 years ago.
    This is probably not the place to go into the astonishing intricacies of the Grant citation. He is actually citing two other writers (from 1957 and 1968, according to his footnote), one of which was not a scholar at all but apparently a novelist Roderic Dunkerley. Thanks, Anthony, for your interest and support. Yes, I do feel a tad lonely in this wiki-world and that I'm being "railroaded" out, basically because my view is not liked and I'm able to support it with verifiable facts.Renejs (talk) 09:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You're kidding me. Did anyone defend the obviously false Wikipedia text while knowing about the omitted modifying language? If so, could you please list them? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Meijering if by far the most aggressive user reverting to the "short" Grant statement which he seems to sanctify by calling "status quo." In fact, he continues to revert to it as we write, and has done so several times in the last four days (latest here [134]). It's been explained to him numerous times that this version of the Grant statement is obviously false, and that it has been so for many years. It's also been explained to him (repeatedly) that there's total consensus that it's false (I put in an RfC section on the talk page just to confirm this). But none of this has seemed to matter.

    It has not been 'explained to me' that this is the case, I agree and have done so from the beginning. It has been explained to you several times that 1) this doesn't matter as it's an attributed statement and 2) this ANI complaint is about your disruptive behaviour, not about your disagreement with the current version. The quote still needs to be accurate of course, and I've drawn attention to the fact that part of the quote was missing and proposed adding it back. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately, this is only the tip of the iceberg. Meijering appears to strongly resist any substantive changes to the article, unless they are made according to his proprietary (and completely incomprehensible to me) 'wiki' protocols and at a glacial pace--if ever. I am astonished at his ability to violate the spirit of this encyclopedia which, above all, professes to value up to date and verifiably correct content.

    This is not some arcane and proprietary protocol, it is standard Wikipedia procedure. Changes can only be added by consensus, not by edit-warring. Observe that I have proposed a number of changes for which there is no consensus and that I haven't tried to edit-war them into the article. Some of the other editors have also objected to parts of the page for literally years and haven't been able to get a consensus for their changes either, and you don't see them engaging in edit-warring. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Other users who have reverted to the false Grant statement are (in decreasing order of reverts) Bill the Cat 7, Jeppiz, and T. M. Drew, all with considerable support from John Carter who writes (above): "I think WP:ROPE might be applicable here. The longer [Renejs] refuses to revert himself, the stronger the case against him gets. John Carter (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)" Thus Carter also wishes me to revert to the "short" form of Grant's statement and has furthermore tried to maneuver me into a severe penalty of a topic ban if I don't.Renejs (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    No one objected to correcting the text, and as far as I know no one objected to adding an indication of when the quote was written. I've proposed both modifications myself. I was aware that the full quote said "or at any rate very few", but hadn't noticed it was missing in the CMT article. I was not aware that Grant was citing earlier scholars until someone pointed it out on the Talk page. Earlier versions of the quote may have had the full text, I'm not sure. The Historical Jesus and Historicity of Jesus articles have or at one time had the full quote. But none of this matters, because a content dispute is supposed to be solved on the Talk page or through appeal to a dispute resolution board, not through edit warring and policy violations. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And I agreed with the proposals when made on the talk page, and even proposed that the quote start with the date of inclusion to indicate that it is about 40 years outdated. And, unfortunately, I didn't notice the lack of the full quote reproduction either. And I also note that Renejs seems to be once again profoundly over-dramahtizing himself and his actions. Had he shown an ability to act in a collegial manner, and not engage in regular personal aspersions on others, particularly Martijn (which is remarkable, because so far as I can tell Martijn is the only editor there who really personal supports/agrees with Renejs about the likely nonexistence of Jesus). His conduct, and the rather arrogant and obnoxious nature of it, is the reason this discussion was started and sanctions proposed. John Carter (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me, have you actually read the complaint? This is definitely not a mere content dispute, there are serious conduct issues. We have blatant violations of policy, including a clear violation of 3RR ([135], [136], [137], [138]), repeated threats to continue edit-warring "as long as it takes", most recently in the past couple of days (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christ_myth_theory&diff=prev&oldid=643568896), refusal to appeal to a conflict resolution board if he feels he is being railroaded, a COI as a published author on this subject, apparent plans to portray himself as the victim of Wikipedia shenanigans outside Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Renejs&diff=prev&oldid=643654470, "I'm writing articles for various mags and online blogs about Wikipedia "from the inside." I'll basically be chronicling my digital wiki-voyage and how the encyclopedia has managed to pretty much turn this well-meaning newbie into a disgruntled bannee in less than a month!"), constantly casting aspersions, mostly with clearly false accusations, and general incivility.
    Note that I never asked for more than an administrative caution (though perhaps coupled with a warning that the next violation would lead to a 30 day block). Personally I have only been concerned with getting the edit-warred changes out of the text and to stop further edit-warring. That has now been accomplished, and the bad behaviour had been dialed down, so I no longer saw a pressing reason for sanctions. Renejs's behaviour in recent days has made me less certain of that however. In any event, even if we decide to close this case without sanctions, it should be clear that this isn't a mere content dispute. In particular, the expressed intent to write about the present episode in various magazines is a highly disturbing new development. Martijn Meijering (talk) 09:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Concerns about tendentious editing

    Please leave this open. There is a prima facie case for tendentious editing that needs looking at. I've just started looking into the history. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • 17:48, 2 January 2015 our article said

      Grant also asserted that 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus'.[223] Writing in 1977, Grant also stated that "modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory", and that the idea has been "annihilated" by the best scholars because the mythicists "have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary".

    • 19:03, 2 January 2015 an editor posts the Grant quote, in context, on the talk page:

      “To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has ‘again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars’. In recent years ‘no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus’—or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.” [Emphasis added]

    Note: Grant expressly states a few serious scholars have postulated the non-historicity of Jesus. Whoever added that to wikipedia was lying and deceiving our readers by cutting Grant off mid-sentence and selectively quoting him.
    • 22:28, 2 January 2015 Jeppiz: "Yes, ending with Grant is not ideal, and a concluding paragraph could be good. The real problem right now, though, is the two SPAs who revert anything that doesn't suit them based solely on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The latest edit war is a case in point. Even though we have a large number of sources for calling this fringe theory that (or even 'conspiracy theory' as some harsher historians call it), the SPAs keep edit-warring and insist oon this talk page to continue to edit-war. Jeppiz (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
    • 00:28, 3 January 2015 Mmeijeri: "That's an interesting find. I agree more context is needed, or perhaps the way we quote Grant is necessary. But apart from that, I don't think it changes the essence, since Grant appears to be citing the older views approvingly."
    • 18:42, 5 January 2015 Renejs (Rene) edits the article to move the date of Grant's commentary from the middle to the front of the paragraph so it's clear all the quotes are from 1977, and mentions two serious scholars who postulate the non-historicity of Jesus.
    • 19:46, 5 January 2015 Mmeijeri reverts.
    • 05:58, 6 January 2015 Renejs opens an RfC, "Is the 1977 statement "no serious scholar..." by M. Grant in the "Criticism" section true today?"

    Note: The above isn't finished I'll get back to this as soon as I can. But can I just say for now that as a rule I judge people who deliberately add or restore false information to articles more harshly than I do experts who lose their patience with Randys. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    What is your point? Rene's additions had been objected to, and he kept reinserting them. Reverting to the status quo was entirely appropriate. He needs to obtain a consensus first. I have no idea who inserted the quote without the "or at any rate any few", or who removed that part if it was there already. I do know I've drawn attention to the missing part of the quote, and advocated its insertion. I'm waiting for a consensus to do so, Renejs being one of the people who object to it.
    Also pray tell who you think has deliberately added or restored false information. That's a pretty serious allegation, I hope you have some evidence for it. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    [The following is Rene (User:Renejs) quoting and responding to Mmeijeri (Martijn Meijering)]:

    [Mmeijeri] What is your point? Rene's additions had been objected to. . .
    [Renejs] They were my deletions--your additions.
    [Mmeijeri] . . . and he kept reinserting them.
    [Renejs] Yes. And your deletions had been objected to by myself and Gekritzl, but you kept reinserting YOUR version. The version which is verifiably correct today is obviously the version which belongs in the article.
    [Mmeijeri] Reverting to the status quo was entirely appropriate.
    [Renejs] No, not when the status quo is false. That's what Wikipedia is all about. Change needs to be in the positive, not negative direction. You've got it backwards. But we've been through this all before. And you misunderstand WP:STATUSQUO. It doesn't mean that the pre-existing version is necessarily better. It just means "the last version." One never reverts to it when it's known to be false. This should be too elementary to have to say to an experienced editor like yourself.
    [Mmeijeri] He needs to obtain a consensus first.
    [Renejs] Again: no. This is your famous "second consensus" requirement, Meijering! We already have total consensus that the short Grant version is false. Therefore it must not appear in the article in that form. If you want another form, then you need to propose that on the talk page--after the incorrect statement has been removed. We don't keep provably false statements in the article, possibly for years, pending possible formulation of a 'better' versions by 'consensus.' That might never happen, and improvement would effectively be impeded by one tendentious editor like yourself who refuses to go along with 'consensus.'
    [Mmeijeri] I have no idea who inserted the quote without the "or at any rate any few", or who removed that part if it was there already. I do know I've drawn attention to the missing part of the quote, and advocated its insertion.
    [Renejs] I question this.
    [Mmeijeri] I'm waiting for a consensus to do so, Renejs being one of the people who object to it.
    [Renejs] Absolutely. And it's clear that you'll be waiting an awfully long time--which suits you just fine, because you're trying to make removal of false material NOW contingent on achieving questionable consensus on some other version possibly far into the future. What that means, in practical terms (and please take careful note of this), is that per your scenario the false Grant statement can stay in the article virtually forever, pending a consensus which YOU will be able to impede as long as you like. That's a very effective blocking m.o.--and I gather it's been successful for a long time.
    [Mmeijeri] Also pray tell who you think has deliberately added or restored false information. That's a pretty serious allegation, I hope you have some evidence for it. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
    [Renejs] YOU DID! You're the undisputed king of reverting to the false statement, Meijering. You did it again two days ago [139]. Every time you revert to the short form of Grant, you are 'deliberately adding and restoring false information'! And, yes, that is indeed a "pretty serious allegation" which is why you need to be disciplined or at least prevented from continuing on this road. Yesterday, Bill the Cat 7 followed your example by also reverting to the false statement. So, you see, you are having a very destructive effect on the article and have obviously found an effective formula for indefinitely stonewalling its improvement.Renejs (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Right now only you stand in the way of restoring the full quote. As you know I've proposed adding that back, as well as inserting the words "in 1977". I didn't get a consensus for that change because you objected, and I won't edit-war it into the article. Martijn Meijering (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to help resolve the content dispute, you are more than welcome to do so, but on the article Talk page, not here. This complaint is about user conduct, including edit-warring. You are not suggesting edit-warring is appropriate behaviour in a content dispute are you? Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks as if the "at any rate" bit was removed in this diff [140], which looks like a good faith attempt by an anonymous IP to reduce unnecessary duplication of Grant's words. Martijn Meijering (talk) 12:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I might believe you if there were any duplicated words. The IP moved the sentence to a different part of the section so the diff wouldn't show up their deletion of "or at any rate very few" and left a lying edit summary.
    Would you please remove the comments you inserted into my comments, per WP:TPG? If you want to respond to particular points I've raised, quote me. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not aware of any rule that requires this, but I'll be happy to do it. If others object, I'm sure they'll chime in.

    [The following is Mmeijeri (Martijn Meijering) quoting and responding to Anthonyhcole]:

    • 22:28, 2 January 2015 Jeppiz: "Yes, ending with Grant is not ideal, and a concluding paragraph could be good. The real problem right now, though, is the two SPAs who revert anything that doesn't suit them based solely on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The latest edit war is a case in point. Even though we have a large number of sources for calling this fringe theory that (or even 'conspiracy theory' as some harsher historians call it), the SPAs keep edit-warring and insist oon this talk page to continue to edit-war. Jeppiz (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
    • 00:28, 3 January 2015 Mmeijeri: "That's an interesting find. I agree more context is needed, or perhaps the way we quote Grant is necessary. But apart from that, I don't think it changes the essence, since Grant appears to be citing the older views approvingly."
    This was in response to discovering that Grant is citing other scholars. It had nothing to do with the "in 1977" or "or at any rate very few", both of which I support and have supported all along. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 18:42, 5 January 2015 Renejs edits the article to move the date of Grant's commentary from the middle to the front of the paragraph so it's clear all the quotes are from 1977, and mentions two serious scholars who postulate the non-historicity of Jesus.
    He reinserts material several editors had already objected to without obtaining a consensus. He could have added a "dubious-discuss" tag, tried to gain a consensus on the Talk page or have appealed to a conflict resolution board, but chose to edit-war instead. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A purely procedural revert, as I explained in the edit message. There was no consensus for this change (it had been reverted several times already), and it needed to be discussed first. As it happens, the substantive objection that caused the lack of consensus was not to the "in 1997", as far as I can tell no one objects to that. It was also not about mentioning the two serious scholars, whose inclusion I strongly support. The substantive objection here is that we do not debate our sources, specifically not by adding selective rebuttals. The material can be added elsewhere in the article (and does in fact appear elsewhere), but not as a selective rebuttal. Renejs is welcome to dispute these points on Talk or to appeal to a conflict resolution board, but not to impose his will unilaterally. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 05:58, 6 January 2015 Renejs opens an RfC, "Is the 1977 statement "no serious scholar..." by M. Grant in the "Criticism" section true today?"
    Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, what's with the "lying"? That's a very serious accusation. Also note that the following words were in fact duplicated: "have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary". Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Martijn, how do you justify this 22 January 2015 edit, restoring the falsehood that according to classical historian Michael Grant 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus'; when you have known since 19:03, 2 January 2015 that it is a misleading selective quote, misrepresenting the source's actual position?

    By the way, a couple of comments you've made above make me think you might benefit from reading WP:BOOMERANG. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I reverted to the status quo version. The sequence of events was something like this: Renejs had made his bold move, I had initially reverted it, then he reinserted it, then I proposed a compromise, then others rejected and reverted that compromise, then Renejs reverted reverts by about four other people and then for a long time his version stood in the article over the objections of four or five other editors. The others gave up at that point, not wanting to edit-war themselves. Despite discussions on the Talk page Renejs refused to self-revert and otherwise follow Wikipedia procedures, repeatedly threatening to edit-war.
    In the meantime we discovered that the "or at any rate" bit was missing and I drew attention to it. We also found out that Grant was citing other scholars, which is (somewhat) clear in the full quote as Renejs quoted it on the talk page since it uses apostrophes, but not in the way it was cited in the article. Several people advocated fixing these problems.
    Then on this ANI page, Renejs insisted he was falsely accused of edit-warring changes into the article, since none of his changes remained. I then announced I would now feel free to restore the status quo text since Renejs no longer claimed to have any of his changes in it. After I reverted to the status quo, Renejs disagreed, but refrained from further edit-warring, and limited his disagreements to discussions on the Talk page. As I had announced I would, I said I no longer saw any pressing reason for sanctions, since I only wanted the edit-warring to stop.
    At no stage was the conflict over Renejs wanting to restore the full quote and others somehow wanting to truncate it to mislead others into believing there are no serious scholars who support the CMT or take it seriously.
    First of all, *no one at all* is arguing in favour of the truncated version or insisting it should remain. I most certainly did not want to do so, since in general I think Wikipedia is wrongly slanted against the CMT, which does have serious supporters. Not many, but a few, and I've long felt they have been falsely smeared and edit-warred out of articles by certain editors. I also feel Wikipedia is far too deferential towards biblical scholarship, despite the serious concerns about a lack of impartiality and methodological soundness coming from both inside and outside the field. Deliberately arguing for a truncated version would go entirely against this long-held conviction of mine. I really shouldn't have to reveal my personal views on the matter, but I hope it helps dispel any notion that I'm engaged in tendentious editing.
    Secondly, Renejs does not want to restore the full version at all! He wants to take out the Grant statement about "no serious scholar ... or at any rate very few" altogether. In fact, I think he wants to remove the entire Grant paragraph. And his reason is that he feels Grant is wrong or biased. Get this, we have an article dedicated to a theory with only a tiny amount of scholarly support, in which many proponents are represented generously, including several minor and long dead ones, and for balance we have one rather small criticism section. In this criticism section we quote a number of critics who are generally scathing. Note that we quote them with attribution, not saying or implying they are right, we merely report their views. And now Renejs wants to take out Grant's criticism altogether because he personally thinks Grant is wrong!
    Thirdly, I proposed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christ_myth_theory#Making_the_Grant_quote_more_accurate) making a few changes that I thought would be uncontroversial (making clear where Grant is citing others, adding the words "in 1977" to deal with a concern Renejs had, and restoring the "at any rate" bit). Right now the only thing that is standing in the way of fixing the truncation is Renejs's disagreement. In other words, his insistence that Grant is wrong and should therefore not be included at all is keeping the truncated version in the article! As I said, I won't edit-war changes into the article without a consensus. In the meantime I've made a BOLD move to insert an fcn tag to at least draw attention to the problem on the article page, lest a passer-by remain unaware of it. Martijn Meijering (talk) 09:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I do know all that. I am asking you to recognise and acknowledge that restoring this statement to the article - a statement that we all agree is false and misleading - was very bad. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If by that you mean I was wrong to do it, then no I don't think it was very bad. My understanding of the rules is that when there is no consensus on what should happen, you should revert to the status quo, not to your own preferred version. You can make BOLD proposals in the hope they will gain a consensus, but you shouldn't try to force them on others. There are some exceptions to this related to WP:BLP, but those are the rules as I understand them. If I'm mistaken about this, I'll be happy to better informed.
    If you simply mean that it is undesirable that the truncated quote remains in the article until we have a new consensus, then I agree completely, but I'm not sure what to do about it. I've asked Renejs to clarify whether he objects to restoring the full quote as an interim solution, or whether he simply won't commit to it indefinitely. I was asking for the former and thought that was clear enough, but it never hurts to ask I suppose. If you have constructive suggestions about what I should have done instead or should do next, I'll be happy to hear them. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Martijn. Do not restore content to Wikipedia that you know to be false, as you did here.
    Renejs was wrong to edit war but it's something we'd all (most of us, anyway) do when we're new and a group of people is systematically restoring false information to Wikipedia. It deserves a warning, and at most, a short block for emphasis.
    Deliberately restoring false and misleading information to Wikipedia when there is unanimous agreement on the talk page that it is false and misleading deserves at least a ban from editing in that topic area, but realistically (if you can't acknowledge you understand how wrong it was to do that) a ban from Wikipedia is the only appropriate remedy in my opinion. Do you recognise that there is never any excuse for knowingly adding or restoring false and misleading information to Wikipedia? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me, I am advocating those changes and have been ever since I noticed the truncation and only Renejs's objections are stopping me from carrying them out. I don't want to be accused of edit-warring. I can't very well say we need to insert my corrections because I'm right, but we can't insert Renejs's because he's wrong can I? Per WP:BRD I could have made a BOLD attempt to restore the missing bits and wait for someone to REVERT it if they disagreed, but I decided to be super careful and ask for a consensus *first*. I want these changes, but I thought and still think the rules say I can't without a consensus. If an administrator can reassure me inserting this change will not be held against me, I'll be happy to do it.
    I can't believe you're suggesting sanctions against me are in order as a result of having been scrupulous about following the rules. During this whole conflict no one has ever suggested that anyone should unilaterally restore the full quote, you are the first to do so. Renejs too has never suggested I should at least restore the full quote, something I would have done gladly. In fact I proposed just that myself and it is deference to his right to object as per the rules as I understand them that kept me from acting as you are now suggesting I should have. Why don't you tell Renejs he should not oppose those changes? Note that I haven't reverted any attempts to insert the full quote, only Renejs's attempt to remove even more pieces from Grant's quote and to add a selective rebuttal. Also note that Renejs hasn't complained that people are stopping the full quote from being restored as that's not what he wants, while at the same time the others, myself included, do want this. I have been bending over backwards to offer Renejs a golden bridge out, I argued against a site ban, a topic ban and even a thirty day block without a prior warning and dropped even that after my only concern (stopping the edit-warring) was achieved through other means. I am shocked this is now being held against me. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be sure I'm not being misunderstood, I'll try to clarify what I mean. I believe what should happen now is for the full and accurate Grant quote to be restored, together with an indication that it was written in 1977. I've advocated this from the moment I learned of the truncation and I believe everybody else but Renejs wants this. I believe Renejs objects to this even as an interim measure, because he wants Grant to be removed entirely because he believes Grant is wrong, but just to be sure I've asked him to clarify. It was my understanding that I couldn't make the changes I've just outlined without a consensus, and we didn't have one at the time and still don't. Therefore I reverted to the status quo instead, as I believed then and still believe the rules specify.
    Note that I'm not asking Renejs to give up on his objection to Grant, but merely to consent to the change I'm proposing now as an interim measure, and which it is my understanding Anthonyhcole says I should have applied unilaterally. If Renejs can later obtain a consensus that Grant should indeed be removed because he is wrong, then of course that should happen. Right now there is no such consensus.
    If I am mistaken in my interpretation of the rules and if I could and should instead have restored first the status quo and then immediately added back the missing part of the quote because I knew it was missing then I apologise and won't be doing anything like that again. If an administrator can step in and clarify the rules I would be very grateful. In my defense I will point out that out of an abundance of caution I didn't take the second step unilaterally but first proposed it on the Talk page for others to comment on and when Renejs objected I held off. There is absolutely no bad faith involved, at the very worst I misinterpreted the rules in good faith. I think it would be very unjust if an honest attempt to be extra careful was punished. Either way I hope an administrator will soon step in and clarify the rules. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    We can on with this as long as necessary until we've smoked every bug out of the woodwork of Meijering's slippery and convoluted logic. I only sit down at this page once a day--after my more important work is done--so I can carry as long as it takes. But I will say that we've come to a nadir of irrationality in what follows. For those of you still reading, I here offer my latest feedback.

    (1) [Meijering] Renejs had made his bold move. . .

    Removing a proven false statement from 1977 is not a bold move. It's routine--or should be.

    (2) . . . Renejs reverted reverts by about four other people and then for a long time his version stood in the article over the objections of four or five other editors. The others gave up at that point, not wanting to edit-war themselves. Despite discussions on the Talk page Renejs refused to self-revert and otherwise follow Wikipedia procedures, repeatedly threatening to edit-war.

    (a) It was not 'me against everybody.' Gekritzl also reverted away from the false Grant citation. (b) As mentioned before, I of course have refused Meijering's ridiculous mandate to self-revert on the grounds of principle--I will not insert false material per another user's self-serving protocol inventions. (c) None of my changes remaining has nothing to do with this. As long as the false Grant statement remains in the article, I will be impelled to seek its removal by discussion and, when that does not work, action.

    (3) Then on this ANI page, Renejs insisted he was falsely accused of edit-warring changes into the article, since none of his changes remained.

    I've never claimed I was falsely accused of edit warring. That's a correct accusation. But you, Bill the Cat 7, etc. were also part of that edit war! And you've continued to edit war the Grant quote, whereas I've stopped reverting until this discussion (hopefully) reaches some sort of resolution.

    (4) I then announced I would now feel free to restore the status quo text since Renejs no longer claimed to have any of his changes in it. After I reverted to the status quo. . .

    It appears we may have made no progress at all. Merjering continues to manifest a colossal failure to hear. Once again: reverting to a proven false 'status quo' is always wrong. As noted in this discussion above, it's editing IN REVERSE.

    (5) At no stage was the conflict over . . . others somehow wanting to truncate it to mislead others into believing there are no serious scholars who support the CMT or take it seriously.

    Whoa. The only reason Gekritzl, myself, and certain other users insist upon removing the truncated Grant quote is because it leads the reader precisely to suppose that "there are no serious scholars who support the CMT or take it seriously." FYI, I believe that substituting the entire original Grant paragraph would be no better, for reasons given above. But that's a separate discussion. We're talking here about the proven false (short) form of the Grant citation which Meijering and a few others continue to force into the CMT article, come hell or high water.
    Hey, folks, this isn't rocket science. The logic couldn't be simpler: (a) The short Grant citation is false. (b) Ergo, it needs to go. Period. End of discussion. Then we move on to other things. . . like added words, "annihilated," compromise version, blanking the whole paragraph, etc. etc. Of course, the problem is that we can't get to those other things until we get through this roadblock. Meijering has to become a productive user by allowing changes to the article based on verifiable content today. This is the problem!
    A note on Meijering's (apparently new-found) sympathies for the CMT position and the uphill struggles it has no WIkipedia: You know, sometimes an adversary pretends to be your friend--and that's the worst kind of friend to have. I've seen him argue both sides of several issues. So, the bottom line for me is action, not words. And from what I've seen, his actions betray a thinly disguised anti-CMT position. Of course, I could be wrong--but it's irrelevant. I'll admit this, though: if he's my ally, he sure has a strange way of showing it!

    (6) And now Renejs wants to take out Grant's criticism altogether because he personally thinks Grant is wrong!

    Today, Grant is demonstrably wrong (at least in his short version) and your not seeing it makes me question your sympathies expressed in your immediately preceding paragraph. But the entire Grant paragraph has to be discussed separately. It has many elements and we can't get to them until we resolve the first element which has produced this roadblock: the short form of the Grant statement "no serious scholar." If we can't get rid of an obviously false assertion (which, incidentally, is precisely why I picked it), then we're never going to manage material which is far less black-and-white.
    Unfortunately, nobody can do anything until Meijering--an active editor on the CMT page--changes his m.o. If someone makes a change, all he has to say is, "We don't have consensus for that." And so it's reverted back in. Even if a statement is false, he can still say: "We don't have a consensus for it's removal." And so it stays. Forever. Effectively, this has chilled the CMT page to the point where it is decades out of date and also anti-CMT (according to a neutral voice on this page above). My interest is to move it to the center and NPOV. I don't think that will be possible with Meijering's current m.o.

    (7) Right now the only thing that is standing in the way of fixing the truncation is Renejs's disagreement.

    Whoa again! This is disgusting. Show me, Meijering, where I've opposed adding words like "In 1977," and "or at any rate very few." It's entirely the opposite. You are a loose cannon now--very wild. . . Anybody can add those words at any time, as far as I'm concerned. For you to suggest otherwise is uncalled for. If you think I would remove them, you are more irrational than even I thought. You have now reached just about the epideme of nonsense.

    (8) In other words, his insistence that Grant is wrong and should therefore not be included at all is keeping the truncated version in the article!

    Does anybody understand this? How could my insistence that Grant is wrong be keeping it in the article? This may be one for the books. Seems it is another attempt to accuse me of what Meijering's been doing all along--like, you know: "Hey, pass the blame on him."

    (9) If you simply mean that it is undesirable that the truncated quote remains in the article until we have a new consensus, then I agree completely, but I'm not sure what to do about it.

    Easy answer: Get rid of the false statement. Why is this so difficult for you?

    (10) [Meijering to Anthonyhcole] During this whole conflict no one has ever suggested that anyone should unilaterally restore the full quote, you are the first to do so.

    I can't see where Anthony said anything about unilaterally restoring the full quote. His question was: "Do you recognise that there is never any excuse for knowingly adding or restoring false and misleading information to Wikipedia?"

    (11) [Meijering to Anthonyhcole] I have been bending over backwards to offer Renejs a golden bridge out.

    Sorry. You extend a poisoned hand to me. Renejs (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll keep it brief because people have complained about walls of text and I too have been guilty of producing them, for which I apologise. It now appears I misunderstood your objection. I'm hopefully correctly understanding you now if I say you do not object to adding back the truncated bits, but reserve the right to continue arguing for the deletion of the entire quote later. If so, I think we can and should insert the truncated bits right away, close this ANI complaint and then proceed to deal with any objections you may have. Perhaps this will require mediation as suggested by Ncmvocalist. I'd be all in favour of that. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    More eyes please?

    ↑ The above sub-thread sums it up, IMO. I'm lost for words. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Given that nothing appears to have happened so far, I expect nothing will happen now either. I have observed that the sheer amount of text some user(s) in the above sub-thread are generating is overwhelmingly excessive. In fact, the excessive text and needless reversions to champion the BRD process are probably unhelpful even at the article too.
    Still, it may be better if another attempt is made by the parties to resolve the dispute. One possible method is a type of mediation (have never used formal mediation, DRN, or informal mediation so I won't say much about that). The other method requires everyone to exercise more restraint without supervision. So what does the latter involve?
    Short and simple questions need to be raised about proposed changes to the article (whether they are new changes or changes to go back to an older version of the article). The responses to the question need to be similarly concise. Some people dislike 'straw poll votes' but at least it clarifies what position each editor takes to each question, and the rest of the comment after the vote is reviewed to understand the rationale for why that position is adopted. Then if there is still no consensus, let the same question(s) be answered through an article RfC in the same format without walls of text overwhelming everyone. Then a request to assess the consensus can be made, and after it is closed, hopefully there is more clarity regarding what the consensus is.
    My suggestion anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    TLDR summary

    OK. Renejs (Rene) is a published author on the topic. He noticed a factual error based on an extremely old source (1977). Our article quoted a noted expert (Grant) as saying that no serious scholar had proposed the non-historicity of Jesus. So Rene added the fact that X and Y serious scholars have since come out and proposed exactly that.

    We all know that's arguing with the source, so he was reverted. Edit wars and truly BITY discussion ensued. In the midst of this discussion, it turns out Grant had been selectively misquoted. He said no serious scholars proposed non-historicity - well a few have, but they've failed to convince anyone. (Or words to that effect I've just done an all-nighter and can't be bothered looking for the quote.) So, now it's clear we're misrepresenting the source when we just use the "short version" of Grant's statement.

    More edit warring ensues, with Rene trying to add his "argument with the source" (the two scholars X and Y) while removing the misrepresentation of the 1977 source and being reverted, but when they revert him, Martijn Meijering and the other owners keep restoring the falsehood. This has been going on since the misrepresentation of the source was made clear and unanimously agreed to be a misrepresentation of the source on 2 January, and the misrepresentation of the source still stands.

    Rene needs educating about WP:SYN and WP:EW. That's all. The others need a serious looking at. I've seriously looked at Martijn and he shouldn't be let near an article again until he acknowledges there is no excuse for repeatedly knowingly restoring misleading content. The same may apply to the others. I haven't looked.

    Goodnight. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Since I've been accused of bad behaviour, I may perhaps be permitted to respond. I'll try to keep it as brief as possible on account of complaints about my earlier walls of text, for which I've apologised. I fully acknowledge I kept reverting to the status quo text even after I discovered it had been truncated. However, this was because I believed that was as far as the rules about edit-warring *permitted* me to go. I did however simultaneously propose on the Talk page what Anthonyhcole suggests I should have done straight away, which is to correct the truncation as well. I further believed (mistakenly as it now turns out) that Renejs objected to adding back the full quote even as an interim solution. If it turns out my interpretation was wrong and I should either have left Renejs's changes unchallenged or reverted them but corrected the truncation at the same time instead of merely calling for it, then I apologise unreservedly. I understand that misinterpreting the rules is not a justification, but I believe it is a mitigating circumstance, especially if the offensive behaviour was caused by a good faith abundance of caution, and a desire to follow the rules strictly, as it was, even though I may have ended up unintentionally breaking the rules rather than observing them. In any event, there now appears to be a total consensus that the truncated bits should be restored. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Observations, and Request for General Sanctions

    First, at this point, without reviewing the long history of edit-warring on this article and related articles, I will Oppose any of the various site-ban proposals. The community appears to be deeply divided, and attempting to deal with a polarized community by topic-bans at this noticeboard usually further polarizes the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Second, the underlying problem is that cases involving the Historicity of Jesus, including Christ myth theory, that is, that there never was any historicity of Jesus, were deeply botched by the outgoing Arbitration Committee. Historicity of Jesus had been the subject of much disruptive editing for a long time. Then a specific editor showed up and began playing on that disruption, and was topic-banned. He then, in the only reasonable request that he made, requested that the ArbCom impose discretionary sanctions. ArbCom accepted a case, but, in spite of evidence that discretionary sanctions were in order, simply decided to affirm the topic-ban, as if the disruption had started with that editor, which it had not. Christ myth theory still needs discretionary sanctions. Topic-bans are probably still needed for several editors, but that decision should be made via the discretionary sanctions process, not via hyper-ventilation and hyper-emotional process here. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Rather than imposing topic-bans on any specific editors, the community should impose community general sanctions on the topic of Historicity of Jesus, including Christ myth theory, which denies the historicity. Since ArbCom sanctions do work better than community sanctions, the ArbCom should be requested to reopen the arbitration to convert these community sanctions into ArbCom sanctions, but that can be done in parallel.

    • Support community sanctions, as proposer, for Historicity of Jesus, broadly defined. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose for the record; premature and other steps in dispute resolution need to be properly tried for this dispute as I said in the section above. If problems remain/persist after those attempts are undertaken properly, and it goes beyond an issue concerning certain editors, then I'd reconsider - but there is simply no need to put a scheme until that is established. GS or DS is not the status quo, and should be used sparingly as a final option only, as it can be just as disruptive to building an encyclopedia as it can in assisting for that to occur. If there are other issues, it should be raised in a separate thread and not clamped onto the end of this one because there is a sign of division on an issue. I also think it's fairly foolish to ask for community sanctions if ac sanctions are sought. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says User:Magnolia677

    This isn't a coincidence or a "shared interest"; This is a pattern of abuse, in which Magnolia677 falsely projects an interest in all things New Jersey in order to get his pound of flesh because I demanded in the past that he add sources.

