Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

MarcusBritish personal attacks

In this edit, User:MarcusBritish doubles down on his personal attacks on me that he started in an RM discussion here. I understand that he has some things to argue about, but this is not the way. His personal attacks should be stricken. Dicklyon (talk) 03:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Can you quote the part that's a personal attack? I'm not really interested in reading someone's manifesto. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: At a guess, it's within these last sentences. The proposer is out of his depths here, trying to revise a topic in which there are editors far better suited to the job. Proposer's claim "most sources don't cap it" is a lie. His dating is selective, misleading and abuses the notions of editing in good faith. Finally, proposer is on a never-ending crusade to rename all "Campaign" articles, without waiting for discussions between other members to reach consensus. This is disruptive editing loaded with mishandled evidence and contempt for English standards. This is deviant attempt to Americanise historical articles. How does an RBMK reactor explode? Lies. I've applied bold to what I'm guessing may be the personal attack. Amaury • 05:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, he accuses me of lies and bad faith, but the entire paragraphs are personal attacks. Instead of focusing on the issue, he is talking mostly about me, as he perceives me. He talks about my past, my country and state of origin, my career, etc., all as part of saying why I'm not fit to argue my point with him, a military historian. I agree it's a huge wall of text; it should all be stricken, rev-del'd, and then he can be invited to try again if he can do so without the attack. Dicklyon (talk) 05:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

To quote the start from my second link (and there's more that came in earlier threads, easy enough to find since he has very few edits this year doing anything other than arguing to capitalize "Campaign"): N-grams produce spurious results that don't tell the whole truth. Neither does the proposer. He doesn't use genuine references, only cons the community with cherry-picked samples. Has no genuine interest in history, and probably doesn't own a single historical text. Editors should stick to what they know and not meddle in areas they have no clue about. This is too personal and accusatory of bad faith. He can make points about N-grams without attacking me. Dicklyon (talk) 05:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

It looks like MarcusBritish was subject to an indefinite block from 2014 to 2017 for unspecified reasons, but it apparently involved "continued personal attacks" and a "harassing email". So, maybe MarcusBritish should tone down his rhetoric. If someone wants to strike a perceived personal attack, they can; however, policy forbids using revdel on personal attacks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The personal attack has been stricken from the RM discussion. Thanks. I care less about the bits on his talk page and the continuing untruths and attack below. Dicklyon (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Hardly untruths when there are links to your own contradictory posts and made-up policies, a fine history of terminological inexactitudes. I will be making sure all your military history based RMs are notified on the MILHIST notice board, which to date you have avoided doing, be sure of that. No more lurking in the shadows with only ignorant "yes" men and no expert editors being advised who might challenge your controversial moves, and rightly so. You should be advising MILHIST yourself, instead of trying to go behind the backs of editors who worked on those articles and put in far more effort than you on sourcing material. And I'm still not 100% convinced that you're not operating on behalf of Google but are unwilling to disclose your conflict of interest. — Marcus^(talk) 19:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I understand now why Dicklyon has tried to subvert my complaints about his moving Campaign articles. In 2015 he was blocked for several months and returned under a standard offer that requires him to not engage in controversial actions such as mass page moves. That is precisely what he is doing now. I would like for an admin to please review the comment and links I left below, as well as Dicklyon's latest history of moves, which are en masse and have caused concerns at MILHIST, concerns that he has chose to ignore and work against. Ergo, he is in direct breach of his unblock terms, which are very specific and state no date when past blockable behaviour can re-commence. Untruths, he says. Unburied truths, I say. He has committed to circumventing those terms to achieve his goal. Again, I repeat my claims that this editor is tendentious and bad faith is the case; this is not an attck it is a foregone conclusion based on observation and evidenced patterns of behaviour. Doing exactly what the unblock offer told him not to cannot be construed into anything other than disrespect for the community process which sought to reintegrate him in the first place; an offer was made and has since been ignored. Since admins are meant to remain impartial, my concerns should be given due consideration. — Marcus^(talk) 20:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• 12 July Marcus criticises use of N-grams with links to third-party sources identifying shortcomings
• Dicklyon ignores comment; states that "no-one has shown that moves are controversial"
• 13 July Marcus indicates criticism comment and emphasises point that N-grams data is not verifiable
• Dicklyon admits "n-grams tell only a tiny fraction of the story" then claims "nobody is relying on n-grams as a 'reliable source' nor as the only way to look at usage in sources"
• Dicklyon states "I generally do look beyond n-grams, especially if the result is not overwhelming"

Since this discussion, in which N-grams were addressed, Dicklyon has proceeded to ignore opposition from MilHist members to use of N-grams to move articles to lowercase titles. According to his edit history he has continued to move a lot of military Campaign articles, many without even using Requested Moves, but in the case of RMs only ever used N-grams as "evidence", despite admiting that they only tell a tiny fraction of the story that he doesn't rely on, and demanding other editors use books to challenge him, contrary to WP:BURDEN. All N-grams results show differences between usage of trivial sums, like 0.0000001% differences. Shortcomings of N-grams include: Google scans a limited number of sources, OCR is not reliable for scanning upper/lowercase accurately, N-grams does not identify sentences, indexes, titles, captions, etc. And most vitally, N-grams does not link to its sources, which violates WP:V - N-grams can be seen both as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH given the nature of how the results are gathered and interpreted. In the case of Waterloo Campaign, Dicklyon made a conscious choice to only search titles from 1970 - those exorcising a potentially vast number of titles from 1815. I consider this his most obvious bad faith act. He uses these results as "evidence" to to trick RMs into a false consensus. He ignored the concerns abour N-grams, by palming me off with I am well aware of the limitations of such stats, but you seem to be confused by the numbers. No further reasoning, just prenentious a put-down so he could move on and wilfully ignore the concerns. The entire discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Campaign_vs_campaign runs in the same format - someone makes a comment, Dicklyon puts it down with his own POV and no-one but me maintains their argument. This includes the fact that Dicklyon interprets policy in his own fashion, is selective when it comes to policy, and even invents policy that doesn't even exist, such as today, when I challenged him on only sourcing from 1970 - something he has never done before - he claimed We usually focus on recent decades when discussing usage in sources and has yet to respond to me request for the policy that states anything of the sort is to be practiced. Why? Because he made it up, after biasing his data to broaden the N-gram in his favour. Bad faith not only assumed, but evidenced.

To summarise, please go see the Milhist discussion, the Waterloo Campaign discussion, as well as the "evidence" he presents at past RMs related to military campaigns (only N-grams, before and still despite concerns from multiple editors); consider the claims he makes that contradict one another and the policy he raises but does not link because it does not exist. Then you'll understand the frustration. Dicklyon is engaged in long-term disruptions which he handles via WP:CIVPUSH when challenged, as well as WP:PLAYPOLICY. This is not typical good faith behaviour, and so I stand by my right to challenge it, since it is so widespread. I don't care about my attitude, this is a matter of tendentious editing, with spurious evidence, ignores the concerns of MilHist, continues to move "dozens" (exact count unknown) of articles with no verifiable evidence, only this controversially unverifiable N-gram nonsense. Moves made using a source which cannot be verified. Dicklyon can shout all day about NCCAP, AGF and whatever other policy cares to invent, the fact stands, WP:V is a core policy, a pillar, a major requirement of any wikipedia article. He knows his data fails that test, yet persists, manipulates N-grams further, undermines policy and now he's here, trying to silence his greatest detractor. Because he can't prove his Google-sourced data is strong enough, he has to force his POV in, and that can only be achieved by manipulating searches, ignoring other editors, citing fake policy, not letting a consensus be determined. All bad faith behaviours. If anyone is not convinced that this stream of behaviour is questionable, they either need to open their eyes, or explain to me where I'm wrong. And I don't mean for Dicklyon to do that himself, given his conflict of interest, though he can attepmt to defend himself, as necessary. Maybe another "Poppycock" is all a common peasant like me needs, to stand corrected? Even though my opinions were "noted", no attempt was made to correct behaviour or seek alternative sources for future moves. N-grams is clearly wiser than all of us at Milhist, put together, since our concerns have not been heeded. That's one man's pretentious ego for you and yes, it disgusts me.

You can argue between youselves about my uncivil nature all you like, I don't really care what anyone thinks of me... but this is a WP:BOOMERANG case if you actually review the widespread amount of evidence regarding Dicklyon's current behaviour and crusade, which I have seen unfolding for several weeks, challenged at MilHist, but remains unchecked. I have never reverted his edits, nor !voted in RMs until now, my concerns have been made in only two places and have been supported, to some degree. So his comment above about "He can make points about N-grams without attacking me." Yeah, we tried that, many times. He swept our concerns under a mat and trod all over it, to continue revising article titles to the way he wants, and everyone at MilHist be buggered. Screw us military historians, with all our books and knowledge, if all we need is Google and their limited inaccurate data, let's burn down all libraries and make Dicklyon master of digitised world history. Because all this behaviour amounts to is authorative, anti-consensual and loaded with POV pushing behaviour because of its use of manufactured evidence that is not really evidence because none of us can see it. — Marcus^(talk) 06:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

It sure looks to me as if Dicklyon is engaging in a mass pagemove attempt, and thus it's time to revoke the unblock. That indefinite block came after it was shown that he was happy to ignore basic policy, so why should we be surprised that he's happy to ignore those unblock conditions? Moreover, WP:CIR; I don't have to be a specialist in military history to know that the solid military history sources use "Campaign" in such contexts. If you're not competent in an area, stay out (that's why I don't do significant editing in medicine or speculative philosophy) and definitely don't violate your unblock conditions in a fashion that's already disruptive. Nyttend (talk) 12:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

What? If Dicklyon behaves disruptively, then he should be straightly blocked. Who cares about conflicts from 2015 now? Don’t—please—make this site into a sort of ru.Wikipedia where ancient blocks are broadly used as a pretext for discrimination. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

The moves in question started with a discussion on the MihHist project page, and have been discussed there at length. I still have not been able to elicit a single allegation that any of the undiscussed moves was improper – just generalized whining like Marcus's. About a dozen proposed at RMTR were challenged and went to RM discussions, where the consensus to follow our usual policies and guidelines was reaffirmed. My move log shows about 75 "Campaign->campaign" moves in 40 days, a rate of less than 2 per day; not exactly "mass moves". Most "XXX campaign" articles were already at the correct lowercase title, as the original discussion pointed out. Nobody has pointed out any MilHist move that I got wrong; nobody has reverted one or opened a discussion about why it was wrong or even controversial. Marcus and a few have made generalized complaints, but can't point to a case where my move was not with consensus, or had some reason to be considered controversial; I have asked. The project talk page has been involved; a small move to rewrite the style rules for MilHist didn't get much traction there. In addition, I've moved over 6000 other articles since my 2015 unblock, and have stayed away from trouble by only moving where the consensus is clear. When people have objected to their favorite area being downcased, I have engaged in good-faith discussions, and in almost all cases the consensus re-affirmed the reason for the moves, following policy and guidelines. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Campaign_vs_campaign for details. Dicklyon (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

A whole debate took place at MilHist. Dicklyon characteristically boils it down to "whining", which is an attack on multiple editors at MilHist. Proving he has chosen to ignore editors with issues and step over them, set his own standards, invent policy, and to hell with anyone who disagrees. He sets his own terms for what he considers a "valid complaint", despite a number of editors at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Campaign_vs_campaign having concerns regarding his moves. It is not up to him to set the terms of discussion or consensus. When someone raises issues with your edits, you stop to discuss. He has chosen to ignore and proceed. In violation of his standard offer, since these are mass moves which have been deemed controversial; 75 moves are a mass number, the timeline is moot here. There is no good faith here, rather a load of disrespectful scheming per WP:PLAYPOLICY. I believe @Keith-264 raised the initial concern regarding all these Campaign movea, and will ping him, incase he'd like to comment further. — Marcus^(talk) 16:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

No Incnis Mrsi, it's not "ancient" or "ru" to uphold the terms of standard offers for unblocks indefinitely. I accepted an interaction ban in 2017, are you seriously suggesting that "when enough time passes" (subjective in itself) I can just throw that away and self-determine my own terms or ignore them altogether, go get up that other editor's nose and claim immunity based on "who cares anymore?" notions? If an unblock offer was set by the community via consensus, you respect the community, no matter how much time passes, you don't give them the two fingers when you feel you've had enough... I kind of find your claim that this would be "discrimination" hyperbolical/dog whistling/virtue signalling terminology. On what level is that even the case? It's more discriminatory to turn a blind eye to wilfully breaking standard offer terms, when we know for a fact that other editors are blocked for far less, mor often. An admin's duty is to maintain the integrity of the community, not overturn it! The whole point of offers by ANI/Arbcom is not to restrict editors, but to be lenient while also preventing further disruptions by giving unblocked editors a way of self-moderating the behaviour that got them blocked in the first place. This is effectively a breach of contract. The ru.wiki and en.wiki are two different cultures, no point comparing apples and oranges, that too could be seen as discrimination. All that said, I'm not saying I want to see Dicklyon indef, I'm just saying that I have gripes with his behaviour and having learned it got him blocked in the past, we can factually establish that he already knows it is considered disruptive, therefore he wilfully put himself back in this position. So it wouldn't be discrimination, it would be upholding the standard offer, which he has chosen to violate. So, to answer your "who cares?" - anyone who cares about the wiki community and genuinely respects consensus cares. — Marcus^(talk) 16:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I’m unable to find such person as Dicklyon anywhere in Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. His unblock log doesn’t mention any specific restriction either, only a decision to unblock despite some IP socking. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

ANI: User unblocked (with provision to avoid large scale, controversial actions) per consensus here. Prodego talk 04:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC and Accept reason: Per consensus at ANI I have unblocked your account, under the provision that you avoid large scale, potentially controversial actions such as mass page moves. Prodego talk 04:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC) - there's the community decision and admin performing unblock terms stated. No duration/end date for those terms was specifically set. Tell me, if you accept a standard offer are you at liberty to determine when you are able to no longer work in accordance with those terms? Wouldn't that make the purpose of consensus obsolete? As far as I'm concerned, it's a bit like being on parole – maintain good behaviour per the terms of your unblock. He accepted. Why should he be at leisure to ignore those terms just because "some time" has passed? Is a standard offer only a binding agreement until you get bored of it or because it hampers your editing agenda? If you think so, that kind of undermines the whole point of standard offers, designed to help once-disruptive editors stay on track. The socking issue was another discussion, I gather, but the terms of his unblock stand now, because he is editing now contrary to those terms. I wonder if the unblocking admin Prodego would agree with you the "who cares?" philosophy. — Marcus^(talk) 20:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Re: The Ping: I was surprised by a number of page moves all from X Campaign to X campaign. It was replied that mooted changes had been notified on the talk pages and that there was an N-gram giving campaign majority usage, which seemed to me to be insufficient. I thought that this N-gram was a blunt instrument that lacked qualitative validity. I think that Marcus is more right than wrong in this and that the proposer of Campaign campaign moves should bear the onus of showing why, not burdening others with the work of refuting his claims. Regards 18:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith-264 (talk • contribs)

MarcusBritish, Incnis Mrsi, Nyttend: In response to some discussion here, I am of the opinion that since so much time has passed without escalating to a block, User:Dicklyon met any restrictions from my 2015 unblock and that they are no longer relevant. All users should avoid large scale, controversial actions. Prodego ^talk 23:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

In which case the solution is to block now, because Dicklyon has a history of large scale, controversial actions regarding pagemoves, because he's recently engaged in large scale, controversial actions regarding pagemoves, and there's no reason to believe that he will stop making large scale, controversial actions regarding pagemoves when those actions have continued from at least four years ago to the present. Nyttend (talk) 04:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Very few of my moves have been challenged or reverted, and most of the ones challenged were subsequently upheld in move discussions. If I made a handful of mistakes among thousands of uncontroversial moves, can I ask for forgiveness? I will, if you'll point some out. You can read about the one most recently reverted (by Marcus, as it happens) at Talk:Gettysburg_Campaign#Reverting_move; I don't see why anyone would consider that controversial in light of all the recent discussions reaffirming following WP:NCCAPS and such, but in this case Marcus just made a mistake in trying to check the evidence for it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This isn't the only incident since that block. Looking at Dicklyon's pagemove log, which is long, I can see the now he mass-moved articles on lighthouses, which all got reverted (see discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Lighthouses#Naming_convention), and he also mass-moved articles on World Heritage Sites, also reverted. He had many other mass moves that seem to have stuck, including changing dash styles and capitalization in titles of train station articles. I'm not sure if these changes were discussed, as he doesn't link to discussions in his mass moves. Though he will apparently complaint about other people making "undiscussed moves" [1]. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I made fewer than 100 lighthouse moves, based on usage in sources (was I wrong on any of those?). Sam Sailor subsequently (months later) moved about 300 lights and lighthouses to uppercase, without discussion. I had dropped out of that dispute pretty early when I saw that some controversy was developing; Sam jumped in after that settled down, and did them all his way, capitalized for no particularly good reason. I asked for some of Sam's capitalizations of longstanding lowercase titles to be reverted (see Someguy1221's link above), but Sam just did them again, so I stayed away after that. Those are the moves that should be challenged, since they violate naming policy and style guidelines. Sam hasn't been around recently, but if someone knows him maybe they can ask him what he was thinking. Dicklyon (talk) 05:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

On the World Heritage sites, those moves were subsequent to RM discussions at Talk:World_Heritage_Site#Requested_move_15_May_2018 and Talk:World_Heritage_Site#Requested_move_27_August_2018 in light of which they had no reason to be considered controversial, if I read the history correctly. But Randy never gives up, and got it reversed later, so now all those titles violate WP:NCCAPS. Since then I stayed out of it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I moved about 900 rivers and creeks, too. Nobody complained or tried to reverse the decision that we had discussed. Nobody thanked me for all the work, either. I just keep doing my bit to improve the encyclopedia, mostly without controversy or fanfare. Dicklyon (talk) 05:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

And I moved well over 1000 Jr and Sr bios per MOS:JR, and engaged in related discussions repeatedly reaffirming that conforming to that style provision was not controversial. Similarly thousands of other dash and comma and case and hyphen fixes subsequent to clear consensus. Dicklyon (talk) 05:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Someguy1221, Nyttend – Perhaps as the responding admins, you might indulge me by determing whether these MOS:CAPS edits constitute a form of COI? Since Dicklyon is engaged in moving a ton of military campaign articles, subtly changing related MOS guidelines to support his own position more closely, without discussion (note also he reverted admin Amakuru who disputed him per lack of consensus) seems to cross the line in my mind. He's been engaged in lengthy discussions and disputes since May at MilHist regarding these moves, so making MOS edits seems highly inappropriate and reinforces everything I've been saying about his autocratic nature with regards to ignoring everyone else opinion and continuing to move articles regardless of opposition. Even the comments you both made here, relating to his history of controversial mass moves despite being under a Standard Offer does not appear to have slowed him down. I'm not directly seeking to get this guy blocked, that's your call, but every argument I raise, he rejects without consideration. I'm literally competing with a WP:CIVPUSH beast here, even when I break down my argument into point form he plays ignorant and spews out demands for example cases and evidence, never accepting that the WP:BURDEN is and has always been on him, as the contributing editor. Please just fucking shoot me! — Marcus^(talk) 21:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

It's definitely very concerning to me that Dicklyon there is not only editing the MOSCAP guidelines, but edit warring at the MOSCAP guidelines, while also in a contentious dispute over moves related to those guidelines. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

My intention in reverting Amakuru with an explanation in the edit summary was to convince him, not to edit war. I'm sure he was notified; that was the end of it, it appears. That MilHist bit was clearly out of line with the rest of the MOS, and seemed to encourage over-capitalization; it needed to be fixed. Dicklyon (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

MarcusBritish has engaged in discussions at MilHist here, here and at Waterloo campaign. I have found their posts repeatedly aggressive and uncivil, rising personal attacks. The effect upon me is much the same as what they ascribe to the actions of Dicklyon. I find it unacceptable. These moves are IAW WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS and criteria established by these. While objections have been raised to these moves, there has been little or no evidence presented, addressing the criteria, to retain caps. I find that the most controversial aspect of these moves/discussion to be the posts and conduct by MB. This has now been moved to MOS:CAPS. Let us hope that the discussion there does not reach the same level and focuses on the issues rather than following what has preceded. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