    1) I first encountered User:Magnolia677 when he was operating under User:Richard apple and problems arose quickly as he persisted in adding material and refused to add sources. Here, in April 2013 I asked that he "be sure to always add sources for all edits like these" adding notables. He blindly reverted the edits, so I asked again for sources. He was back to his ways days later, so I asked again for the required references. He in turn deleted the request, yet again. By July 2013 he was at it again, so I asked yet one more time and he deleted the message, again. I asked about another unsourced edit and seemed to have set him off.
    2) In a rambling reply on my talk page, Magnolia677 comes out and makes the attacks that foreshadow his present abuse: "You do a lot of edits, and you have certainly added to Wikipedia. But you don't own it. When you act so harshly with people who add to articles about New Jersey, you inhibit them from contributing. This is a problem.... And please note... 'Harassment, threats, intimidation, repeated annoying and unwanted contact or attention, and repeated personal attacks may reduce an editor's enjoyment of Wikipedia'" explicitly citing Wikipedia:Harassment. He knows full well what WP:Harassment means, but thinks that asking for sources is harassment.
    3) I wasn't the only one raising the issue, with John from Idegon warning about unsourced edits, edit warring and removing talk page edits and refusing to discuss. The Rambling Man asks here followed by Nightscream asking for sources.
    4) On December 11, 2013, Richard apple became Magnolia677, presumably looking to move past his tainted start as a belligerent editor who refuses to add appropriate sources.
    5) As Richard apple, he had no apparent strong interest in places in New Jersey, with just 6 in February 2013; 5 in April 2013; 2 in July 2013; and 22 in August 2013. Even as Magnolia677 he had little interest, with 2 in December 2013, 1 in February 2014; 3 in March 2014 and 2 in October 2014. In almost two full years of editing, our "New Jersey expert" has barely achieved 40 edits to places in the state.
    6) Then the floodgates open. Starting on November 21, 2014, Mr. Mississippi, the Magnolia Stater, has developed a fascinating -- and disturbing -- interest in the Garden State. I love New Jersey too, but he starts gushing with hundreds upon hundreds of edits a month for the state, quite often, as described above, deliberately provoking confrontations on such trivial matters as flag usage, pushpin maps, the use of page links in pdf references and other argumentative bullshit. Thousands of edits in two months for a place he had never cared about before.
    7) Magnolia677 knows what WIkipedia:Harassment is -- "a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons.... Harassment can also include actions calculated to be noticed by the target and clearly suggestive of targeting them, where no direct communication takes place." -- and he's doing a damned deliberate job of it.

    We have enough strong and strongminded editors who are knowledgeably and competently creating and expanding articles about New Jersey and we don't need the malevolence of a Magnolia677, who has manufactured himself into an "expert" on the state solely for the purpose of maliciously provoking confrontations so that he can run here to ANI to complain about how he has been mistreated. If it was up to me, I'd site ban him immediately per WP:NOTHERE, but a topic ban and interaction ban should be imposed on Magnolia677 at a minimum. Vengeance belongs to the Lord, and perhaps to a few Wikipedia admins, but this kind of shameless abuse of process for the purpose of exacting revenge on another editor has no place on Wikipedia. Alansohn (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Could an administrator please step in?
    I've come to ANI over and over to get some relief from this editor's relentless bullying. I actually have a strong connection to New Jersey, and wanted to have several thousand edits under my belt before I started editing New Jersey, because I learned early that New Jersey belongs to one editor and I wanted to know how to defend my edits.
    Now he thinks I've spent the past two months creating articles about New Jersey just to torment him. This is beyond weird.
    Last night I added Ridgeway, New Jersey and Brookside, New Jersey. Does anyone here really think this was done "solely for the purpose of maliciously provoking confrontations"?
    "We have enough strong and strongminded editors who are knowledgeably and competently creating and expanding articles about New Jersey and we don't need the malevolence of a Magnolia677". Alansohn, I have news for you. I'll edit where I please. You don't own New Jersey and you don't own Wikipedia.
    And this "vengeance belongs to the Lord" stuff is creepy. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And dragging my ass here AGAIN, over crap that Magnolia did over 18 months ago, without notifying me, is beyond annoying. An administrator needs to do something. I have better things to do. John from Idegon (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I will ever understand this New Jersey drama. As far as I can tell, this is a rehash of drama from 2013. None of the diffs are even from the past year, and the complaints about recent activity lack any evidence. The last part of Alansohn's rant reads like textbook WP:OWN. And I really don't understand all this talk of vengeance and malevolence. Since no recent diffs were provided, I looked at New Jersey. No recent edits from Magnolia677. Then I looked at Magnolia677's recent edits. I saw him create sourced articles at Brookside, New Jersey, Ridgeway, New Jersey, and Bunnvale, New Jersey. I see no edit warring, disruption, or malevolence. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wasn't the last episode of Alansohn vs Magnolia677 just put to rest recently? Unless Alansohn can bring something credible to the table, they're going to need a ban from posting anything to ANI regarding Magnolia677. Blackmane (talk) 22:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    For reference:
    I would suggest an interaction ban, but then they'd just start even more threads on here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The list goes on, but in addition to the three incidents reported by User:Magnolia677 as listed by NinjaRobotPirate, we need to add the most recent allegation, where Magnolia demands that "ridiculous edit summaries" be removed regarding his most recent incidents of WP:Wikihounding violations. This is the fourth time that Magnolia677 has dragged my ass here to ANI and the fourth time that no action was taken; zero for four. Why? Because I provided the evidence to support the stalking / hounding claim, and as Drmies wrote here, "You have given three examples, and in the two cases where you said "the editor hasn't been here before" you were certainly correct. In other words, I am beginning to see your point." The history above provides some explanation for why Magnolia677 is provoking confrontations and then running in tears to ANI to demand action and exact some sort of creepy revenge. Magnolia677 has never explained why he made these edits to these articles, other than to argue that he'll edit whatever he damn well wants to, regardless of the consequences. The ANI, and the way it has focused on his lengthy history of refusing to comply with Wikipedia policy, seems to have encouraged him to back off from further abuse while the ANI is in progress, a step forward in itself. But it appears that a topic ban is needed here and that an interaction ban on his part is necessary. Alansohn (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I find this New Jersey drama pretty fascinating too. Even if I moved on and began editing in some other state (I like Michigan), the New Jersey problem wouldn't go away. When I started editing Wikipedia two years ago, my first truly negative encounter was with Alansohn. Even then, I acknowledged his skill and contributions, but expressed concern about his aggressive online behavior and what seemed his ownership of articles.
    In the past few months, as I've made several edits to New Jersey, it's become overwhelmingly apparent that many articles about that state are a reflection of his personal style.
    The problem is, some of his personal preferences are extremely "cruft-like", as I tried to address at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Jersey#Standardization of New Jersey city/town articles. And some are just wrong. For example, he has dogmatically insisted that every article I create about New Jersey have the township listed. Look at this nasty edit summary. But, the source he uses [141] is completely unreliable. Please see my comments about this concern to User talk:Famartin regarding "Duck Island" and "Zion, New Jersey".
    What is interesting about the posts as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Jersey#Standardization of New Jersey city/town, which is the primary posting board for New Jersey-related topics, is that not one editor supported him or took his defense.
    In fact, one of the only places I've ever seen a New Jersey editor support Alansohn was here, where User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) agreed that the pushpin map I preferred using should be replaced by the kind Alansohn used. Then I noticed that Norton was a discredited editor banned from creating articles about New Jersey. Some support.
    Have a look at this intro to the Wiki article about bullying..."bullying is the use of force, threat, or coercion to abuse, intimidate, or aggressively dominate others. The behavior is often repeated and habitual. One essential prerequisite is the perception, by the bully or by others, of an imbalance of social or physical power. Behaviors used to assert such domination can include verbal harassment or threat, physical assault or coercion, and such acts may be directed repeatedly towards particular targets." I have experienced many online behaviors which fit this pattern.
    When Alansohn started out, you can see here the number of times he was blocked for his poor online behavior. But then they stopped.
    The bullying article further states: "Often, bullying takes place in the presence of a large group of relatively uninvolved bystanders. In many cases, it is the bully's ability to create the illusion that he or she has the support of the majority present that instills the fear of "speaking out" in protestation of the bullying activities being observed by the group. Unless the "bully mentality" is effectively challenged in any given group in its early stages, it often becomes an accepted, or supported, norm within the group. Unless action is taken, a "culture of bullying" is often perpetuated within a group for months, years, or longer."
    Could it be that Alansohn's behavior towards me has sent a message to other New Jersey editors about what they can expect if they disagree with him?
    I'm not sure what the solution is, but I'm pretty sure an interaction ban wouldn't help. I do feel strongly though, that the New Jersey articles would benefit a lot if different editors with different styles and opinions were free to edit New Jersey articles without fear of Alansohn.
    Thank you again. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    At least User:Magnolia677 has come out of the closet and acknowledges that this is about some sick revenge for my actions two years ago. "When I started editing Wikipedia two years ago, my first truly negative encounter was with Alansohn. Even then, I acknowledged his skill and contributions, but expressed concern about his aggressive online behavior and what seemed his ownership of articles." What exactly did I do two years ago? Ask for sources for material for which Magnolia677 refused to comply. I (and other editors) asked for sources and / or discussion here, here, (acknowledged a source here), here, here, here, here, here, by John from Idegon, here again, here too, here by Nightscream, here, here and here again by Nightscream, more than a dozen pleas to add sources, all of which had been ignored or deleted by Magnolia677. When Magnolia677 finally acknowledged the need to add sources (here), he received thanks from Nightscream and thanks from me. I'm not sure what else could have been done differently other than to have site banned him then after the sixth or seventh ignored request for sources. Sure, chunks of his editing since then is not aimed at deliberate provocation, but his goal here is to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS done to him when he first started editing. It is this demented aim to avenge the repeated pleas from multiple editors to add the reliable and verifiable sources that Wikipedia requires that drives Magnolia677 to seek to exact his pound of flesh and run here to ANI on no less than four occasions. Someone who has this demented motivation has no place in Wikipedia. Let's start with a topic ban and interaction ban and proceed from there. Alansohn (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You just called me "demented" twice. How dare you! I think the biggest fib on Wikipedia is that you're from New Jersey, because big thorny cactus don't grow in the Garden State, and everyone I've ever met from Jersey are decent folks who have respect for others. You're just a big bully who doesn't give a hoot who he insults or what lies he writes about people. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • As a proud saguaro, spreading my thorny arms over the swamps of the Meadowlands, I can assure you that I am indeed from New Jersey, no fib. I have the exorbitant property tax bills and the lack of experience pumping my own gas to prove it, and I might even be able to take a selfie with Governor Christie as further evidence. I apologize for duplicating an adjective. However, the lack of any rebuttal or offense at the history of the efforts to convince you that you must add sources -- and your persistent refusal to comply -- is rather telling. Since you had filed this fourth and most recent ANI, you have been a good bit less aggressive in creating confrontations through your edits. User:Magnolia677, while I wish you the best of luck in your journeys across this great country of ours, I still think that these problematic motivations in trying to get back at me for my past efforts to get you to add sources is rather disturbing. I hope that a topic ban and interaction ban can help prevent any more damage from further incidents of stalking and harassment on your part. Alansohn (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I think some sort of interaction ban is probably called for, unfortunately, at least on Alanshn's side. I notice, despite a comment in another recent thread involving him that he had changed, Alansohn seems to continue to revel in the use of vulgarity and personal aspersions, and on that basis, if this is the way he acts after changing, I have to think that maybe banning him from interacting with others who find even his "changed" personality toxic is probably a reasonable idea. John Carter (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • The person who is hyperdramatically escalating the problem, once again, unfortunately, by starting this thread with the wildly obnoxious and prejudicial headline and the allegations, and once again as John of Idgeon said, dragging him in without even bothering to notify him, as he indicated above, is you, yes. There are other ways to resolve this, but, apparently, they may not be melodramatic enough for you? Your frankly disgusting insistence on calling others "demented" (twice in this thread) seems to indicate that you may be basically incapable of dealing with any sort of disagreement in a reasonable way, and on that basis I would have to say that your actions in starting this thread in the overdramatic way you did, even to the point of from the beginning casting unsupported and overdramatic allegations of "vengeance" as the motivation of others, without evidence of course, shows that your conduct and ability to work in a reasonable way with others is itself extremely problematic, and that behavior would seem to merit sanctions, as it is as we both know something you have been advised about repeatedly, apparently without any results. Other more reasonable and less self-dramahtizing editors can probably reasonably deal with any more minor problems without your involvement, or your rather obvious tendency to escalate them. John Carter (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed sanctions

    I think some sort of sanctions are clearly called for here. Personally, I think the person most in need of sanctions in this instance is probably Alansohn himself, as indicated by my comments above, but I acknowledge that this is just a personal opinion. John Carter (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • The person who created the thread was User:Magnolia677, who was complaining about edit summaries. At some point, this section was turned from a subsection into a freestanding section of its own, and Magnolia677's complaints about claims of Wikihounding on his part were removed. I have provided evidence, as requested, of Wikihounding -- as confirmed by Drmies -- and Magnolia677 describes himself above that he came back to editing New Jersey articles because he was bothered by his bad experiences the first time, when he was adding content without sources. Magnolia677 has started four separate threads here about my edits, and even when he was refusing to add sources I started none. I've provided dozens of diffs to support the claims I've made and the best Magnolia677 can do is complain about a duplicate adjective and insist that I'm not really from New Jersey. So you want to take action on mere "personal opinion"? Alansohn (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Magnolia677 and his latest edit war

    User:Magnolia677 seemed to be avoiding confrontations while this discussion was ongoing, but he is back to his usual games.

    1) In several venues, Magnolia677 has edit warred about a note included at the top of the Notables section in hundreds of articles. After he had initiated several previous edit wars on this topic, he started a centralized discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Jersey#Standardization of New Jersey city/town articles. He raised his points, I raised mine. With no consensus supporting him at the centralized discussion, he started another discussion at Talk:Basking Ridge, New Jersey (here) and removed the heading with the edit summary per talk page discussion, though there had been no discussion and no consensus for removal. After responding at the talk page and reinserting the heading as part of an expansive edit of the article, he removed it again without any discussion, with the edit summary Please wait for consensus on talk page before adding this. After I reinserted the heading with an explanation, he blindly reverted it, this time saying this editor created this inaccurate heading without consensus, and has received no consensus supporting it, followed by some more forum shopping.
    2) WP:USCITIES is a guideline -- it is *NOT* policy -- and offers no guidance as to the presence, absence or mandated wording from on high of a note at the top of the Notables section. It has no bearing as a justification to remove or reword the heading that appears here or anywhere. In the absence of a Wikipedia guideline or policy, we editors have the flexibility and creativity to build articles, and this is what has been done in millions of articles.
    3) These headings have been the de facto standard in hundreds of articles for years. I didn't know that I and other editors need to obtain consensus before making any change to an article, as Magnolia677 has demanded, nor that his approval is needed to maintain a longstanding status quo. This demand would cripple Wikipedia, as every edit -- no matter how long it has been in an article -- would be subject to the veto of any other editor. Even worse would be granting this dictatorial power to a belligerent editor like Magnolia677, who has turned a lengthy series of articles across the state of New Jersey into his own personal battlefield.

    Magnolia677 appears to be creating confrontation solely for the sake of turning Wikipedia into a war of his own making. As requested above, the appropriate sanctions should include both a topic ban and interaction ban. Alansohn (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) This seems like a case of a double boomerang, not only because of the forum shopping by Magnolia, but also by the OP's own behavior. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 05:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Unfortunately, that's unlikely to do anything about the underlying drama. We could try out an interaction ban, but then they'd probably just start even more pointless ANI threads, like I said above. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I was actually trying to play by the rules. Yesterday I cleaned up Basking Ridge, New Jersey. Of course, being in New Jersey, it had Alansohn's "personal touches" all over it. I deleted one of them, and gave a detailed explanation on the talk page about my reason. So as NOT to appear forum shopping, I disclosed that there was also a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Jersey#Standardization of New Jersey city/town articles, where this same concern was raised--but not responded to (except by Alansohn). Of course, Alansohn reverted the edit at Basking Ridge. So, instead of getting into an edit war, I asked for a third opinion. Because Alansohn stalks all my edits, he saw that I left a message at "third opinion", and added his own message there (despite the rule at "third opinion" that "no discussion of the issue should take place here"). But who cares about rules? Erpert, who watches over Third opinion, looked at Basking Ridge, labelled it "forum shopping", and still, I have no third opinion about something I have raised on two talk pages! As I said, I'm trying to play by the rules here. Thank you again. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing on Soka Gakkai page

    This concerns editor Ubikwit. On the page Soka Gakkai. The Soka Gakkai is a lay religion based on the Buddhist teachings of a 13th century monk. It was originally aligned with – though a separate entity from – a clerical sect called Nichiren Shoshu. The latter excommunicated the Soka Gakkai in 1991, and there has been no connection since.

    At issue, currently, is the content of placement of the “Beliefs and Practices” section of the entry. The administrator, Shii, along with 4 other editors (plus myself) agree, at least to some extent, that there is sufficient scholarship supporting the independence of Soka Gakkai belief; and that, as a consequence, it’s “Beliefs and Practices” subsection can precede the “History” subsection, in which its former relationship with Nichiren Shoshu is covered.

    This would be consistent with Wikipedia’s treatment of other newer religions.

    Editor Ubikwit reverts every attempt to change the content of the positioning of this subsection. He does do with nodiscussion of the issues[page], and has been asked numerous times by various editors to refrain from doing so – to no avail. The last time he reverted with no discussion (January 18th) I undid his revert and asked him point blank on the Talk page to discuss before he reverted again. He did not discuss, but once again reverted and left me a "warning" on my Talk page.

    He is accusing me of advocacy, but the Advocacy guidelines indicate that advocacy can mean hoping to portray something in either a positive or negative light. The Soka Gakkai entry was, at one time, heavily negative. What I (and some other editors) have tried to do is achieve balance, using acceptable and credible academic sources. The information that reflects negatively remains, but positive information has been added. Ubikwit seems to be of the opinion that negativity is "neutral" while positivity is "advocacy". However, the administrator has expressed satisfaction with the changes that have been made in recent months. I have tried to discuss this with Ubikwit, but have received no response, other than his insistence that my sources are being self-promotional.

    The current discussion of this on the Talk Page is in the subsection “Citation Has Gone Missing”. An earlier discussion of the same topic is still active in the subsection “Another major reversion”. In the Archives (18), here, there are two subsections on the issue: [and Practices First]”, in which, btw, the administrator states “We already had a discussion about this and I believe Ubikwit is in the minority. There is no clear format among religion articles, for example, Bahá'í Faith and Christian Science have beliefs sections first, while Scientology has it otherwise. In the SG article there is a good argument that SG beliefs are unfamiliar enough that they can be explained first and may help provide context for the History section. Shii (tock) 19:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC”. But it had to be addressed again in the sub [of Subsections]: started by still another editor.

    It was also addressed here (17) in [and Practices Again]”; here (16) in “[Stab At Beliefs and Practices]”. And [[142]] (15), I think, is the first attempt, on August 26th. You will see in all that discussion very little of Ubikwit, and many mentions of his un-discussed reversions.

    We have a consensus among a vast majority of active editors. We have sources that support what I am trying to do. We have made arguments for the changes, and there have been no academic arguments made against the changes. Yet Ubukwit keeps reverting the changes. He ignores others’ comments, and he doesn’t seem to care about what the consensus is. He just keeps reverting, over and over, with no regard for what research has been done, what other editors say, what arguments are made on the Talk page.

    What can we do to ensure the best Soka Gakkai page we can? Can we stop this disruptive editing?

    Here [[143]] are the changes I made, starting with "Soka Gakkai believes..." Here [[144]] is the current entry after Ubikwit's latest reversion - nearly half way down the entry.

    Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveler16 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    What is a "lay religion"? Is that not a contradiction? BMK (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Close, but not always. In this case it more or less means that the group was founded in a schism from the ordained priesthood, and that none of the members are necessarily priests or clerics. John Carter (talk) 02:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Learn something new every day. BMK (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) Actually, the schism didn't develop until long after the founding of the group as what is known as a Hokkeko. There is no such thing as a "lay religion", only lay groups associated with an established religion.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 00:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a huge mess that will not see resolution and I doubt any of the overworked admins here want to step in. If anyone wants to understand what the problem is, I left a message at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_79#Dorje_Shugden_controversy about why these kinds of articles are likely to decrease in quality over time owing to a lapse in academic standards. I won't be repeating that here.

    Ubikwit and I, the two long-term editors involved with this page, are basically no longer engaging with the large-scale rewrite by SPIs that uses academic but incomplete sources. Indeed, I don't think there is anything we can do about this article within the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Ubikwit has simply resorted first and foremost to revert warring, and I have basically absented myself from editing. RIP Wikipedia Shii (tock) 21:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it is bit of a joke to accuse Ubikwit of disruptive editing. I do engage on the talk page just like on the Ikeda page … I do no large edits unless SGIists go ab bit too far. I said often enough that on the quality scale the article is deteriorating big times. The sock puppet issue does need to get tackled. As soon as debates and controversies get heated some editors vanish and a new one appears out of the blue. Strange indeed. --Catflap08 (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I would refer to reverting the attempts to restructure the article in a wholesale manner so as to promote the SG to Wikipedia refers as "revert warring", but I have reverted such attempts, twice now, to preserve NPOV, etc. It should be noted that there was a discussion after the first attempt, but then Daveler attempted to go against consensus and try to restructure the article in exactly the same manner, and subsequently reverted my restoration of the consensus status quo.
    There are a number of advocates operating on the article, attempting to promote SG in an outreach manner, appropriating Wikipedia to that end. I would be in agreement that there is sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry going on, but like Catflap, the amount of time I have to devote to this article is very limited.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 00:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Should the problem continue, I really think that this case, and the other one Shii mentioned, and maybe a few others could all be presented to ArbCom for if nothing else discretionary sanctions. The biggest problem areas we have, at least to my mind, are, pseudoscience, new religious movements (broadly construed), and modern scientific or minority scientific views of early history and religion. John Carter (talk) 02:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    No doubt. I wouldn't mind seeing a boomerang for the preemptive strike Daveler16 has attempted here, though. The statements he makes above about consensus, for example, are diametrically opposed to the facts. Not only is he pretending not to hear, he is misrepresenting the state of affairs in an attempt to unduly influence the content dispute.
    In my opinion, he should have been topic banned long ago.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 11:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to more clearly propose sanctions in a subsection below, maybe particularly indicating the specific nature of sanctions proposed and the reasons for them, such a proposal may get enough input to generate some sort of positive results. Personally, I have to agree that some sort of boomerang is possibly called for here, but am not myself sure just what terms should be applied. John Carter (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the major problem with this group of SPIs is that they are adding large amounts of reliably sourced (by strict WP standards, although lacking in a bigger NPOV perspective) material that supports their bias, which has led to an overly long, messy, and barely coherent article. The material is not bad per se and they are not generally removing critical material, as an earlier, far worse editor did. Nothing they have done merits a topic ban or block, although this continues to be a contentious discussion with too much reverting. Shii (tock) 15:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be excusing the blatant attempts to convert the article into a promotional pitch for the Soka Gakkai that the "group of SPIs", as you call them, are engaged in. I certainly hope that you are not referring to my reverts of the multiple attempts to place the "Beliefs and Practices" section before the "History" section.
    Moreover, there have been continual attempts at obfuscation and deletion of critical material over the past several months, including the reference to "brainwashing", for example. To counter that I had to order two out-of-print books in Japanese online and post text from them. And it currently appears that a similar effort may be underway at the Daisaku Ikeda page about the Ogasawara incident ("Raccoon dog" priest incident), which Catflap informed me of. I posted Japanese text related to that under the relevant Talk page discussion, because there appear to be sourcing issues, though I don't have time to go through that material in detail.
    Who knows where all of these SPIS SPAs come from, but they certainly have much more free time than I do, and there appear to be multiple distinct groups of SPIS SPAs covering different but related articles, such as those on the Soka Gakkai article and those on the Ikeda Daisaku article. Who has time to investigate such ongoings? Apparently that is not something that admins are tasked with, and regular editors like myself and Catflap do not have the time to engage such a large "group of SPIS SPAs".
    It is clear that Daveler16 and Brandeburg have been continually engaged in advocacy, and in some cases going against consensus; here, accusing me of violating consensus is an underhanded tactic that I would think should amount to some sort of violation. It was totally retaliatory after I left a warning about WP:ADVOCACY on his Talk page. It's a false accusation about my conduct made with the intention of getting the upper hand in a content dispute, which they have lost (i.e., consensus is against them) and refuse to acknowledge. They haven't started any RFCs, etc., and are simply trying to game the system.
    For any uninvolved admins looking at this, here, for example, is a list of five freshly minted SPIs working on one of the articles at issue, since December
    Elemential1
    Basicallyyes
    Findemnow
    TokyoSunrise
    LovLove
    Daveler16 along with BradenburgG are the two main SPIS SPAs working on the Soka Gakkai article, while BrandenburgG has been editing the Daisaku Ikeda article as well, but has made 90% of the edits on the Soka Gakkai article since December. Daveler16 recently attempted to carry out a major refactoring of the article against consensus by slipping it among the recent flurry of incremental edits by BrandenburgG. That had been reverted before and discussed, and consensus was clearly not for such a refactoring.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the clarification. I continue to hold that these SPIs [edit: SPAs...] are acting in good faith and simply don't realize that they the article that results from their efforts is an imbalanced and essentially biased one. If I were being paid hourly to edit Wikipedia I would happily engage with them and formulate a new policy in order to get this article under control. But we do it for free... Shii (tock) 17:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Shii may well be right. The reason I mentioned pseudoscience, new religious movements, and modern politics and economics as being among our most problematic areas is that those seem to be areas where WP:TRUTH, in one sort or other, most often arises. People who are, sometimes for good reason, very, very interested in something in which they have very strong beliefs, of whichever sort, and want to tell the world about how wonderful it is, are among the most frequent newer editors at such topics, and, in those cases where they have read everything published by (for instance) SGI but nothing from any independent sources, they also tend to think that they are among the most and best informed on the topic. Convincing them to the contrary is often extremely difficult, if not impossible in some cases. John Carter (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    arbitrary break

    While I don't doubt that those areas are problematic for the reasons mentioned, there are policies, and some of those have been referred to repeatedly.
    That is partly why, unlike Shii, I don't see all of the editing at issue as being done in good faith.
    This issue started way back in early October, and much discussion had taken place before the most recent repeat of major refactoring and subsequent revert, which was a replay of October. The following is a collection of some of the representative moments and comments pertaining to the content dispute and conduct, starting with October.
    Way back in October, Daveler16 revealed a plan
    My comment in response
    Followed by Shii
    first reversion of BOLD major refactoring of article (moving Beliefs & Practices to top) without consensus
    1st Talk page discussion following BOLD edit and revert
    relevant comment by John Carter
    followed by WP:OR comment by Daveler16 revealing his overall disposition
    Daveler16 removes RS-sourced material, replaces it with POV promotional text
    Daveler16 misrepresents source in trying to decontextualize Beliefs & Practices section
    Discussed here on talk page Daveler16 failed to address misrepresentation
    Then he leads one to believe that he didn’t read the edit summary in which I state the page number, even after I challenge him on the evasion
    from “Another major reversion” Talk page section, all of which should be read
    BrandenburgG makes a comment providing historical context to refute me
    I reply
    Finally, this section “Big Problem?” should also be read
    --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 19:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I strongly disagree with some of the statements above. I believe Daveler's description and complaint are 100% valid. I don't think Ubikwit and Catflap recognize the extent that their personal lenses affect their contributions.

    Let me get personal here because I've been mentioned several times. I consider myself a new editor to WP, about a half year. I am being accused of being a SPI or a SPA and frankly I don't know what they mean.

    I've been working hard on this article and I believe I deserve some credit for my time and efforts. I consider myself to be sincere, hard-working, reasonable and honest. I recognize my biases and faults. I believe some of the descriptions of my work above are mean and discouraging.

    However, my motivation for working so adamantly is traced to when I came across the SG article. Frankly speaking, as a SG member I was horrified. It was not NPOV by any means!

    • For example, the accusations that the SGI was a cult appeared 4 times in a single article, starting from the opening paragraphs. This is quite horrific especially when the entire scholarship about cults has discredited the notion that there is any such thing as a cult.
    • People like Toda and Ikeda were treated in ways that ignored their contributions and grossly exaggerated their faults.
    • The beliefs and practices of the Soka Gakkai were explained in ways that were unrecognizable to SG members.
    • Scholarship from the 1960s and 1970s was predominating and used to describe the current organization; recent and emerging scholarship was being ignored.

    As was mentioned above, I have added sources and have not deleted anything to the best of my knowledge. I believe the sources I have used are excellent and complete. Where I have used scholarship improperly please notify me and I will immediately apologize and edit.

    I do agree with the above editors on two points:

    1. I admit to working too fast and furious. This was only pointed out to me by Catflap a couple of days ago. I recognize her point here and understand that such a pace makes it hard for others to critique and I apologize. I must tell you that my wife fully agrees with Catflap on this point.
    2. I agree that the article is too long and has many stylistic issues.

    The solution that I would like to propose is drawn from conflict resolution techniques. I recommend that two and only two editors work on condensing the article and making sure the resulting article is balanced. This work could take place on someone's Sandbox. The two editors should represent different points of perspective to assure balance. BrandenburgG (talk) 00:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no "blatant attempt to convert the article nto a promotional pitch for the SGI". For a very long time, the article was little more than a hatchet job on the SG, with nearly every other paragraph containing phrases like "brain washing cult" and "fascist" and "cult of personality" In fact, this is an international, widely respected movement(with critics, yes, which no one is denying) that has established educational institutions in various countries, has partnered with the U.N, the Simon Wiesenthal Museum, Morehouse College, and others, on various projects. None of that would be possible were the SG as sinister as Wikipedia formerly made it out to be. The SG's honorary president has carried out dialogues with Arnold Toynbee, Rene Huyghe, Aurelio Peccei, Linus Pauling and others - people who are not easily duped or brainwashed. To introduce balance - reflecting that, perhaps, some writers have perceived the movement as positive is not "self-promotion" or "advocacy".

    Likewise, until a few months ago the Beliefs and Practices of the SG were depicted solely in terms of how they relate to other secyts of Buddhism - especially Nichiren Shoshu. Just a little research found that the SG has beliefs are separate from Nichiren Shoshu's, and always have been, and that these separate and original beliefs are what motivates its practices. There is no reason whatsoever that the B&P section should begin "Until the 1991 split with the Nichiren Shōshū, Sōka Gakkai existed within the Shōshū framework...", especially since about a fifth of bthe "History" subsection is taken up with the former association - and it's constant history of disagreements.

    "Advocacy", remember, can also be negative, and that is what seems to be going on here. There seems to be a faction that wants to ensure that the overall impression of the Soka Gakkai gleaned from Wikipedia is that it's sinister in tactics annd derivative in doctrine, and that's why reverts continue in the face of scholarship and consensus.--Daveler16 (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Uh, this is a content issue rather than a conduct issue, but one of the odd things about this case is that any sect claiming to be the "true Buddhism" ideally should be "derivative in doctrine". Soka Gakkai, in contrast, has a large number of interesting new doctrines aimed towards turning lay believers into practitioners. Hence the confusing term, "lay religion". Shii (tock) 02:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I will like to agree on what you said and this falls on cultural and education movement of Soka Gakkai. I will like to provide my view on this moement.
    If Soka Gakkai is an "brain washing cult", "fascist" or "cult of personality" organisation, why did Singapore and Malaysia approve SOka Gakkai to establish the school in the country.
    Please bear in mind that Singapore had one of the most restrictive law when it come to human right. They have managed to ban many extremist organisation as well as terroist in their countries. Among them are Jemaah Islamiyah, Falun Gong, ISIS. How come Soka Gakkai was not charged under Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act for being "brain washing cult", "fascist" or "cult of personality" in Singapore. Instead why did the Singapore government every year keep inviting SGI to participate in the National Day Parade performances.
    There is a reason why there are too many citation in Soka Gakkai as well as Daisaku Ikeda. It is because there are some editors who like to reverts all the contribution which do not have any reliable source at all. One of them is Scandiescot (talk · contribs).
    There is one more editor who also refute Catflap and Ubikwit quite a lot of time previously and the person is Margin1522 (talk · contribs). Kelvintjy (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Might also point out that Ubukwit has participated more here in 2 dayys than he has for a month on the relevant Talk page. Catflap earlier mentioned Ubikwit on the NPOV Noticeboard, and this was one of the replied: "Looking at the article, I am seeing a considerable amount of verified content being deleted and then restored (1, 2), as well as a good bit of discussion on the talk page. Questions about sources should be taken to WP:RSN. I only see one comment on the talk page by the above editor, but many comments by User:Daveler16; this causes me some concern.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)"/ That's [[145]], btw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveler16 (talk • contribs)

    Since my name has been mentioned, maybe I could give my perspective. I arrived at the article by chance, answering a request to fix an AGRL on the talk page. I was rather shocked by article, which struck me as a blatantly POV attack page. Readers were complaining. After fixing the AGRL, I made one edit trying restore some balance to the description of the organization’s founder. It was immediately reverted (diff), which was one indication of where the problems were coming from.
    As background, this is an organization with many political and religious enemies in Japan, especially on the extreme right-wing fringe. There is an anti-Soka Gakkai industry with its home in the tabloid press – about as far as you can get from reliable sources. To the extent that the article uses those sources, it’s going to be biased and not up to WP standards. For a while, while I was contributing to the article, my main focus was trying to get rid of the worst of those sources, by explaining on the talk page how bad they are and replacing them with better ones. It was like pulling teeth. Once, in the only time that I have ever resorted to dispute resolution, I asked for a third opinion. The decision (here) was to remove the source. Since then the source has been restored, as if the 3O had never happened, and we are back to where we started. But I’ve left it as it is and haven’t pursued it further, because I think there are bigger problems.
    The biggest, IMO, has been edit warring and reversions. Especially by Ubikwit, who must have dozens of reversions in his edit history, usually with nothing more than a curt edit summary. However, it’s better than it was. I’ve spent a lot of time arguing on the talk page that all editors should be allowed to contribute, and in fact all participants are now able to contribute. I don’t support any kind of ban on Ubikwit. He has shown many times that he will accept edits and suggestions as long as the sources are good enough.
    Nor do I support any kind of boomerang against Daveler16. Thanks to his contributions, the article is far better balanced than it used to be, and complaints are down. The point of this discussion is whether the section that he contributes to should come first in the article. He’s argued for that many times on the Talk page, and tried to execute it, and been reverted every time. My own opinion is that I’m not against it, although it would require a major rewrite of the article. IMO this kind of major restructuring needs consensus on the Talk page, which may never come. So my advice is to just accept that and concentrate on making the "Beliefs and practices" section as good as it can be. There are many other associated articles and no lack of work that needs to be done.
    As for the content, I agree with Shii that the article is getting very long. Although the contributions from the new editors are welcome, I'd like to ask them to realize that they may not all survive, as is, in some future version that will fairly represent all of the many points of view that exist about this organization. – Margin1522 (talk) 06:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This ANI filing seems a bit like a content dispute. And would people please for heaven's sake wikilink the wiki acronym WP:SPA and spell it correctly, rather than making people, including new editors, guess what it means? Just glancing at the article, I find it mind-numbingly long, especially the History section. It would do well to try to summarize and be concise throughout. That said, my understanding, if I'm not mistaken, is that Nichiren (and by extension SG?) are the largest religions in Japan, so maybe some length is justified. It is concerning if there are a lot of WP:SPAs bloating and skewing the article, and that should be watched out for and WP:NPOV preserved. On the other hand, we need to avoid having the article be overly critical, or having WP:UNDUE weight placed upon the criticisms. I do find it a bit odd that the word "cult" is in the lede three times, which seems a bit prejudicial. Also, I think the article needs to differentiate better between SG in Japan and SG outside of Japan. Right now it doesn't do that well, and most of the criticism stuff seems to be about SG in Japan, which to my mind shouldn't be conflated with SG in the rest of the world. Softlavender (talk) 06:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It is probably the case that most of the material in English relates to SGI, not SG. Breaking the present article down into two separate articles might be something to consider.
    The word "cult" appears three times for sound reasons. The first mention documents that is a frequently found attribution; the second is a recent attempt to describe the group in related terms and deny the attribution (included per NPOV at the insistence of pro-SG editors); and the third relates to the role of Ikeda as a charismatic leader of the group(s). I don't see anything prejudicial there.
    The article is not "mind-numbingly long" because Nichiren is the largest religion in Japan (a spurious claim), it is too long because it has been bloated with fluff that has been inserted in a manner such as to obfuscate central points and subvert the encyclopedic quality of the article for the promotional purposes.
    Here is a concrete example of recently added text that could easily be removed from the article, and has a promotional bend.

    Ikeda promoted the Soka Gakkai as an institution promoting culture through his own personal initiatives, the Min-on Concert Association, and massive cultural performances. The emphasis on participatory culture underlies the idea that by improving oneself, one also improves the world.[118][119] In 1971 Ikeda began publishing his poems including an ode to mothers entitled "Mother," the nature-themed "Pampas Grass," and "The People," a Whitmanesque tribute to the common person.[120] Many of these poems were included in a 1978 volume translated by Burton Watson.[121] His essays and addresses moved from doctrine to contemporary themes and using Western references.[122][123][124] in the 1970's Ikeda claims he took up the hobby of photography.[125]

    Clearly, a single sentence would be more than is merited by the material as part of a "History" section, and the entire section could be retitled "Buddhism Humanism", but there seems to insufficient RS material on that, as the pro-SG editors have been challenged on the Talk page to produce it in the past when trying to assert that "Buddhism Humanism" was a doctrinal "belief" or the like. For that discussion on that one has to start with Archive 15.
    In that section, called "Beliefs and Practices", because it addressed material being inserted into the corresponding section in the article, there was the following exchange.
    1. Daveler16 asserts that I didn’t explain why I undid his edit, which implies he didn’t read the edit summary
    2. I post excerpt of relevant passage in reply to Daveler16’s assertion
    3. Daveler16 replies
    4. I reply to Daveler16
    So the insertion of the above-quoted passage and section seems to be an attempt at a workaround simply with the aim of ADVOCACY. The above-passage itself, which is part of a section that was created in its entirety by BrandenburgG over a period of a couple of days starting with this edit from January 17 is WP:UNDUE, and what might merit being included in the article should be integrated elsewhere, even in the preceding section, for example. I hope that this illustrates an aspect of the problematic.
    This problematic relates to a conduct issues falling under WP:ADVOCACY, WP:NOTHERE, WP:IDHT, etc., and not a content dispute.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 07:33, 09:51 24 January 2015 (UTC)
    I have to say "ugh" at that vacuous, almost meaningless and promotional passage, and if that is an example of what the WP:SPAs have been adding to the article, and if they are the cause of the mind-numbing length of the article, then I would support a WP:BOOMERANG to the filer(s) of this ANI, and some serious admin intervention and oversight of the article and the WP:ADVOCACY, WP:NOTHERE, WP:IDHT editors and editing that are occuring there. I salute Ubikwit and Shii for having had the stamina to deal with it this long. It's time they got some support, especially admin support, whatever form that takes, which might include topic bans for the worst offenders. Softlavender (talk) 10:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    OK, I learn something new. I just read about single purpose advocacy and I plead guilty. My focus on WP has been on SG-related articles. I see the need for generalized participation as an editor and I agree to abide. Through my participation editing I have come to see the significance and responsibility of editing and I want to promise a long-term commitment.

    Secondly, I need to explain the rational for writing "that vacuous, almost meaningless and promotional passage." Two editors have advocated consistently for prominent use of the "C" (cult) word. There has been extensive discussion continuing with Ubikwit's posting above. But his sourcing is quite questionable and this was raised over and over again. He refused to budge on his position. Let's look at two of his sources Furukawa and Yanatomi. Such a serious charge--"cult of personality"--and all Ubikwit cites are two Japanese sources that no other editor can refute because of language barriers. Also, let me mention, one author's work is almost 30 years old!

    He also refused to alter the citation of Macioti, a noted Italian sociologist, whose entire book explores the SG in depth and comes to the conclusion that it is not a cult. (page 124: "It should be clear to all by now that Soka Gakkai is not a "sect." It is not a small, two-faced cult, characterized by obscure and hidden agendas. Rather it is a movement that has given life to varied associations, all of which are engaged in promoting culture, and raising interest around the theme of values—and a movement that demands to be examined more closely by using scientific methodologies and instruments of evaluation.)

    He also refused to budge on using the Lewis citation to somehow legitimate "brainwashing cult." Lewis write, "For over half a century, one of the most controversial new religions in Japan has been Soka Gakkai. Although this group has matured into a responsible member of society, its ongoing connection with reformist political activity served to keep it in the public eye. Until relatively recently, it also had a high profile as the result of sensationalist and often irresponsible media coverage. Apparently as a direct consequence of the social consensus against this religion, some scholars have felt free to pen harsh critiques of Soka Gakkai--critiques in which the goal of promoting understanding has been eclipsed by efforts to delegitimate Soka Gakkai by portraying it as deluded, wrong, and/or socially dangerous....Soka Gakkai also spread to the United States and Europe, where it aroused controversy as a result of its intense proselytizing activities. Although it was never as controversial as groups like the Hare Krishna Movement or the Unification Church, Sokka Gakkai—which in the United States went under the name Nichiren Shoshu of America after Soka Gakkai broke with Nichiren Shōshū—was not infrequently stereotyped as a brainwashing cult, particularly by anti-cult authors."

    This is highly problematic and misleading. The entire Lewis chapter tries to delegitimate the SG as a cult. This is in fact the thrust of Lewis's work as an "anti-anti-cult" scholar. The one phrase Ubikwit holds on to is about the US and not Japan or worldwide. It is full of qualifications noted by Lewis.

    So the opening paragraphs, which are all that many WP readers look at allege cult and brainwashing on the flimsiest of evidence.

    My efforts as an editor of the "history" section have been to show that even if the movement had incidents of cult-like behavior in the 50's, by the 60's these had started to change. By the 70's there was a radical reassessment and swing toward a movement of "peace, culture, and education." Is this just promotionalism? I don't think so. I think it is essential given the serious charges of cultism. And if I show the peace, culture and education literature, don't I have to document it with sources.

    So show me how to write it better instead of trying to cut off my hands. BrandenburgG (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I think BrandenburgG's comments might be a little hard to follow if you don't know the history of the article, so I'll try to explain it a bit here. (1) The greatest source of friction in this article has been the term "brainwashing cult". If you scroll down the bottom of the same talk page as the exchange that Ubikwit quoted above, you'll find the section titled Brainwashing cult and James R. Lewis. That's where I make a 7-point argument for getting rid of it, as the most offensive term in the article and also one of the most dubiously sourced. The response, mainly from Ubikwit, is essentially WP:IDHT. If we're going to consider that a conduct issue here on AN/I, then we need to know that we have two sides here, both quite entrenched in their opinions, so WP:IDHT is going to happen. (2) About WP:ADVOCACY, please note how BrandenburgG framed it, as a reaction to the perceived POV in language like "brainwashing cult". If we can make progress on the language that provokes the reaction, then we can also make progress on the advocacy. BrandenburgG has indicated that he's aware of these issues now, so I think that they can be handled without topic bans or oversight. (3) As to whether Daveler16's contributions are WP:ADVOCACY or WP:NOTHERE, and generally about civility, I'd like to take another look at the exchange that Ubikwit quoted above. First, please look at our article on Buddhist humanism. You'll see that this term has considerable currency in the literature. It's not nonsense, by any means. But nonsense is what Ubikwit calls it – twice, once in his edit summary and once in the exchange on the talk page. It's an aggressive and confrontational style of arguing. It's not impossible to deal with, but it does generate a lot of heat. So what this suggests to me is (one) that Daveler16 is not engaged in any egregious special pleading or untoward WP:ADVOCACY in that passage, and (two) that everyone needs to calm down, be polite, and listen to what the other side has to say. Let's try that first, before talking about boomerangs and topic bans. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The post by Margin1522 requires this to be taken even further back into August of 2014.
    In the same Talk page archive to which Margin1522 refers, there is a thread preceding the one Maring1522 referenced that addresses the use of “brainwashing cult”, but I guess that Margin1522 didn't read that.[146]
    response to inactive SPA (2 NRUs) FetullahFan that they take it to RS/N
    With respect to Margin1522 attempts to dismiss RS based on its publication thirty years ago, see the following comment, which was made prior to Margin1522’s comment in the aforementioned preceding thread.
    replied that date of Yanatori publication was largely irrelevant regarding attempts to dismiss it
    I subsequently acquired both the books by Furukawa and Yanatori in Japanese, and posted the relevant portions on the Talk page here
    Margin1522, who also can read Japanese, responded somewhat glibly with basically dismissive comments referring to “hyperbolic language”, and goes so far as to misrepresent what Yanatori says regarding Ikeda's encounter with Zhou Enlai (Yanatori basically relates the opportunistic photo op, etc., as having been used in SG educational/recruitment material for brainwashing purposes (i.e., for inculcating adulation for Ikeda in the minds of SG adherents)) here.
    In short, with respect to the "brainwashing cult" characterization, as the current lead shows, there are at least 7 cited sources, including English and Japanese from the 1960s and 1970s. Obviously that represents a notable POV that must be represented in the article according to WP:DUE, WP:WEIGHT.
    --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:38, 19:11 24 January 2015 (UTC)
    I feel inferiority here as a newcomer, I see a steep learning curve about WP terms. Albeit, I think Margin1522 frames my opinion well. The "brainwashing cult" accusation in the opening paragraphs is harsh and insulting. It is a nuclear option given that the entire science about "brainwashing" has been discredited (see "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_control#Legal_issues.2C_the_APA_and_DIMPAC" for a start) and that the references are so skimpy. Ubikwit, perhaps you and Margin1522 can read Japanese, but 99% of we WP editors on the English site can't. Your source belongs on the Japanese WP page where it can be fully vented and analyzed for accuracy.
    I want to address Shii now. I have had several candid interchanges with you on Talk pages. I respect your dedication and neutrality. I have always given careful consideration to every one of your suggestions and I think I have followed through each time. If you felt I was too OCD, I believe a mention of it would have served me well. Further, when there was a lot of debate on the opening paragraphs--and I think this was right around the time I started editing--you were the one who gave wise counsel to start with the article and then return to the opening paragraphs. I've been merrily doing that ever since and I should have been cautioned that I was going too fast. As a lead editor I feel that was your responsibility to do so then and there instead of publicly questioning my sincerity on this administrator's noticeboard.
    That's all I want to say for now. BrandenburgG (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    BrandennburgG (talk · contribs) If you feel that RS characterizations of the Soka Gakkai being a "brainwashing cult" are "harsh and insulting", perhaps your emotional attachment to the subject prevents you from editing in an objective manner according to Wikipedia's content policies.
    I'm fairly certain that you have been warned about WP:OR and WP:SYNTH on the Talk page, but you appear not to have read the relevant policies/guidelines. That is evident from your assertion above about "the entire science about brainwashing" being discredited. That is not an acceptable manner in which to attempt to dismiss reliable sources.
    While I don't have a problem with editors trying to add balancing material demonstrating positive aspects of SG, that must be done in a manner according to the relevant content policies. Moreover, ADVOCACY is prohibited, and there have been numerous warnings on the Talk page regarding advocacy and promotional material.
    I think that you and Daveler16 need a long break from editing in this topic area.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 19:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Margin1522: Your statement at the beginning of your "7-point refutation" bears quoting here

    On the question of whether to take this to the WP:RS/N notice board, I don’t think that’s the right place for it. Lewis uses the word "stereotyped", so I think it's pretty clear that he doesn't agree with this idea. But the dispute here is about whether reliable sources are being used responsibly, and that's not what WP:RS/N is about. Personally I don't think "brainwashing cult" belongs in the article at all, much less the lead.

    As pointed out above with respect to your addressing of other issues, you appear to adopt a strategy of side-stepping facts in order to promote a POV not in accord with the sources. The simple fact here is that there are a total of 7 sources cited for the statements in the lead. I don't see where your attempts to dismiss any of them is based on policy. In fact, your statement that
    "Personally I don't think "brainwashing cult" "belongs in the article at all"
    sums up your emotionally biased predisposition toward the sources.
    Like Daveler16 and BrandenburgG, it is obvious that you have an emotional attachment to the subject, and probably should abstain from editing it. Since you can't seem to resist the temptation to do so, maybe a mandatory break would be in order.
    --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 20:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Another Break

    This is, actually, about conduct; but I think content disputes explain the conduct and that's why so much has been written about content. For instance, the Lewis book says, essentially, "SG gas been accused of being a cult, but it is not" - but then is cited to support "SG has been accused of being a cult". Similarly, an L.A. Times article evaluates both sides of the Ikeda-as-cult-leader question, and actually contains these words from a religious scholar : "He is not a cult leader". But an editor made a choice about which argument to cite that article to support, and again, it was "It's a cult". This indicates an advocacy, or at least a prejudice that colors the eidting.

    So to the matter at hand. Since August there have been 6 sub sections on the Talk page concerning "Beliefs and Practices" Here are some excerpts: [[147]]; Suggestion is first made, Catflap08 and I have a discussion about, and the only time Ubikwit's name appears is when it's noted that he reverted with no discussion. Later, he writes: "The reasons were explained in the edit summary".

    Edit summaries are not really conducive to discussion. Also, by definitiion, they do not precede the revert, as discussions of reverts are supposed to do.

    Later in that thread, I note that Ubikwit, on the one hand, supports the Lewis reference Mentioned above to affirm what it actually refutes, but does not think a statement about SG practices he does not like can be used to explain that practice. Again - evidence of bias, evidence, perhaps, of an agenda.

    [[148]]: Administrator Shii wrote: “One way to address Daveler's concern could be to move the "history" section lower in the article, which might coincide with a larger rewrite. Up until the rewrite began I understood SG to be the result of a fierce split with NS. I now understand that post-1991, SGI thinks of its history primarily in terms of its three leaders, and its relationship with NS is something that is in the background and not as important to self-presentation (since SG was always keeping the faith when NS supposedly lost it). Accordingly, the messy "beliefs & practices" section should be rewritten to explain why people come to SG and the message it gives to its members.”

    The next day he wrote: “There is no need to be so petty about this. First, I have already said, simply elaborating Wikipedia policy, that SGI sources are acceptable for self-description of religious views. They are not acceptable to define the narrative of SGI's history; we do not allow any religious group to determine history." I should point out that no one (to my knowledge) was trying to use SG sources in the History sub section. But there was objection to allowing SG to define its own doctrine. I think this is resolved, but, again - bias displayed against SG.

    On October 20 Ubikwit was told: Let's not be overly historicist. If the major question people ask about SGI members is "what do they believe today?" then the answers to that should reasonably come first. Shii (tock) 23:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

    And Margin1522 wrote, on another but related topic: “I also think the article is better than it used to be, and that we can start thinking about removing the neutrality tag. The obvious thing that still needs to be done is the words that some readers find offensive, especially "brainwashing" and "cult". There is no difference between "Ikeda-centric ethos" and "cult of personality", except that one is an insult and one isn't. Not that we can't mention this language, but we need to make it clear that this is language used by SG's enemies, whatever their agenda may be, and that it isn't endorsed one way or the other by Wikipedia. That in itself will make it less offensive and less likely to trigger allergic reactions."

    [then here] Margin and I duscuss: He says "In principle I'm not opposed to having this section first. But the way it is written now presumes that a lot of information has already been introduced. The first sentence is "Until the 1991 split with the Nichiren Shōshū, Sōka Gakkai existed within the Shōshū framework as a hokkeko, a form of lay organization." None of that has been introduced yet. If we are going to go this way, I think we had better start with a summary of the basic tenets of Nichiren Buddhism and only then introduce what is specific to SG."

    To which I reply "You're right" and say I'm undertaking that task. And after I do, there is this exchange: Margin 1522: "Well. You didn't get a chance to rewrite that paragraph, did you? I must say, you've displayed admirable patience through all this. As for me I'll leave it for another day. Better not to write in anger. – Margin1522 (talk)" Me: "Easily fixed. I see that, once again, for the umpteenth time, a major change is made without discussing it.--Daveler16 (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2014"

    To summarize all this: As you can see, I'm not the only one who thinks it's a mistake to portray SG beliefs through the lens of another sect, and to bury that sub section after History. You can see also that there seems to be a rather strenuous effort to prevent this from happening, and in general to keep the entry negative.

    A number of solutions have been suggested. May I add another? The "Beliefs and Practices" secti0on of the Soka Gakkai entry should be written to reflect the beliefs and practices of the Soka Gakkai, not of another sect, as they are now and have been for years. Then, let Ubikwit edit what I (or someone else) may write on that basis - not on the basis of reverting, or inserting the views of another sect. As I (and others) have found academic sources - of recent vintage, not the 60s - to verify the independence of SG doctrine, Ubikwit could find recent academic sources to argue that SG beliefs are derivative of Niichiren Shoshu - if that's what he wants to do. That would be so much better than merely reverting, and could (and should) lend itslef to productive discussion that will vastly improve the Soka Gakkai entry. --Daveler16 (talk) 04:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Incidentally, I'm not sure why Shii (talk · contribs) made those comments, the actual diff of which is this as they seemed somewhat out of bounds, particularly the point about only recounting the SG's beliefs as per the SG since 1991, presumably ignoring the history from 1930 to 1991. Wikipedia is not primarily concerned with how SG conducts its "sellf-presentation. Wikipedia has policies/guidelines including WP:Primary etc., that pertain to the use of primary sources. In fact, Shii goes on to say

      For example, here's a really dumb question: the five concepts on this page seem to be key to SG's social message, but none of them are on this Wikipedia page. Has anyone seen a source out there that explains this? It would be way better to start the article with this religious message than with the history of the group.

    The fact that the so-called "five concepts" and details about the writings of any of the leaders are missing from the article is a glaring flaw indeed, but I found Shii's statement about starting the article with the self-presentation of the "religious message" of the group to be highly unusual. And I will point out that Shii never objected to the reversions of the refactoring, nor was there any collaborative rewrite.
    His comment was also way out of character considering the email he sent me on August 19, 2014, which I am prepared to post here (assuming, that is, that doing so wouldn't violate policy) or in a provide to Arbcom, whichever is appropriate. As an "Admin", one would expect Shii to be a little more circumspect and not to make statements on sourcing that appear to be prejudicial and possible contravening WP:RS as well as WP:NPOV.
    My sole comment in that thread, in reply, has remained consistent.

    That would not be encyclopedic, and Wikipedia is not intended to serve the aims of proselytizing for religious organizations. Furthermore, the beliefs and practices have developed over time.[149]

    So, Shii, what have you got to say in response to these questions? You've been fairly quite during this discussion, with the possible exception of opposing BOOMERANG.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 14:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that the issue here is not an NPOV one but simply about which subject heading serves readers more. There isn't a policy about whether history is more important than ideology, or what should come first in article sections. BTW, I won't be voting in these proposed resolutions unless if more than one uninvolved admin weighs in on this whole thing. Shii (tock) 17:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue of "which subject heading serves readers more" is likely something that should be determined according to the prominence of views in reliable secondary sources. With a group as controversial as SG, and with a history that is obviously intimately connected to the controversy as well as the beliefs and practices, the issue should be relatively straightforward. It has nothing to do with how the SG decided it should conduct its "self-presentation" starting in 1991, though that in and of itself is a part of the groups history.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Alas for this POV, there are a large number of religious studies sources (currently being added to the article by BrandenburgG) that describe SGI as a primarily new, present-day phenomenon where beliefs and practices are more important than history. Now, I view this as scholarly approach being irresponsible, in slightly the same way that pre-1995 scholarly support for Aum Shinrikyo was irresponsible, but my POV doesn't matter Shii (tock) 19:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Alas? Did you just say, "Alsas"? Give me a breask. There are several holes in your reply.
    First, any new sources that have been added were not there when you made the above-quoted comments in September.
    Second, Those sources have not been evaluated.
    Thirdly, as you point out, the sources relate to SGI (Soka Gakkai International), not Soka Gakkai.
    Why haven't you mentioned the email you sent me in August? Do you think doing so will make it go away? Mr. Harvard Admin?
    I'd advise you to measure your statements carefully, because this is going to Arbcom, and you're already sunk.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 19:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @ ShiiHold on – define the term “new”. Japanese new religions? Definitely one of them. Where in the time line you set “new”? SGI dates back to the 1930’s so there is quite a bit of history. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    To recap, there has been continual and unabated ADVOCACY through the insertion of promotional text and attempts at whitewashing any RS material critical of the SG or its leaders. The pro SG editors have consistently refused to engage in processes such as taking sourcing related questions to RS/N. Instead it can be seen with respect to two issues that they exhibit the same pattern of editing conduct repeatedly: first, there is the attempt to perform a major refactoring of the article against consensus and on the sly; and second, there is the attempt to promote SG as a promoter of "Buddhist Humanism" as a belief or practice without any concrete sourcing and in a manner that violates WP:ADVOCACY. There is also the third point about the two iterations of "cult" used to describe the Soka Gakkai by various sources. I take that to be a sourcing issue, and that the POV in both cases ("brainwashing cult" and "cult of personality") is self-evidently a POV that needs to be in the article based on the sources. Though the mention of those points is not made in an UNDUE manner, there have been continuous attempts to whitewash it and a refusal to take sources to RS/N. I would go so far as to suggest that the above-quoted promotional text posted by BrandenburgG itself demonstrates the type of adulation for Ikeda that is representative of the cult of personality surrounding Ikeda discussed by the sources, but this is not something that BrandenburgG has been able to recognize.
    I'd like to suggest a WP:BOOMERANG topic ban for Daveler16, and also for BrandenburgG, the main offenders. While Margin1522's disposition doesn't reflect a willingness to engage processes like RS/N, for example, at least he has not tried to flood the article itself with promotional material, so I will forego suggesting a topic ban for Margin1522.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 06:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I guess I escaped nomination because my work on the article itself has mainly been confined to busywork in the footnotes. About RS/N, sure. This might be difficult for the other editors since two of the books are in Japanese. But if it would help I would be happy to translate the two passages that you were good enough to post, and we could see whether third-party editors consider those to be reliable sources. Lewis I think is an interesting case. When an academic quotes strongly POV sources, to what extent do we need to include the academic's own analysis and conclusions? That's a question that should be settled if it hasn't been already. (Note: these are all sources for "brainwashing cult".) – Margin1522 (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No need to thank me. The purpose is to halt the disruption to Wikipedia caused by the promotional conduct, which violates numerous policies, as described in this thread.
    The two Japanese sources are undoubtedly reliable sources, as they are by well-known authors, both investigative journalists, etc. They are both used on the Japanese Wikipedia article as well. Regarding Lewis, etc., that should have been taken to RS/N long ago, before FettulahFan disappeared.
    Mind you that I would imagine there are other Japanese sources for the "brainwashing cult" description, but I haven't bothered to look--or even read the Japanese Wikipedia article (I just confirmed that Furukawa and Yanatori are used there). You have to realize that the writers in English that address the issue are picking it up from somewhere, and that somewhere is most likely Japanese texts. It is not clear that some of the authors writing in English are actually writing about SG as much as SGI, which probably encompasses the scope of their exposure.
    At any rate, this is a Talk page discussion, not AN/I.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Once again I have to Ubikwit on his poor behavior. He sidesteps every point I make and then excoriates me on being an unworthy editor for other reasons. He refuses to acknowledge my charges that cult and brainwashing are extremely serious allegations (especially in opening paragraphs!) and should be substantiated by qualified sources. In order to move forward nothing else should be discussed right now besides the quality of the four sources used to substantiate the allegation: Lewis, Macioti, Furukawa, and Yanatori. A clip of Lewis was used to substantiate "cult" even though the entirety of his statement disproves that fact. A clip of Macioti was used to substantiate "brainwashing" even though the entirety of her book disproves that fact. Given the extensive literature on the SG the use of Furukawa and Yanatori is insufficient to justify a claim of brainstorming. I repeat, use them in the Japanese Wikipedia article where they can be publicly vetted; to substantiate this claim Ubikwit should be charged with finding other sources.

    I feel bullied by Ubikwit. WP should be a safe place to work. I am making a very precise claim about sources and he responds to viciously attacking my capability to serve as an editor. To me this is killing the messenger because he doesn't like the message. BrandenburgG (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic bans proposed for Daveler16 and BrandenburgG

    Indefinite topic ban for Daveler16 from all articles related to the Soak Gakkai

    @Robert McClenon: It is that. The incidents have there origins back in August, and are at least threefold. For an easy to grasp dimension of the problem, please read the comment in which the ce represented by this diff occurs.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. May need topic bans for (possibly all) other SPAs as well. I also recommend SPIs be filed against all the apparent sockpuppets (not saying they are his sockpuppets, but sockpuppets of each other) involved in editing the article. Possibly also a page semi-protection. And also reverting the page to a version before all the SPA POV bloat got added in. Softlavender (talk) 10:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite topic ban for BrandenburgG from all articles related to the Soak Gakkai

    • Support. May need topic bans for (possibly all) other SPAs as well. I also recommend SPIs be filed against all the apparent sockpuppets (not saying they are his sockpuppets, but sockpuppets of each other) involved in editing the article. Possibly also a page semi-protection. And also reverting the page to a version before all the SPA POV bloat got added in. May need topic bans for other (possibly all) SPAs as well. Softlavender (talk) 10:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    Although I have recused myself from this article, let me point out procedural problems. I think they are important because I believe WP would want to narrow the gap between new editors and more experienced ones. In my case I never heard of Single Purpose Advocacy. Yes, there were discussions about advocacy and biases but they were among a million words, some threatening, that were going back-and-forth. I don't recall WP:SPA came up on talk pages. And I did not receive warnings from the page's administrator that my editorial privileges could be revoked for my behavior and what this all entails. Therefore there was no chance to reflect and/or learn. I received only one warning from Catflap08 that I was editing too quickly and I quickly responded and agreed to slow down.
    Regardless of the outcome my situation, I think senior editors should take more time, care, and patience in pointing out to junior editors how things work here. Otherwise there will be collateral damage: well-meaning editors who sincerely want to learn and grow will get pushed under the bus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrandenburgG (talk • contribs) 16:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure if the topic ban will be of much use, the process to investigate sock puppetry is not an easy one either. In both cases the effects may only be temporarily. I would prefer WP:PCPP--Catflap08 (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion

    The fact that I am now on trial is ominous and Kafka-esque. I have worked hard and sincerely to create a BALANCED article. As a new editor I have shown a capability to grow whenever my faults have been shown. I cannot express myself yet through WP:THIS or WP:THAT so I have to use plain language. In casting your votes please answer the following Yes/No questions: ·The article before my entrance was seriously flawed and unbalance. YES/NO ·Since my arrival the article's balance has improved to the point that administrators removed it "article in dispute" categorization. YES/NO ·The description of an organization as "brainwashing cult" is serious and should merit the highest sourcing. YES/NO ·The four sources listed (Lewis, Macioti, and the two Japanese sources) were being seriously misused or are not accessible to English readers. YES/NO ·Ubikwit has been unprincipled and unrelenting on this matter. Furthermore he has sidestepped this specific issue whenever it has been raised (including right here) YES/NO ·All of my postings have been backed by highly regarded sources. YES/NO ·Bias is OK as long as it is controlled (i.e., Catholics can edit articles on Catholicism, Muslims on Islam, etc.) YES/NO ·WP readers right to a balanced article supersedes all other charges if an editor demonstrates an ability to grow. YES/NO

    Therefore I am proposing that my rights to edit continue.

    Is this real? I know it might take an entire weekend to read this whole thing, but I would like to hear from an administrator who has done so. Did I suggest a ban on Ubikwit? I don't think I did, and that is certainly not my intention. When did Brandenberg? I just want a stop to his disruptive editing. He has evidently chosen a very aggressive response, which does not involve any serious attempt to understand the problem, or to suggest a solution other than "my was or the highway".

    I just posted on the SG Talk Page that other editors might want to check out this discussion, but now I regret doing so: is anyone who may think the SG entry is being kept deliberately negative going to be "banned"? If anyone disagrees with U*bukwit, is there going to be a "vote" on whether or not they can edit any more? Could we return to civility and try to solve the original problem?--Daveler16 (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Alternative proposal: Before everybody bans each other from editing. Why not close the article yet again for a period of one month? The most problematic issue here is that we do have editors working on the article that are adherents of SGI. I keep my own editing on the two, in my opinion, most problematic SGI related articles to a bare minimum – unless certain tendencies resurface to whitewash certain critical issues or discredit sources. It should also become policy that only registered editors, no novices and IP’s, should be able to edit the article. This would be a measure bearing fruit only in the future though. In the end the only solution is to raise certain protection levels indefinitely and have the article(s) more closely watched by admins. Yet again I have to repeat something I have been saying for years now – the fierceness with which editors with a more or less close affiliation to SGI agitate reaffirms some critics who say that SGI cannot take criticism full stop. I cannot see how the article is overly critical of SGI --- even the criticism section was binned by someone. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Catflap08's proposal is not a terrible idea (though a shorter period seems more appealing to me). However, editors have to face that there is such a thing as "negative advocacy", and that certain editors are guilty of it. I have seen no effort - none - to purge the history of criticism from the article. All I have seen (and done myself) are efforts to restore balance. It is that - saying something, anything that is in any way positive, or that cancels out the criticism - as "advocating" and "promotion". It only appears that way to you if you are advocating the other way - for negativity. --Daveler16 (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I sometimes get the impression that some believe the article is only balanced when criticism is absent. I do longer want to go on about that … but rather see an admin closing the article. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    @User:BrandenburgG: Please go to the Special:Preferences page and fill in an email. Shii (tock) 20:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Shii Have you just made public my email address to logged in users?--Catflap08 (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    No, I wouldn't be able to do that if I wanted to. Not sure what you mean. I just want to contact BrandenburgG privately about the tone of his posts on this ANI page. Shii (tock) 20:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have to apologize for some rash behavior. I just withdrew my request regarding Ubikwit. I was overly and needlessly emotional. Thank you to Catflap for coming up with some positive ideas.BrandenburgG (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Catflap08: I have no idea who may have advocated all mention of criticism being "absent" before the article is balanced. Meanwhile, I'm going to heed Shii's advice below, and hie myself to the Talk page. --Daveler16 (talk) 02:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This is completely absurd

    This is an article with few editors, all of whom are familiar with what collaboration means. Indeed, if you look at the talk page right this second, you will see there is very little disputation going on there at all, and a lot of good-faith collaboration. Most of the arguing at this point has started because this ANI was posted. It is exasperating to hear threats to raise this to Arbcom; it's like threatening to call the police when your kids argue with you. Let's use the talk page first and discuss specific issues for the article moving forward. Shii (tock) 20:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have to disagree the conflict within this article fills the respective archive(s). I have been around for quite a few years and due to my own former affiliation with Soka Gakkai have stayed clear to edit the article, and the one on Daisaku Ikeda, too much. I was always clear of that and now and again since we are as you said dealing with an “article with few editors”, I would actually like to know who is an adherent of SGI – funny enough quite a few editors have been silent about that. And as soon some fall silent other appears out of nowhere – focused on SGI and Ikeda. There is one guiding motive in the article in the last past moths and years – get rid of critical remarks and if unsuccessful negate the integrity of sources being critical. This worries me big time – and no I did not file this to Arbcom.--Catflap08 (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    But the question is, have other methods of dispute resolution failed? I say no. If everyone will agree to allow each other to edit, I think there are some big questions to look at which can be resolved in an open RfC. Shii (tock) 21:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Active SGI adherents will gain the upper hand on the article and if that is Wikipedia’s purpose so be it. --Catflap08 (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Good grief. I thought we were editing - didn't realize it was an "upper hand" proposition. I like Shii's comments, ad will be seen next back on the Talk page. I started this is hopes of putting an end to disruptive editing and reversions; I had no idea it would turn into a book length jumble. I still hope that we can get a resolution, that I be allowed to edit as research leads me (and of course the same for everyone) and that consensus will be honored.--Daveler16 (talk) 02:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing can occur from various angles. It may result in an article that is promotional and there are clear guidelines on that. Please also note WP:SPA --Catflap08 (talk) 06:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Apologies and self-reflection

    I want to apologize for my lengthy and sometimes angry words on this board. I wish I could say that I acted with rashness because of my ignorance about dispute boards. Unfortunately, I've been dealing with the same self-victimization and anger issues in my entire non-virtual life. I'm aware of it and keep chipping away. I think I should do here what I do in real life: apologize, back-off, and self-reflect. In real life such action has helped me repair and usually strengthen relationships.