And the Award for Best Hyperbole of ANI goes to Cinderella157 for playing the victim, whether direct or collateral, despite barely having conversed with me a month ago. I think he might be confusing my frankness and honesty for aggression, some of us don't beat about the bush, but the word "aggression" serves as a dog whistle when no examples are presented. Also, naming standards of articles are not likely to be determined here, so no point even discussing it. Although Cindy is wrong, core WP:V policy must be considered before invoking lesser MOS guidelines – N-grams cannot be verified so the moves fail to be IAW WP:V before they even reach MOS styling. Can't ignore WP:V just to turn a few C into c, that's beyond stupid – write the encyclopedia first, make it pretty later. I have to question your lack of integrity here Cindy, over-stating my behaviour simply because you support Dicklyon's position and don't want to see it undone. And yet one thing fails to escape me: you never lifted your finger once to help him move a single article, even though there are so many. You crop up in every RM he raises, giving you the image of a pandering "yes" man, and it appears that you also attack editors, such as PBS} for being "vexatious" when asking questions on separate RMs. Clearly you don't realise that two different RMs may not be seen by the same people, and therefore it becomes necessary to pose the same question at each. Your response was aggressive, perhaps because he sees the same flaws in your claims as I do... POV-pushing MOS standards over policy. Come back to me when you have clean hands. — Marcus^(talk) 19:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The afore post by MB makes the point regarding what I have perceived and that this should be considered as "chronic" and "intractable" behaviour per the purpose of this page. It is the repeated nature of the behaviour that I have sought to raise by my initial post. I have provided links to threads by way of examples where many (but not all) posts by MB in those threads demonstrate the repeated nature of what I have perceived. MB states (without diff or fuller context): it appears that you also attack editors, such as PBS for being "vexatious" when asking questions on separate RMs. I have stated that certain actions might appear vexatious. However, MB states here (in one of the threads at MilHist I have linked): "needs moving to small case because 'evidence' says otherwise" comes across as vexatious. By their own statement and standards above (not mine), the quoted text would constitute a personal attack on their part. From my perception, it is posts to the end of that particular thread (ie here) which start to get hostile. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

MarcusBritish has made this statement: Okay, enough with the trolling.[2] It is an unqualified accusation of trolling. I have struck the quoted sentence per WP:NPA. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:Trolling is a legitimate Wiki-meta document. Italicising words doesn't make them any more vaild, that's your emphasis. It reeks of a desperate attemt to defame and derail the discussion. The same thing you tried with PBS and probably with editors before your topic ban. I won't go there, I'll just note that you're not a reliable witness given your own history. — Marcus^(talk) 04:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

You'll be pretty busy if you try to remove all his personal attacks in that section, such as "Oh boy... you can't be that ignorant, surely!? ... you love saying how everyone else is wrong but you". And "your deluded interpretations of my posts amount to fiction"; and "You constantly dismiss core policy that describes how to write the encyclopedia, because you're so obsessed with reformatting or reengineering what other creators have written." I don't think he has any real insight into what I love or what I'm obsessed with, and his concept that I ignore WP:V by posting n-gram stats is really just nutty. I may inject a mild sarcasm now and then, but I'm doing my best to not just make up expletives about what might be going on in his brain. I can't actually come up with any cogent printable theory for that, so I hold my tongue. Oh, well, as he complains there, he's "not quite feeling 'backed' by MilHist on the matter despite what I've read in those May–July threads and my best attempts to find a solution." His best attempt has just taken a solution that had been found (that is, following WP:NCCAPS per evidence from book n-gram stats and per RM discussion consensus on a dozen articles) and turning it back to a bunch of unproductive ranting about me and WP:V. Thanks for your comments, C. Dicklyon (talk) 03:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. Look at your own words here. "nutty" and "unproductive" – indicators of a pretentious editor who has no interest in the opinion of detractors. You and Cinarella have been at it before. You also remarked on PBS right here, loving that Cinderella called him "vexatious". Quite the tag-team you two make. And now your "friend" is here, giving you his support, not by defending you, but by attacking me. Think admins are fool enough to fall for that? — Marcus^(talk) 04:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, "unproductive ranting" was uncalled for, and I apologize; it snuck past by restraint filter. The "just nutty" bit I have to stand by as my assessment of your attempt to apply WP:V against my work on caps fixes. If anyone else thinks this is in any way sensible, I'd like to hear from them. It's OK that you don't trust n-gram stats, but WP:V has nothing to do with this whole issue. Dicklyon (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Are you sure you're not projecting your own "chronic" and "intractable" behaviour which got you a WW2-related topic ban? Not sure what you're hoping to gain by linking comments made just over a month ago, which have probably been seen already, except to maintain your fidelity for Dicklyon's Crusade. Little to see here, since I told you before, frankness is not aggression. It's just plain talk which you are subjecting to your own fanciful ideals. Many Wiki editors are just as plain speaking as me, some moreso. Dicklyon knows now to man up and work round it, you should too. Wiki isn't here to change attitudes, it's a database dressed up for the interwebs, nothing more, certainly not a social club for you to be judgemental of others in. If you think anything in that linked comment can be infered as "hostile", well... plainly put: you need to go back to the dictionary and relearn some foul or offensive words. I don't see any there. Extreme hyperbole. FYI, regarding your snarky responses to PBS: diff 1diff 2, context not really required, I'll just sum it us as "aggressive and hostile" retorts to simple questions, shall I, kettle? Sincerely, frying pan aka — Marcus^(talk) 03:48, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Previously removed attack was replaced with this by MarcusBritish: Okay, enough with the WP:trolling. Perhaps Bishonen might explain why this is rarely ever acceptable? Cinderella157 (talk) 04:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

This an excercise in WP:Canvassing admins now, Cindy? Is it normal for ANI to allow an uninvolved party to campaign the admins they feel will support them best? What's the term for that? Something appropriately Australian... kangaroo court! Your poison pen not enough to dramatise the conversation for your amusement? Also, it's begging the question why Wikipedia would create essays then disuade people from linking them. If you can't call a spade out, especially after 3 months of wilful ignorance and/or tendentious editing, he'll just continue arguing ad infinitum, as Dicklyon does to palm-off his detractors. You're not helping him, btw, just increasing the odds of his controversial edits being scrutinised; he isn't doing himself any favours. That move log of his..... *whistles* — Marcus^(talk) 04:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Marcus, this screed is highly inappropriate. I'd strongly suggest you refrain from replying until an admin weighs in, or the discussion gets archived. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Propose immediate block of user:MarcusBritish

Capitalization Wars (Campaign Campaign)

-EEng

This work is hereby condemned as an eyesore and public nuisance. For the Wiki beautification committee, -- Dlohcierekim (talk).

• Comment Why are we allowing these pithy personal attacks? He's full of commenting on the editor rather than the content. Accusing others of acting in bad faith? Really? I mean right here on this page? Why are we not blocking him right now? Let's nip this grandiloquence now.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Because the other grown ups here don't treat accusing someone of bad faith as cynically as you do, perhaps? Or because accusing someone of "bad faith" is not considered a personal attack, given that it has no mention at WP:NPA as being one. They also looked at the counter claims I posted, examined the OPs behaviour and raised concerns about his behaviour. Did you? No, I didn't think so. Just marched in here without taking the time to review the situation fully and made a call off the bat, it seems. And what do you mean "right here on this page?" son? There are no limits to free, honest speech on this page, are there? No policy that says you can't uphold an argument or defend a position at ANI? You didn't even comment on what "bad faith" behaviour I questioned, which means you did not consider the cause of the matter. What good is a block going to do anyone if you're sweeping the underlying problem under the mat with it and allowing that editor to resume his "bad faith"? You realise the underlying concerns I have with the OPs editing are so difficult to resolve, that I've been preparing evidence for ArbCom, incase I need Conduct resolution, right? — Marcus^(talk) 12:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Unless you are the editor's parent or step-parent, please do not call any other editor "son", as you did in the comment above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me? — Marcus^(talk) 01:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

And what do you mean "right here on this page?" son? The seventh sentence in the comment above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of where I used it, Ken. Perhaps you are unaware, as an American (I think?), that the use of "son" is a commonly used term in some parts of Britain. It is used between people, towards other males, regardless of age or relationship. Probably better that you refrain from getting triggered by a 3-letter word and attempt to blow it out of proportion, since that could be seen as objecting to a virtually cultural practise that you may not understand or appreciate, and that you have no place to criticise on wiki except from a personal pov, and I'm not interested in an op-ed on my regional vocabulary or dialect from a foreign speaker. To put it into context for you, however, consider the way Aussies say "mate" or you Americans still use "sir" a lot. Just a word, which depending on the situation can be informal, formal, disrespectful, respectful or endearing. Don't apply context where none belongs, it isn't worth your time and effort. Thanks muchly for your intelligent understanding! — Marcus^(talk) 03:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I am aware of its usage, Americans use "friend" in the same manner. Regardless, please don't continue to use that construction here, since in the absence of a informal familiar relationship in which the expression can be taken as just a bit of fun between friends, it implies superiority on your part. I have friends who I can call an "ass" or tell to "fuck off", because we are friends and we both know that there's continuing love and respect underneath the remark, but I don't walk up to strangers and tell them to "fuck off", for obvious reasons -- the same ones that should stop you from using "son", especially during a discussion in which your behavior is a prime element. Don't assume you have an informal friend-to-friend relationship with other editors, assume you have a formal peer-to-peer relationship until shown otherwise, and don't say anything you wouldn't say to a completely unknown stranger, your boss, the head of your school, or the mayor of your town. Simply put don't assume you have license to treat other editors as if they were your friends or inferiors, dude. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

The assumption is entirely on you, Ken. It neither implies friend nor foe. Only you inferred that. Regardless, it's your opinion not wiki policy here and I don't take orders from strangers online anymore than you should be issuing them. Would you have posted the same protest on Twitter or Reddit or YouTube? I say what I please. I didn't give offence, you took it. That makes it your problem, not mine. Haven't got time to listen to your stance on political correctness. If you find "son" hurtful or offensive you need a thicker skin. But since it was not even directed at you, I don't see why you're making it your business. It isn't even on-topic. Please move along, censorship in this day and age really annoys me. BTW I don't have a school, my schooling formally ended over 20 years ago... I have almost 40 years of experience in the usage of my local dialect, I don't need lecturing on its usage from someone who never lived here. I mean, who do you think you are to dictate etymology? And FYI, we do use it to strangers and acquaintances, "Alright, son!" is a very common greeting here, regardless of familiarity. Go figure. Just be glad I'm not from Manchester, they call each other "cock" (#20) there in the same manner as "mate" or "dear", and it's not the phallic term. American brain would go "boom" hearing that? ;) — Marcus^(talk) 04:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Having read the above discussion, that was pretty much the kind of answer I was expecting. It appears that you never do anything wrong, and anyone you see as an opponent can never do anything right -- and you consider anyone who disagrees with or criticizes you for the smallest thing to be an opponent. You appear to have no real sense of scale about disagreements, it's all or nothing at all with you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for the amateur pyschological analysis, friend! Wasn't at all pretentious of you to trouble yourself with such a thoughtful gift. Ta-ta now! — Marcus^(talk) 14:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Can someone just close this and let us move on? Dicklyon (talk) 02:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

MB seems to be somebody who might benefit from a short, gentle reminder of WP:CIV. Simonm223 (talk) 13:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I also support the call for a block. This is totally absurd. No one should get away with this level of incivility.--WaltCip (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

So, just to be clear, Marcus, as far as you're concerned, you can just say whatever you like to anyone and if they "choose to take offence", that's their problem? That sounds remarkably like another editor, that folks might remember, who found he eventually had to change his account name in order to continue editing at Wikipedia. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

No, Martin, that's a Strawman argument. My reference was to the singular use of "son" and not the blanket statement you just misconstrued it into. If I was calling someone a "twat", it'd be to give offense. And FYI, I've never had or needed a fresh start. Isn't comparing people to someone of ill-repute much like posting a "you're a fascist/Nazi!" remark? Certainly has that tone to it. — Marcus^(talk) 18:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see. It's just as if I had called you a Nazi? Please don't address me by first name. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

There's two things about people blessed with a sense of smug superiority: they're always right, and they're perfectly comfortable with that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Kenneth, your repeated commentary here is borderlining on harassment now. Suggest you do one, mate. I'm sure Arbcom don't need another Fram-like character causing aggro while they're still neck deep in shit with that case as it is. Besides the fact, all this talk of "superiority" is nonsense – you're projecting your own self worth and engaging in personal attacks. You're also grandstanding, in your vain attempt to appear influential over others here with non-factual rhetorical remarks. — Marcus^(talk) 18:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

If you think you are being harassed feel free to open a thread a separate ANI thread. Make sure that you can provide concrete examples of the harassment though. MarnetteD|Talk 20:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposal

(A) The indefinite block of Dicklyon is re-imposed for multiple incidents of violating his unblock condition, which was not to make controversial mass moves of articles. Dicklyon admits, in the discussion above, to making mass moves which have since been reverted, meaning that they were controversial.

(B) For multiple incidents of incivility, rudeness and personal attacks, some in this very discussion, MarcusBritish is blocked, the length of the block to be determined by the admin applying the sanction.

• Support as proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support Thank you BMK. There are ways to address the problematic behavior of anyone in any setting without creating a toxic work environment, which MarcusBritish needs to become aware of. I noted earlier his response to concerns about his toxic behavior was more toxic behavior. Recommend that the block duration be until he recognizes his rudeness and find ways to deal with disagreements without said rudeness. This is behavior that would not be accepted in any real-world work environment I've worked in and see no reason for it to be tolerated here. The Community has too long turned a blind eye to such behavior.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  per Lugnuts change to TBAN on page moves. (on proposal A)-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  Annnd-- per Dicklyon's apparent not "getting it" later on in this discussion back to an indefinite block, the sooner the better.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support per above.--WaltCip (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose A and B – rudeness is subjective and since Asperger's are known for their inability to handle social interaction, Dlohcierekim is not the best judge of character. Suggest C: take note of BMK's personal attacks and Dlohcierekim's willingness to turn a blind eye and thank his friend for such remarks. Seems some admins have a buddy system, yet transparent favouritism is not impartial which admins are required to be. — Marcus^(talk) 19:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  Blocked 1 week for the Asperger comment. Discussion here may result in a longer block, at your discretion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  @MarcusBritish: Good grief! This is the very sort of toxicity I've been talking about. And I'm an excellent judge of character. My inability to respond with alacrity in all social settings (I'm getting better) and discomfort in social settings does not prevent me from recognizing rudeness. Seems I'm not the only person here who tends to emotional tone deafness and social awkwardness.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  Further commentary Henceforth, I can no longer be considered neutral or |uninvolved regarding this user. I have never been so infuriated by a comment by another user before (started here in ~2006). I'm used to taking abuse from vandals and LTA's, and people angry over my admin actions. I take it as the price I pay for the job I chose. Never before has a member of the community stooped so low as this in responding to me. If you look through Marcus's removed talk page comments, you will see this has been an ongoing problem to which concerns he has responded with flippancy, personal attacks, and dismissal as irrelevant. Of course, I think he needs indeffed. (furious) But uninvolved members of the community may wish to consider a long-term solution to a long-term problem. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  One more thing before I stop chewing on this. My asperger's impedes my ability to recognize non verbal social cues in face-to-face interactions. In so far as I can tell, I do fine in this sort of setting. And, I might add, am better at adhering to behavioral norms/etiquette than someone I shan't name.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support B, Neutral on A While there may be context I'm not aware of, I don't really see Dickylion as having been all that disruptive. However I'll admit that I may be missing context and will not provide an opinion on whether they should be indeffed. However the behaviour shown by MarcusBritish here, up to and including since Asperger's are known for their inability to handle social interactions regarding another editor here is uncalled for. And what's more, when people have cautioned MarcusBritish that their comportment was insufficiently civil they doubled down. I think they need a time out to consider whether it's appropriate to insult an editor for commenting on your past insults to editors in a thread about the same. Simonm223 (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support both A and B: I will admit to a passing knowledge of military history; referring to large-scale, long-term strategic military plans as campaigns is not incorrect. Both persons here have been disruptive: one to the integrity of the project, one to the atmosphere of the project. On the basis of the actor realizing his error, however, I would like to request, if possible, that the blocking administrator be favorably disposed toward a standard offer for DickLyon in six months' time. Having said that, and noting that MarcusBritish has been blocked by SarekOfVulcan for a week, I cannot see MarcusBritish's particular manner of discussion as being rather helpful; his comportment, even in this very discussion, if I may argue, is and has been wholly antithetical to a collegial atmosphere. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 19:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I am also willing to support an indefinite moratorium on page movement for Dicklyon, as suggested below, in lieu of an indefinite block. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 14:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Support for lesser ban withdrawn, as a consequence of Dicklyon's statement in the next section. It is not his prerogative to declare my vote null and void. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 19:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support B, Neutral on A. As per Simonm223. I've rarely seen a more sarcastic, demeaning and provocative tone than the one adopted by MarcusBritish here. It looks like it's just one big game to him. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I would also support Lugnuts proposal on A making a Tban on page moves. Considering the context available, that seems reasonable. And with regard to B, I'm leaning toward supporting an indef based on comportment here and evidence of past blocks.Simonm223 (talk) 13:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support B as in, an indefinite block, not just a week. I told arbcom when they unblocked him that they were making a mistake. For those that don't know, the last indef block was for, among other things, insulting the ethnicity of a user he was in conflict with. And he was more than willing to take it off wiki, including email harassment, a campaign on youtube, and a death threat against me personally. He's not someone we should have here. I've had occasional issues with Dicklyon as well but he's never tried to incite people to kill me. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Marcus is rather upset about my above remarks, which he claims are lies. The only part of it that is not 100% certain is whether he was in fact the person running the youtube channel in question. There is no doubt about the rest of it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support A & B; both parties are clearly way over the line at which even the loosest assumption of good faith can possibly apply. Neither of them are new users and they're both well aware that what they're doing is both unacceptable and disruptive; if they're not willing to abide by our policies, they're not welcome here. Both cases are, for different reasons, absolutely textbook cases of situations where "indefinite not infinite" should apply, as in "unless and until you undertake to follow our rules regardless of whether or not you agree with them, we don't want you here". ‑ Iridescent 20:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support both Proposal A for violation of unblock conditions. Proposal B for all the ups and downs of how WP:CIVILITY has been handled over the years it is still one of the Wikipedia:Five pillars and MB's actions indicate that there is no intention of understanding that. MarnetteD|Talk 20:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support both per MarnetteD. PhilKnight (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Notice: Per WP:CBAN, Editors who are . . . indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support B - Dunno what Dicklyons unblock conditions are so shan't !vote on that, Reading Marcus's replies here I get the distinct impression they simply don't care about the way they talk to people or our policies here, IMHO they should never have been unblocked. –Davey2010^Talk 21:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose A, Support B. Paul August ☎ 00:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral on A, Support B. The sort of aggressive hostility displayed by MarcusBritish shouldn't have any place here. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 03:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Weak support A, Support B Maybe Dicklyon could have a topic-ban on page moves instead of an indef? I've not paid too much attention to their edits, so they may have already ran out of WP:ROPE. For MarcusBritish, support an indef, seeing as they've already been indef'd once, per their blocklog for personal attacks/harrasment, and their ongoing WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality in this thread and their talkpage post the 1-week block. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral on A, Support Indefinite on B, the latter just for their comments here. --Calton | Talk 10:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support B, Opppose A as I agree with the suggestion above that a topic ban is the more reasonable next step., DGG ( talk ) 17:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• I am immediately blocking MarcusBritish indefinitely per this thread, but discussion on part A needs to continue to reach consensus. Courcelles (talk) 19:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• Neutral on A, Support B - I was already taken aback by Marcus' commentary earlier, but his Asperger's comment is well over the line. I'm indifferent on whether Dicklyon gets a block or a topic ban for the violation of his unblock, but something should be done there as well. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support A (B already has consensus, but I support it, too, FWIW). The discussion above documents at least three examples of Dicklyon performing mass page moves (ranging from scores of pages to over a thousand) on the basis of MOS guidelines that were later reverted. This is clear, repeated violation of his unblock conditions over a lengthy period. There is also evidence above that he was edit-warring on the MOS in support of his position while making one of those controversial mass-moves. The attempted handwaving doesn't really help; "engaged in related discussions repeatedly reaffirming that conforming to that style provision was not controversial" looks good but when you think about it, the only thing it can mean is, "Lots of people objected and I repeatedly told them it's not controversial." In other words, it was controversial, just not in Dicklyon's mind. We don't need this. GoldenRing (talk) 09:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Ahhh, thanks for providing more detail, GR. Support an indef on this. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support A. If anything, Dick has gotten more aggressive with his page moves since this discussion started. Calidum 18:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Hold on here

I just noticed that Marcus was indeffed based on a proposal here, and that it's been proposed that I be indeffed, too, in this discussion that I thought we were done with. Was nobody thinking I might want to be notified, so I could inquire about the "charges" and defend myself? BMK's evidence that my moves were controverial is that some of them were reverted 8 months later by a guy who over-capitalized a whole bunch of articles, including many that were always lowercase, and that included some of the ones I had moved in Oct/Nov 2018 – and thus I am retroactively so disruptive that I have to be blocked?

And why did BMK (not even an admin, iiuc) jump in with such a draconian proposal when things had already settled down between me and Marcus?