    Therefore I have decided to not edit the article for a month or two. (On occasion I might drop a word or two in on the talk page.) As I had promised I will also involve myself in helping other articles, thereby learning more about WP processes. If you have any suggestions for WP volunteer work I could do, please let me know.

    I wish the remaining editors my best. Overall I think we have done important work and I respect everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrandenburgG (talk • contribs) 13:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Request template namespace topic ban for Sardanaphalus

    I have been increasingly concerned about Sardanaphalus (talk · contribs)'s template editing lately. His template editing was recently mentioned in an ANI thread, after which I removed his template editor right. However, I've found that the problems aren't limited to protected templates. While most of his template edits are fine, a significant minority have problems, and given Sardanaphalus's fast rate of editing and tendency to not get consensus on template talk pages, this has resulted in quite a large build-up of templates that need to be fixed. I have noticed the following patterns in Sardanaphalus's template editing:

    • Logic errors and bad parameter names that could have been spotted with better testing. For example, a wrong parameter name at infobox company[150][151][152] and a missing includeonly tag in infobox shopping mall.[153]
    • Creation of template redirects and large-scale editing of articles to use the redirect name, bypassing the requested move process. (This is the matter that was discussed in the previous ANI thread.)
    • Formatting errors, making text or tables bunched up or unreadable.[154][155][156]
    • Creation of unnecessary template forks, for example Template:Semisub (TfD) and Template:End&startflatlist (TfD).
    • Adding unnecessary subtemplates and parameters to templates. This makes processing templates slower, which in turn increases the time taken to save pages. For example, see this edit to Template:Collapsible option, the corresponding edits to Template:Mono, and several additions of the {{{1}}} parameter to navboxes to use the parameters added to Collapsible option.[157][158][159][160][161] Sometimes increases in complexity are fine, but I'm concerned that this is being done on a large scale without any discussion.
    • Changing the function of parameters based on other parameters in the template, e.g. [162] and the edits to Template:Mono linked above. Once such a parameter scheme is added, it is hard to fix, as you need to go through every transclusion of a template and check that it doesn't use the new scheme, or add a special tracking category to find the transclusions that need changing. Again, schemes like this can be useful sometimes, but Sardanaphalus tends to add them without discussion in places where they aren't needed.

    All of this wouldn't be such a problem if Sardanaphalus took on board advice he was given after problems with his template editing were brought up. However, he tends to revert rather than using the talk page,[163][164][165] and sometimes resorts to edit warring to keep his changes in templates.[166] Most importantly, advice on his talk page doesn't seem to have resulted in any change of behaviour. For example, after this thread that I started on his talk page last week, he is still making edits with the exact same problems.[167] I don't see much improvement after other recent threads either,[168][169] and I see quite a few complaints going back in his talk page history.[170][171][172][173]

    I'd like to propose a topic ban from the template namespace for Sardanaphalus, to prevent further bad template edits and to allow us to start cleaning up the old edits without having to worry about cleaning up new edits at the same time. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support topic ban. I had noticed that Sardanaphalus has the wrong approach to editing templates before this report. A minor example is seen in the history at Template:Hegelianism where Sardanaphalus is editing the live template as if it were a contentious article which requires edit warring and pointy edit summaries to overcome POV pushers. Bold editing is one thing, but templates really do require care and collaboration. Johnuniq (talk) 08:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Sardanaphalus can seem quite productive, but he has trouble collaborating. He has very strong ideas about how things should be done and as such, he doesn't take ctiticism very well. That makes it very hard to fix his mistakes. When he does acknowledge an (obvious) error, he will often revert to his own established methods. His layout always based to fit on his own screen (1680 wide), and in such a way that it becomes illegible on smaller screens. He uses and creates templates like {{!-!}} and {{!-!!}} that are completely redundant to wikimarkup and make table/template editing exponentially harder, yet at the same time acuses experienced template editors of "thinking like progrmammers". I would be a good thing if Sardanaphalus would experience Wikipedia more as a reader... on small screens. Or at the least, he could do with some coaching. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Please take a look at User talk:Tryptofish/Archive 24#Template:Aquarium. Not too long ago, I reverted an edit by Sardanaphalus at that template, and they reached out to me at my user talk, and our subsequent discussion was very collaborative and improved the template. As a single anecdote, it seems to me to be contrary to what I'm reading here. I do however recognize that Sardanaphalus does an awful lot of template editing and that this is something where consensus is very important. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • He used to inquire about my reverts, and I would answer best I could, even though he should have brought up any issue on their respective template talk pages instead. However, any advice I give him is simply ignored or very soon forgoten. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Sardanaphalus has a habit of reformatting template code in such a manner that makes comparison by diff very difficult. Consider this edit from earlier today: the effective change is the addition of two {{{colheaderstyle|}}} but whilst the first of those is obvious, the second is disguised by the newline wrapped in <!-- --> markers which makes it look like some code has been removed and some very different code has been added. It has reached the point where I have refused to process their protected edit requests because it is so difficult to determine if their desired "minor" change truly is minor. More at Template talk:Shortcut#Protected edit request on 4 December 2014, Template talk:Information#Navbox version and Template talk:Div col#Code layout. They also nag me for not processing edits that I disagree with, see User talk:Redrose64#Template:Information, User talk:MSGJ#Advice, please..? and (by proxy) User talk:Edokter#Template talk:Div col. Sometimes it seems that a strange effect somewhere is the result of a Sardanaphalus edit - but it takes some time to trace it, see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 132#Linebreaks in infoboxes. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • You may also note from today's editing [174][175] that his use of the sandbox is not very effective; he seemingly moves every edit to the live template immediately, negating the purpose of the sandbox. If the transclusion count is high, this will unnecessarily strain the job queue, and in cases where he does not use the sandbox at all, may introduce disruptive errors on live articles. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Sardanaphalus has asked some questions at both my user talk page and Mr. Stradivarius' talk page, and I would prefer that no final decision be made here until Sardanaphalus has responded here at ANI. At the moment, I'm neutral about the ban proposal, pending what I might hear subsequently. One possibility that I think we might want to put on the table is a topic ban from editing templates, but not from editing template talk pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree that editing the template talk namespace should be allowed. Thinking about it, I would extend that to allowing the editing of template sandboxes as well, as without editing template sandboxes it is hard to make effective template edit requests. I'm also wondering whether editing /doc pages in the template namespace should be allowed, but I note that there has been some controversy about Sardanaphalus's editing there; see this section on his talk page, for example. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 23:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I looked at that discussion you linked to, and before I say what I think, I had better stipulate that I'm mostly ignorant about the technicalities being discussed there. However, just as a matter of two editors communicating with one another, I'm not seeing anything that bad about the way that Sardanaphalus replied to Edokter. After reading Edokter's reply to my first post just above, I wondered why the two of us had had such differing experiences, and it now seems to me that it takes two to tango. Anyway, I'm receptive to a more limited ban that prevents editing templates and template documentation, but permits template talk page edits and edits of draft templates in sandbox space – but above all, I'm eager to hear back from Sardanaphalus. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I should clarify that I never intended my proposed topic ban to include the template talk namespace - while it's related to the template namespace, technically it is not a part of it. Regarding Edokter, I agree that he could have handled that interaction better. I have noticed Edokter becoming increasingly frustrated with Sardanaphalus over the last few months, and this frustration is clearly evident in his recent interactions with him. It is not surprising to me that Sardanaphalus has reacted negatively to Edokter's complaints. However, Edokter is very knowledgeable about MediaWiki technical matters (much more than I am), and the technical points that he has brought up in discussions with Sardanaphalus are sound. I would say that his frustration is a symptom, rather than the cause. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 00:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment)Template:Cue I've had concerns about this user's ability to edit templates for some time as well but would only support a topic ban if the following is considered: I've seen some of their edits to templates, and they certainly have the logical ability to figure out how to properly do it and only lack the patience of making sure that it is right in the sandbox and making sure the changes are what the community wants in cases where a change might be objected to. As many may know, I've had issues and struggled with some of these things myself in the past and some would argue on my behalf that I have grown from them. Telling this user they can't talk about templates at all may very well drive a capable editor away, and that's harmful to the encyclopedia. I'd suggest that the closer of this discussion consider allowing Sardanaphalus the option of obtaining a mentor that is knowledgeable in templates and code and willing to be a middleman / filter for Sardanaphalus' ideas and changes. I'm fairly certain that the community would not see me fit for the job, and I respect that opinion despite not entirely agreeing with it, but I ask they give him a chance to find a mentor that is suitable to the community if he wishes to not be entirely topic banned from templates. Thank you for hearing me. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 21:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Now I say this with some regret. I am convinced Sardanaphalus is a good faith editor with intelligence and technical knowledge. But I am also convinced that he is sloppy in his work, has difficulty collaborating, and has technical blindspots, particularly with resolution. While I support this TBAN I would like the following provisos to be considered: to only be restricted from templates not created by him, to have no restrictions to template talk or sandboxes, and to be allowed to collaborate with Technical 13 to suggest changes which are then carried out by Technical 13. --Mrjulesd (talk) 11:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Working toward an alternative outcome

    Hello. I have been trying to work out a promising way to contribute to this thread, so I apologise if this initial post appears belated. Mr. Stradivarius endorsed the idea that linking/copying the conversation I started on his talkpage should be a good first step, so, with the exception of its Template:Tnfs, I've quoted it below. Thoughts, please..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 21:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    == Request ==

    Regarding your proposal: Though I've found a certain amount of information about this situation, I've yet to divine or find advice as regards what's considered an effective way for the... indictee? to proceed. I'd appreciate, therefore, your advice/assistance.

    Sincerely,
    Sardanaphalus (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

    As Tryptofish advised you, you should post a comment at the ANI thread. If you don't comment there, it will probably lower other editors' opinions of how well you collaborate with others. For things to go as well as possible, you need to a) show that you understand what the complaints about you are, b) accept responsibility for the issues brought up that are your fault (apologising helps here), and c) show that you are committed to improving your actions in the areas that you accept responsibility for (an action plan will help here). Though I started the thread about you, I don't actually want to see you topic banned if it can be avoided. I started the thread because I thought that a topic ban might be the only way to get you to change your behaviour after you seemingly ignored advice from myself and others. Perhaps this is all just a communication problem and can be sorted out through discussion - if that's the case, then so much the better. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Thank you very much for this message. In short: yes, I feel there's been an accumulation of misunderstandings, misinterpretations and unfinished conversations, some of which<aside>perhaps many of which</aside> have been prompted, I think, because of my attempts to take advice on board. I'm heartened to read that you don't want to see me topic (namespace?)-banned if it can be avoided; this is what the question at the end of a follow-up to the above that I'd been drafting had addressed ("...is there any kind of outcome other than the one proposed that you'd prefer to see / like to see..?").
    Do you think, therefore, that linking and/or copying the contents of this thread to the ANI thread<aside>to see if/how anyone following it responds</aside> is a good initial post for me to make there..?
    With my thanks again, Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
    PS Despite, for instance, LT910001's own userpage, this may also be timely.
    Yes, I think that linking to this conversation as part of your initial post would be a good idea. You should also try and address my points a, b and c above. But you shouldn't make the post too long - the thread will go smoothest if it is a conversation rather than a series of walls of text. Also, you should comment there soon, preferably today - the longer you leave it, the more it looks to other editors like you are ignoring the thread. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm required elsewhere for a while now, so will make the post sometime later today. Thanks for your confirmation. Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
    There's really nothing for the rest of us to add here. What is needed is for you to say whatever you are going to say. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still not confident about what's best for that to be. Given Mr. Stradivarius's points (a) to (c) above, I'm thinking I should work through what's been said in the main part of this thread in order to demonstrate, I suppose, that I don't "understand what the complaints about [me] are"<aside>more accurately, to demonstrate that I feel their basis isn't as clear-cut or perhaps as well-founded as it may otherwise seem</aside> but I think that's likely to generate one of these "walls of text"...? Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The general sense I get from this comment is that, in essense, you do not agree with the complaints. In other words, you feel you are doing nothing wrong. That is unfortunate, because that may indicates there is no intent to change on your part. What we are asking of you is to adhere to some basic principles that we expect from anyone editing Wikipedia. One of these principles is to take advice from others instead of fighting them and perceiving criticism on your edits as personal attacks. You have been given lots of advice on technical matters, but it appears to have fallen on deaf ears, as you generally do not show any change in editing. Also, if you feel you need a 'wall of text' to address these complaints, that is also not a good sign. So at this point I think a topic ban on Template:-space (meaning live templates only, not including template talk pages, /sandbox and /testcases pages), combined with some other technical restrictions, and coaching, is what is needed to improve the quality of your edits. Accepting a coach would be the only way to lift this ban in the future. Before deciding this, we'd like to hear your view (as concise as possible) on these complaints on your edits. I emphasized "edits" because I want to stress we are not discussing you as a person. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive/trolling account Cyntiamaspian

    Cyntiamaspian (talk · contribs) blocked indef by Floquenbeam (talk · contribs) -- Orduin ⋠T⋡ 20:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Cyntiamaspian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been making multiple unsourced edits to a variety of articles. I first noticed the user's edits on List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita [176]. They seem to be valid edits, but looking at the diffs closely shows the implausible rise of Indonesia's GDP per capita from $3,509 to $80,000 in a year! Because of their subtleness, the disruptive edits stood uncorrected for almost a month. And that's not an isolated incident. The user's talk page is littered with warnings from at least a dozen editors.

    Recently, the user's behaviour has turned even stranger, posting a false vandalism warning on User talk:ClueBot Commons [177], impersonating an administrator and adding fake protection templates on User:Adamdaley [178] [179] and User:EoRdE6 [180], which was reverted by Yngvadottir. At least four people asked Cyntiamaspian for explanation, with no reply. See User_talk:Cyntiamaspian#Can you please explain. This is an obvious disruptive user and should be blocked indefinitely. -Zanhe (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Currently, I have proven this editors edits here, here, and here to be false. Can someone take the time to look at this and this for factual accuracy. -- Orduin ⋠T⋡ 01:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The changed the infobox religion from "None" to "Islam" today on a BLP who was raised Atheist, with no sourcing given. I vote for a block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
     Done From your mouth to god's ear. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive editing on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant by new user

    Obvious sock blocked. Favonian (talk) 12:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I'm sure this must be a violation of something, but I'm not sure what.

    I saw this edit: 1, which violated a consensus on the talk page against the section title "Justification based on Islamic religious text" and added more content whilst moving the position of that section, potentially making other changes to it too. This is not the first time sections have been moved about. However, it drastically increases the weight on ISIL's position in the article.

    User:Malam kanam 2003 User talk:Malam kanam 2003Special:Contributions/Malam_kanam_2003 You may notice the redirected to a user-page that has no corresponding user and [181] contribution which appears to imply this user is not using their first account, which is one of I think 12 they made to become auto confirmed.

    John Smith the Gamer (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Correction: edit violated the consensus on the talk page, not the previous diff. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Sock puppetry, justifying terrorism, acting like a twit. Looking for two quick bans here on the latest incarnation of this SOCK. [182] Legacypac (talk) 08:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Favonian: you should check the history of the article[183] recently a new sock(Abu ali-shabat thawadi) restored the same removed content. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruption and possible trolling

    Research888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Despite being asked for sources a number of times, [184], [185], [186] Research888 continues to make unsourced statements on talk pages. Given the subject matter, I suspect there's some trolling going on. --NeilN talk to me 22:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Further exchange. --NeilN talk to me 22:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What obligations does an editor have to source statements they make on a Talk page? BlueSalix (talk) 10:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If they continuously make the same type of assertions on a variety of talk pages, and occasionally foray into article space doing the same thing, even after being asked to stop is that not disruption? --NeilN talk to me 16:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk pages? No. Article space? Yes. Your above note is the first time you mentioned anything about article space. BlueSalix (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    User indef'd by Wizardman. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 05:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Grickles shows no sign of understanding or respecting our copyright policies. Recent edits containing large-scale copying have been:

    CCI requested here. Until and unless this editor shows understanding of our copyright rules and agrees to abide by them, I don't think he or she should be allowed to make further edits. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked given the significance of the issues. Wizardman 04:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Hasteur disruptive behavior.

    Despite being specifically directed to not close the WP:BON discussion of his misuse of the bot flag on his bot (in this revision by Xaosflux), Hasteur has insisted upon doing so anyways (in this revision). As such, I'm requesting that both him and his SOCK/Bot accounts be blocked to prevent any more WP:DISRUPTIVE behavior that is stemming from his WP:FUCKYOUIMRIGHTIS WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. Since he has banned me from his talk page, and has requested an interaction ban with me, I'm requesting that someone else please notify him of this discussion on his talk page. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 01:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Guerillero has blocked T13 and removed his Rollback user right. I think it's fair to expect their comments/explanations in this thread shortly, especially since T13 already lodged an unblock request. At the very least, Rollback was not used at all ("undo" was), so that user right should be restored immediately. I will await Guerillero's comments here to avoid any wheel-warring issues. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Edit warring is a behavior and not based on the number of edits. This isn't the first time that T13 has edit warred over this and `(Reverted edits by Hasteur (talk) to last version by C.Fred)` is the exact edit summary created by using rollback. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      After testing on my sandbox, it appears correct that this edit summary is generated by Rollback (and not undo), contrary to T13's claims. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      That same edit summary is also generated by Twinkle, though with "(TW)" appended (but not, as you say, by undo). Squinge (talk) 09:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm curious, which of the following diffs was created by use of rollback: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6? I'll note that I haven't had a rollback link on any page for a very long time. I disabled it about a month after getting in the usergroup with the code I had offered to other editors who requested the same thing in Phab:T48412 using greasemonky in my Firefox browser to prevent accidental clicks since the purpose of my requesting the group wasn't to use the rollback link (I could, and prefer to use the TW ones when I need that), but it was instead to have access to WP:Huggle and WP:Stiki. I've never had time to get past installation of those, but I hope to someday have the time needed for that. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 21:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I am going out for a bit, but,right now, I do not see any reason to unblock --Guerillero | My Talk 02:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I left the thread open for an extra week to see if some other editor besides ones who have a vendetta for causing me trouble. Nobody responded in over a week so I closed citing IAR due to the fact that rule of "closing a thread you are involved in" is a rule that would prohibit me from improving wikipedia by closing the vindictave complaintant. Hasteur (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to see how closing the thread improved the encyclopedia. Better to let someone else close it or even to let it just fade into the archives. Back in the old days most discussions were not closed.T13 it hardly is something to block over . Chillum 03:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments from Xaosflux
    • Well what a mess we've got here, my thoughts on this:
      1. Anyone except for Hasteur or Technical 13 should review Wikipedia:Bot_owners'_noticeboard#Possible_Bot_Issue and determine if it warrants further action or close it.
      2. The summary above supports that Technical 13's reversion was misguided and that he should have used another method of reversion and supplied an edit summary to explain his reasoning.
      3. After reviewing T13's last several thousand edits, this appears to be an isolated issue of the rollback tool, whereas multiple instances of productive vandalism reversion are present. I support T13 having the rollback right restored.
      4. Blocks being preventative (including the aspect of an enforced cool-down period), suggest reducing T13's block period from 48h to a maximum of 24h - I don't think additional time is needed.
      5. Asking that @Guerillero: review #3,#4 above.
    With respect, T13's laser focus and multiple reversions of closure is indicative that he cannot put down the stick and walk away from the corpse of the horse. I indicated that because having such a thread open longer with still no updates does not help Wikipedia. The issue was identified, contrition was made, promises extracted to not do it again, yet T13 still wants even more punishment. I do not think lowering T13's block length or restoration of rollback is warranted as this is not the first time that they have taken hasty improper action. Hasteur 03:13, 25 January 2015‎
    Hasteur, given your[187] multiple[188] reverts[189] it might be wise to keep quiet. Your own conduct is equally unacceptable. —Sladen (talk) 03:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC) And please don't falsify[190] the timestamps on your edits either…[reply]
    What part of WP:TALKO are you cititing as your NEED to undo my failure to get it 100% perfect on the first try? Please keep your hands OFF my edits. Is it a reasonable assertion to let my timestamp accidentally reflect a little later? Hasteur (talk) 03:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Much as I fear that the conversation may get side-tracked, the relevant policy is WP:TALKO Attributing unsigned comments ("append attribution … if they have failed to sign it"),[191] and Signature cleanup ("…an attempt to fake a signature … edit the signature to the standard form … or some even simpler variant").[192] I appreciate your further attempts to[193] try[194] to[195] fix[196] the signature are most welcome, and it would be really appreciated if you'd be willing to apply the remainder of WP:SIGCLEAN and self-correct the timestamp in order to avoid any more accidental edit-wars. —Sladen (talk) 04:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Further: 1 change, 1 revert, and one reasonable "Concensus could change action". Definitely not multiple reverts. Hasteur (talk) 03:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note I have declined Technical 13's unblock request, my full reasoning can be found on their talk page. I would be more willing to consider a change in duration if T13 showed any indication they understood and accepted the reason for the block. Chillum 03:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see that @Shii: declined a T13 unblock request with the reason "The point of a short-term block is to give you time to cool off. You clearly are not nearly cool enough yet, so take this as an opportunity to stand back and reevaluate your life priorities. Shii (tock) 08:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)". How does this tally with WP:COOLDOWN, which appears to directly contradict Shii's assertion? Squinge (talk) 10:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • My current concerns with the bot have been dealt with by Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 9. I'm very disappointed in Hasteur's inability to deal with this in a WP:CALM and WP:CIVIL manner, but am thankful that this situation is over. I'd like to have an administrator remind Hasteur that his repeated personal attacks, battleground mentality, incivility, threats, and generally disruptive behaviour is inappropriate and request of him to work on those things and when issues arise to simply focus on resolving the issue. I expect this request will be laughed and and ignored, but I'm getting tired of these battles and it is becoming more and more clear to me that the community is either incapable of dealing with or unwilling to deal with the severe, repetitive issues that have been raised about this user. Thank you for your time, and I apologize to those that feel like theirs has been wasted. I realize also that I'm not perfect and have things I need to work on as well, and look forward to growing in those areas if the community will allow it. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 00:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Not a good unblock

    Technical 13 is right back at it [197]. Based on a WP:NOTTHEM "Not my fault attitude" - see [198] for a discussion of how a) his canvassing an ANI thread was because the instructions at the top of this page are inadequate and b) how his marking edits as minor is Twinkle's fault, it's my expectation that unless they rapidly get clueful we're looking at someone between six to eighteen months before they will be no longer welcome to edit Wikipedia. (I understand this is a "pile-on" comment, but with WP:RFCU dead where am I supposed to point it out otherwise? NE Ent 00:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    NAC: Interaction ban between User:Hasteur and User:Technical 13 imposed by admin User:Floquenbeam after mutual consent. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    In addition to this, I would like to request a involuntary interaction ban be imposed as only last week my bringing the idea was laughed off the board and boomerangs were threatened. Since then we've had T13 edit war with administrators to keep a scarlet letter present, We've had T13 have their rollback revoked (and restored), We've had T13 blocked for 48 hours (and released early) because they claimed it was not edit warring. I have attempted to disengage from T13, they have decided to continue and enlarge their accusations of high treason in wikipedia when a generous application of WP:IAR would have prevented a significant amount of this disruptive editing. Hasteur (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And we can see that, the very WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive268#Request for Interaction ban with Technical13 was flatly turned down, with not a single voice of support for it. I am grateful to see that as a result of this charade we finally have a filed and authorised WP:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 9. This is a good thing and neatly confirms that HasteurBot and the behaviour of its owner is not faultless. …We can also observe that it was not even T13 who filed the original bug report[199] that started this mess. And we can observe that the report was responded in pretty-much the same problematic argumentative manner[200] and allegations of hounding.
    All you in all you can avoid the "interaction" by playing by the rules, and dealing with bug reports (in a constructive manner). If that is done, consistently, and there still turn out to be the problems then we can deal with them—but I doubt there will be. Finally, I hope you will take the time to fully digest Slakr's long and thoughtful reply from last night[201] which warns of the future, based on the past. —Sladen (talk) 08:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support interaction ban between Technical 13 and Hasteur. I have seen a bit of this and Technical 13 needs to be stopped now. Let's say that Hasteur has broken every rule in the book and is the worst bot operator on the planet—that still would not justify the relentless and pointless harassment from T13. Operating a bot is hard work and operators should be protected from silly sniping. Sure, raise an issue—raise it twice if wanted. But after that, let the bot people deal with it. I would support whatever it takes to get T13 off Hasteur's back—block, one-way interaction ban, topic ban, site ban—any of these would help the project. I write this in full knowledge of T13's above comment at 00:38, 26 January 2015 where yet more misguided crap is poured on Hasteur. Johnuniq (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I requesting an interaction ban with Hasteur months ago, and was ignored. I'm also tired of attack after attack after attack from Hasteur. If Hasteur was willing to WP:DROP his insistence that I'm out to get him, and just deal with the legitimate concerns that arise there would be no conflicts. I haven't initiated any direct contact with Hasteur in a very long time, and will continue to not do so. I'm very careful to not mention him in my reports of issues. I raised an issue once, as a bot person myself, and there was no reason for Hasteur to keep reverting the BAG people who told him explicitly not to close the topic as he was involved. I was then blocked and had a userright that I've never used for undoing the improperly closed discussion and reporting the situation here for the larger community to deal with. I completely understand the situation and I have more important scripting work to do before WMF1.26-7 is released and 0 JavaScripts on this wiki become nonfunctional. Hasteur, as a final plea with you, please stop your personal attacks and threats. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 01:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Technical 13 Your behaviour hasn't been enamouring either. Yes, focusing on Javascript (or anything else) sounds a great idea. If there's a bug report, please do so, but please keep it minimal (with diffs) and avoid piling on afterwards—if necessary this can be done by other editors. —Sladen (talk) 08:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait; long multipage arguments are great fun and all, but if @Hasteur: wants an interaction ban, and @Technical 13: wants an interaction ban.... I hereby wave my magic wand, and *poof* there's an interaction ban. EFFECTIVE NOW. Enforceable by blocks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    pinging @Technical 13: again because I messed up the ping the first time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    • I feel rather obliged to comment here as the thread in question was started by me. First T13 shouldn't be punished for following Wikipedia policies and attempting to get action on a user who has admitted himself to have violated policies. Second, Hasteur is in the wrong, he violated many rules and seems to have no care or remorse for his actions, other than quickly filing a bot request to back him up. While I admit his bot is quite useful, the way he used it against me in a debate about G13 (debate here) was unacceptable. He should get off his might horse admit he is in the wrong at the base of this issue. Just my two cents. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Timbouctou vandalism and POV

    This user keeps removing valid reference from the Magnum Crimen article, tags the same text with [citation needed], alters the quoted text in the same article, refuses to discuss the article changes on the talk page

    Issues with article

    • Vandalism

    My attempt to put back the text that is referenced is prevented by this user.

    Referenced test:

    According to O. Neumann, Novak was a Croat by birth, and he has been, since 1924, active among the Serbs. "He was Chair of Croatian History, which was founded at the University of Belgrade in order to promote mutual understanding between the two kindred peoples".[1]

    was replaced by Timbouctou and tagged with [citation needed]

    Viktor Novak, a Croat by birth, has been, since 1924, active among the Serbs. He has held the Chair of Croat History which was founded at the University of Belgrade in order to promote mutual understanding between the two kindred peoples

    Earlier text with correct quote

    "Some passages have been written by a scholar in a dignified academic gown, in other parts of the book the author assumes the role of public prosecutor."

    was altered by inserting while

    "Some passages have been written by a scholar in a dignified academic gown, while in other parts of the book the author assumes the role of public prosecutor."

    To verify online the quotes, see here and here.

    • Logical fallacy

    In Timbouctou inlined comments there is statement rv published on http://magnumcrimen.org/ and COPYRIGHTED to "Magnum Crimen, 2015" which makes no sense. The Wikipedia Magnum Crimen is copyrighted at least six years before http://magnumcrimen.org/. It is obvious that http://magnumcrimen.org/ copied over most of the Wikipedia's Magnum Crimen article. The revert excuse is obviously false; for details see here.

    • POV

    Further, the same user added these two sentences to this article which are a blatant POV

    As reported by the Serbian daily Politika, the publication of the English language edition was financed by a friend of Milorad Ekmečić, a Serbian nationalist historian', who also wrote the foreword to the edition.[31] According to the same article, the publication of the English translation intentionally coincided with the start of the trial for mutual lawsuits in the Croatia–Serbia genocide case before the International Court of Justice, so that "the world would be informed about Ustashe crimes against Serbs during the Second World War".[31]

    Both sentences are referenced by „Magnum crimen”, ipak, putuje u svet.

    Whoever reads and understands Serbian language can see that there is nothing in that reference saying Serbian nationalist historian', or intentionally coincided with the start of the trial for mutual lawsuits in the Croatia–Serbia genocide case before the International Court of Justice, so that "the world would be informed about Ustashe crimes against Serbs during the Second World War".

    For details see here.

    References

    1. ^ Oscar Neumann: Novak, Viktor, Magnum crimen. Pola vijeka klerikalizma u Hrvatskoj (A Half Century of Clericalism in Croatia). Zagreb, 1948. Pp. 1124 in Journal of Central European Affairs - Volume 10 - 1950, Page 63.

    Issues with request for comment

    • Harassment and vandalism

    I tried to address these issues on the article talk page here. My attempt was ridiculed by

    "User:Milos zankov, I'm afraid you are going to be more specific than that in order for your comments to be taken seriously", "Simply saying that other editor's contributions are crap and reverting ad nauseam will hardly help your case." The last two offensive statements came from Timbouctou

    Timbouctou inserted his comment in the body of my Request for comment, which I moved in the Comments section and updated my Request for comment. Timbouctou put back his comment inserted into the request comment and removed my request updates. For details see here

    Soliciting admin support

    Timbouctou keeps publicly soliciting (here, here, and here) his Croatian compatriot, Wikipedia administrator Joy [shallot] contrary to WP:CANVASS which intervened on behalf of Timbouctou , see here --Milos zankov (talk) 02:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I took a quick look at it, and there really was a problem with Timbouctou reinserting a text which has a tone not at all supported by the source. I made the changes so the text reflects what the source really says (diff). Timbouctou should really not missuse sources the way he did, neither add POV content such as calling a historian "nationalist historian" just by his personal opinion (diff when he first time added the text). FkpCascais (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @FkpCascais Thank you for the correction you've made. How about removing the valid reference and requesting [citation needed] where I provided the online verification of the referenced text, then how about claiming baselessly a copyright violation? How about removing my comments from the talkpage?--Milos zankov (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    First off, this is not an appropriate venue to discuss article content. Secondly, you clearly have WP:COMPETENCE issues regarding the way discussions are led and the overall cooperative work needed to build this project. Thirdly, the text you want to see in the said article (about a pretty controversial political book) was lifted verbatim from http://magnumcrimen.org/, a website which serves to promote the said book, and which has copyright on its entire contents. Fourth, you are lying through your teeth with claims that I misrepresented an article in a Serbian newspaper about the book, and fifth - this is the second time you copy pasted the entire thread to ANI after your previous attempt ended in it being archived. Sixth, there were at least five (5) other editors who left negative comments on article talk and your own talk page about your edits and who questioned your good faith in launching an RfC. Seventh, I have no desire to waste my time on debating actions of a single-purpose account which is here solely and exclusively because he/she has a political axe to grind. You should have been indef blocked by now, but it's not my call to make so I guess you'll have a lot more copy-pasting at ANI to do. Cheers. Timbouctou (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment you are lying through your teeth with claims that I misrepresented an article in a Serbian newspaper about the book!! No need to comment it, see just the latest fix of the article. Now about non-existent copyright issue:
    (cur | prev) 14:04, 17 January 2015‎ Timbouctou (talk | contribs)‎ . . (19,891 bytes) (+2,402)‎ . . (rv published on http://magnumcrimen.org/ and COPYRIGHTED to "Magnum Crimen, 2015")
    (cur | prev) 13:42, 17 January 2015‎ Milos zankov (talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,514 bytes) (-2,377)‎ . . (Undid revision 642753012 by Timbouctou Wikipedia article is copyrighted too and 6 year older than "www.magnumcrimen.org")
    (cur | prev) 11:28, 16 January 2015‎ Timbouctou (talk | contribs)‎ . . (19,891 bytes) (+2,377)‎ . . (rv text copyrighted to "Magnum Crimen, 2015" and published on http://magnumcrimen.org/)--Milos zankov (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry Timbouctou, but regarding your edit, you did gave a bit of your own tone to the edit which clearly defends one POV over the other and which is not backed by the source. Regarding the rest, unfortunately I am a bit limited with the time and this matter is complex, but I am afraid that Milos zankovs inexperience here becomes used to push one POV in the article. I hope that doesn't happened. FkpCascais (talk) 03:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    70.190.111.213: repeatedly reverting biased, inaccurate edits on current events portal; refusing constructive dialogue

    Good day all,

    First, I apologize in advance for any breaches of protocol I may myself have unknowingly committed, as I am a new user.

    User 70.190.111.213 has, at least ten times, insisted on biased and to varying degrees inaccurate renderings of headlines on the Jan. 21 mass-stabbing in Tel Aviv. He has reverted edits by myself (Slvofjstce, previously 70.114.220.115, 72.182.49.254, and 128.62.31.0), FourViolas, 2605:e000:aa0c:f200:443a:c372:b7d9:a32e, 174.88.203.17, and Snowball359:

    [202] [203] [204] [205] [206] [207] [208] [209] [210] [211]

    His current version reads:

    • A Palestinian man from the West Bank, Hamza Muhammad Hassan Matrouk, illegally crosses into Israel for the express purpose to stab (sic) people attacking over a dozen Israelis on a bus in central Tel Aviv. Security forces capture the assailant as he continued to indiscriminately stab people in the street. (The New York Times)

    As I've pointed out in my edits, and on his talk page, his headline is overly long, openly biased, and contains two pieces of information either not present in, or contradicted by, the article he provides. My suggested version reads:

    Once I had familiarized myself with Wikipedia's editing protocols, I decided to reach out to 70.190.111.213 to hopefully end the annoying cycle of reversion (see: User talk:70.190.111.213, January 2015 [the first]). I apologized for the preceding back-and-forth, and explained my concerns with his edits, as well as the rationale behind the changes I had suggested. I requested we engage in productive dialogue before any further edits be made; to that end, I agreed not to change his headline for over eight hours, in that hope that we could open dialogue before then. I received no response during those eight hours, then went ahead and made the edit I had previously suggested. Three minutes later, he reverted the edit. He has since done so two more times, once for FourViolas and once for me. He has not responded to my request for dialogue, but has referred to me as a "sockpuppect (sic) created just 4 days ago for block evasion."

    Especially given that 70.190.111.213 does seem to be a fairly prolific and generally productive contributer to the current events portal, I'm not quite sure what action I would suggest be taken. But I do feel that he is acting unfairly and unreasonably, and I hope we can finally bring this matter to a just conclusion.

    I apologize again for any inadvertent breaches of protocol, and thank you for your attention. Slvofjstce (talk) 06:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    elegent speech too bad this guy is a sockpuppet for a banned account and he just keeps changing his ip and registering new accounts to do whatever he pleases. This current account is just 3 days old (Slvofjstce) yet he already knows to come to this area to try and contrive a scam to an admin.--70.190.111.213 (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    he attempts to contrive an arguement that he has consensus by naming various account all of which are just today's new sockpuppet anon ip or account such as (70.114.220.115) a single edit was made under this ip to the what do you know the item above and absolutely nothing else.--70.190.111.213 (talk) 11:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    another such as (72.182.49.254) a single edit was made under this ip to the what do you know the item above and absolutely nothing else.--70.190.111.213 (talk) 11:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    such as (128.62.31.0) a single edit was made under this ip to the what do you know the item above and absolutely nothing else.--70.190.111.213 (talk) 11:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    such as (2605:E000:AA0C:F200:443A:C372:B7D9:A32E) a three edits were made under this ip to the what do you know the item above and absolutely nothing else.--70.190.111.213 (talk) 11:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    such as (174.88.203.17) a double edit was made under this ip to the what do you know the item above and absolutely nothing else.--70.190.111.213 (talk) 11:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the "wording" of the above edit to the daily events section - the exact item can be viewed at the citation given and although paraphrased (which is exactly what we are required to do) is what the any and all citations on the internet say that i could find according to google - that "A Palestinian man from the West Bank, Hamza Muhammad Hassan Matrouk, illegally crossed into Israel for the express purpose to stabbing people attacking up to a dozen Israelis on a bus in central Tel Aviv. Security forces capture the assailant as he continued to indiscriminately stab people in the street" and that HE ADMITTED TO EXACTLY THAT UPON QUESTIONING BY AUTHORITIES--70.190.111.213 (talk) 11:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll depose that I'm not a sockpuppet, and that I reverted 70.190.111.213 for what appeared to me to be WP:NPOV problems. Wikipedia should strive to be dispassionate, even in extreme cases.
    I propose a temporary WP:Block of the IP for edit warring and refusal to engage in dialogue, and an admonishment to all involved editors to be aware of WP's Arab-Israeli sanctions, particularly the 1RR. I think User:Slvofjstce does not need to be blocked, because they have shown themself willing to make repeated good-faith efforts to resolve the content dispute. FourViolas (talk) 14:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    almost certain that this is just another sock of the above person - how do i know this? - this person also says they just started at wiki (the acct was created just 3 months ago) and yet they are now giving advice to admins??? Further they dont address the issue of the rotating anon ip adove as if they are a magician - "watch this hand please" - no the endelsssly rotation of anon ips is irrelevant - yeah right?!--70.190.111.213 (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    further i see no possible way they could have known that this discussion existed and yet they are now following it--70.190.111.213 (talk) 15:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    further i have just looked through all 1000 of this supposed new persons edits since the three months ago creation and yet HERE IS THE BEST ONE YET they have EXACTLY ZERO edits to the daily events page (except the one edit they made there in support of the sock above) and yet suddenly they are an expert about what belongs there to such a degree that they, again i say, are ready to give advice to admins about blocks!--70.190.111.213 (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you believe you have credible evidence of WP:SOCKpuppetry, please open a discussion at WP:SPI. (Note that Slvtojstce already claimed most of the IPs you mention above.) On this page, please WP:KEEPCOOL and respond to Slvtojstce's specifically enumerated concerns about your edit warring and refusal to discuss the problem. Your contribs demonstrate good faith, but edit warring is simply not a good way to generate consensus. FourViolas (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Greetings, all. By Wikipedian protocol, would I be unreasonable to make my (repeatedly) proposed edits now? I don't want to unduly pour gasoline onto a fire, but I also strongly believe the current headline to be unacceptable to Wikipedia's standards. I hope we can move forward (whatever form that takes) by 13:00 GMT. Peace. Slvofjstce (talk) 02:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I appreciate your discomfort with the present version, but I think it would be better to wait either until 70.190.111.213 agrees to discuss or until they are blocked for refusing to do so. WP:There is no deadline, especially because very few people look at "current events" more than a few days old. This noticeboard is for the resolution of WP:User conduct problems, not content disputes, and in this case it doesn't look like we can reach content consensus until we resolve 70.190.111.213's reverting-without-discussion behavior. FourViolas (talk) 05:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for admin action: 70.190.111.213 has been active recently, but has chosen not to add anything to this discussion since their spurious WP:Socking allegations (a characteristic attempt to deflect criticism: [212] [213] [214]). This has gone on long enough, and if 70.190.111.213 doesn't want to offer apologies or assurances that they will stop edit warring, or attacking other editors, they should be prevented from doing so. FourViolas (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC) I've never been involved in an AN/I discussion, and looking around I realize incidents usually take a while to resolve. Sorry to sound pushy. FourViolas (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lynctekrua and AfCs

    User:Lynctekrua has a short and curious history on this website. He or she (I'll guess he and say "he" for convenience's sake) seems to enjoy administration and probably means well; but his zeal has included repeatedly describing himself as an administrator (see the history of his user page), and making Articles-for-Creation decisions that have at times been so bizarre that three experienced editors (two of them administrators) have recently asked him to lay off (see the recent history of his talk page). One of the latest of these decisions was to accept a draft for "Vivek Kumar Pandey" -- pretty much a re-creation of what has already been deleted numerous times; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivek Kumar Pandey (2nd nomination) -- to article space as Dr. Vivek Kumar Pandey (itself the title of at least one deleted article). Did he do this because of inexperience or some mere brainfart? (We all have them from time to time, or anyway I do.) No: in a message on my talk page, he shows familiarity with the word "salt", and implies that he is above such trifles as the "deletion review" process: "I am within my rights to do what I'm doing".

    Lynctekrua points out that I am "not the sole administrator that decides who is worthy of contribution". This is very true, and I am one of three editors (the others being User:Kudpung and User:TAnthony) to have invited him to direct his considerable energy toward article content. He continues: "AFC is NOT a admin only task". I agree again, but suggest that competence is required, competence that I don't see.

    I suggest a ban on involvement in AfCs, until Lynctekrua's other edits demonstrate the necessary degree of care (and respect for others' considered opinions). -- Hoary (talk) 09:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I will just add that according to these edits, there is a distinct lack of knowledge of even the basic principles of page patrolling, plus the fact that he rarely signs his posts. The level of English is at times that of a non native speaker, but Lynctekrua understands well enough when he tries his Wikilawyering. User only has 50 edits to mainspace but claims to have enough when counting his 'other account'(?}.

    See also his comments at User talk:Kudpung#Removal. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed indefinite ban on AfC involvement by User:Lynctekrua

    Yes, I moved it to drafts on request of the editor. After which I continued to answer her questions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynctekrua (talk • contribs)
    • Support. Lynctekrua came to my attention when he tagged an article for speedy deletion about 7 minutes after I had started creating it (an edit conflict between my subsequent adds and his tagging alerted me). I went to his talk page to ask him to give me a few minutes and ... saw several disgruntled editors doing the same. In watching his talk page since, I expected to see a little more "oops sorry, I'll tread more lightly" but he's instead been a bit dismissive and defensive. I've independently tried to give as positive commentary/constructive criticism as I can on his talk page, but it just seems as though he has moved from one form of disruption to another rather than actually make an effort to improve. This is definitely not some kind of organized "witch hunt": as he suggests, just the expected reaction when a rogue editor cuts a (albeit small) swath of disruption across Wikipedia ;) — TAnthonyTalk 18:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Per Lynctekrua below, and WP:IDHT. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Response

    Aright... Let me Just restate my reply as to not leave you with the slightly twisted paraphrasing of Hoary..

    "I found that article to comply with Wikipedia policy so I bypassed the salt. Lets make it clear that I am within my rights to do what I'm doing. You are not the sole administrator that decides who is worthy of contribution. I hope that you will realize that Wikipedia continued success depends on independent editors such as my self. AFC is NOT a admin only task, you may put policy around your script, but not around the task itself. If you have a issue with that I suggest you seek the creation of a new usergroup"

    First: note that I do not know half these people and have never interacted with them. They simply rush to the aid of experienced and well known wiki editors. With that said, administrator who reviews this, try avoid bias given the fact that it's well known editors who have mounted this siege.


    Second: I do admit to adding a admin banner on my page which for obvious reasons is unacceptable, however, following the subsequent warnings I have fully removed them.


    Third: Despite the impressive list of editing flaws you have mounted against me, I see 252 successful edits. Note that is account was created with the intent of preforming moderation tasks. If that's how I so chose to contribute, then so be it. Time will only improve my practices.


    Forth: While you may all think your arguments are compelling, you all more or less say the same thing. Well let me tell you, a relatively short list of short comings does NOT justify banning. Behold the Wikipedia bully's.

    May I just add, I also expect this ban to take place. Not because of proven causality and effect, but because 10 well known editors have gone on a witch hunt. If you do the math, more then 90% of my edits are valid and successful. And for the edits that were problematic, they occurred at the very beginning of my editing venture. I would respond to reply's and take into account what the editor suggested, unless of course the advise was "stop editing".

    Lynctekrua (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC) Lynctekrua (talk)[reply]

    • Let's just get some facts straight, Lynctekrua: You are still at the very beginning of your editing venture. You only have 50 edits to mainspace and a total of 268. That's nowhere near enough to get you enrolled at the Counter-vandalism school where you can begin to learn about one of the easier maintenance tasks. In spite if claiming on my talk page that you have experience from your 'other account' you still have not mastered the basics of posting on discussion pages. There are no witch hunts and nobody is bullying you, but it's plain that experienced members of the community have decided that you are not ready to be doing any 'moderation' tasks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like to clarify that this isn't a proposal for an indefinite site ban for you, but a ban from involvement in Articles for Creation reviewing for now due to your lack of experience. Sam Walton (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lynctekrua, I hope you don't mind that I added a sub-heading for your Response and I've formatted your reply to me above correctly. It's just to keep the layout easier to follow and easier to respond to. Squinge (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lynctekrua is now reviewing AfC drafts in defiance of this ANI at the rate of one a minute using the helper script to which he theoretically has no access. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is completely absurd. The "one a minute" behavior is exactly why he is being considered for a ban. I have blocked him for a week so that he stops doing this while the ban is being considered. Shii (tock) 17:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I looked through the AfCs reviewed in the past day. Most look acceptable, but one of the pages, Draft:Kirill Chernegin, has a mysterious-looking denial reason instead of an actual explanation of WP:BIO. Shii (tock) 17:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Worse than that. Seeing your comment, I looked at this particular draft, and thought it mildly promising. (But I wasn't in a mood to accept it, mostly because the claimed sources are in Russian, which in itself is unobjectionable but is problematic for my linguistically challenged self.) I therefore simply reverted Lynctekrua's edit to it. And what did I read at the top of this earlier version? After bold-stripping: Draft article not currently submitted for review. / This is a draft Articles for creation submission. It is not currently pending review. ¶ Hate to say this, but I think a lot of Lynctekrua's edits need reexamination. -- Hoary (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)  PS  Uh, hang on. There's some weird shinola going on. Yes, I really did read that at the top of the draft. The history of the draft shows that my reversion of Lynctekrua's edit is still the most recent edit (ie the draft should be just as I left it). However, a few minutes ago the draft showed no such header template. Indeed, it showed no header template at all. Instead, it showed a footer template; and this said: Review waiting. / This may take several weeks, to over a month. The Articles for creation process is severely backlogged. Please be patient. There are 2,002 submissions waiting for review. The template in question is "{{AFC submission|t||ts=20150124102738|u=Netnikogda|ns=118}}". Now, "{{AFC submission|T}}"is supposed to trigger "{{Template:AFC submission/draft}}"; when I look at the latter, I see Draft article not currently submitted for review etc etc. No change has been made to Template:AFC submission/draft since 21 January; maybe it transcludes some other template that has been changed. Briefly, I don't claim to understand this stuff at all, but I'm much less confident than I was earlier that Lynctekrua ignored a template telling him not to review the draft. -- Hoary (talk) 08:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This guy seems to have attempted to give himself admin power by copying a blocking Javascript into his userspace: User:Lynctekrua/easyblock.js

    Combined with his multiple attempts to add the statement "This user is an administrator" to his userpage, I wonder whether this might be considered malicious behavior. Shii (tock) 00:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    More likely simple trolling. Johnuniq (talk) 00:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lachlan Foley indiscriminate mass article tagging and WP:DISRUPT

    User:Lachlan Foley is out of control.

    In just the last five days, LF has tagged about 400 album and song articles with music notability tags without any apparent research or examination of the articles themselves, many of which actually show they were hit songs or records, like with Blur's #5 UK charting Charmless Man and On Your Own (Blur song) song articles. [218][219]. He seems to have a particular dislike of live albums - 17 out of 22 Gary Numan's live albums articles has been tagged by him as well two Roxy Music albums.[220][221]

    Many of the other album articles he threw notability tags on are of those by iconic artists such as Radiohead and Brian Eno.[222][223]

    Looking just previous to this latest round of mass tagging, I see he tagged Roxy Music #5 charting Oh Yeah (Roxy Music song) article with a notability tag.[224]

    Just have a look at his contributions page and you'll see.

    Any kind of attempted reasoning with him will be met with edit warring as demonstrated by his block for 3RR about two weeks ago. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive267#User:Info4allthepeople reported by User:Lachlan Foley (Result: Submitter blocked).

    This editor needs to be kept in check.--Oakshade (talk) 06:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I've done nothing wrong, so I have no need to explain myself, but I will say that if you had also bothered to look a cursory glance at the constructive improvements I have made to hundreds of articles over the period of five years, you'd think twice about calling my tagging "indiscriminate". You are just still upset about that Joy Division incident and are grasping at straws in an attempt to get back at me. Lachlan Foley (talk) 09:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Mass tagging of hundreds of song and album articles, many of which were top 10 or top 20 hits demonstrates you were indiscriminate in your tagging. You can't erase history as the diffs are there forever. Glad you brought up the Joy Division album Preston 28 February 1980 article as that's yet another example in which you failed to do any research and threw a notability tag on. It seems you're angry about that tag being removed and being called on your WP:DISRUPT violating behavior. --Oakshade (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I recall this user sending dozens and dozens of similar articles to AfD and IIRC, they've all been kept. Recommend that LF raises notability on the WP:ALBUM talkpage first before tagging more articles. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Given this is a longtime ongoing pattern, I think a topic ban might be in order. --Oakshade (talk) 02:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC) AMENDMENT: Given the behavior demonstrated by Cavarrone below with multiple topics, it seems more than just a topic ban would be in order. --Oakshade (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just drawing to your attention that User:Lachlan Foley has tagged almost all of the Jebediah releases with notability tags even though everyone of them are charting songs and contain independent verifiable references. Until checking his talk page I was unaware that this editor has a past history of this disruptive behaviour. Concur with previous comments that this appears to be an ongoing pattern that should be actively discouraged.Dan arndt (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Does this constitute vandalism? See Wikipedia:Vandalism#Abuse of tags, and there are literally hundreds of wrong tags, it's hard to believe good faith. --Mrjulesd (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Def. a case of WP:DE. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And for Jebediah I see on the #6 charting Kosciuszko (album) article, LF removed all the professional review sources [225] and then tagged it for notability on the next edit. [226] Wow. --Oakshade (talk) 08:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Really could use an Admin weighing in on this and for this to have a definitive end.--Oakshade (talk) 02:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Sadly, they're too busy with backslapping and waiting for their spines to develop to help with a real issue. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Something needs to be done. Just in the last day, even after all the agreement of his disruptive behavior here by all editors, he's tagged multiple charting song and album articles with notability tags - examples are [227][228][229] - the latter of which, Found That Soul, was a top 10 hit.--Oakshade (talk) 23:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Still continuing with the tagging spree. Admins, time to step up. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have not checked his recent rapidfire tagging, but the time rate of the tags (one tag or more/a minute) is well below of a minimum standard it is reasonable to expect by a responsible, non-bot, good-faith reviewer who analyzes sourcing and contents of the articles. In spite of warnings and previous incidents, I don't see any sign he intends to change his attitude, nor he apparently wants to engage in a discussion to explain his actions, so I strongly suggest a topic ban from tagging articles, especially as the tagbombing appears to be a dead end for LF (even considering previous incidents, I don't see any intention to nominate such articles from deletion). Even if LF could be sometimes incidentally right, this mass-tagging is unhelpful and requires a lot of time (and sometimes stress) from the community to review and fix his edits, and frankly everyone has better things to do than loosing time behind some improper tags (LF included). Cavarrone 16:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Admin needed here. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    He does not change his attitude very easily. When the Everything Must Go incident went down, he was just removing information that I added without any explanation. I tried to explain that there was nothing wrong with the information, and there wasn't, the information had reliable references, but he just kept reverting my edits, and eventually reported me for 3RR, that was the moment I tried not to edit the articles where he made changes, so I would not have to deal with the process of getting reported. Just wanted to share my opinion because I felt really cheerless when I was reported because of an article where I was adding valid information with references, and when I tried to figure out the reason for his removal of the infomration in question, he reported me. User:Info4allthepeople (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin action is needed

    Any chance of an admin actually doing something here? This has been here for more than a week. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    C'mon you chocolate fireguards. Pull your fingers out. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban proposal

    Moved this section down for visibility. Given the failure of the editor to respond sufficiently, or indeed to stop tagging articles that clearly pass our notability guidelines, I suggest a topic ban on User:Lachlan Foley from adding notability tags to music recording related articles, broadly construed. Please feel free to tweak this as required. Black Kite (talk) 13:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic Ban Discussion

    If I went on a blind tagging spree, hitting 1000s of articles, I bet I can get one right eventually. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What Lugnuts said. Even a broken clock is correct twice a day. Just by randomness, something will hit.--Oakshade (talk) 15:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose for much the same reason as Sarek. See Talk:4st 7lb, for example, where he's precisely right: WP:NSONGS states that album reviews don't contribute to an album track's notability. When I dig back through his tags they seem pretty much correct based on the properly-sourced contents of the tagged articles. This comes down to an age-old issue, where people that have made defective articles dislike it when people tag the defects as opposed to correcting them. That the tags can generally be easily addressed doesn't make them wrong, and, if we topic-ban Lachlan Foley, we make it that much more likely that no one will ever fix the underlying articles.—Kww(talk) 13:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    We can ignore Kww comments following a string of bad-faith edits over the weekend. Clearly needs to read WP:CIR before he continues. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The attacks are getting pretty old, Lugnuts.—Kww(talk) 14:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    For attacks, read facts. Are you now going to do your token block threat now that you've been found out? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 15:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to disagree with 4st 7lb (though there are lot of independent sources available - it might sneak in), but the problem is that LF has been tagging charting singles by major bands. What are the chances of there being no sources available for those? Nil. Tag them for more sources by all means, but tagging for notability is ridiculous. Black Kite (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - NSONG isn't exactly definitive (probably are, may be, etc), but the articles (as tagged) appear to at least be in question. Yes, there may be other sources that establish notability - but they aren't in the articles and there is enough to question based on what is in the articles. Blocking or topic-banning for placing tags is not a good precedent at all. The editor is engaging at the article talk pages and at their own talk page (to some degree). Worse than the tagging is the edit warring to remove the tags [230][231][232][233] without addressing the concerns raised. --Tgeairn (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody here is claiming LF should be blocked just by tagging, it's the mass indiscriminate tagging with many clear examples tagging article topics that are most definitely notable (remember, WP:NOTABILITY is very clear:"Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation."). Tagging the #5 UK hit Oh Yeah (Roxy Music song) article [234] demonstrates the indiscriminate, almost random nature of LF's tagging. As pointed out above, this has been going on for years. Notability tagging the Oliver Stone-directed film Seizure?[235] Clearly LF has learned nothing over the years. As the opening states, something needs to be done to keep this user in check. --Oakshade (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Mayhaps I am in the wrong here too. Seeing Oh Yeah (Roxy Music song), I would tag it for notability and sources as well. There are two references, one is not about the article subject at all, and the other is a completely unreliable source of user-generated trivia. Yes, if this was a #5 UK hit then it may be notable (per WP:NSONG) - but we don't even have a source for that. I'd still tag it, as NSONG has additional criteria for standalone articles. I'm not seeing clear examples of indiscriminate tagging. --Tgeairn (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As for Seizure, it had zero references at the time of tagging. Of course it should be tagged or fixed on the spot. It now has a single reference (to Facebook, no less). The lack of a tag is hurting article quality, as nothing is drawing editors to find reliable sources for what is likely a notable film. Again, I would have tagged it too. --Tgeairn (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, and the added tag asked for exactly what needed to be done: someone needed to add reliable sources that address the topic's notability.—Kww(talk) 16:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Tagging for more sources is one thing, but notability tagging which in effect says "This is not notable because I don't see sources" is a different matter. For Oh Yeah (Roxy Music song), with no surprise it only took me about 3 seconds to confirm it was a #5 hit as you would want confirmation for [236]. For Seizure, it took 2 seconds to find very in-depth coverage. [237] It's clear LF doesn't make any effort to follow WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BEFORE on obvious examples such as those and just slaps on notability tags.--Oakshade (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)--Oakshade (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that WP:BEFORE isn't mandatory, isn't a guideline, and wouldn't be a relevant one if it was. It's a paragraph inside a page describing our AFD process and describes what to do before nominating an article for deletion. If Lachlan was dragging this many articles through AFD, I'd be in favor of a topic ban. Putting a tag on unsourced articles in the hopes that someone that cares about the topic will care enough to add a reliable source? That doesn't seem to warrant any kind of action.—Kww(talk) 16:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we'll just go back and forth on this about tagging for sources, which nobody here is having issue with, is a very different matter from mass indiscriminate tagging for notability which is beyond simply a request for sources and where the issue is with most editors here. Pretty much what I stated just above is where I'll leave it stand.--Oakshade (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If the only difference between the two tags is that the notability tag has an implication that makes it more successful in getting editors to actually add sourcing, I would see that as a fairly persuasive argument for using the notability tag.—Kww(talk) 19:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree with that. The only time I would use the notability tag was if I saw an article that (a) looked non-notable, (b) I couldn't find any online sources, but (c) I was not familiar with it and could see that there may be something I'm missing. If I suspected it was possibly notable then I would add refimprove and see what happened; if I was fairly sure it was non-notable I would nom it for deletion. The notability tag is IMHO fairly useless in most circumstances. And especially with many of these where (b) doesn't apply anyway unless you're not trying. Black Kite (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, empirical evidence has told me that expecting anyone to fix a top level tag at any time is just wishful thinking. Take a look at George Town SC, Historic church of Cúcuta, Iranian football league system, New Town, Luton and New England Interstate Route 19 - not a single source added on any of those articles for well over eight years. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Support. The tags I have looked at mostly verge on the ridiculous. And there are many hundreds of them posted over the last few days. And they have done this before, and not learnt. They haven't even stopped for this ANI. And the only explantation posted is "You are just still upset about that Joy Division incident and are grasping at straws in an attempt to get back at me.", showing no understanding of the issues at hand. Something needs to be done, and this is a good start, else this disruption will continue. I would also support a motion to restrict drive by tagging by this user too, as most of them have no talk page discussions at all.--Mrjulesd (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per discussion below. NE Ent 23:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose ban as being Draconian (covering every single article "broadly construed"?) but suggest a stern warning that a topic ban on "music notability tags" is highly likely in future if too many bad notability tags do not stick. Collect (talk) 23:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    He was already given a stern warning. And that was 2012. He doesn't care about warnings.--Oakshade (talk) 05:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    LF topic ban Discussion

    Copied from User_talk:Montanabw

    Of the current 6,863,191 articles, about a quarter million [238] have {{Unreferenced}} tags, to pick one example.

    Don't hate the player, hate the game. I actually do have a problem with tagging articles. Once upon a time some wikiperson had the road to hell is paved with good intentions idea that, upon finding a problem, instead of fixing it, they'd place a tag on the top the page so that some mythical, unicorn like massive herd of editors would appear and fix 'em. They're a bureaucratic, make work for other people abomination that should go away. Since so many folks like them, of course, a whatever-for-deletion would unfortunately be WP:POINTY which is why I haven't filed it. Given that they exist, and they're acceptable to the community, unless anyone can provide evidence that tags are consistently wrong, Lachlan Foley should not be banned from adding them. NE Ent 23:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    302860 for {{citation needed}}. Thank you for providing me with a method of verifying that adding that tag is of no particular benefit.—Kww(talk) 23:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I use {{citation needed}} when improving an article towards GA status, for information in the article when I found it that I'm prepared to believe is true, but haven't found a source for yet. The main difference here is that I take responsibility for the tag when I'm adding it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Fan site

    Blocked for 3 months. Sam Walton (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Stillhrithik is turning the article Hrithik Roshan into a fan site, despite several warnings at User_talk:Stillhrithik and reverts. He/she continues to makes edits such as this one, where whenever a web site or newspaper calls the actor something, this user adds it as an official name of the person. Check out the full list of other names in the infobox. A scan of the article will show numerous other instances of flowery language and such; it is becoming comical. I am getting tired of reverting. This user is only interested in glorifying the actor that is his namesake. BollyJeff | talk 15:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The "catalog line in a template" bug again

    And that is that. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 05:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Perhaps never. Since the job queue was screwed up some 18 months ago, the only sure way is to visit every page in the cat, and WP:NULLEDIT it, then see what's left. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone ahead and done the null edits. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Quick block needed

    Common sense prevails. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Can somebody quickly block User:DaoXan, who is adding a monstrously large template he created, as well as other templates, to so far some 150 Judaism-related articles. Debresser (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Debresser Why to block? I'm just tring to organize... DaoXan (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Unless they continue after this request that they stop I see no reason to block for this. DaoXan, please stop adding this template until the deletion discussion is over. Sam Walton (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    edit conflict: Since this user seems to have stopped, and has found this thread, a block doesn't seem necessary any more. I suggest to move to WT:JUDAISM or WP:TFD for a discussion of the issue of these templates. Debresser (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Midnight Rider (film) article split/copyright issue

    The article Midnight Rider (film) was split to form the article Midnight Rider train accident. While there seems to be concensus to split the article, the cut/edit/paste procedure used [239] and the lack of history [240] of the new article has created substantial authorship and copyright issues. My solution would be to revert the split/edit in the original article, request speedy delete of the new article and start over with a discussion of the proper way to proceed with a split. I am simply seeking an admin review and advice as to the technicalities of what was done, and the best solution before I attempt to fix it myself as proposed on the talk page. The overall split and general intent of the editor who carried it out is not being challenged, simply the procedure used that has created the copyright/authorship issues.

    More detail on the issues of the split can be found in this section of the talk page. [241] DFinmitre (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Assisting admin has added attribution template to both new and old article talk pages with proper diff ref which is greatly appreciated and addresses issues related to WP:CUTPASTE.

    However this still does not address issues related to WP:PROPERSPLIT, WP:SPINOFF, and WP:ATTREQ. Is it to be considered acceptable wiki practice in spliting a majority of a controversial article to:

    • Select multiple sections and parts of sections to split to new article without grouping together first in original article.
    • Delete substantial paragraphs during the split-cut/paste that take place during an interim offline editing step between cut and paste and are thus hidden from typical edit history. (Paragraphs thus would seem to have been moved as part of the split looking at the original article history, but never show up with the "paste".)
    • Add original authorship as part of the cut/paste to create new article such that it is not clear what was moved from the old article and what is used to create new article. (This should have happened in a subsequent edit after the paste.)
    • Edit section headers during the cut/paste so these edits do not show up in history of original or new article and further confuse what was cut/pasted, what was newly created, and what was edited. This further confuses attribution.
    • Not provide summaries of sections deleted as per WP:SPINOFF such that the article is dramatically truncated as part of the split and controversal information, that has previously been the target of serious vandalism requiring admin intervention[242], is mostly removed from the original article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DFinmitre (talk • contribs) 06:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    DFinmitre, is there further admin action you require? These points seem like content issues which should be discussed at the relevant article talk page. Sam Walton (talk) 10:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Samwalton9: Actually my argument is that it is not merely a content issue, but a copyright/attribution issue. I think the intent by wiki to suggest, for an article split, separation of content and a clean cut/paste, without editing during an interim step, is to avoid violation by wiki of the copyright agreement with the original authors. The mixing of cut/paste content with deletes and edits in one step under the guise of a split makes the break in history very confusing to follow and could incorrectly thus attribute much of the new article to the editor who split the article contrary to published wiki standards.

    Everything the author did content wise could have been accomplished by properly following the wiki standards for a split with a clean cut/paste, with edits and deletions happening in the original article prior to split and in the new article after the split procedure. This is not what took place. I can revert the edit in the original article, but I can not revert the edits that took place to the content of the new article. They do not exist in wiki history because they happened between the cut and paste that created the article.

    Further wiki has created a history system to allow the collective of authors to clearly see, review, and revert edits. To allow edits to take place during a split that are not registered in the article history seems like a standard practice that wiki should avoid.

    I think this goes against all of the procedures and standards wiki has established to track attribution and respect the copyright of original authors. As a non admin and without a speedy delete of the new article, I do not know how to correct the copyright issues of the new article, as in my opinion it is now an issue for the whole of the new article.