I have particular disdain for all those who supported a block before anybody has bothered to say specifically which moves or groups of moves might be considered controversial, and why. There's a lot of hearsay there, but no actually evidence that I can even discuss. Come on people, be sensible please. If someone thinks that some of my moves were controversial, they need to say which ones, so we can look at them, before jumping to these conclusions and a disproportionate reaction. I repeatedly ask Marcus and the Wikiproject Military History to tell me if any of my moves looked wrong or controversial, or to just revert them if so. Did anyone do so? Pretty much not. Similarly in other projects; discussion has generally preceded "mass" moves, so that we wouldn't get into situations where there was any significant disagreement. If you think Marcus's disagreement was "significant", please point out where he said one sensible thing that would make you think that.

Until people point out what I did wrong, with a couple of links, instead of just reading wrong inferences into the discussion above, there is no reason to be treating me as a disruptive editor. If you think I am, show us.

All !votes before now should be considered null and void. Let's see what the case is first, if anyone will present one, and let me respond, then we can talk about whether a sanction is in order. Dicklyon (talk) 15:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Are you under the impression that only admins can make proposals on AN/I? That is not the case. Also, there was no requirement to notify you about a discussion which was ongoing, which you had participated in, and which had not been closed. If you failed to continue to track it, there's nobody to blame for that except yourself.

What you did wrong was to violate the terms of your unblock condition, which was to "avoid large scale, potentially controversial actions such as mass page moves." Above you wrote that you made 75 "campaign" moves, "fewer than 100" lighthouse moves, 900 moves to rivers and creeks, and 1000 jr and sr moves; maybe I missed some as well. Some of those moves may well be non-controversial, but others were reverted in full, which means that you judged wrongly, and that they were controversial. In any case, my interpretation is that you have not "avoided large scale, potentially controversial actions, such as page moves", but have continued doing them as if you had never been indef blocked in the first place. Others may interpret your actions differently, or may see the best solution to be a topic ban rather than a re-imposition of your indef block, and that's fine, but you can hardly be surprised that after being indef blocked for making mass moves, and then being unblocked with the proviso that you avoid mass moves, that there should be the suggestion that you be sanctioned for basically ignoring your unblock conditions. I suggest that you return your indignation to your pocket and start explaining why you shouldn't be re-indeffed or topic banned.

Your suggestion that the !votes already cast be "null and void" is ridiculous on its face, assuming as it does that the !voters are unable to read the clear words in the discussion above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Your interpretation is of no interest to me; I am fully aware of what I wrote above and how you're misinterpreting and misrepresenting what happened. I'm wondering whether someone has an actual case, or will say which moves they think I made were controversial, and why. I realize you reverted a move of mine once, and reverted a few of my edits without comment, but I don't know what you have against me. Did I wrong you at some point? Dicklyon (talk) 21:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: Sorry, no. It's pretty clear you should stop with the page moves. Whether that happens as the result of voluntary action on your part, a TBAN or an indefinite block remains to be seen. Someone has said you have been moving pages since the start of this. That suggest the need for an immediate indefinite block to stop the disruption. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm stopping all moves now that I know there's a proposal to sanction me; a notification would have been nice. That "somebody" is who I already pinged below. And if you think there is "disruption" anywhere here, please give at least one diff, don't just go by "somebody said". Dicklyon (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Calidum: Since you voted to sanction me after I started this section asking for evidence, I'll respond to your remarks. You wrote "Dick has gotten more aggressive with his page moves since this discussion started." I don't know what you mean by "aggressive" here, since each of my moves is made with care and precision, where there is no reason to suspect controversy, in an aim to improve the encyclopedia. So could you point out what recent moves you think were in some way wrong or controversial, and why (and keep the conclusion of the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Military history#Proper nouns in MilHist articles at MOS in mind if you're buying Marcus's argument that his complaints involved anyone but him in that project). That would give us something to look at and discuss, as opposed to all this nonspecific stuff that was provoked by Marcus. Dicklyon (talk) 21:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

So, you're just going to ignore the 8 other editors (9 with Calidum) who !voted to re-impose the indef block (vs. the 3 who opposed it and the 5 who were neutral), and pretend that those !votes never happened because they occurred while you were ignoring this discussion? I doubt very much that the closer is going to take the same position. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Pretty much, yes, since they are just reacting to your misrepresentation of things. I'd be happy if any of them would say why they think I have been disruptive or made controversial moves, or whatever. I can ping them if you think that would help. Dicklyon (talk) 22:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

So you think that this:

(A) The indefinite block of Dicklyon is re-imposed for multiple incidents of violating his unblock condition, which was not to make controversial mass moves of articles. Dicklyon admits, in the discussion above, to making mass moves which have since been reverted, meaning that they were controversial.

is a "misrepresentation of things"? You yourself outlined in the discussion above the mass moves you had made, and you yourself said that some of them had been reverted entirely. What, then, did I "misrepresent"?

A number of editors, including admins, have said -- before I floated the proposal! -- that your actions were violations of your unblock conditions. Are you going to ignore them too? You were taking part in the discussion at that point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Possible legal threat

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

---

on User talk:MarcusBritish‎. @SarekOfVulcan:-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

permalink to dif-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

It's essentially a call for suppression of a comment and sanctions on the commenting user. He does say that the comment is "libellous", but I don't see any threat of going to an outside authority. I wouldn't interpret it as a legal threat. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

They danced right up to the line, but I don't they crossed it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem:However, in their second comment, here, they doubled-down on their comment re: Dlohcierekim and Asperger's, writing that D is: "only proving that he can't handle himself socially and resorts to attacks of his own." An admin might like to take a look at that in terms of extending Sarek's block of MB, and perhaps removing TPA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Considering the gaslighting nature of MB's edits since the block I would suggest that removal of talk page access would be a benefit to the 'pedia. MarnetteD|Talk 00:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree with BMK and MarnetteD. It's one thing being annoyed post-block, and saying something in the heat of the moment, but this is on another level. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

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

WP:STONEWALLING and WP:IDONTHEARYOU by User:Paul Siebert at Talk:Pontius Pilate

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

---

Paul Siebert has been engaged in a protacted and disruptive discussion at Talk:Pontius Pilate#Recent Changes as well as at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is PhD thesis in Theology a reliable source for the claim about authenticity of Tacitus fragment? to advance the fringe Jesus myth theory. Despite repeatedly being told that he is advancing a fringe theory by everyone else involved and being asked to stop, Paul Siebert continues to WP:STONEWALL and dismiss mainstream scholarship as "Christian" (see e.g. [[3]]). He has now at least twice said he would stop discussing/announced an end to the discussion [4] [5], and yet continues to post making the exact same arguments [6], [7], [8]. He has also already been given a warning by User:Doug Weller, to which he has responded with wikilawyering: [9], [10], [11]. He is currently threatening to rewrite all our Jesus/Christianity related articles on the basis of his own personal POV, as can be seen from the various diffs above. I suspect he will soon be making the same arguments over here as well.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I would also add that he accuses other people of being Christian, and spreading "religious propaganda". To anybody clicking on the links above, there is a huge wall of text, you've been warned (lol). T8612 (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Here's a diff on at least one of the religious propaganda accusations he's made [12].--Ermenrich (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Below are the comments on each accusation separately.

• "Paul Siebert has been engaged in a protacted and disruptive discussion." False. I already proposed to stop this discussion and Ermenrich is aware of that fact. That means no admin action is needed, because the actions are supposed to be preventive not punitive.
• "...as well as at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is PhD thesis in Theology a reliable source for the claim about authenticity of Tacitus fragment?". Is anything wrong with asking a question at RSN???
• "...to advance the fringe Jesus myth theory. The fact that the current version of the article calls it fringe does not make it fringe. I am going to collect more data on that account, and then I'll decide if that article needs a major rewrite.
• "...continues to post making the exact same arguments." That is an important point. Ermenrich claims I am not familiar with sources and my sources are fringe. Ermenrich presented three sources to support that claim. I provided the analysis demonstrating that all those sources fully support what I am saying, and one of them is even citing my source (which refuted Ermenrich's allegation I am using fringe sources). This diff is a summary of the dispute (read ## 1-3). Ermenrich does not respond to this argument and continues the allegations of pushing fringe theories. Obviously, I am expecting to see a response, so it is normal that I am asking it again. I have to say I have never had such a low level talk page discussion during my wikilife.
• "He has also already been given a warning by User:Doug Weller" - I believe User:Doug Weller can voice their opinion themselves if they believe there are still some unresolved problems.
• "wikilawyering" Again, let User:Doug Weller comment on that.
• "He is currently threatening to rewrite all our Jesus/Christianity related articles..." Since Ermenrich seems to have forgotten to attach the diff, here it is. As you can see I express a legitimate concern that some sources may be incorrectly interpreted in Christianity related articles, so I need to read them more closely and make changes if necessary. If that activity is punishable according to our policy, then Wikipedia is not the place I want to be :). Ermenrich's "our Jesus/Christianity related articles" is especially interesting: should I interpret it as a collective ownership claim?
• "... accuses other people of being Christian". Being Christian is not a crime, so I don't see how can it be interpreted as an accusation.
• "religious propaganda" Is Wikipedia a secular encyclopedia, and can religious ideas be presented (as a statement of facts, not as a subject of discussion) outside of the articles specifically devoted to that?

In summary, I think this report is frivolous. I don't insist on WP:BOOMERANG, however, a warning should be issued to Ermenrich.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I think many editors would agree that challenging (RS or DUEness) theology studies sources (of any religion - including Christian) being used for sourcing the historicity of religious figures... Is sound editing.Icewhiz (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Icewhiz, The issue is not that he asked, but that it was part his WP:OR strategy to use the Tacitus passage's disputed status to argue that Jesus didn't exist- never providing a source that said that one depended on the other.

in fact, he was challenging its use in the article talk page rather than in the article, on the mistaken impression I was arguing with him about it.Ermenrich (talk)

The source saying that has been provided ... by you. See a statement in bold ("The only source for this event is a brief passage in the historian Tacitus.") --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

You linked to it in your first post [13], clearly without knowing what was in it. He's been doing this a lot, I think it probably counts as WP:GASLIGHTING.

Ah, misinterpreted what he said. The source says that the only source for the Neronian persecution of Christians after the Great Fire of Rome is this passage in Tacitus, it says nothing about the existence of Jesus. But that's really neither here nor there. It's a pretty good example of his use of WP:OR though; he's using sources on Tacitus to make his own conclusion that Jesus didn't exist.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Had you answered this my question two days ago, we would probably avoided this incident. I've read your source in full, and I agree that you were right regarding Nero and Christians; however, since you provided this source as a support for the claim about historicity of Jesus, I thought the author was talking both about Christians and Jesus. Anyway, this your source does not support your thesis, because it clearly says Tacitus wrote this passage based on rumors about Christ that already had wide circulation in 110-120. Tacitus was wrong even about Rome fire (which happened in Rome 30 years after Jesus alleged death), and it is highly unlikely he had any first hand account on the events in Judea in 33 AD. However, all of that hardly belongs to ANI.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Look who's still not participating in this discussion! As I've said elsewhere, only you were arguing about whether Tacitus supported the historicity of Jesus. I simply quoted the source that you (again [14]) introduced into the discussion for how we should organize the article not to discuss "Christian mythology" to show that it didn't support your opinion and it happened to mention Tacitus.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

You are right, this source was initially proposed by me. I think now you realise how important is to explain your point of view: had you pointed at this my mistake earlier, that would save a lot of time. Anyway, two other sources still exist, and they were found not by me. Regarding Tacitus as the only source, listen, it is a common knowledge that Tacitus and Josephus are the two sources the whole concept of historicity of Jesus rests upon. What do your sources tell about other early non-Christian sources? Can you name at least one?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

"Being Christian is not a crime, so I don't see how can it be interpreted as an accusation."

This is this either demonstrates an incredibly poor understanding of the English language, an attempt at gaslighting or a mockery their fellow editors. Claiming an editor holds a faith which they do not in an attempt to discredit their opinions is incredibly offensive and bad faith, and in that it is an accusation as used as a layman term.★Trekker (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe. Doesn't holding a faith that Jesus really existed mean being a Christian? I write "faith" because it is based on just two small passages from Josephus and Tacitus, which are widely recognised anachronisms or later additions. No other evidences (if we do not consider the Gospels reliable) prove Jesus existence, so we have absolutely no ground to claim Jesus ever existed. Therefore, everybody who believes Jesus (the God or just a human) really existed is, to some degree, a Christian.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

No. You have to believe in the divinity of Jesus. Guy (Help!) 20:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe. But I think you agree that if the discussion moves to the question on who can be considered Christian, it definitely does not belong to ANI?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not remotly a "maybe". Muslims also belive Jesus existed but not that he was devine.★Trekker (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I have been vaguely watching this discussion balloon from afar: one note in re Paul Siebert has been engaged in a protacted and disruptive discussion: since his starting the discussion here to the time of my writing here, more than 70,000 bytes have been added to the page by all parties, including by my count 82 edits by Paul Siebert totaling a net +18,286 bytes. A couple of thousand bytes were after the edit Paul points to above as I already proposed to stop this discussion [15]. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I also note that Paul Siebert takes Errmenrich to task for using the phrase "our articles", suggesting that it's a form of ownership, and yet in the same comment uses the phrase "our policy". Clearly he understands the idiomatic use of "our" meaning "Wikipedia's", as he uses it himself! Not impressive. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

"A couple of thousand bytes" is a different discussion with another user who claims we have no reason to speak about WP:OWN.

Regarding "our", although I have already been accused of poor understanding of the English language, I believe I can feel a difference between the statement "he is going to change our articles" (which implies some contraposition) and "our (i.e. both yours and mine) policy says..." (which has no such implications).--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

No there really isn't any difference unless you're really trying to find one very hard to try to justify what you're doing.★Trekker (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Considering I've never edited any of the Jesus articles, historical or otherwise, that's a pretty weak argument.

I'd also like to note that Paul used this same tactic of claiming to have stopped discussing one thing but continuing to argue "about something else" before in the discussion [16].--Ermenrich (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, there is a big difference between you Ermenrich and me. You have reported me and request some action - I do not. And, by the way. I see no problem with stopping one discussion and starting another one: is it really not allowed by our rules? Please, don't make this report even more frivolous.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

And here you are, continuing to discuss something else again I suppose?--Ermenrich (talk) 20:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Is there any rule that prohibit me to discuss something else?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the discussion has come to a logical end, and I am not going to participate in it unless you present something outstanding (which is hardly possible).--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

What exacty about this looks like an "end" here?★Trekker (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

"The end" means there is nothing here that belongs to ANI (except, probably, the fact that the report is frivolous). Good luck. If you have other questions, please, post them on my talk page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Well once again you're wrong. About pretty much everything on topic.★Trekker (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• As noted above, Paul Siebert was given a final warning by Doug Weller, and has nonetheless continued with IDHT, bludgeoning, and making bad faith accusations of being "Christian" to editors, which (a) is not really a valid Conflict of Interest if the sources are followed, and (b) is based on poor logic, since the existence of the historical Jesus is generally not controversial amongst historians of any faith. You need to learn to work with your fellow editors, stop trying to insert your own interpretation of sources to get different results from mainstream historians, and also accept consensus, otherwise sanctions will follow.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

You are inaccurate. Doug Weller explicitly specified his warning was not a final warning. Second, regarding "continued with IDHT", you should have noticed that even before Doug's interference I realised continuation of of the discussion was senseless (at least, until I read more), and I am just commenting on what other people say. Thus, a recent exchange with Ermenrich on this talk page or with Treker are responses to their posts.

Third, calling anyone "Christian" is by no mean accusation, although it may be inaccurate. Regarding "sources are followed", there is a question of due weight: my opponents dismiss my sources (without providing any evidences), whereas I accept their sources, just propose to re-organise the article's structure for a sake of logical consistency.

"stop trying to insert your own interpretation of sources". Our WP:NFCC rules do not allow us to copy large pieces from sources, so we all have to insert our own interpretations. In that sense, I see no difference between me and other users. To blame me in inserting my interpretation of sources is tantamount to blaming me in editing Wikipedia. If my interpretation is wrong, prove it by presenting quotes and arguments.

Again, consensus is not a vote: when people say "you are not right, because the source you are citing is fringe (according to ref X)", or "you are not right because the source actually says Y", I usually accept that. The problem is no such arguments were presented in this discussion.

I am editing a number of highly controversial articles, and I never faced so low level discussion before. Don't you think the problem may be on the other side?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Claiming that someone is of a faith they are not to try to diminish their opinin is insulting and an accusation. Stop trying to gaslight.★Trekker (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, as far as I know, Wikipedia is not a politecorrect place, and it is quite ok to make a guess about someone's faith. Per WP:DUCK, if someone's posts look like they were made by a Christian, it is natural to propose this person is a Christian. You may accuse me of insultin someone only if I knew in advance a person was not Christian. Nevertheless, I agree that was impolite; as impolite as calling me fringe theorist or POV-pusher. In future, I will avoid this type rhetoric, and I expect you to avoid yours. Ok?--Paul Siebert (talk)

This is laughable. If you think I'm a Christian you couldn't recognize an actual Christian if it bit you in the ass.★Trekker (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I doubt ANI is a good place for discussing that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Wrong again. This is exactly the place to bring it up since your constant bad faith assumptions is one of the main reasons no one has sympathy for you. Do you honestly think this is going to lead anywhere but you getting told to knock it off?★Trekker (talk) 23:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Please, provide a single rational argument. All what you are saying is not possible to discuss, you just say "I don't like your fringe theories", but you never explained why you believe they are fringe. When arguments are so irrational, that creates an impression (ok, a wrong impression) that I am dealing with a deeply indoctrinated religious person. Since you claimed you are not such a person, then behave accordingly: give me rational arguments.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, we have to do a degree of interpretation, in selecting sources, but that's all the more reason why consensus, and following the findings of secondary/tertiary sources rather than primary ones, is so important in maintaining a neutral point of view. Your arguments are not neutral since they go against the mainstream scholarly view that Jesus was a historical figure. And nobody but you is arguing for that point of view. You could conside starting an RFC, or using some of the techniques suggested at WP:Dispute resolution, if you genuinely think there is some aspect of this that a wider audience might interpret different from the other editors in the discussion. But continuing to argue the same point over and over in different venues, and casting aspersions against other users by suggesting they have a faith-based conflict of interest, is an unacceptable way to continue the debate. I have struck the "final" part about Doug's warning, thanks for correcting me on that.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

First, the whole conflict lasts just a couple of days, so I just have no time to think about RfC or something of that kind. Second, the visibly high number of my opponents is deceptive: actually only few of them presented any addressable arguments. I believe you must agree that "You are totally wrong" or "stop POV-pushing" are not the arguments: usually, I expect to see something more serious. Maybe, my repeating questions were the attempt to force people to present something more concrete? I noticed Ermenrich started to explain their position more clearly (on this page), which is already a progress. I hope that will help us to find an exit from an impasse.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Once again you ignore one of the main issues, which is that each time someone made a claim you disagreed on you simply deflected by claiming that "only Christians think that". Which is bad faith to say the least.★Trekker (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

"Each time?" Are you sure? In addition, let me remind you that the whole conflict started because you two accused me of pushing fringe theory, despite the fact that I was presenting top quality modern reliable sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

There it is again, acting like you don't grasp figurative language. And no, this issue was started because you kept insisting on forcing fringe theories.★Trekker (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Please, provide a single evidence (a quote from a reliable modern peer-reviewed scholarly source) saying the theory I am advocating is fringe.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

We are under no more obligation to refute you here than if you claimed the moon landing was fake or the holocaust didn't happen. We've pointed you to sources several times by linking to Historicity of Jesus and Jesus myth theory and you each time simply claim Christian bias and "religious propaganda". Every single person who has commented has said that it is mainstream among historians that Jesus existed.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

At first glance, this looks like a content dispute. But when I looked more closely, there is something very deeply disruptive going on. Paul Siebert argues that anyone who believes that some guy named Yeshua or something similar was an actual dissident Jewish teacher in and around Nazareth 2000 years ago is a Christian, whether or not they worship him, consider him divine, call him Messiah and Savior, or reject him. Even third generation atheists like *Treker who might possibly believe this guy really lived are actually Christians, in Paul's thinking. Even Jews who denounce him as a false Messiah are actually Christians, if they believe he really lived. All Muslims must be hidden Christians in Paul's analysis. So, Paul espouses a bizarre and highly idiosyncratic definition of who is or isn't a Christian. In order to claim to be "not Christian" in Siebert's worldview, a person must vigorously deny that Jesus ever existed. Siebert also argues that Christian sources are not reliable when when evaluating the historicity of Jesus. By redefining who is a Christian, Siebert's thinking leads to the logical conclusion that only those few fringe sources who vigorously deny that Jesus ever lived are acceptable in these articles. That's a highly disruptive line of thinking when it is advanced so tenaciously and at such great length. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Cullen³²⁸ See my comment below: a reliable source I cite on the talk page directly says that many scholars who study Christ [share similar goals and perspectives with believers. Obviously, the same relates to the users who shares the views of those scholars. Therefore, my allegedly "bizarre" statement almost literally reproduces what a top quality reliable source says, which means it is properly sourced, and completely shatters your main argument. In general, the fact that I can work with sources and I do that very well is well documented: there is a publication in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal saying that the user Paul Siebert uses a very professional approaches to identification of reliable sources. You can read it yourself here.