    Is it the opinion of wiki administrators that this procedure for spliting an article is acceptable? DFinmitre (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Samwalton9: Thank you for your assistance. I think the editor who completed the split agreed it would be better if it were accomplished a bit differently and graciously reverted the split and deleted the new page. The article clearly has issues that need to be addressed that a concensus of editors, myself and the editor who split the article included, all agree on. I expect a discussion on the talk page can now result in solutions based on what we have all learned. This issue, as presented here, is now completely resolved. Thank you. DFinmitre (talk) 03:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Pigsonthewing/Andy Mabbett

    Closing this mountain made out of a molehill. No administrator action required. Sam Walton (talk) 10:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    About Pigsonthewing aka Andy Mabbett. Apart from other talks rolling, this is plain trolling (after this). It disrupts the discussion. I request revert (remove the trolling post), and prevent Andy reenacting, either by strong talk or by blocking. -DePiep (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC) notified [243] . User Pigs/Andy deleted the notification: [244]. -DePiep (talk) 22:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • (Non-administrator comment) DePiep, just out of curiosity, what part of WP:TPO says it was okay for you to refactor his comment in the first place? I honestly don't see any indications of trolling there, just Andy's known lack of an ability to be punctual. Could you please clarify exactly what you see as trolling? As far as him removing the notification on his talk page, that is allowed and is to be considered nothing more than an acknowledgement it was received. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 22:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Writing Outdent due to more broken indenting by DePiep is, while nothing is broken (as I linked). Then, repeatedly reverting (as I linked). To be clear: that is childish, as the notification removal's es is. -DePiep (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As is running to mommy and tattling because one of your brother editors committed a (very) minor breach of etiquette. It's not like he defamed your mother or anything. One thing I have learned in 3 years here is that it takes skin thicker than silk. Everyone here is a volunteer. Would you appreciate someone wasting your time over absolutely nothing? John from Idegon (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) I agree that is childish, I disagree it is trolling. Looking at the history, and this is where the childish comment was added in the text and this is where you violated WP:TPO and refactored his comment and called him a troll. I'd say you're both in the wrong here, and I'd argue that your apparent attempt to escalate the situation worked. I'd also say that it appears to me that you did it just to have a reason to come here and cry about it. I've worked with both you and Andy at various times and I agree he can be difficult to work with because of his personality and attitude, but I also think that working with you can be difficult at times too because we seem to have a language/communication barrier where you don't understand me and I don't understand you well. I'd suggest withdrawing this request or just drop it and hope it doesn't get noticed and fades away in an archive and both of you need to try a little harder to work with each other in a more productive manner instead of name calling. I hope that sounds reasonable and logical. Good luck! — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 23:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As much as I'm often not a fan of Andy's crash-through style, you shouldn't edit his comments and he's got every right to be upset. Ask him to fix the indenting on his talk page if it really bothers you, but I'd suggest that the best thing would be to just ignore it and concentrate on problems that matter. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    It's not a talkpage, so TPO does not even apply. It disrupts the discussion flow, so delete it. It is repetitive, so I'm here to prevent an editwar. For the rest: not here. -DePiep (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is ridiculous, DePiep, you need to grow up and stop baiting Andy, this is a situation waiting for a WP:BOOMERANG on you for your poor behavior. The disruption rests with you for opposing every single thing Andy has proposed at TfD, usually with the identical nonsense arguments. Montanabw(talk) 02:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    TPO aside (and I will note that it says "When pages in other namespaces are used for discussion and communication between users, the same norms will usually also apply."), refactoring others comments when they've asked you not to is extremely provocative and unlikely to result in a positive resolution to any situation. Seriously, knock it off. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    I agree; DePiep, you'd best knock it off voluntarily and move on as it's not worth it, unless you actually want involuntary editing restrictions imposed on your account. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:ISupportCompleteley using multiple accounts?

    This diff concerns me: [245]. S/he specifically says that s/he has "been blocked numerous times". S/he appears to have a grudge against User:Sandstein. Origamiteⓣⓒ 00:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Sandstein, do this user's actions remind you of anyone in particular? Nyttend (talk) 01:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if by coincidence or not but this all happened following a heated talk regarding Sandstein's recent block [246] of Eric Corbett. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It has to be a coincidence. I do not like Eric Corbett, but he has served out his blocks honourably. Eric Corbett would never, in my opinion, resort to sock-puppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Im not talking about Eric here though I know he wouldn't resort to sock-puppetry as well, im talking about someone who may have used his block as an excuse to go off. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the notice. This looks like a sock of Piandme (talk · contribs), who goes on the occasional socking and disruption spree after his main account was blocked. There are similar accounts in my talk history. Nothing to do but WP:RBI, in my opinion.  Sandstein  06:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Saying that they'd "lay low until the new year" and moving onto multiple socks by their own admission? Sounds like a decent candidate. Origamiteⓣⓒ 07:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Question regarding my previous report

    Hi, I reported this but am not satisfied with the outcome. Indeed the problem is that this editor apparently still edits WP, disrupts and makes *UNFOUNDED* personal attacks. Thanks for your feedback and action. 67.83.63.86 (talk) 01:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    As per this [247], a SPI was opened and settled. If there is a new issue you should raise it here, but WP doesn't have a multi-tiered appellate process like the Italian judicial system. BlueSalix (talk) 10:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Silent treatment muddle

    I just completed a new article in a sandbox - User:Penbat/silent treatment. I tried to do a move to Silent treatment but It wouldnt let me as it already existed as a redirect. I unwisely just copied and pasted the content of User:Penbat/silent treatment to Silent treatment but there is legacy junk left in Talk:Silent_treatment. Please can someone tidy this up, maybe best idea is to delete Silent treatment so I can do a clean move from User:Penbat/silent treatment.--Penbat (talk) 09:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    No reason to delete the article or its Talk page. The two short posts on Talk:Silent_treatment are on the same subject that your text is on. If you want to archive them, they are over 7 years old, so that would certainly be an obvious and acceptable move. Just create an archive on the page and manually remove and insert them there. Softlavender (talk) 11:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: I removed the inaccurate transwiki template from that Talk page. Softlavender (talk) 11:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks it freaked me out that the transwiki template said "Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there." Are you sure its OK ?--Penbat (talk) 11:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can tell, the bot looks for pages that (1) are in CAT:Copy to WT and (2) don't have a transwiki tag at the talk page. If you revert it to this point and don't put the tag back on the page, the bot will probably move it, but aside from that, you should be safe unless a vandal adds the category to the current article. Nyttend (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks.--Penbat (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Conduct of J Doug McLean

    This user is a published author, who has made some valuable contributions at Talk:lift (force). However, I am concerned about his conduct towards myself and others.

    I joined the discussion last August, partly because of this comment, arguing from authority against other authors and implying they were not "aware of these pressure forces". This was refuted by evidence from the sources. Since then, I have seen an ongoing pattern of incivility towards anyone who disagrees with him. To highlight just a few examples:
    8 October 2014: Claim that different numerical results are, "comparing what different sources say about precisely the same question".
    13 November 2014: Dismissal of reasoned review of evidence as 'intuition', 'speculation', and 'protestation' (previously brought to ANI).
    5 December 2014: Claim that source "supports what I've been arguing all along." (Refuted.)
    11 January 2015: Refusal to listen to another user, "at this point yours would seem to be a minority view. Does anyone else oppose my adding this new subsection?"

    Finally, I asked for specific evidence of verifiability for one of his claims and was not satisfied with his response. He has already been asked publicly and personally to refer to WP:VERIFICATION. He proposes insertion of a footnote that looks to me like WP:OR, but he only seems to refer to policy when it supports his argument.

    I've had enough of arguing with him. Please evaluate his conduct and take any steps necessary to protect the community. Burninthruthesky (talk) 13:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Doug McLean is a cited author in the article. In his published works he also criticises a standard introductory approach to the subject, and for many months now has been trying to push his minority PoV on the article. He has a clear conflict of interest, and to his credit has avoided editing himself but has confined himself to the talk page. However the discussions became interminable and sometimes less than gentlemanly, and I joined the debate to help manage them. That succeeded partially, though they now fill at least two archives,7 and 8, as well as the current talk page. Despite a strong warning there, and again on their talk page, the excessive pedantry still trickles on. I should like to propose a voluntary topic ban for say six months, both to give us all a breather and to give Doug a chance to learn more constructive approaches to editing Wikipedia. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I participated in the discussion in question, often re-reading Doug McLean's and others' comments several times in order to better understand them, so I am quite familiar with the issue. There were/are disagreements among the editors including myself. In my view, at the times when the discussion began to border on incivility it was not Doug McLean who was being uncivil. While the administrators are welcome to wade through the walls of text on the Talk page, I don't think there's anything actionable there at least as far as Doug McLean's behavior. And I don't think bringing this up in AN/I is conducive towards building consensus. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 12:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked and Talk page revoked

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

    Blocked promotional account has now made a legal threat at User talk:BlueLionEnt, so perhaps the ability to edit the talk page should be removed? Squinge (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The attempt at outing, though laughable, also needs to be dealt with. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't worry about that - it's ludicrously wrong. Squinge (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's still not permitted, and should be rev-del'd. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, fair enough. Squinge (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Block adjusted now, thanks folks. Squinge (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive comments on User talk:Eric Corbett

    Talk page fully protected for the remainder of the block. Please take the interpersonal bickering to your own talk pages. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Enough is enough here, I recommend that someone revoke talk page access while Eric is blocked. The problem being comments that take jabs at both Sandstein and at Lightbreather. Here are some comments on how this is being taken too far.

    "Lightbreather isn't what she appears to be, and no doubt she'll be exposed in time. As for Sandstein, he's a one-off hopefully" [248] - Eric Corbett
    "Had one only, brief interaction w/ LB, in good-faith and also at WT:WER, ending in her artificially blaming me as "part of the reason" for her resignation from the Wikipedia. So zero faith she wouldn't & doesn't attempt to scapegoat others for whatever her hostile GGTF agenda is" [249] - Ihardlythinkso
    "Now that I have the time (a self-imposed 3 day holiday to honor a friend), I was strolling around one of the old pastures behind the GGTF Building and found this olde Cow Pie. Careful! It stinks!" [250] - Buster7
    "I have never understood the "broadly construed" ArbCom mantra, but c'est la vie. It now seems to me to being stretched to the point of ridicule, but I doubt Sandstein will care about that, as it gives him the opportunity to wreak his vengeance." [251] - Eric Corbett

    Look, I understand people are upset but there is venting and then there is ganging up to the point of put downs. What I want to know is what justifies bringing up editor's pasts or belittling them? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    To the admin: Yes I know this is another thread involving Eric Corbett but the two choices are to remain silent or bring up something you feel is wrong. Even if Light was acting badly she, Eric or any editor shouldn't be put down. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You may not be able to speak for them, but you can share your opinion on whether you think they were justified in accusing me of analogising rape and my wishes to see LB as a rape victim. CassiantoTalk 19:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you, so why remain silent up until the point when I force you to say something? With that in mind, I shall hope to see an admin take action on her then? I also want the comment struck. CassiantoTalk 20:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Im trying to focus on one issue at a time here is all, in my opinion though at the very least she should be warned about it possibly blocked but that is up to the admin's call, you can seek out an I-ban as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You missed one, Knowledgekid87: I live for the day LB would fly away on her broom[252]
    I expected to be talked about - but I don't enjoy it. I figured since it's about Eric, there is no hope in stopping it. Lightbreather (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well there is some sort of a line, I saw it crossed when comments were made bringing up your past, and the amount of editors that were chiming in and jumping on the agenda bandwagon. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should very much like to see a diff for Eric's one brief, good-faith interaction with me that he mentioned. Does anyone have it? To the best of my knowledge, my first interaction with him was this one at WT:AN:
    Lightbreather: Where and how can I go about making a formal request to make [civility] a unique noticeboard area?[253]
    Eric Corbett: ... the easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one.[254]
    Lightbreather (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That happened in the past though Light, although bad it was brought up before and now that Eric has sanctions placed I feel that anything going forward should be looked at before things in the past. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, Cassianto. I noticed that you always make a point to get dragged into EC's drama, but when you were blocked last did he say anything to defend you? Because if he did I missed it, and it looks to me like you always defend him, but he does not reciprocate. Just an observation. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't stick up for Eric in the hope that he will return the favour; that's a moronic comment to make. I would stick up for anyone who I think has been given the shitty end of the stick. What exactly are you insinuating? CassiantoTalk 20:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • that's a moronic comment to make. My, how influential your friend has been to your civility. My only point was that usually friends reciprocate support, but when only one does it smells more like sycophancy than friendship. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do you define "friend"? I have never met Eric and have never collaborated with him. I infrequently leave him comments on his talk and have done maybe one or two reviews for him at FAC over the past 5 years. I would have done more as I find him a compulsive editor to monitor; I, along with many others, consider him to be of the best editors we have. Now this next part may confuse you: We are both "content creators" and share an interest in writing about interesting subjects to a high standard. I have 20 FA's to my name, Eric has considerably more. That is as far as our friendship goes. Where was I at ArbCom? Where have I been at the many ANI's? Where have I been at other poke the bear party's? I'm sorry if this pisses on your chips, but that's the way it is. Get over it. CassiantoTalk 20:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have found that when the conversation on a particular user's talk page begins to annoy me unwatching it is a highly effective means to totally mitigating such annoyance. NE Ent 20:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I've been mentioned above. I strongly dislike drama of this sort and would prefer that if there is mud-slinging to be had I am not involved by either side. I am limiting my activity in the context of this issue to arbitration enforcement, but after seeing Cassianto casually referring to another editor as "a piece of filth [who] needs to be locked up" above, I recommend that they are blocked for a rather exceptional personal attack even by the low standards of this noticeboard. I'd do it myself, but Cassianto was recently active on my talk page to criticize my AE block of Eric Corbett, so I'd rather not act in an admin capacity with respect to them at this time.  Sandstein  20:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Don't be so ridiculous and mealy mouthed Sandstein you love this kind of drama; it's why you continually jump into it at every opportunity, you are drawn to it like a hog to a water-logged rut. This whole vendetta against Corbett, from Jimbo downwards (or should that be upwards?), is beginning to have a very disturbing smell. There was no need for Eric to be blocked in the first instance, and then the usual major pile on - and who is to blame for this now? Quite frankly, on this occasion, it is you Sandstein. You have failed to rise above the common herd of squeaking nonentities. I thought better of you, some Admins I could believe would be trying to gain favour with Jimbo by leaping to block - but with you, I just assume it's some form of obsession with duty and rules - whatever it is, it's all very sad and regrettable. Giano (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, and I would also add that according to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF/Proposed decision#Eric Corbett prohibited: "Eric Corbett agrees to a restriction prohibiting him from shouting at, swearing at, insulting and/or belittling other editors. The restriction comes into immediate effect on the passing of this motion." Today he has made these comments that I think constitute "insulting and/or belittling other editors": "Lightbreather isn't what she appears to be, and no doubt she'll be exposed in time. As for Sandstein, he's a one-off hopefully", "Do you really believe that editor retention is a priority for the likes of Sandstein?" So, shouldn't EC get a block extension for following up his TB breach with personal attacks that violate his ArbCom sanctions? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, if I had even a modicum of respect for you, your comments might resonate with me, but alas, I feel nearly the same way, Giano. Yeah, EC certainly isn't a trouble maker, eh? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at the ridiculous amount of edits who've made defending EC. Are you here to build an encyclopedia, or oppose anyone and everyone who says anything negative about him? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed Interaction Ban(s)

    Knowledgekid87 and Lightbreather have issues with Eric. Eric has issues with Lighbreather. I'm not sure what Knowledgekid87 has against Eric (old history I guess), but he was the most outspoken at Arbcom with regards to EC and Lightbreather's interactions with EC are well known. Eric is off doing what he does best, work on the encyclopedia. Other's have said that since his sanctions, he has made a remarkable improvement. I see no reason to allow editor's that may harbor grudge's to try and rock the boat. For that reason, I propose that Eric/Knowledgekid87 and Eric/Lightbreather are placed under an indefinite interaction ban.

    • I don't have issues with EC I take issue with editors getting piled on. In addition I just recommended that the talk page be revoked for the duration of the block due to all of the comments made. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. On the Arbitration case last year involving Eric, you had the 2nd highest edit count on that page, a majority of which were discussing EC. When it comes to Eric, you are a drum-major. But not for peace and harmony.Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 21:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • My take on it is that even if it is on another's talk-page the editor talked about can still see it if it were hidden then okay but its not the information can be found via a search engine as well as here on Wikipedia and doesn't go away. If IRL you overheard a bunch of people talking behind someone eles back would you just sit by silently and watch? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • How long is gossip allowed to last though and at what point does it turn into harassment? There is a saying "Weapons of war do not need to be bombs or guns" there is a real emotional side to the whole thing here on wiki. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Rationalobserver.Ironholds (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • SUPPORT - an EXCELLENT idea. Best idea of the day. Hafspajen (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose... The most recent interaction between Lightbreather and Eric Corbett was Lightbreather (reasonably in my view) observing Corbett breaking his ArbCom topic ban and Sandstein (again reasonably in my view) imposing a block as a result. Asking administrators to enforce ArbCom decisions is scarcely goading, in my view. The Land (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support Knowledge kid especially seems (from my perspective anyway) to exist on wikipedia purely to pounce on Eric and spout something sanctimonious. We'd be better off without either of them being permitted to approach Eric.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • STRONG OPPOSE!: this whole charade is a farce. There has been no proper procedure, no diffs, no proper discussions. What Eric/Knowledgekid87 interactions does this refer to? Reporting him to ANI? Anyone is allowed to do that! This feels like a kangaroo court or lynching. --Mrjulesd (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly support The two seperate factions seem at total odds-end, and I can't see them ever seeing eye-to-eye. One side in particular seems particulalrl adverse to this, and for the sake of Wikipedia and the community I feel it is imperative that such a ban is placed (at least for the foreseeable future). Somethingwickedly (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't you realise no proper evidence has been put forward in this thread? How would you like to have an IBAN in this fashion! It just seems to me to be revenge on Knowledgekid87 for reporting EC and fans to ANI. --Mrjulesd (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm only familiar with Knowledgekid from the arbitration case (of which he wasn't a party). IMO he had a very unhealthy interest in Eric. I recall so did Lightbreather who was editing under an ip while supposedly being "retired". Others here might know the backstory in more detail, but it's obvious to me this would be a benefit in drama reduction aloneTwo kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 21:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is the evidence though that I have had a history with Eric? If I see something that looks like putting down editors I will report it, I have been following Light through her all women's project proposal though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If we put an IB on two of the only editors who are brave enough to confront EC, we are in effect protecting EC from the burden of his TB, which he has already broken. Most others are too afraid to say anything, and I don't blame them, but the idea that you can solve a behavior problem by banning users from complaining about it is misguided. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Lots of editors "[do] something for the project", but at what point does EC's divisiveness and near constant hostility yield a net loss? I think the idea that writing a few FAs earns you the right to act inappropriately is damaging to the project, but the vast majority of editors who write FA-quality material would never dream of taking the liberties EC does. Is he really the only Wikipedia editor worth retaining? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think anybody should resign over this, but if they would rather leave Wikipedia than suffer the indignity of having to follow our guidelines, that might be the best solution to the interconnected problem, which at its heart seems to be a lack of maturity and self-control. There are several laws that I don't agree with, but when I break them I must accept the responsibility for having done so. To do anything else is to espouse an anti-social mindset, and I mean that in the clinical sense. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose If they can't be mature enough to stay out of each other's business, then they have no place in this website. An IBAN will change nothing and merely draw more good-intentioned editors into their honeypot of toxicity. Nothing short of an indefinite ban will stop any of them. KonveyorBelt 22:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • For me the thread Knowledgekid opened raises a couple questions: why did they not discuss the matter at the talk page before opening an ANI thread as recommended at the top of the page, or simply bring the attention to the blocking admin? If the talk page comments are inappropriate, why were they transcribed from a page with 625 watchers to this page with 6,400? The effect of opening the thread was, in fact, a bunch of editors ganging up on Eric. NE Ent 23:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • When it comes to seeing something wrong WP:ANI is the place to go report things. Do you really think I would have stood a snowballs chance going in there and saying "hey could you please stop with your comments?" or the like? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes I could have but as someone who has seen others put down before in life I chose to lend my voice here, as I said I felt a line had been crossed, it had gone from simple venting to something else. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the most part I agree it is no big deal, people say things that get under another's skin, say things they dont mean when they are upset, and that usually comes and goes. In this case, multiple editors came in to chime in, now usually when someone gets upset you have others be by their side and say to get over it what I saw was more than that. You have the right to be upset, you dont have the right to gang up on another person or persons in my opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment in the absence of other evidence, as no other evidence, was given, it seems to me that this Knowledgekid87 is being punished for bringing EC and supporters to ANI. Also Lightbreather is being attacked for reporting EC to ArbCom. Now lets say this was successful. Do you realize what precedent this would set? It would mean anyone reporting EC could be subject to an IBAN. Now, is that really what we want? People fearful of reporting EC for transgressions? It would destroy the sense of justice in the whole WP process, at least for me. --Mrjulesd (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said, Mrjulesd. I believe you've hit the nail on the head! Rationalobserver (talk) 23:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no justice. It would be a great precedent if folks who are unable to distinguish from battleground nit picking and mature dispute resolution are strongly discouraged from continuing to do so. NE Ent 23:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure about that; it isn't any less just to incarcerate an individual that disagrees with a particular law than one who agrees with it. Further, if you knowingly violate a guideline or expectation it is just that you should answer for it, even those, especially those that you disagree with. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe that's the case anymore - that was the very reason this was an Arb Enforcement block. Admins are frustrated because they're not allowed to "unstick" it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not actually working very much at reducing disruption though is it ;) Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very Weak support: normally oppose IBANS as drama-magnets, as others have noted her. However, if people can be prevented from poking the bear, that would be good; and here, Lighbreather is really quick to overreact to Eric Corbett, and KnowledgeKid does poke at Eric. I'd suggest that if any of them is sanctioned for anything, it should boomerang on the other one who is involved, as my experience with Corbett is that he only growls when baited. Montanabw(talk) 07:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      This section should be closed like the "parent" section above. Doc talk 07:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Where have you seen me "poke" Eric? In this case I requested that talk page access be revoked for a duration of a 48 hour block due to nonstop talk about 2 editors between a group of editors. It didn't have to go this way, its okay if you saw Eric as a victim in the case I understand that and you have a right to your opinion, what I don't understand is why editors felt the need to pile on afterwards as I have been saying. I blame the other editors more than I blame Eric here, he was blocked and rather than doing something like talking about articles or finding resolve, this happened. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Not seeing any sufficient evidence to require an IBAN, Also this is a collaborative place so thus we all need to work together .... If someone cannot do that than they perhaps need to find a new hobby. –Davey2010Talk 08:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak support per Montanabw. I am pretty sure Eric won't be interested in interacting with these two, and hence probably will shrug off an interaction ban with disinterested compliance. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Mrjulesd; I've never been happy with trying to dissuade editors from reporting here, and this would set a dangerous precedent in that regard. Also, I find the lack of diffs disturbing. StAnselm (talk) 10:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - as a first step to thinning out the provocations... Carrite (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. This doesn't assume good faith on anybody's part. Eric probably won't interact with these two, anyway, if he doesn't want to interact with them. Epic Genius (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, IBANs are nonsense obstructions to getting any genuine issue resolved. If an editor is found to be at genuine fault then an appropriate topic ban or site block should be imposed. people with interaction bans cannot work on the same articles simultaneously. GregKaye 20:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    JHunterJ

    I am very sad to report that JHunterJ (talk · contribs) has acted WP:INVOLVED in a disambiguation dispute to promote his singular POV over and above the disambiguation guidelines of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and community consensus established at AfD, and more recently, a snow requested move discussion (still underway). Before composing this report, I spent two days attempting to discuss the problem with JHunterJ, with no recognition of any problem on his end. Every response from JHunterJ in that discussion promotes the erroneous idea that Wikipedia is a bureaucracy, even though the first and fifth pillars note that it is not. When confronted with this problem, JHunterJ claims he is enforcing the singular POV of another user. Instead of taking responsibility for his actions, JHunterJ continues to blame others. I will now summarize the problem with JHunterJ's edits:

    1. In 2009, the community discussed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Away team. The result was "No Consensus (default Keep)". In that discussion, one editor, User:EEMIV, voted delete.[255]
    2. An hour after the AfD closed as keep, User:Untick correctly disambiguated the title and moved "Away team" to "Away team (Star Trek)", which is where the title should appropriately reside.[256]
    3. Eight hours later, EEMIV unilaterally moved the article back to "Away team". This showed very poor judgment on EEMIV's part, as there was already an Away team (disambiguation) page, and his move made the article a primary topic when it never was to begin with. Although his incorrect move should have been reverted, it never was.[257]
    4. Fast forward to 2011. EEMIV once again acts unilaterally, this time to redirect the entire article to Star Trek: Away Team.[258] There is no evidence that the video game is the primary topic. In fact, quite the opposite.
    5. This blatant, glaring error remained until 2013, when Miyagawa figured out there was a problem and attempted to redirect the primary to the dab page.[259]
    6. Instead of helping to fix the problem listed above, JHunterJ stepped in and reverted back to the incorrect target, claiming the guideline as his enforcement mechanism.[260] As you can see from the above, this is manifestly false.
    7. A requested move discussion was started in January 2015. While ongoing, the results are a snow move, because most reasonable people recognize the problem.[261]
    8. Unfortunately, JHunterJ is not one of those reasonable people, as he continues to repeatedly add the incorrect target and enforce EEMIV's previous, erroneous unilateral action.[262][263]
    9. JHunterJ then uses his admin tools to enforce an incorrect redirect and move against any kind of community consensus or evidence supporting WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. His page history deletions removed the original page history and split it into two different articles, making more work for other admins to fix.
      15:08 . . JHunterJ (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:Away team (Star Trek term) ‎(housekeeping)
      15:08 . . JHunterJ (talk | contribs) restored page Away team (Star Trek term) ‎(7 revisions restored: article history)
      15:07 . . JHunterJ (talk | contribs) moved page Talk:Away team (Star Trek term) to Talk:Away team over redirect ‎(rv move)
      15:07 . . JHunterJ (talk | contribs) deleted page Away team ‎(G6: Deleted to make way for move)
      15:07 . . JHunterJ (talk | contribs) moved page Away team (Star Trek term) to Away team ‎(rv move)
      15:07 . . JHunterJ (talk | contribs) restored page Away team (Star Trek term) ‎(82 revisions restored: redirect history)
      15:06 . . JHunterJ (talk | contribs) deleted page Away team (Star Trek term) ‎(temp delete to split history)
    10. When asked on his talk page why he continues to do this, he cannot give an actual answer. When he is informed that there is zero evidence supporting his actions, he claims that Wikipedia is a bureaucracy and the rules must be followed. When he is pointed to WP:NOTBUREAU, he ignores it.[264]

    In short, JHunterJ used his admin tools in a dispute about a disambiguation page to enforce the single, solitary view of one editor who made the sole dissenting delete in a discussion that the community closed as keep. Several editors attempted to remedy the problem over the years, only to be reverted. JHunterJ has made the problem worse by using his admin tools. Viriditas (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The "single, solitary view" stood for over two years. Actual answers have been provided. All that Viriditas need do now, now that they have finally opened the RM, is wait for it to finish. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Vandalism can stay in an article for two years. Should we leave it there because of that? The RM is a snow; there is nothing to wait for here, just like there is no reason to wait to remove incorrect info from an article. Your recent use of the admin tools up above split the page histories into two articles. What would motivate you to make this problem worse than it already is, and why can't you fix the problem that the community already recognizes? Finally, why would you repeatedly restore an erroneous primary topic target to a dab page without the slightest bit of evidence supporting it?[265][266][267] Clearly, the outcome of the move discussion has no bearing on your edits here, so please explain your actions. I've asked you this over and over again for several days, with no answer. Why do you continue to restore an erroneous link to a primary topic? Viriditas (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You're using that argument again? Blackmane (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't call good-faith edits vandalism. I was not the first editor to point out the RM path. Now that you're on it, there's nothing to do but wait, since no one has yet closed it as a snow. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody has called good-faith edits vandalism. You keep appealing to ignoratio elenchi and refusing to answer a direct question. Again, why do you continue to restore an erroneous link to a primary topic? Your answer will of course, have no relevance to either 1) the length of time something remained inaccurate, or 2) the status of a requested move discussion. Regardless of the snowy outcome of the RM, the problem has been explained to you many times. Even before the RM, you reverted other users who attempted to fix it. You keep trying to play the bureaucracy card to protect the opinion of one user against community consensus. To make matters worse, you used your admin tools to separate the page history of the target, compounding the problem. You are not helping to fix the problem, you are making it worse. Can you explain your actions? Please don't point to the outcome of the RM discussion, as it has no relevance here, and please don't point to the actions of other users who made the same mistake as you. Why did you repeatedly restore a redirect to an article about a video game when 1) there is no support for such a primary topic redirect, and 2) the community disagrees with this redirect. Surely, you must have a good reason for making these edits? Since you can't point to a community consensus or PRIMARYTOPIC support, what is your reason? Viriditas (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Good-faith edit that you called spam. My answers, of course, reflect my weariness at your assumptions of bad faith and lengths to which you will go to accomplish, what, exactly? You've ignored or waved away all direct answers, but let's revisit the main: WP:MALPLACED. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You have never answered a single question about why you created a redirect to an article that is not the primary topic. You never provided an answer as to why your actions went against community consensus and against the PRIMARYTOPIC guidelines. You never answered why you disrupted Wikipedia by splitting the page histories, so that now the original page histories are fragmented. You never answered the question as to why you think bureaucratic processes supersede immediate action to correct inaccuracies, per the cited policy. In short, you have never answered a single question about your bad behavior. This is precisely why I am requesting administrative intervention. You are editing with impunity, against community consensus, against the first and fifth pillars enshrined as policy, and against the best interests of the encyclopedia. Viriditas (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably because I didn't create the redirect. But I've told you that before. Since I haven't engaged in any bad behavior, you are correct in that I haven't attempted to explain any bad behavior. No edits against consensus have been made by me. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Block request

    The original editor who created the redirect that JHunterJ continues to restore has admitted that there is no rationale for its continued existence.[268] Therefore, I would like to request a block on JHunterJ to prevent continued disruption, as every attempt to fix this error has been reverted, and he has recently used his admin tools to split the page histories, making the problem worse. When asked, JHunterJ cannot provide a rationale for his edits, and can only point to the actions of the original editor, an editor who has now admitted that there is no rationale. While one could certainly argue that JHunterJ is incompetent, I think we're dealing with a strong bout of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. A block would allow editors to fix and resolve the problem without continued interference. To quote from that guideline: "If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed." Please impose those sanctions. This is a simple error that would have taken two minutes to fix. Instead, JHunterJ has stretched it out over the last two days, and one could argue months given the past attempts. With no rationale for continuing this dispute, a block is the only thing viable at this point. Viriditas (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Your IDIDNTHEARTHAT responses to the reasons repeatedly given don't amount to my IDIDNTHEARTHAT. It is not my fault you disagree with WP:MALPLACED when you redirected the base name to the (disambiguation) title, MOS:DABMENTION when creating entries that link to articles that don't mention the ambiguous title, and WP:D when including entries that don't link to articles at all. This block request is silly. If a block is needed, you should be blocked for repeated failing to file the RM and failing to wait for its conclusion. I have spent more time than necessary cleaning up your mistakes here and educating you about those guidelines. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    JHunterJ has not only met, but far exceeded the requirements of WP:ADMINACCT. Reviewing [269], from Viriditas's first post: Am I guessing right in assuming you never watched Star Trek? Because this is just wrong. has been overly aggressive and non-collegial. Unless JHunterJ claimed familiarity with Star Trek during their Rfa, what they watch is anyone's business, and "wrong" is neither a reasoned argument nor a reference to policy. The activities documented here: evaluating discussions, deleting stuff, moving stuff, deleting and moving stuff, are routine admin stuff, and lacking a specific diff where JHunterJ has advocated a specific position, claims of WP:INVOLVED are off base. This filing, coupled with Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#SchroCat (currently below), suggests Viriditas' judgement what situations call for administrator involvement needs improvement. NE Ent 13:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Your assessment is deeply wrong. The diffs up above show that JHunterJ advocated implementing, with multiple reverts, an erroneous redirect and disambiguation page that isn't supported by PRIMARYTOPIC or even by the original editor who created the redirect! Other editors tried to fix this problem and they were reverted. Recently, for two days, I also tried to fix this problem, only to be reverted by JHunterJ for no reason. Your recent comments in this dab discussion indicate that you don't understand what is being discussed here. Viriditas (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You keep saying "fix the problem" when you mean "create a WP:MALPLACED problem", and you keep saying "for no reason" when you mean "because it was WP:MALPLACED", and "I tried to fix the problem" when you mean "I kept trying to skip the fix, but I finally opened the RM, but have been too impatient to wait for it to finish." -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: WP:MALPLACED prohibits pointing a bare "Foo" title to a "Foo (disambiguation)" title because such redirects give the false impression that "(disambiguation)" is required because the "Foo" title is occupied (presumably by a primary topic). If an editor believes that the "Foo" us ambiguous, then the proper course of action is to request that "Foo (disambiguation)" be moved to "Foo". This also prevents an unexpected spike in the number of incoming disambiguation links, as steps can be taken to tidy these as the discussion progresses. An action that prevents a "Foo" title from redirecting to a "Foo (disambiguation)" title is correct. bd2412 T 20:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Notability tagging, IMHO frivolous and disruptive, of a Star Trek episode

    An editor, User:Doniago, has been applying a "dispute as to notability" tag on our article for one of the 79 original Star Trek episodes, The Gamesters of Triskelion. Although this article could certainly use more links to out-of-universe discussion of the episode, it is quite obvious, and has been accepted for years, that every original Star Trek episode is notable enough to warrant an article. No explanation has been offered as to why this particular episode should be an exception (a point I make here with some hesitation, as it should not be taken as a basis for tagging a dozen or more other episodes either).

    There being no reasonable basis for questioning the notability of this particular episode, or any episode, I have attempted to remove the tag, although I have not removed a parallel tag asking for more links or citations. Doniago has repeatedly insisted on reinstating the tag. Ordinarily this would merely result in a talkpage discussion, which would eventually result in enough people who understand the historical importance of Star Trek coming to the page to create the obvious a consensus for notability. However, the community's time is its most precious asset and I do not believe it should be squandered in a lengthy discussion about a nonsensical tagging (after all, is there any doubt that if this article were taken to AfD, the result would be a speedy or snowball keep?)?