Furthermore, it seems that as a result of the hot discussion the main idea appeared to be lost: I never proposed to remove any information from the articles about Christ, my proposal was that the non-Christian historical sources should be clearly separated from what the Gospels say (in the same way many books present this information). This quite modest proposal caused such a vehement reaction that I got an impression I am dealing with devoted Christians (and the article cited below reinforced this my belief).

I am not responsible for the ideas that I didn't express someone put in my mouths (to separate different type sources into different sections and to weed out some sources are two totally different ideas, aren't they?), and I expect you to carefully read the discussion in full before posting your opinion. A good analysis is provided by Lurking shadow below.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Ermenrich That is absolutely not the case: you are not supposed to refute me, you are supposed to prove you are right. Redirecting me to other Wikipedia articles is a kind of disrespect ("I-am-too-lazy-to-bother-explainng-my-viewpoint-read-it-yourself"). Claiming that the sources I am presenting are fringe is even a worse disrespect, especially taking into account that the sources your own sources cite the article presented by me as a trustworthy and mainstream view. A normal argument should be built like "Your claim is fringe because the author X and the author Y say that. The authors Y&X are renown scholars because their works are widely cited and are published by ZZZ university press..." This type arguments are easy to address (either refute or accept), and I am sure that the discussion organized in this way wouldn't lead to any conflict. That is how discussions on other talk pages are organized, and that is what I expected here. I am very disappointed. Your support of my topic ban is the more disappointing. This does not worries me. I cannot imagine how can a community topic ban a user who made not a singe contoaversial edits to the articles that fall into this topic, and who made no personal attack, and who even had no opportunity to start any RfC or mediation due to the short time that passed since the moment the conflict started. What is worrying me is the fact that people who study Christ seem to approach to Christian with assumptions shared by the believers, and also share similar goals and perspectives with believers. As you can see from this link, this is not my conclusion, this is the opinion published by Sage journal Studies in Religion. That means if you share the view of these scholars than that relates to you yourself. That means, accusations in promotion of Christian propaganda is not a personal attack, it is the conclusion made based on what a top quality reliable source say. It is very sad that a group of users who are currently working on some Christianity related articles share this view. I am afraid by starting this discussion I unadvertely opened a can of worms that may require a global arbitration. However, I am still believing we may come to some consensus that will save our time and efforts.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Please do not try to tell me or other editors what we are supposed to do here, Paul Siebert, because I will always do what I believe is best for the encylopedia, and as an administrator and experienced editor, I have concluded that you should no longer be editing these articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

You probably noticed the "ec" template: that my comment was directed not to you. I didn't see your post when I was typing. My next comment is the answer to your post.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Im replying down here so we dont fracture into so many small threads. Paul, the basis for your proposal at the article is your fringe view that anyone who says Jesus existed is a Christian and therefore too biased to count. No one has agreed with you on either editing the article as you wanted or in your basic premise, but you have simply repeated yourself over and over again. You're doing it even now. As I dont think you will stop, in fact you've said you're going to "examine the sources", no doubt in the same way you've been "examining" them until now, and "decide" whether to rewrite other Jesus articles. Of course I support a topic ban.--Ermenrich (talk)

Absolutely not. My proposal was just to rearrange the article's structure without removal of any content. Regarding my alleged statement about someone's Christianity, as I already explained above, that is just an slight extension of the idea published is a highly reliable mainstream source (the reference is provided above, if you doubt the source is reliable and non-fringe, ask a question at RSN).

Therefore, if you disagree with that, you can direct your objections to the author of this article. Anyway, since the discussion about someone's alleged Christianity was not aimed to lead to any changes in the article's content, I sincerely cannot understand why we are discussing it here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:DE?

Since I have been accused of WP:DE, I've re-read that page to verify what is applicable to this case (not only to me). Below is my analysis:

WP:DAPE says that a user is engaged in DE when they

1. "...continues editing an article ..." I haven't edited this article for a very long time. Another party did (which is ok).
2. "... Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research." During the discussion I provided more sources than all other participants taken together. Another party failed to demonstrate that at least one my source is unsatisfactory.
3. "...Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging", etc" Not relevant to me, because I did no changes in the article space.
4. "Does not engage in consensus building:

"a. repeatedly disregards other editors' questions..." I responded to virtually all questions (that is why the talk page discussion is that long. Another party did disregard my questions repeatedly.

"b. repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits." Don't know. Maybe someone can provide an example?

1. "Rejects or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment," Since the start of the conflict I initiated an RSN discussion. Another party made a post at Christianity portal, so both parties are ok.
2. "Campaign to drive away productive contributors:" I obviously didn't, and what we have here is an attempt of another party to drive me (a productive contributor) away.

My conclusion is that we are dealing with some elements of DE, but the party engaged in it was not me. I am also grateful to Lurking shadow for a thoughtful analysis of the conflict. It may be helpful in future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:DE is by no means limited to article space. And you've cherry-picked sentences in the guideline while blatantly ignoring WP:IDHT. Softlavender (talk) 06:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I doubt IDHT is applicable to a discussion that lasted less than a week. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm in the midst of moving houses and thus can't use my laptop to provide diffs, but its extremely disenguous of you to claim to have provided more sources than anyone else. As you were repeatedly told, the article content you wanted changed was sourced to RS and supported including the crucifixion in Pilate's life. You repeatedly dismissed these sources with accusations of Christian bias or misrepresenting Helen Bond as a theologian. You never produced a single source arguing the crucifixion wasn't a historical event in Pilate's life, you just argued about the off topic issue of whether Tacitus proves Jesus existed - at great length.--Ermenrich (talk)

We both were arguing about Tacitus, and that was not a topic I was going to discuss originally.

Regarding the number of sources, tust count the sources presented by you. I don't remember other participants presented anything significant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I was not arguing about Tacitus. I agreed that the section was likely a forgery, and that that was of little weight.★Trekker (talk) 04:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

In general, I have a strong feeling that majority of the users who expressed their opinion built it not on what I wrote, but on what others wrote about me. Therefore, let me remind all of you that:

• In a separate post, I explained my position and explicitly wrote that the edits I propose do not imply any source will be removed, just rearranged to bring everything in system. I also specified that I object not to the content itself, but to the way it is presented.. Therefore, it would be correct if P Aculeius provided a diff that supports the claim" "he's not just arguing that the other editors are wrong, but that their opinions, all of the opinions of scholars who disagree with his position, and all of the evidence that weighs against his opinion are wrong, invalid, or inherently biased because they disagree." In addition, the P Aculeius's opinion seems to be based solely on the fact that I am intended to make edits that P Aculeius believes support a fringe position. The only proof that it is fringe is some WP article says, and, since Wikipedia is not a source for itself, this opinion is not supported. Simply, P Aculeius supports topic ban just because they do not like my viewpoint (without providing any sources or similar evidences). I am also disappointed that Amakuru finds this frivolous rationale convincing.
• I would like to see a diff that proves the Cullen³²⁸'s assertion about my "bizarre opinion that anyone who concludes that Jesus was a historical figure is therefore themself a Christian". I suggested to stop "Christian propaganda", and this my statement was based on what high quality peer-reviewed source says: it says that the researchers writing about Christ share similar goals and perspectives with believers, and, again, that is not my assertion, that is a published fact. It is quite possible to spread (intentionally or non-intentionally) a Christian propaganda without being a Christian, which means the claim that everybody who disagrees with me is Christian does not follow from my words. That means Cullen's conclusion follows not from the words I wrote in reality, but from the interpretation of my words made by others.

In summary, I suggest everyone to make their conclusions based on the words I wrote, not on the interpretations made by others.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

You should probably stop repeating the same arguments that you're right here. This is not the place to relitigate whether or not the Jesus myth theory is fringe. Prior consensus clearly establishes that it is. You still can't drop the stick.--Ermenrich (talk)

"Prior consensus clearly establishes that it is" Please read WP:Consensus can change what to do and what not to do when there was prior consensus.Lurking shadow (talk) 15:20, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Ermenrich, it seems you are not reading the posts you are commenting on: where did I mention Jesus myth theory in this thread? I would say it is you who are constantly returning to this subject. Regarding the "stick", my position has modified during the discussion, yours has not.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

The more I am reading the thread below the more I am asking myself: are my opponents reading my posts, or they are discussing some other Paul Siebert?

★Trekker's A, B & C sounds totally bizarre: one cannot request a ban for refusal to recognize historicity of Jesus. Whereas I, along with Lurking shadow, totally agree with B and C, your B and C have no relation to me: I never called anybody "Christian", as I explained in this section, I accused people of spreading Christian propaganda, which is absolutely not the same. That wording may be awkward, but that is essentially what a reliable source I presented says: "many scholars who study Christ share similar goals and perspectives with believers". If you stick with what those scholars say you (inadvertently) share these goals and perspectives too, and that does not necessarily mean you are Christian. Therefore, taking into account that many people on this page uncritically reproduces this false accusation, I expect you ★Trekker to explicitly withdraw it, for I am not responsible for the words I never said. You should either provide a diff where I call anybody a Christian, or withdraw your B & C and apologize.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

How about this [17]? I think it's clear from reading the thread that this is a conduct dispute that got heated, but that post is just gross. How are you supposed to read that as anything but accusing him of being a Christian (as if that would somehow negate his viewpoint)? Red Rock Canyon (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Pasta for all!-- Dlohcierekim (talk)

::What exactly do you find incorrect in that statement? I was accused of ignoring the arguments presented by others, and I responded that the person who throws this accusation ignores my own arguments despite my repeated requests to address them. What is wrong with that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

You asked for an example of you calling someone a Christian. I think Can you remind me which of your beloved Gospels says "Physician, heal thyself"? is pretty clear-cut. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, I was addressing to a person who was vehemently advocating historicity of Jesus and the Gospels. Does it mean I called them Christian? If that is the case, than the statement a person X loves pasta immediately implies they are a Pastafarian.:-). Please, provide something more serious.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen enough. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I just said I "do not" want for you to be banned or blocked. Why are you questioning if I read your comments when you're clearly not reading mine very well? I ask of you the minimum, to accept that your theory is simply considered a fringe theory among the majority of experts and can thus not be treated as anything but a fringe theory, and for you to stop assuming bad faith of people who don't agree with you on the topic. I don't want you to be banned even if you refuse to do those things, but I will think less of you as an editor if you can't conside that you have been wrong in accsing almost everyone who disagreed with you of being Christians.★Trekker (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I got confused: your B and C related to calling someone Christian, not to some fringe theory. Obviously, my words "your beloved Gospels", similar to "your beloved War and Piece" only imply you are a proponent of some idea (in this concrete case, the idea of historicity of the events described in the Gospels). That is why your accusations were absolutely groundless: when I say someone is spreading Christian propaganda or when I say "your beloved Gospels" that doesn't imply I am making a hypothesis about the faith.

Regarding that ostensibly fringe theory, as I already explained, I am going to read more on that, because I suspect the article misinterprets some sources, and some other sources are missing. If this my hypothesis is correct, I will edit it. However, since I don't know if I am right, I cannot tell in advance if I am going to do that.

By the way, my procedure of identification of reliable sources is transparent and neutral. I am saying that because a reliable source exists that says so about a user Paul Siebert (me). Therefore, everyone will see how I am finding sources, and in the case if someones believes my sources are fringe or cherry-picked, that will be easy to check and fix.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

no one has questioned whether you've made valuable contributions to other areas of the encyclopedia. But if you start advocating a fringe theory (and of course there is a tiny minority of scholars on the fringe who support it), you'll be being disruptive.--Ermenrich (talk)

You failed to demonstrate the theory was fringe. The only evidence was a Wikipedia article. Currently, I DO NOT KNOW if this theory is fringe, because I haven't read all sources I am planning to. It may be fringe and may be not, however, this discussion has no relevance to the original thread. Please stop driving the discussion in a wrong direction.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

And what do you think this is about?--Ermenrich (talk)

Frankly, I consider this report stupid and frivolous, and I do not understand what it is about. Incivility? I think majority of the commenters do not think so. A length of a discussion? It is not that long as many other discussions I was participating in. Disruptive editing? I have done zero questionable edits. Pushing fringe views? Again, zero sources have been provided to demonstrate this view is fringe (the relevant WP article should be closely examined in terms of fact checking, accuracy and neutrality). What else? I don't know. Your frivolous report have distracted many fruitful users - for what? I don't know. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I currently count 7 editors in favor of a topic ban of some kind based on your pushing of fringe views. I suggest you rethink your strategy.--Ermenrich (talk)

I suggest you to be more accurate in your statements. Only a fraction of them cite fringe pushing as a reason. Majority of others seem to have come to their conclusion based on the false accusations thrown against me. In the unlikely case if a situation will develop in an unvaforable way, it will be easy to demonstrate, with diffs, that most of what I ostensibly wrote was written not by me.

In addition, you seem to mix consensus with vote. Legitimate concern of those who oppose has not be addressed, so there is clearly no consensus about any actions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Stop playing dumber than you are. You know very well you were implying over and over that I must be a Christian because I agree with the overwhelming majority of historians.★Trekker (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

See my response to Lurking shadow below.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I am still under an impression the subject of this discussion is not my humble person but someone else. Thus, P Aculeius writes "He just needs to refrain from disruptive editing in the article space, for instance by deleting or dismissing valid sources and opinions based solely on his own interpretations of the evidence, or by giving undue weight to what is, essentially, a crackpot theory that's been rejected by virtually all mainstream scholarship for the last century. " Well, whereas I totally agree with that, why P Aculeius forgot to add "he should also stop beating his wife"? I made ZERO changes in the article space, I removed NO sources or content (it was my initial intention to restore the old article's version, but I clearly explained few hours after that that I meant restoring old structure, not removal old content). I also clearly explained, even before the ANI report was filed, that I am intended to read more before I make a decision about changing the Christianity related articles. P Aculeius, you are acting in a good faith, thank you, but your are discussing hypothetical actions that I may (in your opinion) take in future as if I already did that in the past. That is highly misleading. Even I myself have not decided yet what exactly I am going to do. By the way, in general, it is not my habit to remove sources when rearrangement of the content or addition of new sources may solve a problem. The question if some theory is really fringe is not a subject of this discussion. The Wikipedia article says it is, however, Wikipedia is not a source for itself. I can tell you honestly, I myself don't know if mainstream sources say it is fringe (originally I thought the view that Jesus was a historical figure are fringe, but now I see a situation is more complex), and I am certain nearly 100% of participants of this dispute do not know it either: they just read what the article says. I am going to read more on that subject, and, depending on the result, I either will edit this article or leave it as it is, and my peers have no right to prohibit me to do that without knowing what these edits will be.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear, in English, refrain from means "avoid", not "stop". If you read my replies carefully, you'd notice I never accused you of having edited the article disruptively; that's why I withdrew my support for the proposed topic ban, as suggested by another editor. I said that all you really needed to do to avoid a topic ban was to refrain from disruptive editing—since the changes you were proposing to make appeared potentially disruptive to all of the other editors who weighed in. As long as you have no intention of editing articles disruptively, this ANI can be resolved in your favour. The ball is in your court; the rest of us will be in the gym, doing our Pilates. P Aculeius (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but you must agree that when I am saying "He should refrain from beating his wife", that implies there is some non-zero possibility he may do that. I was not going to edit the article disruptively, and there is no evidences that I ever did that. I made clear what exactly I was going to do, and what I am not, and I am a little bit offended people are seriously discussing a possibility I can do something I never planned to.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Do you think you should have written this?

In that linked contribution to the discussion you say:"Indeed, only a religious Christian can believe Pilates was responsible for execution of Jesus, because other people know there were no Jesus. "

By using logic that means that you assert(there, in that sentence) that all people who believe Pilates was responsible for the execution of Jesus are Christians. Maybe it was spoken in the heat of the moment, but the concerns of these people do not come from thin air.Lurking shadow (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Good catch, you are right. Frankly, when I started that discussion, I sincerely thought no reasonable scholar believes in historicity of Jesus, because the Tacitus passage is either forgery or hearsay (when he was writing that Christianity had already been popular, and that myth had wide circulation), and the Josephus fragment is later addition. However, during this discussion I realized many serious (in all other aspects) authors believe in this bullshit (note, I do have POV, and I concede that). However, since a significant number of sources that are considered RS by Wikipedia say so I came to a conclusion that many authors or WP users may share this view without being religious Christians. As you already noted before, my viewpoint may evolve when I face new facts and reasonable arguments. Therefore, by the moment I was writing about "Christian propaganda" (next day) I was keeping in mind that some author/user may share this view on Jesus without being a religious Christian (which is a big surprise for me).--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

That's partly the point. But part of the point is that some people in that discussion might be atheists who believe that Pilates was responsible for the execution of Jesus and might have been quite displeased to be called Christians.Lurking shadow (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

That is exactly what the source presented by me says: many scholars who study Christ share the views of believers (although they remain atheists in other aspects). Interestingly, the same source says those who study Mohammad are less affected by that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe. But your argumentation is "All people who think X are Y" Those who aren't Y at all and but think X might feel personally attacked by that statement, even if it was not your intention.Lurking shadow (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Listen, I already explained that was my point of view on 29th July. It has changed in light of what I learned.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Clearly not since you keep peddling that stuff bellow.★Trekker (talk) 04:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

★Trekker, I will be honest with you. Until the end of July 2019 I believed the idea that historical Jesus ever existed looked as a flat Earth theory to me. I was surprised to learn it is not a fringe theory. I still got no evidences that the opposite theory (a.k.a. Jesus myth theory) is fringe, however, I was surprised to learn that many scholars writing about Christ are still sharing some idea with believers. Since a direct google scholar search gives a lot of references to various religious and theological writings, my analysis of what view is majority, minority or fringe has not been finished yet, however, my preliminary conclusion is that the theory that you call "Jesus myth theory" is by no means fringe.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey Paul Siebert, are you not allowed to reply to me down bellow where I actually leave my comments? Because it's going to be rather hard to follow this conversation if you just add your comments above with a ping to me.

As for your thoughts on what is and isn't fringe, you're clearly so biased that nothing you say can be taken seriously in my opinion, so what if you don't think that it's that fringe, I have 0 faith in you being able to judge something like this objectivly. Maybe it isn't as fringe as majority of historians think/act like, but I'm sure not going to trust you to teach me about that. Also, you're honestly going to claim you never once encountered the idea that Jesus was an actual person and this was accepted among many? What? Were you raised on some anti-intellectual Maoist commune? Did you not receive some history lessons during your education? I was raised in Sweden, possibly the most atheist country in the world, with parents and grandparents who never believe in God as long as I was alive, yet in my history lessons and talks with relatives it always seemed clear everyone knew Jesus life was based on actual historical events.★Trekker (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea, but I find it more convenient to discuss everything here.

Regarding my alleged bias, you also look biased to me. Moreover, I believed the views you are sharing are totally fringe (I mean is not shared by a scientific community), and only after I started to search sources I realized that is not the case.

Usually, when I start working on some new topic I am using the same simple trick: I call this game "a ignorant Wikipedian". This game is as follows. Suppose you know nothing about Reichstag fire and what to know what is the mainstream view on that subject. You go to google scholar (not google) and type something neutral. Something like this. The top 20-40 sources that are well cited usually give you an rough impression what majority sources say. Then I examine the sources that cite these sources, and so on. Suppose some other Wikipedian disagrees with my choice of sources. In that case they may propose their own search results, using a different keywords, but I can always say "hey, you are using not neutral search string!". If another party uses neutral keuwords, we usually find similar sets of sources.

The problem with this particular topic is that 99% of sources I found so far are either indoctrinated religious writings or some articles published in obscure journals (nothing in common with America Historical review or similar good journals). Therefore, I still haven't got a ultimate answer for myself on how exactly I am going to edit Christianity related articles.

You arguments about allegedly fringe nature of the JMT look absolutely non-convincing. Actually, you provided ZERO arguments; now I realize that happened because you believed any reasonable person is supposed to share your views. Unfortunately, to me, the opposite was obvious: any educated and rationally thinking person was supposed to share MY views. Now I realize the actual situation is more complex, however, I still haven't come to a final conclusion what is a majority view of scholarly community on that subject. One way or the another, I don't think this discussion should belong to this page. I will be glad to continue it later on some other page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe next time you should do some proper research first before 1. demand other editors justify the current state of a Wikipedia article, 2. you talk about rewriting an article / undoing major changes, and 3. you come up with theories like "people who believe that Pilates was responsible for the execution of Jesus are Christians". Robby.is.on (talk) 23:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Actually, a neutral search according to the above described procedure provides the sources that confirms my early claims. Thus, one of the articles that appears among the top 10 results ("Pagan origins of the Christ myth") says "The myths and legends concerning such pagan christs as Osiris, Horus, Adonis, Krishna, etc., were later interpolated into the biography of Jesus", and insists the Christ myth (sic!) has a pagan origin. That means any other person doing a neutral search would find the same information. I admit, this neutral search also provide sources that support Tracker's view. Thus, the first source, "Shattering the Christ Myth" by James Patrick Holding says (page xii): "Jesus Christ theorists are amateurs to whom professional scholars pay little attention. And finally, Jesus really was God (as opposed to being defied after he died)." I am not sure if the author was serious, however, if he was, that kind of a proof is actually a perfect demonstration of my point: that those who are trying to debunk Jesus Myth theory are actually spreading Christian propaganda. Note, I just asked GoogleScholar, picked randomly two sources from the top of the list, and one of them says that Christ is a mythological chararacter of pagan origin, another says that those who believe Christ never existed are amateurs and Christ is a God. Do we need more evidences that I was right, that I am not pushing fringe theories and my opponents are spreading Christian propaganda? I admit my conclusion may be premature, however, that is the conclusion any neutral person would come to had they typed "christ myth theory" in google scholar and take first two relevant sources (the first four were not available for me).--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how much I can take this anymore. Every single thing you spout out is an arrogant deflection and projection of your own issues. You clearly have an innate dislike of Christianity, Christians, anything that is related to Christianity and anyone who doesn't share your views on Christianity and it's history. I am not biased on this topic, I have no reason to be, I hold history of Jesus and his legacy no higher than I do other historical figures (as a matter of fact I hold people like Alexander, Caesar and Augustus in far higher regard than him). Even when I personally disagree with the majority opinions of historians I can at least accept that I am indeed in the minority. For example, I don't go around and and demand Wikipedia claim the Iliad is more factual of the Bronze age than most historians think, even if I do hold that opinion.

The simple fact is that the JMT is a fringe theory and that has been the accepted consensus on it for as long as I can remember! All you have done is arogantly barge in and claim me and other people are spreading "religious propaganda" and are secret "Christians". When called out on this you simply try to gaslight and claim "well being a Christian is not a crime so how can it be an accusation?!!!" and "oh if I said you loved pasta you woulnd't be upset!!!!".★Trekker (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, although the question of my attitude to religion is my private business, I can tell you that I am an agnostic, which means I separate religion and knowledge. I am perfectly ok when the article is written solely based on Christian and theological sources, but I am totally oppose to the idea to mix science and religion.

Regarding JMT, read my response to Robby.is.on: I decided to play my "ignorant Wikipedian" game, and the result is as follows: a totally neutral person with ZERO preliminary knowledge about JMT will find two sources, one of them says Jesus myth has pagan origin, and another says JMT is fringe AND Jesus was God (sic!). I believe you must agree that the first conclusion this person will come to will be that the opponents of JMT are religious Christians. I by no means endorse this conclusion, but it looks natural, doesn't it?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Funny you seem to care about religious beliefs being ones "private business" all of a sudden. You had no issue calling me and others Christians and ignoring that I insisted I was an atheist. Also, history as a field of knowlege is not generally considered a "science".★Trekker (talk) 00:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I expected you to answer to the major point of my post, because the results of my search looks pretty unexpected and interesting even for me. Unfortunately, you seem to be more interested in continuing the quarrel (I will be happy if this my conclusion is wrong). Actually, under "private business" I meant that my own attitude to Christianity and religion in general does not matter. However, I am not making a secret from it, and I am telling you I am agnostic (not atheist), which means my attitude is neutral. Moreover, I think Christianity had a very positive impact on the development of science. And, again, I already explained to you what I meant under "religious propaganda". If you want my frank opinion, all story around "religious propaganda" is very simple: since admins do not like to go in details of content disputes, so the best way to win it is to convert it to the conduct issue. You are free to decide if such a behaviou is honest.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

1. I am tired of trying to educate you. 2. My main issue is and has always been that you insult your fellow editors by assuming bad faith, that's why two of my requests (wherein I said I did not wish a ban or block on you) were about you learning to not do that again, but you have not even begun to realize that you have done anything wrong. 3. I don't really belive a word you say anymore, you do not seem like an honest person at all in how you have comunicated so far.★Trekker (talk) 01:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

★Trekker, Actually you request me to concede I called you Christian and apologize. The problem is that I didn't call you Christian, I said you are spreading Christian propaganda. I already explained (on the talk page) what does it mean, and let me do that again:

In some sense, we all, you, I, other users are Christians: we accepted some concepts, we observe Christmas and sometimes Easter, we all know Gospel stories, etc. We may be religious or not, but to some degree we all reproducing, partially, Christian narrative which is a part of our culture. However, one thing is to tell a story about Christ to our children, and another thing is to add them to serious history articles. That is what I meant under "Cristian propaganda". Have I been clear enough this time?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Please stop already, it's getting embarrassing. Do you honestly think anyone is going to buy this drivel? Or are you honestly so arrogant that you believe your own lies? Christian means one thing and one thing only, to accept Jesus as the savior.

Also easter is originally a Jewish tradition and my family only celebrate Pagan/secular holidays amongst ourselves, such as Midsommar, Valborg/May Day, Jul and Lucia. I only observe "Christmas" with fellow Wikipedia's the same way I would "observe" Eid for my Muslim friends in real life.★Trekker (talk) 04:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Let me remind you that our civilisation is called Christian civilisation despite the fact that only a part of the Western world are religious Christians. Please, allow others to use this terminology at their own discretion.

Regarding Jewish Easter etc, each of us only partially observe Christian holidays (I myself do not observe them at all), however, emotionally Jesus is much closer to me than Mohammad or Buddha.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

No. My home is not called a "Christian civiliasion", that's not a word I've ever seen used to describe my culture, Sweden is a secular nation and has been for a long time. So no, I'm not going to be fine with you labeling me a "Christian", especially since you've clearly used this technique to try to mock me and diminish my opinion. You can call yourself that if you so feel like it, (not that I belive for a second you would do it for any other reason than to try to misdirect over how you used it to insult me and others).

I also find it very disturbing that you seem to refer to something as "ours" here, I have no idea exactly where you're from but if you're implying something is "ours" just because both of us are European that does not appeal to me in the slightest. I feel no kinship with other people just because they happen to have also been born on the same continent. I don't think I have a lot in common with you.★Trekker (talk) 06:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Don't you find ironical that you, who accuse me of a negative attitude towards Christianity, deny the fact that our civilization is still Christian, whereas I defend this view? What about Protestant ethic as a significant social-economy factor? Anyway, these minuscul details are hardly relevant to this talk page.

I am living in the West, and our common home (Sweden is a part of the Western world, isn't it?) is traditionally called "Christian civilization". Modern leftists trends are gradually changing this situation, but I stick with more traditional views, and, despite I am agnostic and former atheist, Christianity is still emotionally closer to me than Islam or Buddhism. And it was normal to assume was even more applicable to you as soon as you were defending an odd (in my opinion) idea that Jesus really existed. Indeed, taking into account your position on Jesus, it was quite natural to assume that. Retrospectively, I understand that I shouldn't have to make this statement, but I couldn't know that in advance, and I already explained that to you. However, if that does not resolve the problem, that somewhat shakes my belief in your good faith, for it looks like you are just looking for a pretext for pretending you are feeling offended. I sincerely believe I err.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Stop gaslighting for the 1000th time, every single thing you've done wrong you're trying to peddle off on me.★Trekker (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

am I doing that by saying I was not right????--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Well you're now implying that I'm prejudiced towards Christians, some thing which I've clealy expressed that I feel you are. And accepting partial guilt while simultaneously saying that "oh you're just pretending to be insulted by my insults" is gaslighting yes. You want to on the one hand act like you accept you were in the wrong, while still feeling justified in how you acted. That is not genuine. ★Trekker (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Remember what I wrote about my English? I probably didn't convey my thought adequately: I said I realize retrospectively I was not right, but by the moment I wrote that I had no reason to think I was not right. If you do not accept that as an apology, then you are just pretending you were insulted, and your actual emotions are different. I will be glad if I err.

Ok, ★Trekker, if that will make your life easier, and to save our time and page space, I formally apologize. As I already posted below, I will be absent during next two weeks, so I will not see your responce. I hope it will be peaceful. :-) --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what "err" is. Also, demanding people accept apologies on your terms is not very something which I think seems very genuine once again. I would love to be able to see your apology as completly sincere, (because I do belive based on what other people have said here that you have done great things for Wikipedia as an editor and I stand by that I don't want you banned in any way, and I really hate to be on bad terms with any other editors), but I also can't really claim I find you to be a particularly honest or pleasant person. But in the end I guess you can never truly know what people hold in their minds, so I will assume good faith here and take it you do realize it was poor judgement which lead you to say those things. Have a nice vacation.★Trekker (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Elephant in the room: CIR

Now that My very best wishes brought it up below [18], [19], I think it's time to address the broader issue of WP:CIR and what Paul Siebert's net purpose and contributions to Wikipedia are. Aside from posting literally hundreds of thousands of bytes across multiple pages promulgating the WP:FRINGE theory of the non-existence of Jesus of Nazareth, Paul Siebert has engaged in similar if not worse behavior on other Wikipedia pages: [20]. In nine years he made 3,301 posts to Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes (he made only 195 to the article itself), driving good editors like My very best wishes away. He made 1,760 posts on Talk:World War II (making only 352 edits to the article itself). In less than 1.5 years he made 920 posts on Talk:Communist terrorism [21] (making only 84 edits on the article itself). He has made more than 100 posts to at least 18 article talkpages on Wikipedia, usually running into the several hundreds per talkpage: [22]. His pie-chart is an extremely lopsided 64% article-talk and 15% article: [23]. My observation is that Paul Siebert's purpose on Wikipedia appears to be to expatiate at exporbitant, unheeding, and extremely repetitive length on article-talk pages. He does not adequately seem to be here for collaborative purposes or to built an encyclopedia, and he seems broadly to lack the competence to participate in collaboratively building an encyclopedia. It seems at this point, and this current massive fringe-pushing is a case in point, that his presence on Wikipedia is likely too disruptive (we already know he is dominating conversations and driving good editors away) for him to continue. Softlavender (talk) 01:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Regarding FRINGE, in the previous section, I just presented the results of my neutral search aimed to figure out if the claim the JMT is fringe. I agree that it is probably quite possible to find sources that support your view ... if you want to prove your already existing viewpoint. But what happens when a person who knows nothing about JMT wants to learn about it?

First, this person goes to google scholar (or jstor, or isi Thompson-Reuter, or Scopus, but NOT is google). Why? If you are competent, you will explain me that.

Second. This person types some neutral phrase ("Jesus myth theory", as I did, but not "Jesus myth theory fringe/debunked/refuted").

Third, this person reads sources that appear on the top of the list and are cited by others. I did that, and everybody can repeat this procedure to see I was not cherry-picking. And what Ii found? One of the first source says JMT is rejected by serious scholars AND Jesus was God (sic!). What conclusion a neutral person will come to? I think the answer is obvious. Another source says Jesus is a mythological character, and he was produced after pagan myths about "Osiris, Horus, Adonis, Krishna, etc., were later interpolated into the biography of Jesus."

I believe everybody will agree that the logical conclusion this person will come to is pretty obvious, and that will be NOT the conclusion will not be in favour of your viewpoint. Currently, I am not advocating this conclusion, because I am at the very beginning of the process of sources analysis, however, it is obvious that there is some ground to believe your claims are questionable at least.

Finally, I am among few Wikipedians (if not the only one) who is known to work with sources very professionally. That fact has been published in a reliable source which is easy to find. This source[24] says Paul Siebert constructs himself as a model informationsearcher (according to his user page he has a PhD so this is perhaps not so surprising).He claims no biases, uses the information technology of choice for Wikipedia editors(Google Scholar) and applies the criteria of peer-review as a means to filter potentialinformation sources. And the sources he finds I think would be viewed by the majority of librarians or scholars as decent enough....

Again, that is an opinion about me published in the source that meets all top reliablility secondary sources criteria. That means you are expected to present something more serious that your baseless allegations, for outstanding claims require outstanding evidences. And all of that cast a serious doubt on your own competence.

Regarding my posts on other talk pages, believe you or not World War II is a very high level article, it is being read by nearly 100,000 persons every day, so we, the users who are working on this article do that very cautiously, and discuss every change on the talk page first. However, if you find this habit non-productive or disruptive, you may directly ask JoshRamirez29, User:Jack90s15, Jack Upland, Nick-D, Volunteer Marek, this and others about that. --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

And, as soon as you mentioned Mass Killings... article, if you can do anything but counting the number of edits (I sincerely believe you can), you should have probably noticed that the article was under severe edit restrictions for several years, and after that was fully protected during 6 years or so. Each new edit was supposed to be supported by consensus, and only after some admin implemented it. It is not a surprise that to put just a couple of words in teh article users had to type thousands words on the talk page. The fact that you overlooked this circumstance does not add credibility to your assertions in general.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever in my years on this site seen an editor with such a high opinion on themselves. Fine, you seem to have some reason to have a high opinion of yourself, that doesn't change that you have been increddibly rude and assumed bad faith during the majority of this whole ordeal. If you can't actually act in compliance with Wikipedia's demands you shouldn't be here. We don't need editors who scare away other good editors. No matter how good you are you're not infallible, which you act like you are, (clearly you're not very good with ancient history). How about take some of the criticism so far to heart and maybe better yourself?★Trekker (talk) 02:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Trekker, be logical: when someone throws a bizarre accusation of my incompetence, the best way is to respond in the same exaggerated way. The same source that I already cited says that sometimes Wikipedia breaks standard criteria of competence, but does not replace them with equally good new rules. The first thing Wikipedia needs is a good content: it is the world's most important informational resource, not your hobby. Regarding "we dpn't need editors who scare away other good editors", if you are really good, it is not easy to scare you, because your arguments are strong, and your statements are hard to refute.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is most definitely my hobby. I'm not going to break my back bending over to please you and your delusions of grandeur. I'm not obligated (nor is anyone else) to do a single thing but abide by Wikipedia's guidlines when I edit, I edit for fun, not some obligation towards the world, if I got bored with Wikipedia tomorrow I would quit without a second thought. This is a volunteer effort, not some job we get rewarded for, if you scare of people they're not going to be automatically replaced because the "position" is vacant, doesn't matter how good you supposedly are at citing if no one wants to work with you. People aren't scared of your opinons or sources, they're scared of your forceful, rude, arogant, manipulative and disingenuous personality. Also, none of the accusations so far have been remotely "bizarre", you acted like a di*k and refused to consider other peoples positions as anything but "biased Christians", now you're here and people are telling you exactly that.★Trekker (talk) 03:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, it is a hobby for both of us. Obviously, what I meant that the primary goal of Wikipedia is not to be your hobby.

And I neither expect nor want anybody to bend over. My post was an answer to a blatantly incompetent accusation in incompetence.

Treker, believe me, the only situation I am pleased is when my arguments are addressed using even stronger arguments. I love convincing people I am right, and I equally love when someone convinces me I am wrong. However, by convincing I mean not "You are obviously not right, XXX people say you that", but "You are not right, because there is a logical flaw in this your argument, and the source Y was misinterpreted by you." THAT type of arguments I gladly accept, and I that is what I call "to show respect".

By the way, you probably noticed from my habit to put "the" totally arbitrarily that English is not my mother tong (one friend of mine even told be he can easily that resognise a document was written by my compatriots based on very specific mistakes we do when we place "a" and "the"). Therefore, I am not surprised some nuances of my English may create a wrong impression of rudeness or arrogance. However, that is just a wrong impression. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

No Siebert, I do not belive that the "impression of rudeness" comes from minor slipups in English writing. I don't belive you're bad at English at all, I think on the other hand that you use the fact that English is not your first language to feign ignorance.★Trekker (talk) 03:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I thought my English writing skills were more poor. Actually, I meant not grammar, but cultural aspects. In my native country we are more direct, which creates a wrong impression of rudeness. And, in addition, where is your own assumption of good faith? I told you I had no intention to insult others, I told you I have an impression I sometimes am not feeling some nuances that may insult others - then point my attention at that. As a rule, when that is explained to me I am trying to avoid this tyupe wording.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

My good faith assumptions towards you kinda died after the third time I asked you to acknowledge that accusing people of being Christians to diminish their opinions is not cool and very unfounded.★Trekker (talk) 04:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, if I say that it was not the most wise statement I made during that discussion, will it resolve a situation?

Let me also note that your repeating posts "you are obviously wrong, just admit it" were really annoying and they insulted my brain, for I usually expect such claims to be supplemented with some real arguments. I consider that behaviou deeply insulting, so, please, admit we both were not right in that dispute.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not surprised your brain felt insulted, you seem like the type who can't comprehend when someone doesn't bend over and accept everything you say. And no, I'm not giving in to your poor bargening here, "well agree we were both in the wrong", that would be disengenous on my part becuse that would mean I feel we were anything near equally guilty. We are not. You barged in to a subject demanding stuff be done and having a long time plan for several other pages without having even a good grasp on the subject at all and then proceded to make a complete fool of yourself by insulting people left and right when they had a different opinion. This is once again an attempt at gaslighting by moving the guilt on to someone else. No sympathy.★Trekker (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I dont have access to that article, but finding sources that are "decent enough" in an article whose abstract says Wikipedians deal "shallowly" with sources and dont invest much time in them feels like fairly light praise. Also note the paper says "Paul Siebert constructs himself as a model informationsearcher" not that you are one. That's not to say you didn't do a good job at the Vietnam article, but I don't think your mention in that paper amounts to much based on what I've seen.

Just as an example of some questionable source practices you're displaying now: You neglected to mention that the paper that supports the Jesus myth theory you found is from the 60s, and the pro paper is clearly not representative. I suspect you dismiss any journal with "biblical" in its title, am I wrong?--Ermenrich (talk)

this link should work. Let me know if you were able to download it. In a case if it is not working, here are some quotes:

" It is Paul Siebert, champion of the more traditional information routine, who digs deeper into the sources than anyone else,using contextual knowledge to argue against the inclusion of RAND reports (this particular report was not highly cited in Google Scholar and RAND itself, being heavily obligated to the US Government, cannot be considered an unbiased agent). He also appears to have actually read the Moise article and provides an outline of the argument showing that it does not rely uncritically on Communist Party newspapers. He also qualifies Porter’s errors regarding the Khmer Rouge, noting that little information wascoming out of Cambodia at the time and hence many were fooled..."

"the history of the substitution of these three sources for the others generally agreedon through the RSN is an interesting one–the switch was made on 19 February 2013,only a month or so after the RSN debate. The comment accompanying the change wasmerely:“Use original sources”. This time there was no Paul Siebert to intervene and thechange remains up to the time of writing."

And he wrote not just "decent enough", but "viewed by the majority of librarians or scholars as decent enough....".

Frankly, I don't like to cite this article, I have to do that because people accuse me of incompetence.

Actually, what is more interesting in this article is the concept of Pfister’s destabilisation: "Wikipedia destabilizes familiar information routines, that is, changes the criteria we use to judge expertise, albeit, I would argue, without replacing them with much that could be construed as progressive". I think we are having here exactly the same situation: you are claiming I am incompetent without setting good competence criteria. Actually, the only reason you guys claim you are competent is that you achieved a consensus among themselves. I do not claim this is a bad criterion, but I doubt it is good either.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I've just noticed two good question you asked. Here are my answers:

• "You neglected to mention that the paper that supports the Jesus myth theory you found is from the 60s, and the pro paper is clearly not representative." That is why I am using a totally transparent procedure: you got an opportunity to put forward this argument. Here are the results of another search that includes only the 2015-19 period. The first article I has access to is this. I had no time to read it, but it discusses Buddha and Christ myths, and the author seems to be a proponent of JMT.
• "If I I suspect you dismiss any journal with "biblical" in its title, am I wrong?" It depends. If the journal is published by Pergamon, Springer, Whiley, Cambridge University press, SAGE and similar publishers, the journals are quite ok. If they are listed in ISI Thompsom-Reuter, can be found in jstor, that is a sign the journals are good. The above paper seems to be published in a journal of some society of Brazilian scholars, so it is ok too. I don't know yet about other journals that publish Christianity related papers, let's think together.