    I request input on whether my view of this as a frivolous tag is shared by others, or whether the community believes that in such a matter as this, we should engage in process for the process' own sake. (Notification being given to Doniago and on the article talkpage.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    All 79 episode articles are equally notable. Why Doniago feels otherwise, is a mystery to me. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Equally notable as any other. Are they a new editor(like myself) who is just a bit confused on how to go about making it clear that the article needs improvement? FlossumPossum (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not a new editor, just one who doesn't believe that all Star Trek episodes are notable any more than he would agree that all Lord of the Rings characters are equally notable. I asked for any prior consensus establishing that all ST episodes are inherently considered notable and was not provided one. I also asked for any independent source that had discussed the episode in significant detail and, again, was not provided with one. If the consensus is that all ST episodes merit an article regardless of how well-developed they are then I'll bow to that consensus, but I think to dismiss an editor's sincere concerns that an article may not meet Notability concerns, to summarily remove maintenance tags while not engaging in conversation on the matter, and to further dismiss the editor's concerns as "frivolous" is inappropriate. Then there's bringing the editor to ANI without making any evident effort to follow other Dispute Resolution processes... Honestly, I'd be perfectly happy to unwatch the article and let it remain as substandard as it is if trying to call attention to it is going to engender such a hostile and unwarranted response. DonIago (talk) 22:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I've read at the article-in-question's talkpage, there's a consensus that the episode is notable. GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    DonIago, if you can realistically imagine an article like that getting deleted at AfD on notability grounds, then you are new to Wikipedia, so I'll just gently tell you that such a deletion would be extremely unlikely and that you'll come to understand this with more experience. And if you understand already that the article wouldn't be deleted in such an AfD, then adding the notability tag is frivolous, as Brad says. There's a huge difference between saying an article needs improvement and that the topic is non-notable. Generally, if you think an article is substandard, unless it's seriously biased or misleading our readers, it's best to either WP:SOFIXIT or leave it alone. Putting in tags telling other people to fix it just uglies up the article and makes you look like a dick. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's funny, I thought the point of tagging was to call out problems that needed to be fixed and that might go ignored otherwise. One doesn't need to be in a position to fix a problem to recognize that a problem exists, and is it not better to "fire off a flare", as it were, then to simply let substandard articles propagate? DonIago (talk) 04:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The intention of the tags was something like that, but they were another of those well-meaning ideas that (IMHO) hasn't worked in practice. The way to deal with a bad article is fix it yourself, or leave a note on the talk page with specific criticisms. If you don't care about it enough to do either of those things but tag the article anyway, you're just a busybody, and the tags make reading or editing the article distasteful enough that it's less likely to ever be improved. Edit warring over the tag compounds the problem, in this case to the point where it's worse than whatever was wrong with the article. Use the talk page, but also try to understand Wikipedia culture when deciding what to do about a particular article. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 05:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You'll have to forgive me if I don't give a lot of credence to the views of an IP editor who engages in borderline personal attacks and has less than a week's worth of editing under their belt. DonIago (talk) 05:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In terms of Wikipedia practice that ship has long since sailed regardless of what we deletionists (I count myself as one) think. The tagging is frivolous and pointy and Doniago ought to meditate for a while on the meaning of NOTBURO, with administrative assistance if it comes to that.

    As a content question I don't have any real concern about our ability to write a neutral article about something as old as a TOS episode anyway, so I'm not particularly bothered by the articles' presence. There's millions of other articles that I'd chop (like all the BLP's) before getting around to the TOS episodes. No they're not equally notable, and I agree that Gamesters of Triskelion was one of the weaker ones despite the presence of Angelique Pettyjohn. But the presence of an article for each TOS ep is an ancient Wikipedia reality and if someone has an issue with it, it's best to start a Village Pump discussion (or Jimbo's talk page [ducks]) rather than tag bombing an article. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The most important thing right now, is that the back-and-forth adding/deleting of the tag, has stopped. GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    One quatloo on keep. --NE2 23:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Somehow, I knew that kinda joke would surface :) GoodDay (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I approve. DonIago (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    In general, I think we have way too low of a bar on individual episodes and characters. In this case I do think its likely that this episode would be found notable but I don't think the tagging was in bad faith or is an issue for ANI though. I do think we need to have some wide ranging RFCs to nail down these criteria though. Personally, I think that if every episode is regularly covered by reviews, or in a "trek encyclopedia" etc that is not a sign of individual notability but series notability. To show episode notability, sources that do not cover every single episode are what we need. (IE, AV club, or TVCritic reviewing an ep does not show notability. When Time, or the NYT, or someone like that writes about an episode it does. ) Gaijin42 (talk) 03:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you. That's pretty much exactly what the thrust of my argument has been with regards to this situation. DonIago (talk) 04:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point is a no-no even if the point being made is valid. Don't war over a content tag to pursue a larger wiki-crusade. If you want to pursue a crusade, start a mailing list thread or something. Non-notability of ST:TOS episodes is one of the stupider crusades a person could pursue in my opinion though. I can suggest some much better ones if you're interested (HHOS). 50.0.205.75 (talk) 05:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing in Charmed article

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

    User 63.146.79.153 keeps making disruptive edits to the "starring" parameter in the infobox of the Charmed article. The user keeps listing Alyssa Milano's name first but it was agreed at Talk:Charmed#Starring sections that the lead actresses should be listed in the order of the most episodes they appeared in – Holly Marie Combs (179 episodes), Alyssa Milano (178 episodes), Rose McGowan (112 episodes), Shannen Doherty (67 episodes). A few users have helped revert the IP's unexplained edits ([270], [271], [272], [273], [274]) but the IP user won't stop. I have also explained to the IP user in edit summaries ([275], [276], [277], [278]) and on its talk page but the IP still won't listen. Lesahna01 (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I wrote them a small message pointing out the edit warring policy and directed them to the talk page. If the behaviour continues then a report to WP:AN3 for long-term edit warring may be warranted. Stickee (talk) 10:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism only account

    Is there a place to report vandalism-only accounts? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wahoo123) Rune-Midgarts 23:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes. Here - WP:AIV. Amortias (T)(C) 23:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Massive POV pushing problem at WP:FRINGE and Indo-Aryan topics

    A group of Hindu POV editors are pushing the Fringe POV that the Indo-European languages originated in India. They are doing this through absurd argumentation such as systematically misrepresenting linguistic facts and making absurd Randy from Boise type arguments such as this one[279]. For the record I have made uncivil comments in response to frustration over the absurd "argumentation" displayed by one of the editors, Bladesmulti (talk · contribs). If there is a boomerang in store for me that is worth it to get some administrative support at these discussions. The discussions are located at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Proposed_Hypothesis.2FTheory_as_fact and Talk:Indo-Aryan_migration_hypothesis.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    For how long you have discussed the hypothesis on fringe theory noticeboard? Only 30 minutes? I had only asked you to name "a single scientist who claims it(hypothesis) to be scientific?" Can you consider finding one instead of misinterpreting a hypothesis as a science when it is contradictory to the actual scientific researches and accepted migration(Early human migrations)? You are clearly contradicting the Wikipedia:FRINGE clearly says that "It is important that original hypotheses that have gone through peer review do not get presented in Wikipedia as representing scientific consensus or fact." When you are aiming to represent it as a fact. Bladesmulti (talk) 23:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You meanwhile are countering my citations to prominent indoeuropeanists in peer reviewed academic presses with citations to books written by Punjabi accountants and supported by money from religious hindutva organizations[280]. So why should anyone take a word you say seriously? You are promoting fringe views and attempting to marginalize the mainstream academic view through obfuscation and outright lying. You need to be topic banned from anything related to ancient India caus eyou are clearly not here to write an encyclopedia.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Much nonsense. In fact my citations have better quality. Now show me a single fringe view that I have promoted? Doubting the scientific status of a hypothesis, that already has no acceptance in the scientific community is not actually incorrect but it is the reflection Wikipedia:FRINGE that warns you against interpreting unscientific hypothesis as fact. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You are an admitted advocate of Ayurveda, Blades. Is that not sufficiently fringe for you? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 09:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Where did I admit it? Bladesmulti (talk) 09:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (It should be noted that Blades has changed the text in his comment above so that my response to him looks slightly odd. I was in fact replying to his comment "Show me a single fringe view that I have promoted?" which he has now changed to mean something a little different. an unfortunate , but not untypical action. It would be accurate to point out that Blades is a wp:spa account dedicated to the promotion of fringe views and pseudoscience.) -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever else Bladesmulti may or may not be, they are not a single-purpose account. I seem them pop up all over the place, fixing the rampant problems relating to caste articles etc and whatever this argument is about, it has nothing to do with the issues that they are usually fixing there. - Sitush (talk) 13:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone can see that from the diff. Oh and nice jokes, only because your pseudohistorical revisionism didn't got accepted even after a huge RfC. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What diff? What jokes? Also, I've asked you before to explain what "Pseudohistorical Revisionism" actually means, but you have never answered. Do you actually know what it means? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    See Pseudohistory, describes it. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In discussion at the Administrators Noticeboard. Do you deny it? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 09:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not directly neither indirectly, only discussed it. You are mixing things there, and I am not getting that what it has to even do here, unless that is a violation of a policy. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume you don't deny it then. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What is your base? I had asked for some links that you have not yet provided. Don't worry about the 0 revert rule on that page, it wouldn't be removed through this way. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry Blades, your comment above doesn't make any sense at all. For the record, my base is London, but other than that, I cannot make any sense of the above remark. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly I had asked for the link for the above claims that you have made. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you don't appear to have made such a request, unless it is couched in language that is so obfuscatory that it has passed me by. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    [281] was itself enough for any regular user to understand. Now just admit that you cannot show your claimed red herring, in form of diffs, but gibberish. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I made no claims regarding fish, or food of any kind. I merely pointed out that you advocate for the pseudoscience of Ayurveda, contrary to your claim above that you do not promote fringe material. I had not realised that you advocate for fringe topics outside pseudoscience as well. Could you please explain your reference to gibberish above. Is that a personal attack? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 11:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't mind if you point to at least one such topic. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You could start by examining the three examples that Maunus maunus maunus provided in the first post to this thread. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 11:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Propose topic ban for User:Bladesmulti

    User Bladesmulti has a long history of POV pushing on India and Hinduism related articles. They are using wikilawyering and other strategies to systematically misrepresent the scholarly mainstream consensus in the field and create insane amounts of work for good faith editors to defend the mainstream views acrosss different articles related to hinduism and the history of India. I propose they be topic banned from the topic area.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Disagreeing with a unscientific hypothesis should lead to topic ban? Really? None of your scholarly mainstream consensus holds any weight on scientific world, and atleast when they don't even talk about the scientific evidence but mostly the proposed linguistic similarities. I have mentioned before too, that no one has professed this hypothesis since 2011(DNA researches[282]-[283]) like they did before. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, POV pushing, lying and obfuscating, using unreliable sources, misrepresnrting reliable sources, and misrepresenting policy should lead to a topic ban.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you even read what you quote you gigantic moron. That is Jamison describing the proponents of the "Indigenous Aryan" hypothesis. For crying out loud when you cant even read three sentences in a row without getting them to mean the opposite of what they actually mean then how can you even claim to be competent enough that you should be allowed to edit here. You are pure and simple a waste of bandwidth and other editor's time and a clear detriment to the project of building an encylcopedia.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Gigantic moron"? You were asked to provide diffs, not to repeat the same inflammatory nonsense. Oh and where did I said that I was talking about the Indo-aryan hypothesis and not Indigenious Aryans? I was saying that I am not in favor of either hypothesis, again you have failed to grasp what I was saying. OK you can see [285]-[286], the elements of Indo-Aryan hypothesis are indeed pseudoscientific. Bladesmulti (talk)
    You changed the quote where an actual linguist states that your favorite pov is emotional and unscientific to a link to a book by notorious hindutva hack Srikanth Talageri in an attempt to show that the mainstream view is "pseudoscientific". An edition of the Rigveda does not show anything about the scientific consensus about indoeuropean linguistics. Honestly I wish I could get blocked here so I wouldnt have to feel responsible for not stopping your abuse of wikipedia. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be confusing opinions with the Wikipedia:FRINGE if a person(I mentioned as scholar) from the same field has expressed view, that is similar with many others, we cannot rejected it. It is considered that both of the hypothesis are incorrect, the previous one, "Indo Aryan" invasion theory is already rejected by mainstream as pseudoscientific. You are still not understanding that we cannot consider any of your claimed mainstream linguistic understanding, when all of them comes before the DNA researches. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you perchance show a source that suggests that the "DNA Researches" (which say the opposite of what you believe they say) are relevant for the question of Indo-Aryan migrations?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not even close to that,[287] report says that no genetic influx took place. And suggesting[288] that there was no admixture for over 40,000 years. In order to analyze the material about the proposed migrations, it is necessary to mention the DNA researches. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Indiatoday? That is your answer?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 06:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And times of India,(who derived it from Harvard medical[289]), all 3 are reliable. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No they are not reliable sources for genetics, and their summaries coontradict the abstract of the study they are supposedly summarizing.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    From where you have confirmed that? Bladesmulti (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Without a significant number of diffs this proposal will not go anywhere and is just a waste of time. And the latest comment should send a WP:BOOMERANG flying. --NeilN talk to me 02:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd suggest a boomerang as well for Maunus. There's no evidence of problematic behavior actually presented here aside from just claims made here. I tried to make sense of the actual content dispute over at the Fringe noticeboard, [290] but there really aren't sources being brought forth by anyone that really establish scientific consensus per WP:RS/AC. Just seems like a difficult content dispute that's tough to gauge where the actual weight lies without really delving into the topic. That being said, asking for an editor to be topic banned without clearly articulating the actual problem with actual diffs is not a content dispute, but just plain bad behavior. That doesn't mean their concerns aren't legitimate, but if they're going to make the claim, they need to really back it up. Right now I'm just seeing WP:ASPERSIONS. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am prepared for boomerangs. However if anyone is actually interested in writing an encyclopedia here they would be more concerned about religiously motivated POV pushing in science articles. Kingofaces is talking without any knowledge about the topic except for a google search and he has not looked at any of the actual evidence provided.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That still looks like aspersions. You're only shooting yourself in the foot at this point. The "google search" you refer to was actually through literature databases like Web of Science, etc (though Google Scholar isn't half bad). Considering the general attitude I'm seeing here and things like "I would suggest that everyone who is not a professional historical linguist step back and listen to those who are actually knowledgeable in this area." [291] a boomerang seems warranted in this case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, I dont care. You are the one who ise going to end up looking like an idiot when you sanction someone who knows what they are talking about in order to support a religious nutcase with no clue and no competence.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    At least learn to spell before repeating some inflammatory nonsense. Bladesmulti (talk)
    At ANI, you don't just make a claim and run. You need to back it up. If you want someone topic banned for being a religious POV nutcase, then you need to actually demonstrate that's occurring and it's being disruptive. Not doing that is why you aren't being taken seriously here and why the only justification for any action is against you right now. You've made your bed in this matter, so I'm not going to try to help anymore if all you're going to do is only make accusations. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol. "At ani you dont just make a claim and run"... How long have you been frequenting ANI? I am however not running anywhere. Thanks for all your "help".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I do see some signs of disruptive editing on the part of Bladesmulti here. Not sure yet whether it rises to the level where immediate sanctions are called for, but at least a warning is probably appropriate (and I'll notify him of the India discretionary sanctions, just in case). Blademulti's behaviour at the noticeboard thread on Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard and in the related discussions at Talk:Indo-Aryan migration theory tends towards WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT type of stonewalling. What's more, this edit from today [292] appears to be removing a validly sourced claim and a footnote to an appropriate source, without any explanation in an edit summary and no discussion on talk. As far as I can see, the point in question, that the Indo-Aryan migration also has genetic evidence in its favour besides linguistic and archaeological, is precisely relevant to the objections he was trying to raise in those discussions. He was claiming that there was a lack of "scientific" evidence for migration; here now we have a source providing just that (I checked the pages in question; the source does support exactly what it says). Unless he can come up with a very surprising good explanation for this edit, I would certainly count this as disruptive tendentious editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Future Perfect at Sunrise Yesterday I had removed the same one from Indo-European migrations with edit summary "not in citation" because the cited book[293] has no mention(of even Aryan) or support towards that claim. At p.167 it is talking about 10,000 years old,[294] which was later superseded. At page.168 it says about one of the same hypothesis that genetic evidence provides no support. It wasn't objected there and I was actually pointed on my talk page for similar changes that yes it wasn't on the citation. On this page, that you have pointed, I was only repeating the same change. It is mostly me and Joshua who are making most of the changes on these pages in last few months. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, we clearly have a WP:COMPETENCE issue here. The cited source says on p.167: "This strongly suggests that M17 is an Indo-European marker, and shows that there was a massive genetic influx into India from the steppes within the last 10,000 years. Taken with the archaeological data, we can say that the old hypothesis of an invasion of people – not merely their language – from the steppe appears to be true". Whether or not it mentions the term "Aryan", this is about as clear as it gets. Bladesmulti, if you do not recognize this source for what it is, then it will be a lot better for the project if you do not continue try to edit in topic areas like this. I am now officially warning you that I will take action against your editing under WP:ARBIPA discretionary sanctions if you continue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Another competence issue is seen on this very page when he quotes Bryants book as calling the Aryan migraiton theory "emotional" and "unscientific" when in fact it is Jamison saying that about the Indigenous Aryan theory. That can only be explained as either a bad faith attempt at obfuscating well knowing that most editors wont read the source he presents, or it is such an amazing lack of competence that he probably should not be allowed to edit at all. Every time he has presented a source it has had similar problems. Either they are veiled propaganda sources published by people with no relevant credentials backed with Hindutva money, or he misrepresents the conclusions of actual studies such as the genetic study which exactly argues that NOrth Indians (Indo-European speakers) are genetically distinct from South Indians and have genetic connections with IE speakers in Europe and Central Asia. So there are two possibilities, lack of competence or bad faith. Either way I am not intetrested in wasting more time on it and hence proposed the topic ban.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There is competence issue on your part here. I hadn't mentioned either hypothesis in the post, thus you got it wrong, but I had changed it for you so it couldn't look anymore meaningless, you had expected just opposite. Yet you claimed that I am showing wrong wording of the policy when I had shown completely correct. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Enough. You were caught red-handed in blatant misrepresentation of sources, claiming [295][296] that reliable sources called the mainstream hypotheses "emotional" and "unscientific", when the source you used was in fact saying the exact opposite, and now you are trying to wiggle out of it [297] by claiming you didn't actually say which hypothesis you were referring to? When it was perfectly clear from the context of the first two posts that you could only be referring to the hypotheses your opponents were claiming to be the mainstream, i.e. the migration view? This is getting more than just bizarre now. You really need to back off from this topic, in which you have entangled yourself hopelessly, or somebody will have to make you disengage from it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's that case, I have just told before that I would rather contribute with more caution. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I would edit with more caution, that's said. I had just also checked the other pages. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That edit isn't great. The real issue here is the usual content dispute that emerges when people try to use DNA evidence in Indic articles. The source Bladesmulti removed, for example, appears to be at least 13 years old and is a subjective interpretation in a rapidly-evolving area of scientific knowledge. Almost certainly, we need to be couching things in much more circumspect terms and attributing them within the text itself. But, still, Blades should argue for that circumspection rather than just wipe it as they did. Maunus, in my experience, is not keen on circumspection so the entire thing could well end up at DRN or similar. - Sitush (talk) 14:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it shows 10k for the migration into the US, although such dating have been updated for years, it is about 15,000 now. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Maunus that Blades' defending tooth and nail of a hopeless position is highly annoying. Yet, he still seems to know when to stop, in contrast to some other biased editors. I've also seen some constructive discussions at the related talkpages, for example Talk:Indigenous Aryans#Balance, which gives me good hope that most editors involved can still work together. The Fringe Theory Noticeboard gave a very clear statement, with which we can go forward, I think (well, most of us, not everyone diff, thread). So, I'd prefer to give Blades again the benefit of doubt. This being said, I very highly appreciate Maunus' contributions, and hope to meet him again in this area! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic-ban proposal for Robert Walker

    I have proposed a topic-ban at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic-ban proposal for Robert Walker, after re-opening the discussion (Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Not very happy about recent closure of debate) which was just closed. See below. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe this is the correct link.VictoriaGraysonTalk 14:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, you're right. Thanks. What an irony: a self-referring link. Somehow fits into the whole discussion... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Kobani situation

    Semi-protected for 10 days. Stickee (talk) 10:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    All day IPs (mostly) have been editing Siege of Kobani to declare a Kurd/Coalition/FSA victory. It's driven by media reports and headlines. Reality is Kobani is both a city and a small region with 350 villages. Today the Kurds MAY have taken the balance of the town and one village but tomorrow ISIL could just as easily take part of the town again. There has been no surrender/peace/serious pull back etc. It is premature for Wikipedia to declare a victory when the sides continue to fight and 349 villages in Kobani are ISIL controlled. I suggested Pending Changes protection, but no one has acted on this yet. Admin attention requested to ensure WP does not get ahead of current events. Legacypac (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that there's a pending request at WP:RFPP. Stickee (talk) 00:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Bareyman61 and Comparison of European road signs

    Page semi protected. For other pages please use the correct channels: RFPP, CSD, PROD. or AfD. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This user has repeatedly edited this article in a manner I believe does not improve the page, including altering captions to change their meaning, and adding more images at a point in time where the article is already quite bloated and difficult to load for users that have access to slower internet. I have requested several times that they discuss on the talk page before adding more images and they have refused. This user has also made what I believe can be considered a threat, and certainly a violation of civility rules. Fry1989 eh? 00:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 2 days for now. --Leyo 01:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The user is now violating their block via IP. Fry1989 eh? 02:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to suggest the deletion as well of Comparison of African Traffic Signs, Road signs in Djibouti, and Road signs in Liberia as they have no sources and use road sign files from other countries. Fry1989 eh? 03:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Mandruss

    92.236.100.51 blocked. Blatant trolling. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Need admin to intervene here. I am being victimised by this editor. When I call him out and rv his blatant trolling I receive a deludge of threats on my talk page.

    This is total bias and request an impartial and unbiased second opinion. I cite AGF, I am a new user and the behaviour directed towards me by mandruss and his cronies is unwarranted. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.100.51 (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    My ethics prevent me from taking all the credit here. This user has also been victimized by Ian.thomson [298], Dbfirs [299], AndyTheGrump [300], Tevildo [301], and others. A quick look at the OP's contribs and talk page should tell the rest of the story. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    (edit conflict)You have previously:
    Either you are a troll, or you're incapable of understanding that your presence is a waste of everyone's time.
    Admins, please block the IP. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OP has started this thread at Reference Desk: Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#when trolling is trolling and when it isnt. Obvious bias here.. Not only misguided, but misplaced. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    SchroCat

    SchroCat (talk · contribs) has continued feuding over issues related to this thread, extending the current battle to User talk:OrangesRyellow, where he has made a series of nine comments, all violating the dictates of the civility policy, a campaign of intimidation, personal attacks, and harassment against OrangesRyellow. The user has been asked to stop this harassment four times with no change in their behavior.[302] [303] [304] [305] The escalating diffs are as follows:

    • Accuses OrangesRyellow of making personal attacks. Calls her comments "idiotic", and tells her she should feel ashamed.[306]
    • Demands that she strike her comments.[307]
    • Reverts my comments to the talk page (but claims it was an accident)[308]
    • Calls OrangesRyellow an "idiot" and demands an apology again, claiming that "any half decent individual would strike the original comment and apologise"[309]
    • Continues demanding an apology, implies that the user is "incapable of doing the decent thing"[310]
    • Claims that civility warnings and requests that they stop harassing the user are "threatening" them[311]
    • Adds a new section heading to the user page called "Unwarranted and disgraceful comment" contrary to talk page guidelines[312]
    • Refuses to stop intimidating, attacking, and harassing the user after four polite requests and warnings[313]

    I would appreciate it if an admin would ask SchroCat to stop posting at User talk:OrangesRyellow in lieu of a civility block. For the record, the user was notified about this thread,[314] but deleted the notification from their talk page. Viriditas (talk) 01:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This gets a little confusing. Does the core argument concern what the expression "f'ing victim" actually means? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't addressed that argument because it exists independently of the campaign of harassment. The civility policy is quite clear on personal attacks and demanding apologies, all of which SchroCat refuses to stop doing. The other matters are not addressed in this report, nor should they be addressed. Everyone is allowed to have an opinion, including the wrong opinion, but harassing someone for holding this opinion is not acceptable. Viriditas (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Refuses to stop intimidating, attacking, and harassing the user after four polite requests and warnings[315]" Shame that's an untruth: I refused nothing. I signalled my intent to ignore your bludgeoning (despite requests for you to stop) while I awaited the comments of the person to whom my original point was made. That's bloody obvious from the text quoted, so don't smear me with your misrepresentations in future.
    At the end of the day if Oranges hadn't made such a disgusting comment this would not have happened. If you hadn't come up with the most ridiculous semantic twisting to "explain" their thoughts, it would not have happened. If you had piped down and stopped bludgeoning, it wouldn't have ended up with you desperately trying to misrepresent what isn't there to be misrepresented, - SchroCat (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This report can easily be resolved if you agree to stay away from OrangesRyellow. This means avoiding her talk page. Can you do that? Viriditas (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    OrangesRyellow misinterpreted another's comments in such a way that is an unwarranted personal attack; she should withdraw her misinterpretation. Hopefully she will do so, and we can end this. Continuing to argue with each other on her talk page achieves nothing, nor does arguing with each other here. At this point we are waiting for a response from her. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    One is free to make misinterpretations. Whether they amount to a personal attack or not is subject to debate. Nevertheless, wrong opinions do not allow others to intimidate and harass the person holding them. The civility policy is clear on this, as it says "you can't demand an apology from anyone else". SchroCat has been informed of this and has been asked to stop demanding an apology. Viriditas (talk) 01:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Your misrepresentation of my words in your summaries above is simply laughable. If I could be bothered I'd go through each one of the petty smears and take them to pieces, pointing out where your BLUDGEONing was inappropriate too. Instead, I shall repeat my last comment on the page, that I'm happy to ignore you and wait for the editor in question to address the comments aimed at them (and that didn't need to be addressed by you) – SchroCat (talk) 02:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There's been no misrepresentation. The diffs are clear. You posted a series of intimidating personal attacks on the page of another user, and refused to stop. No matter how much you try to change the subject, this thread isn't about me, and it's not about OrangesRyellow, it's about your bad behavior and refusal to follow the most basic aspects of the civility policy. Do you understand? Viriditas (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) There's been a lot of misrepresentation actually, and you saying there isn't any doesn't make it go away. ("In seek of revenge"? "you did this, admittedly, out of anger and frustration"? I "admitted" nothing of the sort and have been calm throughout. You're jst making bigger and bigger untruths now) What also isn't affected by your little diktats is that one person's reactions do not happen in a vacuum, no matter how hard you try and push it that way, so it is about Orange's disgraceful comment, and it is about your bludgeoning as well. It's cause and effect, and you do t get to decide which its you don't want aired. Again, I'm still happy to ignore you on the page and wait for Orange to comment. - SchroCat (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but this is none of your business. If Cassianto and OrangesRyellow wish to discuss this matter, then great, but you need to stop harassing her on her talk page. It has nothing to do with you. Viriditas (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have great (totally unoriginal) idea. If someone wants to talk to SchroCat about something they've said, post at User_talk:SchroCat, not User_talk:OrangesRyellow. I see a lot of back and forth on User_talk:OrangesRyellow#Unwarranted_and_disgraceful_comment -- but no comments by OrangesRyellow themselves. NE Ent 02:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Since this is a wiki, I would like to build upon that idea. Since OrangesRyellow made one comment directed towards User:Cassianto, perhaps the two of them should discuss it, instead of SchroCat. Viriditas (talk) 02:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    All fine and dandy except Orange's comment had this outcome, which may make discussion difficult. – SchroCat (talk) 02:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's none of your business. It's between her and Cassianto. Now stop harassing her. Viriditas (talk) 02:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you need to take your head out of the clouds and get a better perspective on this. I am harassing no-one. I have left ONE comment for Orange of their talk page. ONE. The other posts were in response to you. Perhaps that's why NE Ent suggested you should have addressed your comments to me on my page, not Oranges. As I've said above, this is also about your behaviour here too. - SchroCat (talk) 02:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The diffs up above show that you lack self-control, and did not just post one comment about her, but many. It's none of your business, so you can stop now. Viriditas (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Nit even close to the truth on that one. You should not have kept bludgeoning : it was your behaviour that led to additional comments. I think you've lst the plot on this one and I'd suggest you try and withdraw gracefully, but I doubt you'd take my advice. - SchroCat (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Politely reminding you of the civility policy and politely asking you to stop attacking another user on their talk page is not "bludgeoning". It is called being a good Wiki-citizen. Please own up to your own actions and stop blaming others. Viriditas (talk) 03:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Viriditas is being disruptive and this should be closed. SchroCat has every right to make a strong comment at User talk:OrangesRyellow#Unwarranted and disgraceful comment as we are supposed to be mature and capable of dealing with differences of opinion. The problem is that Viriditas has taken it upon himself to derail the purpose of that talk page, namely communication with its user. Since too much drama is never enough, Viriditas now wants an ANI battle. Unfortunately editors are not sanctioned for such disruption, but we don't have to feed them. Johnuniq (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, actually SchroCat has no rights whatsoever here. The comments by OrangesRyellow have nothing whatsoever to do with SchroCat, and he has no business being on her talk page harassing her. The comments were made to User:Cassianto, and he is welcome to address them at any time. SchroCat needs to stay off her talk page. End of discussion. Viriditas (talk) 02:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)That ("End of discussion") doesn't really work here. As Suzy Bogguss sang in Aces: Compromise and realize you can never really run everything you start. I don't see anything wrong with SchroCat making a single, reasonably respectful post calling out OrangesRyellow on an inflammatory remark. Viridiatas' jumping in has escalated the situation unnecessarily. NE Ent 03:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please provide a diff (or diffs) highlighting exactly where I escalated the problem. Good luck with that. In fact, I provided those diffs in the first paragraph of the report, so your hunt should be easier. As you can see from those diffs, not a single one escalated the problem; in fact, the diffs show that I de-escalated the personal attacks, intimidation, and harassment being made by SchroCat, so I wish to argue the exact opposite of what you claim, and I will point to the very same diffs up above (and that you provide) to support my claim. Viriditas (talk) 03:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not responsible for your lack of self-control, and your inability to follow the civility policy. Nobody forced you to make personal attacks against another user. Look at the diffs again. I asked you to repeatedly stop and take your concerns elsewhere. You are responsible for your behavior, not me. Again, the diffs are very clear on this. Stop blaming other people for your mistakes. I was defending OrangesRyellow from your attacks. You, on the other hand, were attacking her because you disagreed with what she said to Cassianto. How could the two situations be more different? You were on the offense, seeking revenge. There's no similarity between your comments and my own, so your analogy doesn't hold water. Viriditas (talk) 03:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    More pointless bollocks. I hope an admin archives this quickly.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC) |}[reply]

    Unfortunately, the personal attacks, threats, and intimidation are still continuing, with additional editors joining the fray on multiple pages.