In addition, I think the word "biblical" or something of that kind is not a kind of a stop sign that immediately disqualifies such a journal, however, when some journal published papers that seriously discuss Christ's miracles, or contains statements about divinity of Christs (similar to what Ii presented above), that immediately makes impossible to use sich publications as sources in the WP articles in the same section with the content obtained from scholarly journals. I expect you agree with that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Responding to the ping above, I'd confirm that Paul's high number of edits to Talk:World War II is due to the conventions regarding this very high profile article, where significant proposed changes are discussed before being made, sometimes in great detail. Using this as a stick to hit Paul with suggests a total lack of research - it actually demonstrates that he's making a valuable contribution to the article. I've worked with Paul for years on that article, and while we don't always agree I greatly respect the constructive way he conducts himself in discussions (I'm both the second-most prolific contributor to discussions at Talk:World War II and the second-most prolific editor of the article BTW - I hope this isn't a sign that I'm disruptive!). Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• At this point, I would support a ban from Wikipedia. It seems to me that he tries to disgust active members from contributing by swarming them under massive walls of text and deliberately misinterpreting other editors' arguments, shifting goalposts, etc., but only on the talk pages. I have to say he is very talented at doing this, and that it is a very clever way to maliciously influence Wikipedia without being spotted, since he barely contributes to the articles—some members have even defended him on this very fact here. T8612 (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't agree with that at all. Paul makes a great contribution to articles on World War II, and engages very constructively in talk page discussions. Nick-D (talk) 23:10, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps he makes good edits on WWII, but if you read the actual topics discussed, you'll see that his contributions are considered disruptive, to say the least. T8612 (talk) 01:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

From above and below, I don't find this at all convincing. It really does look like a "closed shop" using exaggerated complaints to try to force someone out of the topic space they're guarding. The false claims about Paul's editing in fields I'm familiar with which are being used to beef up the complaints regarding his editing on topics related to whether Jesus existed actually dramatically undermine these complaints to my mind. Nick-D (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I dont know and I dont really care whether Paul makes good edits on WW2. But his behavior at Talk:Pontius Pilate was atrocious and I think hes likely to do it again. Even if the Jesus myth theory IS just minority and not fringe, hes very clearly POV pushing and refusing to engage in either intelligent debate or accept consensus.--Ermenrich (talk)

I don't know if this is related, but in this edit, he used the Twinkle ROLLBACK (vandal) tool on an IP user that isn't vandalism. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 07:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

If that was the case, than that was definitely wrong. Probably, just hit a wrong button. In general, I use it very infrequently.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban

Since 29 July 2019 Paul Siebert has thus far made 82 posts totalling 47,000 bytes to Talk:Pontius Pilate, in a single thread [25]. No one has supported his proposals or arguments, and they have been objected to by eight editors: Ermenrich, *Treker, Urg writer, Ltwin, P Aculeius, T8612, Andrew Dalby, and Johnbod. He has been asked to desist (due to clear lack of consensus) by uninvolved editors including Furius and William Avery, and has been asked to either desist or create an RFC by uninvolved editor Softlavender. He was also formally warned on his usertalk [26] by Doug Weller. Nevertheless he has continued to voluminously argue with others, even in the face of repeated warnings that this would go to ANI if he persisted.

In the face of this endless WP:DE and WP:TE, I propose one or both of the following Topic bans:

1. Topic ban on Pontius Pilate.

2. Topic ban on Jesus and Christianity, broadly construed.

-- Softlavender (talk) 02:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support topic bans on both Pontius Pilate and on Jesus and Christianity, broadly construed, as proposer. Enough is enough, and Paul Siebert will continue his crusade onto other articles if he is banned only from the Pontius Pilate article. Softlavender (talk) 02:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support topics bans on both Pontius Pilate and on Jesus and Christianity, broadly construed. The discussion above gives me no hope that Paul Siebert has learned anything from this experience so far, and I think if he does not receive these topic bans now he'll just disrupt the project more on other Jesus/Christianity related articles in the future, as he indeed has said he intends to do. (This is only my second time at ANI, so I apologize if I'm not supposed to vote as the person who brought the complaint).--Ermenrich (talk) 02:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support topics bans on both Pontius Pilate and on Jesus and Christianity, broadly construed. I explained my thinking in detail in the section above. In brief, Paul Siebert's bizarre opinion that anyone who concludes that Jesus was a historical figure is therefore themself a Christian is so illogical that it disqualifies this editor to work in this topic area. Ermenrich, you are fine. You are welcome to express your considered judgment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on Christianity broadly construed which should be understood to include any Biblical as well as other notable figures in Christian history Their tendentious WP:PROFRINGE editing and WP:IDHT behavior in this discussion is enough for me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose There are some things that lead me to believe that there is more than one problem. We should not act with great haste on this complicated situation:

Just a bit more than 10 minutes after Paul Siebert started the discussion Emenrich started to inform the Christianity portals: [27] Shortly after that Ermenrich described good faith editing as vandalism. Also, there is a general pile-on by people from the Portal. This is a problematic edit by Paul Siebert, because it says that "Indeed, only a religious Christian can believe Pilates was responsible for execution of Jesus, because other people know there were no Jesus." which is a sweeping generalization indicative of a strong POV. A similar edit comes a bit later:[28]. The next problematic edit comes from *Treker, who insists that "no one is going to support your idea", a phrase easily used to stifle legitimate discussion. This makes clear that a source used is unreliable(That's not problematic, indeed, that's progress). [29] A source of unknown reliablilty, can someone else research that? Here we have a significant number of sources cited, by Paul Siebert. I don't have enough time to research if they are fringe sources or not... Another batch of sources? Also, something that looks like an attempt to come forward... This is a good point bringing the discussion forward... and then we have this post. Siebert argues moderately, and even changes their viewpoint(!) a bit. And he is correct in that the other side of the discussion failed to provide an adequate number of reliable sources to that point! Contrast this with the the next contribution. This is the point where Softlavender comes in and argues that there is clearly a consensus against Paul Siebert's opinion, a viewpoint that my analysis does not support. There are more people on the other side, but less sources provided in the discussion. They also assert that the discussion is becoming disruptive because of the number of bytes, but that's simply a bad idea to say, as long as there is progress. The next person comes in and asserts that there is something wrong with one editor arguing against multiple editors; saying this just after that person moved their viewpoint a bit in that direction cannot be a good idea. I suggest that these advocating a ban look at the next link: [30] The frustration and the reasoning there are totally sound to have.

TL;DR:Paul Siebert is making long, sourced arguments against a number of editors giving little sources; is indeed contrary to the assertions taking the others into account, including changing their opinion. On the other hand, the other editors do not directly provide sources, with one or two exceptions, and demand to be seen as consensus because they have the numbers. Lurking shadow (talk) 04:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. He's still clearly editing against WP:CONSENSUS, and repeatedly engaging in WP:DE and WP:TE. No one out of 12 editors (some of them completely uninvolved) agreed with him. Wikipedia operates by WP:CONSENSUS, not by who posts the most or the longest or lists the most sources. Softlavender (talk) 05:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

That's extremely wrong. He isn't editing against consensus, he is arguing something trying to get to a consensus. These arguments have been opposed by other editors without much good reasoning as no consensus from very early on in this discussion. That they changed their views on the subject a bit already is also definitely not a sign of tendentious editing, at least not a sign of continued tendentious editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lurking shadow (talk • contribs) 05:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Nope, that's tendentiously and disruptively editing against a very clear consensus and repeated requests to drop the stick. Perhaps you don't know these things, having made less than 300 edits on Wikipedia [31], but you already have a topic ban of your own [32], so maybe you're not the best commenter on this subject. Softlavender (talk) 05:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Can you please give me some diffs of tendentious editing? Or disruptive editing? Can you please tell me why the debate is supposed to have reached its natural end by having only circular arguments anymore? I see a bit of circular discussion. But mainly in the middle of the debate. I also see, however, a break into new arguments and into a new viewpoint near the end of the debate, shortly before you came in.Lurking shadow (talk) 05:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't matter how long or "sourced" your arguments are if what you're saying is still nonsense.★Trekker (talk) 10:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on Christianity broadly construed as phrased by Ad Orientem above. I have had no involvement with the editor (that I can recall) and have not been involved in the articles, but wading through the discussions including the one right here makes it very clear that this is tendentious and disruptive editing that has taken up a lot of time from other editors. --bonadea contributions talk 07:56, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on Christianity broadly construed which should be understood to include any Biblical as well as other notable figures in Christian history (ie per Ad Orientem). My advice and warning clearly didn't work and he doesn't seem able to drop the stick. I also note that he said that I was an involved editor on the basis that in April 2015 I reverted an era style change and then later in the thread on his talk page that I was involved because of the discussion on his talk page. Admin involvement doesn't work that way. Doug Weller talk 10:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban as construed by Ad Orientem. [see below] Not being an administrator, I think this may be the first time I've weighed in on ANI, and I don't take this position lightly. I know how it feels to be certain that you're right, even when everyone else in the room disagrees. But I also know when to drop the stick, and Mr. Siebert doesn't seem to; indeed, he's not just arguing that the other editors are wrong, but that their opinions, all of the opinions of scholars who disagree with his position, and all of the evidence that weighs against his opinion are wrong, invalid, or inherently biased because they disagree. Based on the tone of the discussion and his own statements, I'm concerned that he'll try to implement what I consider, and what Wikipedia's own article on the topic of the Jesus myth theory says is a fringe position, potentially on numerous articles. I note from his talk page that he seems to have been a productive editor in other fields in the past; and I'm not questioning his claims of good faith, but as established in the "disruptive editing" topic, good faith isn't a defense against DE. So at least for now a topic ban seems to be the right solution. P Aculeius (talk) 12:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban as construed by Ad Orientem. - P Aculeius talks a lot of sense, and this seems to be the best remedy, given that Siebert is not hearing the multiple voices telling them that they have pursued this too far.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• Strong oppose topic ban. This seems to be almost entirely confined to a single overly-wordy section on one page and a single relatively brief WP:RSN request; that falls far short of anything that could be reasonably called disruption on its own. When people talk about WP:IDHT on talk pages, it tends to mean much more extreme stuff than this - stuff that requires people clean it up, like starting countless redundant discussions on multiple venues, not just being intransigent in one discussion, confined (mostly) to a single section. WP:IDHT in particular talks about sanctions only in the context of Although editors should be encouraged to be bold and just do things if they think they're right, sometimes a lack of competence can get in the way. 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, which is clearly talking about actions and about more actively disruptive talk page editing (things that have to be "cleaned up", WP:BOLD actions that are actually reckless, etc), not merely intransigence in a single talk page section - a topic ban shouldn't be used for "jesus, why won't he shut up?" How have things been disrupted for anyone who just stays out of that one discussion section after dropping their opinion there a single time? All else aside, I'm not seeing why the people in dispute with him can't just... ignore him? They're capable of WP:DROPTHESTICK as well, since plainly he lacks consensus to actually implement his changes and (at least, I assume, based on the fact that those diffs would obviously be the key part of discussion if this weren't true) shows no inclination to actually try and implement his proposed changes against consensus. Sometimes the solution is just to stop talking - nobody is forced to "clean up" his talk page comments; once it's clear he lacks consensus (and once they've dropped their opinion in once to make that clear), they're free to wander off. I'm also not seeing any evidence above that the editor has actually been a problem in this topic area outside of this one dispute, which is, again, confined to one section and one small WP:RSN request (people imply he'd just wander off to another page, but... that's something you have to show from his edit history.) What this looks like is a bunch of people on all sides refusing to back down and stop arguing with each other long after debate has reached a natural conclusion. But the article-content thing seems settled, so nobody has to actually keep arguing this - no one is forced to spend time replying to him - and, conversely, that means that Siebert's comments are hard to really qualify as disruption, especially since (by my reading) this is all essentially confined to one talk page section on a single article. If Siebert were starting new discussions over and over or across countless different venues, sure, that would be disruptive, but in this case nothing seems to stop anyone else involved from saying "we've said our piece, it's clear consensus is against you for now, bye." Also, finally - it seems like nobody has even attempted an WP:RFC, which is the obvious dispute-resolution step when someone refuses to accept that they've reached a consensus. Leaping to WP:ANI to demand a topic-ban over refusal to accept a consensus, without even taking that first obvious step to shut down this sort of protracted discussion, seems to me to be extremely premature. I'm not saying an RFC is necessary given the lopsided discussions - I think people could just stop replying to Siebert, as I said above, since he's shown no actual inclination to put his edits into effect once it was clear how many people opposed them - but if they want this decisively resolved, that would be the obvious step, not a topic ban. People accuse Seibert of ignoring suggestions to create an RFC, but it's unclear why (if they feel discussions are going in circles or are no longer productive, or if they think there's a clear consensus that Siebert is refusing to accept) they couldn't just create that RFC themselves. For that matter, nobody has tried hatting the discussion or, well, anything beyond just arguing in circle and then leaping straight to ANI) - Siebert reverting attempts to hat the discussion, for instance, would be more convincing WP:IDHT than "he won't stop talking in this one section and we, for some reason, are unable to resist replying." Am I missing something here? The support for a topic ban, above, seems absurd - yes, it's possible to require one just from WP:IDHT on talk; no, this doesn't seem anywhere remotely close to a point where it could be legitimately considered, let alone actively supported. We have countless methods to resolve situations like this before reaching for sanctions. --Aquillion (talk) 13:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • An 800-word wall-of-text poll !vote? No wonder you don't understand the problem. It's nonstop endless posts like this that disrupt the project with endless distraction. Not replying to someone who threatens to disrupt other articles if he fails to get his way (or to revert to his desired version if people do not meet his demands) is not an option. It is up to the person who clearly does not have consensus to stop their disruption, especially when asked repeatedly by both involved and uninvolved editors and even administrators and when told repeatedly that more disruption will result in ANI and probably a topic ban. Ignoring those simple and clear requests and protocols is not only the essence of WP:DE and WP:TE, it is also the essence of WP:CIR, and the fact that the editor is continuing their nonsensical campaign on this ANI thread is more evidence that there is a fairly serious WP:CIR problem that may come up again even with the topic ban in place. Softlavender (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
    • He made one comment (his initial post at the start of the section) suggesting a change to the article - entirely reasonable given that nobody had weighed in yet to establish consensus and the initial rewrite was WP:BOLD - and one other comment suggesting a related broader change which was clearly shot down. In neither case did he suggest he would push those issues once it was clear he lacked consensus; characterizing him as someone who threatens to disrupt other articles based on that is torturous to the point of bordering on a personal attack. Anyone is going to look bad when they have eight people arguing against him, and obviously he should have shut up long ago, but continuing a single centralized discussion, on a single talk page, when nobody has made any effort to resolve the discussion beyond repeatedly replying to him, is obviously not disruptive. (Again, nobody has attempted even the bare minimum of hatting it, marking it as resolved, or one of the numerous methods available to shut down discussions that are going nowhere.) And, honestly, you are not helping your case by immediately accusing the second oppose !vote of being disruptive; obviously I'm going to be wordy when it seems like so many experienced editors are missing multiple vital aspects of this discussion. WP:IDHT, WP:DE, WP:TE and WP:CIR are not tools to resolve disputes, they're there to resolve actual disruption - things that require time and effort for editors to repair, not just discussions that you can't personally resist wasting time on. "I want Paul Siebert (and Aquillion and Lurking Shadow, I suppose now) to shut up" isn't disruption. --Aquillion (talk) 14:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
      • You can see a bit of tendentious arguing, initially. But this link, especially "Moreover, I realized I was partially wrong, and in reality a part of scholars still believe the Tacitus passage about Christ is authentic (although many of them conclude he just reproduced a story told by some early Christian). For me, that is a new information, and I am glad I found it." does not look like a stubborn WP:IDHT editor that edits to further some bias. Rather, it looks like an editor who does have some initial bias and has assumed things about sourcing wrongly but is able to re-assess that based on what others said. They have heard it. Just not right away. Lurking shadow (talk) 14:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
        • Except that hes actually still wrong and arguing about something completely extraneous to the matter at hand.
        • Also, I'd like to note that I was very publicly sharing my draft on the article's talk page. Paul Siebert could have easily commented before instead of simply threatening to undo everything.--Ermenrich (talk)
          • That they are wrong is your opinion. Did you back up your reasoning that it is a fringe theory by directly naming sources that say it is actually a fringe theory? Did you back it up by directly naming all the established sources and pointing out that the vast majority of them reject that theory? WP:TE goes both ways - a theory isn't fringe just because you believe so or because a Wikipedia article currently says so(Wikipedia articles are not a WP:RS).Lurking shadow (talk) 14:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
          • It is not unusual that people only realize that there is something they disagree with happening to an article when you actually edit that article.Lurking shadow (talk) 14:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

As I stated above, I and other editors pointed to the sources cited in the article, all of which assume the historicity of Jesus as non controversial. Paul Siebert simply dismissed those RS and started using their own logic to disprove Jesus.--Ermenrich (talk)

• Support Pontius TBAN, Oppose Broader TBAN - I feel the reasoning made is sufficient to prove both disruptive and quite possibly CIR issues. However, while I certainly recognise the risks of the tendentious editing (though on talk pages) moving to related themes, I am disinclined to make such a broad TBAN until required. The fact that they aren't causing article-editing disruption means the editor isn't out of control. I strongly considered opposing the TBAN entirely, but I felt that a reasonable case had been made. I don't know if the editor will improve, but there is certainly more chance than with others we've seen. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: that's a good point, why don't we wait and see if Mr. Siebert actually begins removing valid sources without adequate reasons, or inappropriately inserts Jesus Myth theory into articles? Obviously the theory exists and can be mentioned in appropriate places and with the proper tone—although as it's a fringe theory it could easily be given undue weight if added to every potentially relevant article. But it's hard to judge instances without seeing the proposed additions, which in any case could be edited collaboratively if necessary. So calming down and waiting to see what happens before implementing a topic ban seems eminently sensible. As Aquillion says, it's not disruptive editing unless it actually occurs in the article, and can't be adequately dealt with by the usual means (such as trimming or rewording). P Aculeius (talk) 14:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I think he either gets tban'd now or it will happen later. I dont think he'll be able to write productively on these subjects.--Ermenrich (talk)

You're probably right, but a topic ban at this point would amount to what we might call "prior restraint", i.e. an administrative sanction for something that hasn't happened yet. So far, he's only argued that he ought to revise/revert/rewrite a group of topics to reflect a certain viewpoint. While imposing a topic ban would prevent him from doing so, it would also prevent him from making legitimate edits, and go on his record, so it's not entirely harmless. And unlike the types of harm against which you might seek an injunction, anything he does can be revised or reverted if necessary, leaving no lasting harm. And that would be the time to consider imposing a topic ban. P Aculeius (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment All I honestly want is A) for him to accept that the current majority opinion among modern historians is that Jesus existed, B) for him to stop acting like accusing other people of being Christian is not an attempt at diminishing their opinions on this topic, and C) realize that not everyone how belives Jesus existed is a Christian or even religious for that matter. I do not ask for a topic ban or even a block.★Trekker (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

B and C are definitely requests I can endorse based on what I have read. I will not expect them accepting A at all unless you can actually back up that it is the current majority opinion with reliable sources that say that it is the majority opinion(and even if it is - not every theory opposing the majority opinion is a fringe theory); and with backing up I mean linking these sources and explaining how they back your statements, not merely proclaiming their existance.Lurking shadow (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually, he doesn't really need to accept anything. He just needs to refrain from disruptive editing in the article space, for instance by deleting or dismissing valid sources and opinions based solely on his own interpretations of the evidence, or by giving undue weight to what is, essentially, a crackpot theory that's been rejected by virtually all mainstream scholarship for the last century. We don't have to prove to him that he's wrong, as long as he doesn't use Wikipedia as a platform to prove that he's right. There are, incidentally, plenty of historical sources cited in the Pilate article and the Jesus Myth theory article that support the basic premise currently in dispute: namely, that Jesus of Nazareth was an actual person who lived in Judaea, was put to death by crucifiction during the governorship of Pontius Pilate, and whose followers ascribed to him the attributes, deeds, and teachings that subsequently formed the basis of Christianity. History says nothing about his divinity or any supposed miracles performed by him; only what his contemporaries and subsequent generations said about him. The scholars already cited for the proposition that Jesus Myth theory is not a mainstream view clearly indicate that the theory is discredited: 1) because it requires the rejection of all of the evidence indicating that Jesus was an actual person, including the opinions of writers who were not Christian or even hostile to Christianity; and 2) it requires the assumption that rather than simply embellishing and mythologizing stories about an actual person, the early Christians simply invented a person who never existed in order to justify their religion worshiping him—and got away with it, since nobody until modern times, including the Romans themselves, seems to have doubted that there was such a person! But I digress. Opinions are like cows: everybody has one, and Mr. Siebert's entitled to his. We don't have to change it, as long as he doesn't use Wikipedia as a platform to share it. P Aculeius (talk) 17:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• • Nosebagbear and P Aculeius, Paul Siebert has stated several times and in several places that he is going to take his "Jesus-did-not-exist" campaign to a variety of other Wikipedia articles. I realize that this may be hard to discern amidst the huge mountain of verbiage he has generated both here and on article-talk and on usertalk pages, but that is a fact, and that is the continued disruption that the topic ban(s) are attempting to prevent. We don't have the manpower to babysit him and see whether he carries out those plans or not. Hence the broader topic ban. Softlavender (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support Topic Ban on historicity of Jesus, or whatever is necessary. Stuff like this [33] is excessive. Their failure to acknowledge how problematic their behavior is, and the continued denial of any problem, indicates that the disruption will continue until this editor is removed from the topic area. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Canvassing by Ermenrich I just looked at the message Ermenrich wrote at these two portals they mentioned, the message that was responsible for the initial batch of people coming in and it is a clear-cut case of canvassing:[34]; [35]. Lurking shadow (talk) 06:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC) I did not learn of this discussion through those messages, and came to this conversation entirely on my own. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC) I don't doubt that, because my accusations of canvassing relate to the discussion that spawned this ANI thread, not to this thread itself.Lurking shadow (talk) 06:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC) How is that canvassing, anyway? As opposed to an attempt at getting some outside input from related Wikiprojects? El_C 06:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC) Because it is a clearly biased message? Them contacting these wikiprojects in a neutral manner would not have been a problem.Lurking shadow (talk) 06:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC) (edit conflict):Lurking shadow, as far as I know, posting at project pages is not considered canvassing, although Ermenrich was supposed to use more neutral wording. By the way, now I started to partially understand the reason for such an inadequate reaction: for some reason, he concluded I was going to remove all content added by him, whereas I wanted just to re-arrange it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC) The messages report a dispute over an attempt to undo editing that was based on and cited to reliable sources, and they were posted on WikiProject talkpages, the standard venue for such notices. This is not canvassing. Plus one of the WikiProjects had nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity, so no one viewing that notice had any disposition towards a Christian perspective. Neither of the notices were about this ANI thread. Lurking shadow, whatever you're trying to do, and for whatever reason, it's not helping Paul Siebert -- it's making him look worse. Softlavender (talk) 06:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC) Did you read the notice Softlavender? The location of the notice is not the problem, it is the content of that notice - it is obviously and extremely biased towards the wishes of its author.Lurking shadow (talk) 06:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC) I read the notices. The messages report a dispute over an attempt to undo editing that was based on and cited to reliable sources, and ask neutrally for help. This is not canvassing; this is getting outside opinions from relevant WikiProjects. Lurking shadow, whatever you're trying to do, and for whatever reason, it is not helping Paul Siebert and your posts are becoming repetitive and disruptive. I wouldn't be surprised if your sections get collapsed. Softlavender (talk) 06:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC) "... and ask neutrally for help". What? Neutrally? How is this a neutral message? A neutral message does not include the preferences of its author. . It does not describe an opposing view as a threat. It definitely does not contain a plea for help against an opposing view!Lurking shadow (talk) 06:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC) The message did not describe the "opposing view" as "a threat"; in fact, it did not mention an "opposing view", but rather accurately stated that "Paul Seibert is threatening to undo the extensive rewrite I have just performed", which is exactly what Paul Siebert said he would do: "I am going to revert all recent changes and restore the old article structure." -- Softlavender (talk) 07:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC) A much more neutral message would look like this in this case: A rewrite of Pontius Pilate is currently under discussion. One of the arguments against the rewrite is as follows: "We should never mix Pilates as a real historical figure with Pilates as he was described in Gospels Otherwise, we have to admit Gospels are historical documents, and Jesus was a real person, not a Christian mythology character." One of the arguments for the rewrite is as follows:"The Christ myth theory is a minority opinion. All the reliable sources I have used describe Jesus as a historical person." Your contributions would be welcome. That would still not be perfect, but I wouldn't complain about it.Lurking shadow (talk) 07:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC) Lurking shadow, that was not the issue at hand. The issue at hand, which Ermenrich accurately summarized, was that Paul Siebert was about to immediately and unilaterally completely revert the RS-citation-based rewrite of the article that Ermenrich had just completed. You made an inaccurate accusation of canvassing, and were disproved, even by Paul Siebert himself. Now please stop before you yourself are reported for disruptive and tendentious editing, and possibly blocked from editing. Softlavender (talk) 07:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC) Let's just agree to disagree on canvassing here - although I agree that the threat of reversal could have been included.Lurking shadow (talk) 07:42, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• Like Aquillion, I'm squeamish about singling someone out for a ban because of a long and tedious, but civil, talk page discussion. Haukur (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Haukur, Paul Siebert has stated several times and in several places that he is going to take his "Jesus-did-not-exist" campaign to a variety of other Wikipedia articles. I realize that this may be hard to discern amidst the huge mountain of verbiage he has generated both here and on article-talk and on usertalk pages, but that is a fact, and that is the continued disruption that the topic ban(s) are attempting to prevent. Softlavender (talk) 23:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on Christianity. The view that historical Jesus never existed is indeed FRINGE/small minority view. Paul tells "Until the end of July 2019 I believed the idea that historical Jesus ever existed looked as a flat Earth theory to me..."). But why Paul believes in this? Because this is one of many key ideas promoted by the Soviet propaganda. And I think Paul does the same on all pages, including subjects related to Eastern Europe, i.e. he promotes various pro-Soviet biases on all pages. I tried to work with him, but could not. I end up avoiding any pages that he edits and submitting this request at WP:AE, without any result. Please see my comments in discussions below. My very best wishes (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Premature, though Paul should back off, take a deep breath, study the relevant sources, and come back with a concrete and concise proposal. I will also note that having looked at some of sources allegedly supporting the labelling of the Christ myth hyopethesis as a "fringe theory" (bandied about here, on RSN, and on the article talk page) - I am entirely unconvinced as the sources, per my reading, do not use that language (they do support the notion that full out myth is a minority position, but minority does not mean WP:FRINGE).Icewhiz (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Icewhiz, at the risk of being off topic, have you looked at Talk:Historicity of Jesus/FAQ? Particularly the list of books makes it clear there aren't any actual scholars in the field who support the myth theory.--Ermenrich (talk) 11:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I reviewed the citations themselves - they support this is a distinct minority position - however they do no go as far as calling this a "fringe theory" - which is a very strong assertion which we should not be using unless strong sources spell this out as "fringe", "conspiracy", etc. Icewhiz (talk) 11:21, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
      • What about this source here [36]? Quote: "Given the fringe status of these theories, the vast majority have remained unnoticed and unaddressed within scholarly circles." (p. 312).--Ermenrich (talk) 11:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
        • I don't have access to it at the moment (probably will in a few days on a different computer) - need to see context, however that seems to be a response to Richard Carrier's writings (and such responses can be heated also within academia) - and - I would say that the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus is perhaps not the most neutral venue here. That being said - this particular source is better than the ones I've reviewed in Christ myth theory in that the quote you provide does use "fringe". I definitely agree that current consensus is that there was probably (a qualification used for many ancient figures) a historical Jesus of some (varying) sort. I just think that if we are to "fringe theory" label this in articles lead (a-la Moon landing conspiracy theories) - we need strong sources asserting fringe/conspiracy status. Icewhiz (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• As an additional comment, I want to say that there has been a refusal to hear from the other side as well. A refusal that is definitely partly responsible for this escalation. When Paul Siebert asked for sources, they got "the sources are in the article", when indeed some sources had been present before the rewrite(this much is evident from the history of the article) and there was zero effort in showing that the sources actually supported their arguments. While Paul Siebert did discuss a good number of sources they linked the rest of the editors did not link a single source to support their argument during the entire discussion!.Lurking shadow (talk) 20:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm going to be 100% honest here. To someone with even a little bit of knowledge of Roman history the idea of denying Jesus historicity is the equivalent of "flat earthing" that's why no one bothered to do more than direct him to the general overview of the subject with all the sources he would need did he bothered to read it with an open mind. Why should we feel obligated to educte a stonewall on something so clearly universally acepted when all the sources are already there for him to look trought? Heck, a google search should have been enough, but no, he insisted on pestering people and insulting them. He can't even take responsibility over his bad faith, still pretending that he didn't mean anything by "your beloved gospels".★Trekker (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Lurking shadow -- Yes, they did. They repeatedly linked to entire Wikipedia articles full of reliable source citations. There is no need to provide individual refuting sources for a fairly preposterous WP:FRINGE belief, when nearly the entire body of scholarship already refutes it. And editors know better than to fan the flames of nonsensical debate by offering only one or two sources and thus continuing the already massive and unnecessary discussion ad infinitum. Softlavender (talk) 23:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support topics bans on both Pontius Pilate and on Jesus and Christianity, broadly construed. He does not understand how consensus works, but to me the most annoying things about him is that he deliberately misrepresents other editors' arguments. Initially, I was only for a limited ban, but after seeing @My very best wishes: post above, I think it is better to entirely remove him from these topics, just to shield other editors from his huge stonewalls. T8612 (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. You should check involvement of Paul at Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes. That's a killing of [time of] wikipedia contributors. I left it for good. My very best wishes (talk) 00:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I have not read it yet, but allow me to make a "wild guess" My very best wishes, Mr. Siebert is perhaps a bit of a communism apologist maybe?★Trekker (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I think this user pushes pro-Soviet propaganda/views on all pages, from Gulag and Gas van to Jesus Christ. He is probably the most relentless "civil POV-pusher" I have seen in the project. You think he will be topic banned? Think again. You should be happy that Christianity is not the major area of his interest. My very best wishes (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Wow, 331 edits to Talk:Gulag, 563 edits to Talk:Molotov–Ribbentrop_Pact, 3302 to Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes. It is unbelievable. T8612 (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• Indeed. However, the problem is not only the number of edits, but POV-pushing. OK, these subjects are big and complicated. Let's take a small a simple page, like Gas van, see discussion here. I argue that a book by Yevgenia Albats and Catherine A. Fitzpatrick, KGB: The State Within a State. should be used as a scholarly book that tells something exactly on the subject, along with other sources. This should be simple, right? Wrong. An extremely long discussion follows, after which I am leaving this page to never edit it again, simply because I am tired (see also this part: Paul fight with every author who does not fit his POV, even a Nober Prize winner; the discussion includes some Russian texts; Paul is a native speaker, just like me). The "winner" happily removes the reference to the book, along with direct quotation from the book [37], and he does it with false/misleading edit summary (no, the book by Albats does NOT "cite the same tabloid paper"). That is what Paul do on many pages. That was the reason for my WP:AE report [38]. My very best wishes (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Paul Siebert's most recent comments ("Until the end of July 2019 I believed the idea that historical Jesus ever existed looked as a flat Earth theory to me. I was surprised to learn it is not a fringe theory. I still got no evidences that the opposite theory (a.k.a. Jesus myth theory) is fringe, however, I was surprised to learn that many scholars writing about Christ are still sharing some idea with believers. Since a direct google scholar search gives a lot of references to various religious and theological writings, my analysis of what view is majority, minority or fringe has not been finished yet, however, my preliminary conclusion is that the theory that you call "Jesus myth theory" is by no means fringe.", "I still haven't got a ultimate answer for myself on how exactly I am going to edit Christianity related articles." etc.) suggest he is still in the midst of acquainting himself with the content he so fervently contended. It seems he needs he needs to learn from this episode that he should do proper research before 1. demanding other editors justify the current state of a Wikipedia article, 2. talking about rewriting an article / undoing major changes, and 3. coming up with theories like "people who believe that Pilates was responsible for the execution of Jesus are Christians". Robby.is.on (talk) 23:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – I'm persuaded by Aquillion's arguments, particularly that a topic ban shouldn't be used for "jesus, why won't he shut up?" It takes multiple editors to create a talk page wall of text. If editors don't want to engage with him, they can just ... not engage with him. If he makes a terrible proposal on a talk page, !vote oppose, state your reasons, and be done with it. There's little need for back-and-forth unless you want to engage in back-and-forth; but no one is forced to do that. – Levivich 05:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • He was pretty clearly threatening to impose his fringe stuff on tons of articles. How exactly are people supposed to stop him by not engaging him?★Trekker (talk) 05:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Suppose PS makes an edit someone disagrees with. It can be reverted. If PS reinstates it without consensus, that would be edit warring and could be reported to ANEW. Suppose PS doesn't edit war and instead posts a proposal on the talk page to gain consensus for the challenged edit. Editors who disagree can !vote oppose. One post from each editor, !voting oppose with their reasons, is all that would be needed. Suppose PS responds to those !votes with counterarguments. Editors can ignore those responses if they wish. If the proposal is widely opposed and nobody engages in extended back-and-forth, there will be no mainspace edits without consensus and no talk page walls of text. Problem solved? – Levivich 06:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
      • He couldn't accept it when everyone told him he was wrong on Pontius Pilate's talkpage, he can't even be honest about how he treats people and consensus on this very page. How can we assume it would be any better in any other discussion on the topic? I'm not demanding he be banned, but I want people to come with better reasonsings that "well the complaints are just that he's annoying", because him being annoying is only about 50% of the overall problem.★Trekker (talk) 06:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
        • Although I prefer to respond in a separate section, this time I respond here for sake of my peers convenience. ★Trekker, those responses were de facto not responses at all, because they didn't cite any sources and provided almost zero rationale. To see the example of a real response, look at this. That is a type of arguments I was expecting to see. Had Ermenrich responded in this way from the very beginning, there would be no conflict at all.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
          • He didn't respond that way originally because what you were propossing was utterly laughable.★Trekker (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Please read WP:DE, WP:TE, WP:IDHT, WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:CIR, WP:PROFRINGE, and other such policies and guidelines. If someone is continually disrupting a talkpage(s) against consensus, and/or threatening to take their WP:FRINGE promotion to all other related articles, and/or threatening to unilaterally revert to their preferred version of an article if people stop refuting him, and/or driving good editors away, that is very clearly disruptive and highly detrimental to the project. Softlavender (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose topic ban as per Aquillion. Paul is opinionated, but he is a dedicated editor, not a disrupter.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Please read WP:DE, WP:TE, WP:IDHT, WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:CIR, WP:PROFRINGE, and other such policies and guidelines. If someone is continually disrupting a talkpage(s) against consensus, and/or threatening to take their WP:FRINGE promotion to all other related articles, and/or threatening to unilaterally revert to their preferred version of an article if people stop refuting him, and/or driving good editors away, that is very clearly disruptive and highly detrimental to the project. Softlavender (talk) 02:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban. I am cited far above (because I commented at Talk:Pontius Pilate) and I think I may possibly be grouped by Paul among those who wrote to criticise his comments on the basis of what other people said. If so, Paul, I'm only a tiny bit hurt :) I hesitated to comment here at all. I found the discussion on that talk page almost entirely off topic, and Paul (among others) led it that way. What would I do? I would advise him to leave Pontius Pilate to others for a while and I would suggest a bit more reading among authors who take varied views of the historicity of Jesus. Andrew Dalby 11:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support topics bans on both Pontius Pilate and on Jesus and Christianity, broadly construed and consider extending it to the Soviet Union and communism, broadly construed. What has been demonstrated here is relentless and persistent POV-pushing that has driven people away from the project. I have no faith in this user to constructively contribute to this project Toa Nidhiki05 19:22, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I too think that he should also be banned from Communism/USSR. His edits on these talk pages are absolutely unreal. T8612 (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• (I already commented above but adding this after some further consideration). Oppose topic ban. Paul's pattern of long talk page discussions is not limited to this topic so if it is a problem, and it might be, it is not one that a topic ban would solve. Paul has an unusual contribution pattern with 64% article talk and 15% on main.[39] Maybe he should reconsider his approach. But Christianity in particular is not the issue. Haukur (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

So what do you propose to make him stop? Permaban? T8612 (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't know! Maybe nothing for now. But ANI is also poorly equipped to handle big picture long-term issues like this which might require a lot of analysis to get right. Haukur (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Do you feel there's a better venue for such discussions? (I don't plan on taking it up, I'm just curious. I'm still pretty ignorant about the various options for dealing with behavioral options on Wikipedia).--Ermenrich (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, if ANI cannot solve a supposed problem then the next(and last) step is arbitration.Lurking shadow (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe a long standing block? He seems to have been able to do good work on the site despite his biases. Maybe if he got some time off he would realize he needs change his ways.★Trekker (talk) 20:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• I doubt that Paul will be sanctioned. This is the case when different people had very different experience while interacting with Paul. That's because he is very careful, especially when he speaks with admins like Nick-D. My experience was very negative. While interacting with me, he was not shy to summarily dismiss several very strong RS based on his WP:OR [40]. My very best wishes (talk) 20:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

In that case those Admins need to check themselves and not let their personal feelings towards him get in the way of their duties.★Trekker (talk) 20:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I fulfilled my duty by submitting an AE report. Admins decided not to act. Now this is problem of community. But I am out. Time is up, sorry. My very best wishes (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban For three reasons 1) I'm concerned that this has been motivated by, to be blunt, incorrect assessments of Paul's pattern of contributions and some kind of weird bias against talk page posts (what's wrong with frequently joining discussions on talk pages?) 2) there's something of a "closed shop" mentality in the discussions at the top of this thread, with a small number of editors trying to claim that there's a consensus among scholars which other editors are pointing out doesn't actually exist (e.g., that it is probably not "fringe" to say that Jesus never existed, though it's very much a minority view) 3) This is premature: Paul is an excellent editor in good standing, and I'm confident that he'll reflect on this discussion and correct any problems with his contributions. Nick-D (talk) 23:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

This is kinda fascinating in a disturbing way. Some people want him to get off scot-free, no nothing. Others want him wholesale banned from Wikipedia.★Trekker (talk) 23:38, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Please see my point 3: I'm pretty sure Paul is capable of taking feedback on board. Nick-D (talk) 23:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Nothing to do with what I said.★Trekker (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

"[W]hat's wrong with frequently joining discussions on talk pages?" Please read WP:DE, WP:TE, WP:IDHT, WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:CIR, WP:PROFRINGE, and other such policies and guidelines. If someone is continually disrupting a talkpage(s) against consensus, and/or threatening to take their WP:FRINGE promotion to all other related articles, and/or threatening to unilaterally revert to their preferred version of an article if people stop refuting him, and/or driving good editors away, that is very clearly disruptive and highly detrimental to the project. Softlavender (talk) 02:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Speaking about WWII page, here is the last suggestion by Paul. He tells that our page "creates a wrong impression that Soviet army deliberately stopped to let Nazi to suppress the the Warsaw uprising". Well, our page actually tells the following: "The Soviet Red Army remained in the Praga district on the other side of the Vistula and watched passively as the Germans quelled the Warsaw Uprising initiated by the Armia Krajowa". This is a historical fact, and indeed, according to many historians, the Soviet Army deliberately stopped to let Nazi to suppress the uprising. This is the kind of things Paul constantly pushes. My very best wishes (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Wow this is truly shocking. I no longer believe he's even remotely ignorant, this seems like deliberate POV pushing.★Trekker (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Facepalm This isn't POV pushing: you both just have no idea what you're talking about. Lots of historians argue this. The Red Army had advanced beyond its supply lines, the Polish uprising was badly timed (they were hoping to pre-empt the Soviets entering the city, but the Soviets had reached their limits and the Germans had a solid defensive position) and making an opposed crossing of a major river is a massive challenge for any army. Nick-D (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Facepalm Back at you. He's clearly the POV pushing, rude and gaslighting editor who's had a history of Communist apologism. He uses the benefit of the doubt to try to weasle in stuff.★Trekker (talk) 13:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry, but let's check the Encyclopædia Britannica as a good 3rd party encyclopedic source (link): "As the Red Army approached Warsaw (July 29–30, 1944), Soviet authorities, promising aid, encouraged the Polish underground there to stage an uprising against the Germans... Meanwhile, the Red Army, which had been detained during the first days of the insurrection by a German assault, occupied a position at Praga, a suburb across the Vistula River from Warsaw, and remained idle. In addition, the Soviet government refused to allow the western Allies to use Soviet air bases to airlift supplies to the beleaguered Poles.... By allowing the Germans to suppress the Warsaw Uprising, the Soviet authorities also allowed them to eliminate the main body of the military organization that supported the Polish government-in-exile in London. Consequently, when the Soviet army occupied all of Poland, there was little effective organized resistance to its establishing Soviet political domination over the country and imposing the communist-led Provisional Government of Poland (Jan. 1, 1945)." So, according to EB, there is no question that the Soviet side "allowed the Germans to suppress the Warsaw Uprising" My very best wishes (talk) 00:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

There's actually a rather large and complex literature on this issue. Nick-D (talk) 07:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, certainly, and the views by historians differ. That's why I cited a good quality tertiary source. Such sources do not provide details, but they provide good summary consensus/majority views on a subject. My very best wishes (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Nick-D, I think Britannica may be right, and Stalin really promised to provide some support for the uprising (if he knew about that). That looks realistic. What I meant, the current text implies that Red Army deliberately stopped (deliberately changed its plans) to help Germans to suppress the uprising. That is not the case. As you can see, in my (selectively cited) post I noted that the USSR could probably provide more support, but no evidences exists that they planned to advance to Warsaw and changed the plans due to the uprising. What is more likely that Stalin made a promise that he was not able to fulfill. Or even didn't plan to.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