    • At 04:50, 27 January, Cassianto tells me to "go fuck yourself" after I left him a polite message about Oranges comment[316]
    • NE Ent, who participated in this thread, arrived on OrangesRyellow's talk page at 18:31, 27 January and left her a bogus, gender gap discretionary sanctions warning and then tried to link her comments to Cassianto to the warning.[317]
    • SchroCat, who said he was going to withdraw from this thread at 03:23, 27 January, arrived on my talk page at 12:54, 27 January to accuse me of "lying"[318]

    Because of continuing harassment and personal attacks, I have reopened this thread. Viriditas (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, stop lying then. I have told you several times now that I was not angry when I was in discussion last night and that I was calm, and yet you continually - and deliberately provocatively - use the word over and over again. Stop lying and I'll stop pointing it out. - SchroCat (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Please stop making angry accusations and engaging in personal attacks. Viriditas (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop lying and trolling. I am making no angry accusations. Your continual use of the term is so frequent and pointed that I can only presume you are rather tediously trolling now. Time to move on and do something constructive. - SchroCat (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Viriditis, I told you to go fuck yourself as you came to my page to grave dance. I and any other reasonable editor monitoring this incident can see that. I dont buy it I'm afraid. CassiantoTalk 19:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Cassianto, you are mistaken. The diff shows no grave dancing at all; it shows a polite message sympathizing with your plight and asking you to return to editing. Please read it again. Viriditas (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The comment that set this all off

    • Is it just me, or are we ignoring the elephant in the room? This comment by User:OrangesRyellow is a terrible accusation which she has yet to recant, and which has driven one editor into retirement. Is this how we are treating personal attacks now? As things which are free for all to do? At the very least that comment needs to be revdeleted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem is that the expression "f'ing victim" can be read two different ways. It just goes to show the hazards of descending into low-life language. If the editor who decided to retire had simply said "victim", there would be no ambiguity. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • For once, I can sort of agree with Baseball Bugs (note: I say sort of). For years I have been saying that Wikipedia needs a list of forbidden and very naughty words that cannot be used in general conversation when arguing with other editors. It's a frightfully twee and odious solution, but until we have such a defined list, we will never have am international agreement over what can be said and what is truly offensive. Perhaps we need to call it the Three Fucks and You're Out Agreement. Of course it won't solve the rape victim syndrome, but it might go some way towards making a level playing field. Giano (talk) 18:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to point out that OrangesRyellow has not made any edits since this comment. They are possibly away from Wikipedia right now. The comment is practically nonsensical unless Orange was confused about what was being said, if that is the case they he/she will likely redact their comment and apologize. If not then there would certainly be cause for action. Chillum 18:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • "The problem is that the expression "f'ing victim" can be read two different ways." -- then I would have to question the level to which someone's mind would drop to if they can analogise an ambiguous profanity to wishing someone to be raped. I am not convinced. If I'd have said "sodding victim" would I have been accused of wanting her anally raped? What about "pissing victim", would I be wanting her urinated on? I doubt those analogies would have even surfaced! CassiantoTalk 18:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's very easy to see how a "fucking victim" can be misinterpreted as a "rape victim", especially the victim blaming embedded in your attached comment when you said "let's not forget, it was her who waived the bait under Eric's nose". So it's all there, and it's easy to see how this could be misinterpreted. I agree with Baseball Bugs, if you don't want to be misinterpreted, use the appropriate language and abide by the civility policy. Viriditas (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "I think it's very easy to see how a "fucking victim" can be misinterpreted as a "rape victim",": only if you are deliberately trying to twist basic English for the purpose of defending your chum. I have never heard a rape victim called a "fucking victim", as in a victim of fucking: that's just utter balls, I'm afraid. - SchroCat (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • PMSL - you have shown no GF to anyone since your unfortunate bludgeoning last night. You are way out of your depth here, and re-opening the thread has done nothing but spark off arguments again. I can only guess at your motives for doing so, but I see little constructive coming out of your actions. (and stop trying to be patronising to me - I'm immune, especially when it's people for whom I have no respect.) - SchroCat (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for illustrating the problem. Civility involves at its very core, respect for other editors, regardless of how you feel about them. Please re-read it and familiarize yourself with its application. Viriditas (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps you can troll of elsewhere and stop interacting with me. You seem to be of little use around here, creating only disharmony, rather than doing anything constructive. Just so I'm entirely clear on this: stop interacting. Stop bludgeoning, stop trying to double guess my emotions, and stop lying about anything to do with me. Move on, try and do something useful elsewhere, and don't ever post in response to any of my comments. I'm off to do something useful now, and I'll put good money on the fact that you won't be able to help yourself but leave a smarmy comment inresponse, despite the request not to do so. - SchroCat (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • And for the record, I'm not interested in an apology or mediation. I want this person severely warned or blocked, and for the comment to be revdeleted. I then want nothing more to do with them. Until this happens, I remain retired until such a time when I can be bothered to come back and start writing again, which in the current climate is no time soon. I suspect that they have gone quite in an attempt to avoid a block as a block in this scenario would be less favoured by any willing admin. I'm frankly sickened that we are now at the end of day two and still nothing official has happened. CassiantoTalk 19:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's easy if you are of limited intelligence and your mind is wallowing in the gutter, yes. CassiantoTalk 19:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Blocks ought not be punitive; they should be preventative, so blocking them now would serve no purpose other than to punish, which would be inappropriate. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cassianto, I think you are trying to walk in two different paths here, and maybe that's why no admins rushed to your defense and blocked the other party. On the one hand you seem to reject civility standards in general, and argue that we ought to be able to use some hostile or offensive language once in a while. On the other hand, you seem to presenting a position of zero tolerance for this type of incivility, which is about making insinuations that offend. So which is it? Should editors get blocked for civility violations or not? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being compared to someone who wished rape upon a female is, in my book, unforgivable. However she is dealt with here is of no concern of mine, but as long as she is dealt with. So far, our administrators agree with her as nothing has been done. CassiantoTalk 19:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what you mean, except that standards should be consistent, which I agree with in principle, but it appears that your ideal standards would not harshly condemn incivility, so your stance here appears hypocritical. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rationalobserver, being compared to someone who wished rape upon a female is, in my book, unforgivable and goes far beyond using the odd profanity now and again. However she is dealt with here is of no concern of mine, but as long as she is dealt with. So far, our administrators agree with her as nothing has been done. CassiantoTalk 19:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand that, but what I'm trying to say is that it appears hypocritical to insist on a strict application of the civility guideline when it comes to someone making an offensive insinuation about you, but a loose application when others use explicitly offensive language against others. Pick a side and stick to it, but don't flip-flop depending on the situation then criticize admins for their inconsistencies. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Certain analogies should never be used. These types of analogies should be dealt with differently to run-of-the-mill profanities. Most would consider "fuck" or "cunt" to be offensive, but everybody should find the rape comment offensive; if not, I would certainly question their moral standing. CassiantoTalk 19:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's be very clear, it was Cassianto's comment that set all of this off, not Orange:

    Rather than be fair and block/warn Lightbreather, he/she is now accepting awards from them which gives the impression that he/she endorses Lightbreather's behaviour, and who is now behaving like a fucking victim; let's not forget, it was her who waived the bait under Eric's nose, thus causing this ridiculous pantomime.

    Using the terms "behaving like a fucking victim" and "it was her who waived the bait under Eric's nose", are part of the victim blaming discourse in rape culture. It is therefore of no surprise that Orange misinterpreted these comments as they have the symbolism of dog whistle language. Viriditas (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    While I agree the interpretation is possible it is hardly a reasonable interpretation. Frankly it is such a stretch that it is akin to jumping at shadows. Chillum 19:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I realize that you and the majority of men on Wikipedia feel that way. However, once you familiarize yourself with this literature, you can see the symbolic nature of it crop up in comments like this. My hypothesis is that Orange has studied this subject in an academic setting and is aware of the code words. The accusation against Lightbreather amounts to the "asking for it" language we find in the rape culture discourse, so Orange's reaction isn't all that off the mark. I probably wouldn't have said such a thing to Cassianto, but that's because I'm a man and I'm not as cognizant of these code words as others. Viriditas (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So because this user is a woman, that makes it ok does it? CassiantoTalk 20:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Usually when someone gets upset they swear, I am sure females have also used the words "Fucking victim" before in situations, you are reading too much into it and not assuming good faith. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Im sorry but "Fucking victim" does not equal "Rape victim" when used the way it did, yeah it was a poor taste comment and orange had a right to get mad from it but it was a stretch. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No one in their right mind, will read "fucking victim" and think it automatically refers to a person (rape is not the exclusive to women) who has been raped. I cannot understand how the two can possibly be confused. However, those that want confusion and trouble can always find it if they look hard enough. Giano (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible Solutions

    • A. Orange is blocked for 24 - 36 hours and after that is told to stay away from Cassianto.
    • B. Orange is warned/admonished and told to stay away from Cassianto.
    • C. Orange is told to stay away from Cassianto.

    What sounds like the best solution here? Its clear at the very least something should be done regarding the issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    How about we wait for Orange to respond and base our action on what response we get? If the user confirms this is a misunderstanding and reverts then the existing comments on their talk page suffice as a warning in my opinion. If the user stand by their comment then I would think action is needed. Chillum 19:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, to be clear im not blaming orange, my personal feeling is she should be warned not to throw around a word like rape but okay. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)I fully agree, it is just that several warnings are already in place for this incident so that is covered. Chillum 19:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with and am thankful to Chillum. Because this user has fooled everyone into thinking that they have rolled over and gone to sleep, the first, and more preferable option is pointless. In light of that, I would opt for B and for the remarks to be revdeleted. CassiantoTalk 19:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    D. Wait per Chillum. NE Ent 20:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Accusations of paid contributions

    I have been involved in a discussion on Talk:Kurds, involving the use of the word "Iranian" to describe the group. I have attempted to make the case that the long-standing consensus appears to be somewhat biased, but that a complete reversal of the consensus doesn't seem to be representative of the reliable sources. This lead to a disagreement with Bawer1. This user engaged in personal attacks against another editor, DeCausa, in the discussion, and was temporarily blocked[319] for the attack[320] [321] (plus edit warring and threats of meat puppetry). Soon after their block expired, they made this accusation[322] that I am biased, and must be paid for my contributions. I rebuked[323] those accusations, as I am a long-time contributor, who gladly volunteers my work on the project, just as all of us do. I have tried to be objective in this discussion, taking all comments into account, but I take accusations of bad faith seriously. I thought I would request a WP:3O, but it was recommended that the issue be brought to a noticeboard, since the disagreement on both of our parts is about user conduct. I don't know what the proper course of action is here, but I would appreciate some input as to how to redirect the discussion back to the topic, instead of ad hominem arguments. Thank you in advance. —Josh3580talk/hist 07:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Recommend at least a One-month Block - User:Bawer1 is just coming off a two-week block for personal attacks at this same talk page, and has now made the allegation of paid editing, which is a very serious aspersion. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bawer1: You decided to comment on my talk page[324] instead of here, but I am posting your comment here to be included in this discussion. This[325] was my response. —Josh3580talk/hist 02:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The personal attacks continue. I still recommend a block. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, User:Bawer1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is a relatively new user with a strong POV. He's now had policy explained to him in some detail both at Talk:Kurds#Kurds and on his user talk page, as well as just coming off a two week block for edit-warring over several months, personal attacks and threating meat puppetry. There's no sign of his changing his ways - so I don't think it's newbie "overenthusiasm". WP:NOTHERE. DeCausa (talk) 10:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Josh3580: ::@DeCausa:Unbelievable. You two acts as if I am edit warring or something. What is this nonsense about "personal attack" as if I cursed at you, bullied you, or physically hit you. You know it's amazing to find out that once you expose someone they try to get rid of you. I have exposed all of DeCausa and Josh3580's accusations against me. DeCausa and Josh3580 had nothing left to say to me, so they have decided to get me into a one month block. For all of those looking at this comment, all you have to go is look at the Kurdish talk page, and look at the last comment that I made. You will then realize who is the oppressed and who is the oppressor. Josh3580 has lied to me countless times. First he told me that he does not base his decsions on facts, but rather on a consensus. I then manage to share my point of view of removing the term "Iranian" on the Kurdish talk page, which I got MORE people to agree with. Yet there are still no changes. Then I ask Josh why there is no changes and he says that the "consenus is biased. Now what do you want me to believe that Josh is not biased after that statement? It is my right to believe this!! I have been arguing with these two knuckle heads for a month, and they have not been able to create any solution, but only attack every remark I make, and try to get rid of me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bawer1 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bawer1: I never, ever recommended a block, I have only asked that an Administrator investigate your accusations of policy violations by me. If anything, I am giving your accusations weight by asking an Administrator to weigh in. If you are correct that I am a paid editor, and you have evidence to support it, then I will be the one to suffer a block. I absolutely did say that I feel that the current consensus is biased - which, please note, is in agreement with your position. However, consensus building is how things are decided here, and regardless of my partial agreement with you, a new consensus based on reliable sources has not yet been determined. Disagreement is a beautiful thing on this project; it's how things are decided, but you have repeatedly accused me of bias, and now of being paid to contribute, instead of waiting for a possible new consensus to develop. —Josh3580talk/hist 05:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello. I've drifted over from another conversation on this page. I just wanted to point out that aside from totally ignoring the policy on personal attacks, in your post here you touched a hot button by effectively accusing someone of paid editing. That is a very serious accusation, and it's not the kind of thing we throw around, as undisclosed paid editing is prohibited by the Wikimedia Terms of Use. Lastly, I doubt that anyone here has an opinion on the underlying issue, this is merely a commentary on the tactics you are employing. Coretheapple (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    And now I am "insane", according to @Bawer1: [326], and they are convinced of malintent by me. When I accused them of ignoring my answers here[327], I was speaking of my explanation of our policies. This user still doesn't seem to understand how to limit discussions to the topic, preferring to call me a knucklehead[328]. —Josh3580talk/hist 05:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This discussion was auto-archived, but a resolution has not been reached. I have moved it back to the main page, please let me know if this was the wrong action to take. —Josh3580talk/hist 02:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    ???

    User:$DJ30 indeffed as a vandalism only account. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I'll be honest, I have no idea what, exactly, is going on here. Really bad spamming, maybe? Or well-meaning Wikilove messages that just look horribly suspicious?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAdam_Cuerden&diff=644353331&oldid=644221004

    Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated "Payload/ParisHiltonIPhone.app" = spam. One of the edit summaries is special. "Paris Hilton Iphone 3 Application Vers 1.2 Software Pictures are Missing running Apple IPhone 6 I cant have a picture taken with the girl I love the most." APK whisper in my ear 05:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I reverted the mess from Adam's page because I came to the conclusion as well. It was page breaking on my end and extremely odd. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Bullying by user Codename Lisa

    Mckmckmt gets the WP:BOOMERANG and is asked to read the advice here carefully. Codename Lisa is asked to be a bit more patient and less scathing in their comments to new users and is reminded that s/he was one too once. Only under very exceptional circumstances can user pages be refactored by third parties, and this is not such a case. No admin action necessary. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Is this allowed? Codename Lisa (talk · contribs) is unnecessarily bullying me and further threatening me to block me from editing. In short I added a new section on his/her talk page, instead of a prompt reply she insulted me by calling my edits sloppy and careless. Instead of adding fuel to the fire I just chose to remove the section added by me. But this is when she started bullying and threatening to block me from edits. I am so frustrated by this users behaviour and tempted to use the f-word/b-word against this user but do not want to be the bad guy by using those words. Check the notice that was posted on my Talk Page Mckmckmt (talk) 08:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    (non-admin comment) It helps a lot to understand the process. Suggest you read and understand WP:BRD. Beginning with the part in the box near the top: If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change to establish consensus. The other editor's initial revert was a routine way of challenging your edit, making it a disputed edit. A disputed edit may not be done again until consensus is reached for it on the article talk page (or, at least, until the challenging editor changes their mind). As I read it, you violated the WP:BRD process with this revert. The other editor should have linked to WP:BRD in the edit summary of their subsequent revert, but the first error was yours. The preceding is just my non-admin opinion and an effort to assist in the situation and others are welcome to ask me to butt out. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict):Although you started a section on her talkpage it is up to her what she does on it as the talk page is hers. When your removal of the section was reverted you should not have edit warred over the removal and just left it then moved on. As for the warnings, any editor may leave warnings to another editor; administrators are not the only ones permitted to leave warnings. As for the comments left by Fleetcommand per your edits, you used 5 or more edits to sort your post out which is pretty sloppy. You might consider using the preview button more to see what your post looks like before saving the edit. Basically, what you can take from this is don't edit war on another editor's talk page. Blackmane (talk) 08:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (non-admin comment) In all fairness, the first one to characterise your edits as "careless and sloppy" was FleetCommand ([329]). It's understandable that you might take offence with that (although, as mentioned above, the comment is not entirely unjustified), but repeatedly violating Wikipedia's policies (WP:3RR and WP:TALK) is not an appropriate reaction.
    On a separate note, as written at the top of this noticeboard, if you start a discussion about another user, you must inform them about it. From what I can see, you have so far not informed Codename Lisa. Please correct this oversight forthwith. I've posted a notice on her talk page, but please take care to do this yourself next time. Indrek (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to give long speech after I read this thread at ANI. When I first joined Wikipedia, I had the sloppiest editing style ever. Badgrammar typos here ans there (yes, ther I go agin), going wild WITH CAPS aND What NOt. I argued in an article talk namespace that SVGs should be resized at first rather than in the articles - took me a while to realize my mistake. The community here didn't exactly reward me for it but then bit-by-bit I started to understand. I met some pretty nice sarcastic people and others who just left templates but I didn't get threatened. What Codename Lisa did wasn't a threat but come on, he's a new editor, for God's sake. He is a new editor. New editor. Read it, properly? NEW EDITOR. Do we expect them to know wikicode right when they decide to appear in this stagnant ruthless community? Do we expect quality content? He violated 3RR, fine. But then, he didn't know about talk page rules. What he did was an innocent act of trying to resolve the matter, rather improperly. We always tend to side with admins, in fact, we always do. Just for once, can we care about editor retention? I really dislike the people around these days (in general, no offence to anyone) and I've almost left Wikipedia. I just drop in by-and-now, doing minor edits and arguing for the new people of our community. Everytime, a new editor gets blocked, it's rather sad. This community's dying. We put up templates, fine, but atleast explain the damn situation. Do not expect them to reply constructively. That is human nature. That's my long speech. Oh wait, I just committed hypocrisy. --Ankit Maity «T § C» 09:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My aim is simple. Get the Insulting section completely removed or at a minimum remove the insulting statements. Mckmckmt (talk) 09:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Can someone point me in the right direction to get the insulting section/statements removed please.Mckmckmt (talk) 09:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems the applicable policy is WP:CIVIL. Specifically, you want the section about dealing with incivility (although you should of course read the entire policy). It seems you've more or less jumped directly to step 8 (file a report at ANI). Might I suggest you try steps 5 (asking the editor in question to strike out the offending comment) or 7 (simply walking away)? Indrek (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No. I want removal, not strikkeout. Mckmckmt (talk) 09:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    14.139.244.243 + Spallahabad

    14.139.244.243 and Spallahabad have very similar editing patterns; but if they are indeed the same person, I have no complaint about this. What worries me is their/his/her, um, underperformance re WP:CIR and most recently their insistence on adding screenshots of web pages where these are IMHO not at all helpful (copyright considerations aside). However, their various edits in the last two or three days have already led to my making two re-deletions and saltings, an MfD, etc etc; and it may seem as if I have some personal obsession here. (I'd deny this, and point to all the other edits I've been making during the same period.) And I may have been gruff -- though really, this hardly seems a new editor (resemblances to UIDs active over five years ago are striking). Anyway, could some fresh and uninvolved admin please look at the recent edits and keep an eye on this person (these persons). I need hardly add that if I have overgruffed you are free to censure or block me. (The latter would be a new experience for me.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Uncivil behavior of FleetCommand

    Now, I'm not an admin nor entirely uninvolved here... but no good is going to come of this discussion. Both of you, please step away from each other. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    FleetCommand Reverted insulting statements made in the section here. Mckmckmt (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    diff=644388380&oldid=644387158, "(Reverted 3 edits by Mckmckmt (talk): Rv. vand. What a dick!)"

    I'm sorry -- you don't deserve to be called a dick, of course -- but we're not going to do anything about that. It's in a edit summary and those only get edited for the most egregious insults. For better or worse, Wikipedia is a very "adult" place and there's no real consensus on what exactly civil means. If I could fix that, I would, but I can't. I've asked FleetCommand not to call you that anymore [330]. NE Ent 11:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you checked the diffs too (diff=644388380&oldid=644387158)? And is this Wikipedia's way of discouraging new users by not doing anything about offenders like FleetCommand. I checked your comment on the FleetCommand's Talk page. which he removed instantly. Mckmckmt (talk) 11:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's fine to remove comments from one's own talk page per WP:OWNTALK (we have letters / shortcuts from almost everything around here). Yes, we're often not good about recruitment. I suggest checking out WP:TEAHOUSE where they are volunteers focused on helping new editors. NE Ent 11:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Mckmckmt: Looking at this, I would encourage you to to stay away from ANI in the anticipation that you will find more pleasure in creating or improving articles. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Topic-ban proposal for Robert Walker (2)

    After a previous ANI-discussion, which ended stale-mate, Robert has continued his disruptive behaviour.

    Enough is enough: I propose a topic-ban for Robert for Buddhism, Hinduism and India related articles. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support - enough. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Robert had his chance.VictoriaGraysonTalk 14:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral as presented and at this time. It isn't clear, at least without hearing from the subject, that a topic-ban is the right remedy, or that the scope of the topic-ban, as proposed, is appropriate. It is clear that at least one editor, Robert Walker, has conduct issues in the area of Buddhist-related topics. That was obvious a month ago. It was also apparent that there were content issues concerning Buddhism. At the time, I advised Robert Walker to request dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard concerning the Buddhist content issues. He continues to say that he plans to do that, but he has had plenty of time. At the time, I also recommended a restriction on his talk page privileges to restrict his use of walls of text; that was archived without resolution. It now appears, but I haven't researched in detail, that Robert Walker may be disruptively editing with regard to an India-related fringe theory about the origin of languages (that Indo-European languages originated in India rather than elsewhere). I don't see any connection to Hinduism. (The fringe theory is commonly supported by Hindu nationalists, but is not limited to Hindu nationalists.) I haven't researched the diffs by the filing parties in detail as to harassment. It does appear, based on first glance (without lengthy research), that Robert Walker is now stirring up trouble by campaigning for the involvement of new editors on his side of the controversy; and that raises the possibility that he has become a general trouble-maker for whom a block or a site-ban is more appropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - In view of the following thread about the Vedic period, it appears that this combination of content issues and conduct issues may have spread to the point where the ArbCom should be asked to open a case. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Send to arbcom. After seeing the explosion of anger at the FTN thread it seems clear to me that arbcomm could at least allow for discretionary sanctions so that administrators could act to stem the tide of aggravation that our good faith content contributors are experiencing. !Voting to ban this one editor is only a bandaid on a wound much too large for a bandaid. jps (talk) 17:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Buddhism isn't subject to discretionary sanctions except in the country of its origin, which is not primarily a Buddhist country. The issue about the origin of Indo-European languages does have to do with whether they came from India or went to [[India]. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Tendentious editing by some editors Vedic Period - Neutrality of which is disputed

    I would like to highlight the case of tendentious editing by some editors, who are gate keeping a particular WP:POV on Vedic Period - Neutrality of which was disputed by me. User talk:Joshua Jonathan and a group of editors including User talk: Kautilya3 have done a highly objectionable job by shifting the discussion from the talk page of Vedic Period and moving it to Noticeboard#Proposed_Hypothesis.2FTheory_as_fact without inviting/informing me since I had raised the question on neutrality of the article. By discussing the issue amongst like minded editors and coming to a conclusion without including all the points I have raised they have engaged in WP:GAMING and WP:TENDENTIOUS editing under "One who disputes the reliability of apparently good sources". I had only wanted to build a consensus about presenting the views of other scholars who have done research on the topic of origins of Vedic People which is a highly debated issue and no scholarly consensus exists on it. The same fact about lack of consensus should reflect in the article to make it Neutral and encyclopedic. It should be noted that I had not engaged in any edit wars while trying to build consensus and had done so in good faith. Indoscope (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Joshua Jonathan had also the moved the page for book The_Lost_River by Michel Danino which is a notable book which details an alternative view to what he and a few other editors including User talk: Kautilya3 are pushing by engaging in WP:GANG. He had merged The_Lost_River with Michel Danino without first raising a merge notice. I believe to was done show it as frivolous and less notable than it is which can be seen from the talk page that these same to editors were involved in trying to remove that page. I later provided the relevant references of book review and restored that page which thankfully settled the issue.Indoscope (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Indoscope, that thread was opened by Blades. I'm not your personal servant, as you will understand. NB: the correct link is Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Proposed Hypothesis/Theory as fact.
    Regarding Danino, you moved it back, and added some reviews, which is fine with me.
    Regarding WP:GANG: "As with meatpuppetry, editors may be accused of coordinating their actions to sidestep policies and guidelines (such as 3RR and NPOV)'." The Fringe Theory Board gave a very clear statement regarding the status of your favorite theories: it's fringe. There's a very clear concensus on that. Presenting fringe-theory as being equal to mainstrwam scholarship is POV-pushing. You may choose to do so, but that's clearly not in line with Wiki-policies.
    Cheers, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have nothing to do with Vedic period. I offered an opinion on the The Lost River and suggested an RFC for merger. You decided to unmerge it, and Joshua Jonathan accepted your action. So, I don't see what is "tendentious" about it. Your input on Talk:Vedic period has been taken on board by Joshua Jonathan, and he is following up on those sources. See Talk:Indigenous Aryans#Souces. Again, there is nothing tendentious here. I would say you are wasting your time, and his time. Forget this. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Behavior of Keepitreal2

    I am not 100% sure if this should be in Sockpuppet investigations, Edit warring or on this page. If I am in the wrong place, please let me know, I will move it.

    I am requesting administrator intervention regarding Keepitreal2 behavior on Missouri Executive Order 44. Keepitreal2 has absolutely refused to discuss the edit made by her, instead demanding that all the editor "Let me be clear, give up already"

    Keepitreal2 made 4 edits in December 2014 to Missouri.

    1. (cur | prev) 21:30, 30 December 2014‎ Keepitreal2 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,779 bytes) (+69)‎ . . (Removing it all validates my position it was an inconvenient truth.) (undo | thank)
    2. (cur | prev) 18:06, 27 December 2014‎ Keepitreal2 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,778 bytes) (+2)‎ . . (Undid revision 639714447 by Ecjmartin (talk) Many is not maximizing. It is accurate. The word missive incorrect, it was not a message or a letter, it is an ORDER. An inconvenient truth for you) (undo | thank)
    3. (cur | prev) 14:37, 25 December 2014‎ Keepitreal2 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,778 bytes) (+2)‎ . . (Undid revision 638664905 by Ecjmartin (talk) minimizing the deaths is not appropriate) (undo | thank)
    4. (cur | prev) 19:08, 7 December 2014‎ Keepitreal2 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,778 bytes) (+919)‎ . . (Undid revision 636978996 by Ecjmartin (talk) Speculation has no place here. Facts only. To state the Militia did or did not know is pure speculation and is unverified) (undo | thank)

    User:Ecjmartin (multiple times) and User:Tripleahg (one time), and user:AsteriskStarSplat attempting to use the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, reverted what (and I agree) were WP:POV edits. All three asked Keepitreal2 to discuss it on the talk page. Instead Keepitreal2 refused saying things like "Talk page addressing was not necessary". The Keepitreal2 began to using an IP address to edit instead:

    1. (cur | prev) 01:53, 21 January 2015‎ 2607:fb90:765:fc7a:aee7:3fa9:be63:ce08 (talk)‎ . . (23,783 bytes) (+352)‎ . . (Undid revision 642848168 by Ecjmartin (talk) Talk page adressing was not necessary. The issues were previously answered in explaining edits and were redundant.) (undo)
    2. (cur | prev) 13:34, 16 January 2015‎ 2607:fb90:2903:559d:2f78:15e8:5153:1b40 (talk)‎ . . (23,783 bytes) (+352)‎ . . (Adding edits back. My points are clear and concise. Inconvenient truth for some perhaps. Talk all you want,.) (undo)

    I came along on 21 January 2015‎ and reverted Keepitreal2 myself and also requested that she take it to the talk page. Ecjmartin open a discussion. The on 26 January 2015‎ the IP editor restored Keepitreal2 version, again refusing to discuss the issue here:

    1. (cur | prev) 19:15, 26 January 2015‎ 2607:fb90:2903:2eeb:e7e3:ecad:b8ef:48f8 (talk)‎ . . (25,872 bytes) (+969)‎ . . (InconvInconvenient truth. Stop trying to change history. As stated before, there is no proof they had no knowledge and given the political positions the men had there is more probability they knew than did not. Let me be clear, give up already) (undo)

    This lead to the page being Semi-Protected for a month. In response, instead of taking the issues to the discussion, twice user Keepitreal2 posted on my talk page (here and here) that she is doing "Nothing wrong", that she "was not the one disrupting". She treated to "Report me". Then she stated that she is a "female", something we had no idea she was until today, and that we (Ecjmartin and myself) were "misogynistic" since we disagree with a "female". Lastly she states that "unequivocally you have an agenda" since I am not "Mormon" (the page is about Mormons), but I edit on "Mormon topics". Ironically, just this week I was accused of being a "Mormon apologists" here. Apparently I'm bias as a Non-Mormon Mormon apologists who can't make even ONE edit on pages about "Mormon topics".

    Clearly Keepitreal2 has been edit waring, Sockpuppeting, and Uncivil. She refuses to use the talk page and follow Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Instead of addressing the issue she makes Uncivil comments. An admin need to address this behavior. What this is I leave to the administer.--- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk) 16:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    response

    Actually it is me who has been bullied. My verifiable, scholared, sourced edits removed repeatedly. Being forced to state the same statements over and over. Deleting my response to conversations about me. I am being silenced. I am being falsely accused of having previous interactions with this person. The list goes on and on. It is infact misogynistic to assume I am male and refer to me as such. Yet another example of inconvenient truth. Keepitreal2 (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Just looking through some of your contributions Keepitreal2, I think you have been acting at the very least Rashly. You claim non mormons editing mormon pages must have an agenda which suggests POV issues.1 You've repeatedly re-inserted the information without discussion on the talk pages failing WP:BRD.2 and you're account has only edited pages related to this one dispute. If you just go to the talk page and discuss the best way to present information available in reliable sources this is much less likely to blow up into a dispute. SPACKlick (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    response

    Well to the casual observer it might appear that way unless you look at User:ARTEST4ECHO userpage and observe the history/pattern of the editor who started the disruption User:Ecjmartin consistently teaming with / awarding artest4echo on anti Mormon edits. Not playing into their mob mentality does not place me in the wrong. Seeing their pattern of promoting their agenda puts me in a position to demonstrate their abuses. Keepitreal2 (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I welcome anyone to read what Keepitreal2 calls a "consistant pattern of teaming / awarding artest4echo on anti Mormon edits". It is all contained at User_talk:ARTEST4ECHO#A_question.... Please go read it.
    However in a nutshell, User:Ecjmartin came to me, as a long time editor, to ask me what the proper procedure was to handle an IP editor who refused to use the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. He was frustrated and about to leave Wikipedia.
    I told him what another unrelated administrator (who I think is Mormon) told me when I asked him the same question, but on a different page. We both agreed that the best thing to do was start a Talk:Missouri_Executive_Order_44#Recent_edits and again ask the IP editor to talk. If that didn't happened, then the admin suggested taking it to WP:ANI. We decided instead to request Page Protection, as it can be hard to block an IP editor. If that failed, then we would go to WP:ANI. Keepitreal2 was only mention when Ecjmartin noticed that the edit summaries for the IP editor and Keepitreal2 were exactly the same and that was after Page Protection was applied, and only in the last response.
    If asking an IP editor to talk about his edits or answering a request for information on WP policy is a "consistent pattern of teaming / awarding artest4echo on anti Mormon edits", then I guess I'm guilty. However, so is every editor are most follow Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and ask for information from others. Again I find it funny that I'm guilty of "anti Mormon edits" when I only ever edited Missouri Executive Order 44 ONCE, but I'm also a "Mormon apologists" pushing a Pro-Mormon Agenda on other pages at the same time.--- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk) 19:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    response

    Yet another example of abuse. They were very aware I was not an IP editor but rather jumped on the fact I was not logged in due to clearing my cache. Abusing this tactic to get their way. As you can view on ARTEST4ECHO talk page history, It was made very clear to him. Also note Ejcmartins acknowledged reference of knowing it was me prior to subitting their false accusations. Also note on my talk page I informed him I was going to report him, so he then turned around and repoted me. Keep digging yourself deeper if you like. Keepitreal2 (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Since this has clearly become a case of Wikipedia:Don't fight fire with fire and Wikipedia:Do not feed the trolls, I will just leave it to the administrators and other editor on this board to read my talk page, Keepitreal2 comments, History:Missouri Executive Order 44 (including Pre-"clearing my cache IP edits" on the 5th and 6th of December) and Talk:Missouri Executive Order 44:Recent edits. Then administrator can decided what to do.--- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk) 20:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    sounds like a plan

    We agree on something. Thank you for pointing out not fighting fire with fire. I'm confident the administration will look at the timestamp of me informing you I was going to report you and the timestamp you reported me. As well as the edits/deletions to your userpage and talkpage. Good day sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepitreal2 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The Weight of Chains [2]

    UrbanVillager (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Pincrete (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    bobrayner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This is an ongoing POV war on the topic of Boris Malagurski and his films. The three editors above are absolutely incapable of working with each other without perpetuating a three-way revert war - see the histories and talk pages of Boris Malagurski, The Weight of Chains and The Weight of Chains 2 for examples of the disruption left in the wake of any meeting of these three. I foolishly attempted to moderate this in the past (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive863#Topic ban for UrbanVillager) and administrator Ricky81682 has also been involved in the past, having blocked at least one of the users. At the latest asking the other parent deletion review thread, all three started in with sniping at each other ([331], [332]) and at other editors who participated ([333]), comments which I took the liberty of refactoring, however they insist ([334], [335]) that this petty back-and-forth must remain for the benefit of the discussion, or something. Their behaviour is clearly seen by other users as disruptive (e.g. [336]) and has become a net negative for users who wish to edit these articles and for the community in general. Therefore: I propose a three-way interaction ban between all three of these users, and further propose that all three be topic-banned from Malagurski-related topics. Ivanvector (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Wait, what? Over at the deletion review that UrbanVillager started, I had the temerity to suggest - briefly and civilly, with a diff - that UrbanVillager had canvassed supporters. You removed that comment. I suggested that removing evidence of canvassing would be unlikely to help the closer reach the best decision, then you removed that comment, and now you frame that as "petty back-and-forth"? We certainly have a lot of trouble with these topics, but I really don't think that is the best way forward.
    For what it's worth, I'd happily stop editing the topic right this moment if we could be assured that the problem went away. However, a topic ban would be a unilateral and hence ineffective sanction because, well, I'd comply but another sockpuppet would appear soon enough - there's a long history of promotional sockpuppetry here. Stopping previous sockpuppets stopped the problem temporarily. bobrayner (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Thefascistnazi

    Blocked by HJ Mitchell. bobrayner (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Now, even the biggest newbie lover would stuggle to welcome this guy - Thefascistnazi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Maybe their fingers slipped on their one and only edit to date, and I'm sure their username breaks some policy somewhere. And on today of all days, too... Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=644451981"