That is not what EB tells. EB tells it was a deliberate, logical and successful action planned by the Soviet side (obviously, the plan had to be suggested or approved by Stalin). My very best wishes (talk) 15:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

My very best wishes, that is exactly my understanding of events as well. Gerhard Weinberg writes about this in great detail in A World at Arms: A Global History of World War II (one of my favorite reads!). CThomas³ (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban: the case for the sanction is not convincing. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Would you like to elaborate Coffman? I really value your input around WWII topics, and this user seems to be doing worrying things to Soviet related pages.★Trekker (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support topic ban at the least. If only he could be banned from typing anything more than one plain sentence one time only into any talk page. How much time has been taken by the above and the interminable talk page rows that have been brewed up ALL OVER WP? It's a full time job just to keep up with it, the volume of verbiage, comment and circular discussion that has contributed not one byte to the project itself is frankly depressing. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • What's the matter with Paul's talk page contributions on, say, World War II-related topics? I've been in tons of discussions with him in this space over several years, and have always appreciated them. Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on Christianity broadly construed which should be understood to include any Biblical as well as other notable figures in Christian history per User:Ad_Orientem and User:T8612. This kind of problematic behavior is exhausting to other editors, and does in fact drive them away from the affected articles, as User:Toa Nidhiki05 and User:My very best wishes have shown. They've also shown that PS's problematic behavior isn't limited to this one article. I'm not convinced by Aquillion's oppose. The walls of text obscure WP:CONSENSUS, especially if the correct side chooses to stop responding. It's clear from the discussion that PS wants to push a fringe view in this topic and his edits are very unlikely to be productive. Without a WP:TBAN, this will require a lot of effort from other editors to monitor and repair. While theoretically other editors could just do that work, I don't really see any good reason why they should have to waste their time on something like that. Also, given the large number of obscure articles in this topic, they probably can't even be successful at that. The best outcome is that PS refrain from editing in this topic, and given his WP:IDHT, it's best for the project that it be enforced by a WP:TBAN. There are some other issues, but a TBAN will hopefully solve the problem by removing the motivation. - GretLomborg (talk) 12:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on Christianity broadly construed. This editor clearly is falling foul of WP:DISRUPT, WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV etc. His disruptive editing is causing an enormous drain on multiple editors who, as a result, have much less time to productively edit the encyclopedia because of this disruptive POV pushing drama.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. To those wondering if Paul is going to go through with his promise to rewrite these articles, I'd like to call your attention to the following two diffs [41] [42]. While it's possible that that article could have been worded better, I think in the context of everything that's been brought up here so far it's rather worrying.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh yes. Unless he receives the topic ban, Paul will probably rewrite these pages, and there is little you can do about it. My very best wishes (talk) 19:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

They have backed up their claim with a source. As long as you cannot convince me that they have deliberately or recklessly misrepresented the source or the sourcing situation I see no cause for action.Lurking shadow (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

We also need to set a pretty high bar before calling a living person a prominent believer in fringe theories. The claim that this person is fringe does not appear to have a specific citation - the quote to Gullotta included in the reference does not appear to support the claim that this person is noting less than "a leading supporter of a fringe" theory. Nick-D (talk) 22:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on Christianity; broadly construed and A keen eye kept on the editor in question to ensure the behavior is not merely relocated. Paul is far from the first editor who generates reams of talk page content ad nauseum - and yes, it's invariably deemed disruptive, though how long it takes for the disruptiveness to get sanctioned mostly depends on the size of the fanclub of the prodigous-text-generator. And yes, there are always a few (or a few more than a few) editors who declare that there's no rule against long posts on talk page - which is irrelevant, as it's more the content of the posts than their length. Paul's disruptiveness is well documented throughout this entire mess, which is really beginning to give me Brews O'Hare flashbacks. Seth Kellerman (talk) 08:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC). And taking the grandstanding and bloviating below into account, support full site ban with the broadly construed topic ban on Christianity as a mere minimum. Seth Kellerman (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Here is the latest discussion initiated by Paul. Everyone makes mistakes and may not know the subject. That's fine. However, after receiving strong objections from several other contributors on the talk page, a dissenter (Paul in this case) has two choices: (a) to study better this subject, or (b) go edit something else. What should NOT happen is a prolonged and contentious dispute with other contributors who know this subject better. This is a mistake sometimes made by newbies. However, Paul has an enormous experience on wiki. He does it because this is his "modus operandi" on all pages. I think he has certain New Soviet manish biases (note his mentioning of Bulgakov on the talk page about Pontius Pilate), and fights literally to death to promote these biases on all pages he edits. This is simply a more obvious example. As about Brews O'Hare, yes, I too thought about Brews, but he was a lot nicer than Paul. My very best wishes (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree that Brews was far nicer than Paul, but what really made me think of that situation was how they both have a small group of editors who are adamantly denying, all evidence to the contrary, that there is anything at all wrong with Paul's conduct - and they're doing it loudly and frequently enough that it's 1) going to give any admin attempting to close this mess pause, 2) give the impression of 'no consensus' to anyone who only wants to skim this instead of actually reading it. Seth Kellerman (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Second proposal: Warning

If there is not consensus for a TBAN (which I think there may in the end still be, but assuming the first proposal fails), would there be consensus for issuing some sort of warning? This could then be referenced in any future action at ANI assuming Paul Siebert continues this behavior/spreads it to other Jesus-related articles, as he seems to intend.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I am a little bit puzzled about the possible text of that warning. What this warning should be about? To print less characters? Talk page guidelines set no limits. Not to call someone Christian? Actually, it is easy to implement, but will it have any positive effect, taking into account that I actually didn't do that?

The important result of this discussion is this your post. I am not sure if this argument is strong (I am figuring it out currently), but it is done in a correct way. That is a type of arguments I was expecting to see from you from the very beginning, because this type arguments are used on talk pages I am usually working on. Had you responded in this way from the very beginning, there would be no conflict at all, or the discussion would be much more brief. If you will be sticking to this way of communication, there will be virtually no conflicts in future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We are not obliged to prove to you that a fringe theory is fringe when you continually dismissed any source presented to as Christian. Icewhiz suggested that the Christ myth theory might be minority, not fringe, and I countered with a RS calling it fringe. Note he says he actually looked at what the sources cited at Historicity of Jesus and Jesus myth theory said before though. This is different than you assuming you are right on the matter and ignoring literally everyone telling you that you were mistaken.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I would like to see diffs demonstrating that I "continually dismissed any source presented to as Christian". That statement is weird, because virtually no sources were presented during that discussion.

Anyway, Iv'e just demonstrated you a possible exit from an impasse: I am openly saying "Your last argument was good, and it is supported by a reasonably good quality source. I am not sure it is strong, but, at least, it is addressable. If you continue is this vein I am pretty certain there hardly will be conflicts in future." I think, if your real goal is not an escalation of a conflict (I hope it isn't), the conflict may be considered resolved.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And, regarding your comment on Icewhiz: I also looked at that page, and I found it was poorly written. However, as I already explained to you, to direct your opponent to some Wikipedia page (in this tone) is a kind of disrespect: you were supposed to provide a concrete reference and a quote (as you have done above). Before claiming your opponent is not prone to arguments, make sure your arguments are presented in a correct way. Anyway, I hope we started to understand each other better. Can we conclude the conflict is resolved?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

See [43], [44], [45], [46]. I named specific sources from the article bibliography multiple times without any coherent response from you except to say that a passage in Tacitus is fabricated, based on one article by Richard Carrier, and to insist that Jesus is a mythical being without any historical existence.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

the first diff relates to Bond: I posted a question on RSN, and that cannot be interpreted as I dismissed a source. My conclusion was that the source was not good not because it is Christian, but because Bond just briefly mentions this fact in the introduction. That was by no means a detailed analysis of the issue. Other three diffs contain no references at all.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

For the last time: I was never debating with you about a passage in Tacitus. Whether it is authentic or inauthentic was entirely immaterial to the discussion: we are talking about your allegations that I dismiss sources because they are "Christian". I mention several other authors in those posts. You never once replied on any of them.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Tacitus is irrelevant to this discussion. Why are you returning to this issue again? Are you interested to end this conflict or not?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, you mentioned Alexander Demandt, Helen Bond, and Daniel Schwartz. I picked Bond for more detailed analysis because you quoted her, and I rejected it because she left the question of authenticity beyond the scope. But I didn't reject her because she was "Christian". By the way, do you realise that the very structure of Bond's work is close to what I proposed? She clearly separated a discussion of the Gospels and non-Christian sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Did you read what you yourself wrote? My conclusion was that the source was not good not because it is Christian, but because Bond just briefly mentions this fact in the introduction. You specific asked in the RFN In her PhD thesis, Helen Bond says that the Annals 15.44 are an independent source about crucifixion of Jesus, along with four Gospels. And again Icewhiz, the question is not if this passage is being attributed to Tacitus (I think noone doubts in that). The question is if this source is reliable to support a claim there is a consensus that this passage is authentic. You did not ask if it was a reliable source for the historical existence of Jesus, and given that both people who responded said it was per se a RS, what answer do you think you would have gotten? If I include sources that find the existence of Jesus so uncontroversial that they don't need to prove it, don't you think you ought to have rethought your position somewhat?--Ermenrich (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I think this your post sidetracks the discussion. Your original point was that I "continually dismissed any source presented to as Christian". As a support for this claim, you provided the example where ONE source was dismissed by me, and the argument that is was a PhD in Theology was just one of many. Don't you find your evidences shaky?

Let's stay focused on the main topic.

• When my vis-s-vis provide a concrete reference and a concrete quote that demonstrate their point, I always take such argument seriously.
• When someone says "I am telling you for the fourth time you are wrong", I consider no arguments were presented.
• When someone says "Read John Smith", I may either respond to it or ignore it, because the argumentation of that kind shows one's disrespect and does not indicate one's serious attitude to the issue. If Icewhiz does not feel offended in such situation, that is a sign of his very good faith. He is absolutely not obliged to take such arguments seriously. In addition, responces to such posts take more efforts and are intrinsically longer. Remember, one of the accusations thrown against me was the length of my posts; had I responded to all of that, my posts would be even longer.
• Finally, I already told you that this your post is an example of GOOD argumentation. What else do you need?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not taking lessons in you on good argumentation. You're amply showing why I think at least a warning is necessary.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not giving lessons, I am explaining what I see as a good argumentation, bad argumentation and lack of argumentation. I am explaining my position in an attempt to avoid conflicts in future. If you cannot understand that, then, probably, one party really needs a warning. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert and Ermenrich: You both need to stop trying to bludgeon the life out of this discussion and let the community review the situation. GoldenRing (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I find it hard not to reply, but I will resist that urge from now on. I hope other people will consider my second proposal though.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I myself realized the discussion has come to a logical end. I will be busy during next two weeks, please inform me if there will be any news deserving my attention.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

You said the same thing yesterday, I doubt this will end anytime soon in all actuality. But I hope for everyones sanity that there can be a beneficial result in some way.★Trekker (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. The user has had warnings galore, including from administrators, and he is still endlessly engaging in WP:DE and WP:TE. He has already driven good editors away from various talkpages. He has made it very clear, in a number of venues, that he is not going to stop his endless crusade promoting his current pet WP:FRINGE theory. The only way we can prevent further disruption to the project, and it is indeed disruption, is to issue a sanction of some sort. That's not even counting his CIR and DE/TE tendencies on numerous other unrelated talkpages. Softlavender (talk) 01:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, I think he has had one warning, from Doug Weller. I dont know of any others.--Ermenrich (talk)

Not true. He had 4 warnings on Talk:Pontius Pilate: [47], [48], [49], [50]; and 3 warnings on his own talk page: [51], [52], [53]. -- Softlavender (talk) 01:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose warning – PS has already been issued a warning by Doug Weller on July 31, and hasn't done anything since then to merit another warning. He says he'll be away for two weeks, and has already said he will stop with the TLDR posts because they're not effective. In my view, Doug already handled this several days ago, and now it's time to close this report and we'll see what happens in two weeks. – Levivich 02:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hardly. If this discussion gets cloased already I will feel it is an insult to Wikipedia's standards. I'm utterly amazed that any user on this site could come to this discussion and not realize there is something very sinister going on with this man. He pushes fringe, thinks he has authority over subjects which he's clearly completely ignorant about, he scares away good editors, he insults people and uses classic gaslighting techniques. Oh and lets not forget the communism apologetics.★Trekker (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

As someone who came on board with this discussion because I was alarmed by what Mr. Siebert seemed to be saying about sources, bias, and the desirability of making wholesale revisions to all project pages concerning the historicity of Jesus to reflect an unscholarly point of view, I feel somewhat reluctantly compelled to ask my friends from WP:CGR and related projects to put down their sticks and avoid becoming the ones whose demands appear unreasonable. I think we nearly all agree that what Mr. Siebert proposed to do would have been inappropriate and against consensus—both Wikipedian and scholarly. But none of these proposed changes was ever implemented on the article that originally brought us here, or by Mr. Siebert in any other article. All of this hullabaloo has taken place on talk pages, and concerns something purely hypothetical. There is no threat to the encyclopedia. If Mr. Siebert wants to edit the articles in question, which is his right, then there are plenty of editors here who can look over the changes, and refactor or revert any edits that need it. It's just that easy. There's no need to ask for topic bans or other administrative sanctions for something that hasn't happened and may never happen, as long as whatever is done is subject to the review of other editors. From my point of view, we can revisit this discussion if and when Mr. Siebert's edits become not just imperfect, but disruptive. If the only issue is how much weight to give certain theories, or where they should be mentioned, I think we can handle it without invoking Thor's hammer. P Aculeius (talk) 01:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I actually kind of agree that some of the discussion has gotten a little out of hand here. I do wish we could agree to just give him a slap on the wrist or something, but at this point I'm just waiting to see if anyone else wants to chime in on the TBAN/warning so we can wrap this up. It's all been rather exhausting.--Ermenrich (talk) 02:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I have to disagree, his actions so far seem to be very dangerous. I wouldn't trust this man around any of the topics we've covered so far.★Trekker (talk) 13:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

What danger would that be? The risk that he might make edits that go against the consensus of other editors? We deal with that all the time without bothering the admins. We know he's editing in good faith, unlike countless vandals, so some of his edits might be perfectly fine. Others may only need a little tweaking. Even reverting an edit that makes no sense only takes a minute. And this place will still be open if and when we really need it. I'm not asking anyone to trust anyone else. Just treat this situation like any other. There's a perfectly good stick rack over there in the corner. P Aculeius (talk) 14:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I already pointed out thousands of times already all the things which I have said he does which is hugely disruptive. If you're going to try to claim "oh he's just going agains concesus, not a big deal" (big deal to me) and try to claim this situation is not worth admins time I don't know what you've been readin so far.★Trekker (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

What cases are worth admins time if a large controversial one like this one isn't?★Trekker (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Something that shows some more serious "disruption" than just one argument, one topic, almost entirely confined to one talk section, with no edit-warring involved. Just off the top of my head, things that would actually make this worth the time and effort would include edit-warring on talk to re-open a closed discussion; trying to edit the article without consensus (of course); opening large numbers of redundant discussions; and otherwise generally making it impossible for other people to just walk away. But the idea that a consensus on talk forbids people from simply continuing to reply strikes me as a bridge too far, especially since there are numerous options for ending a discussion that nobody involved seems to have attempted yet. Again, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the purpose here is to ask for administrative confirmation that you have "won" the argument or that Siebert is wrong on the facts, which isn't the purpose of ANI. Nothing seems to be preventing you from hatting the section, starting an RFC, or even just walking away, then letting everyone else move on with their lives; so if this really is as disruptive as you say (which I still think is silly), you seem to be as responsible for it as Siebert is. --Aquillion (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Closing adminFinal remarks

I got a brief access to Internet, and I am going to make an important statement in close future that will resolve the issue.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Part 1. I am bringing my apologies

Following the Ermenrich's advice, I examined the writings of some authors cited in Wikipedia articles on that topic, and I believe I understand now that Ii made one serious mistake. The author who convinced me in that is Bart D. Ehrman, an expert whose reliability all participants of this discussion trust (I hope). His book is cited in the article about Richard Carrier (ref 8). Unfortunately, I got no access to the above book, but I found another Bart's book by Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. I am also agree that he is a good scholar and, importantly, an intellectually honest person (I'll explain later why I came to this conclusion), so I also take his words seriously. In the introduction to this book, he writes (sorry for a long quote, but it is relevant):

"Every week I receive two or three e-mails asking me whether Jesus existed as a human being. When I started getting these e-mails, some years ago now, I thought the question was rather peculiar and I did not take it seriously. Of course Jesus existed. Everyone knows he existed. Don’t they?But the questions kept coming, and soon I began to wonder: Why are so many people asking?

My wonder only increased when I learned that I myself was being quoted in some circles—misquoted rather—as saying that Jesus never existed. I decided to look into the matter. I discovered, to my surprise, an entire body of literature devoted to the question of whether or not there ever was a real man, Jesus.I was surprised because I am trained as a scholar of the New Testament and early Christianity, and for thirty years I have written extensively on the historical Jesus, the Gospels, the early Christian movement, and the history of the church’s first three hundred years. Like all New Testament scholars, I have read thousands of books and articles in English and other European languages on Jesus, the New Testament, and early Christianity. But I was almost completely unaware—as are most of my colleagues in the field—of this body of skeptical literature.

"I should say at the outset that none of this literature is written by scholars trained in New Testament or early Christian studies teaching at the major, or even the minor, accredited theological seminaries, divinity schools, universities, or colleges of North America or Europe (or anywhere else in the world). Of the thousands of scholars of early Christianity who do teach at such schools, none of them, to my knowledge, has any doubts that Jesus existed. But a whole body of literature out there, some of it highly intelligent and well informed, makes this case. "

These words convinced me that my words about users who are pushing Christian propaganda were totally silly, and I sincerely apologize for that. I fully agree with Cullen³²⁸'s comment, but please, take into account that by the moment I wrote those wrong and inaccurate words, I was unfamiliar with Bart's writings, so this my mistake was understandable and forgivable. Again, I am bringing my sincere apologies.

Part 2. I am expecting apologies

Below is a continuation of the quote from Ehrman. Again, I apologise for a long quote, but I believe it is important to demonstrate I didn't take his words out of context. Ehrman writes:

" These sundry books and articles (not to mention websites) are of varying quality. Some of them rival The Da Vinci Codein their passion for conspiracy and the shallowness of their historical knowledge, not just of the New Testament and early Christianity, but of ancient religions generally and, even more broadly, the ancient world. But a couple of bona fide scholars—not professors teaching religious studies in universities but scholars nonetheless, and at least one of them with a Ph.D. in the field of New Testament—have taken this position and written about it. Their books may not be known to most of the general public interested in questions related to Jesus, the Gospels, or the early Christian church, but they do occupy a noteworthy niche as a (very) small but (often) loud minority voice. Once you tune in to this voice, you quickly learn just how persistent and vociferous it can be.And the voice is being heard loud and clear in some places. Even a quick Internet search reveals how influential such radical skepticism has been in the past and how rapidly it is spreading even now. For decades it was the dominant view in countries such as the Soviet Union. Yet more striking, it appears to be the majority view in some regions of the West today, including some parts of Scandinavia."

I believe these words are a proof that it is absolutely incorrect to call Jesus Myth Theory (a.k.a. JMT) fringe: even a notable proponent of the opposite view says it is not the case, and he even concedes that JMT is a majority view in some parts of the Western world, and its popularity is growing.

Obviously, since to prove negative (namely, to debunk the claim that JMT is fringe) is much easier that to prove positive, and ONE good source saying that JMT is not fringe is quite sufficient for that, I have sustained my burden of evidence per WP:V.

In connection to that, I expect all users who cited WP:FRINGE or CIR during their !vote (namely, Softlavender, Ermenrich, Ad Orientem, bonadea, Amakuru, Nosebagbear, T8612, Toa , Alexandermcnabb, GretLomborg, Literaturegeek | T@1k?, Seth Kellermanto withdraw their votes and explicitly apologize, for their assertions were based on a false premise and contradicted to what a reliable source says. I am sure you sincerely believed JMT was fringe, so I am not accusing you of bad faith. However, now, when you have been informed about that your mistake, you owe me apologies.

Let me make a stress on Ehrman's words: "Even a quick Internet search reveals". What does it means? It means that the above mentioned users didn't bothered to do even a quick Internet search to verify that CMT is not fringe, which cast a doubt on their competence. Taking into account that some of them threw CIR accusations against me, that sounds weird. I reject a possibility that they knew they that CMT was not fringe and were acting in a bad faith, and their sincere apologies will reaffirm me in that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

He’s clearly referring to popular option, not academics. Keep digging your hole, man. Toa Nidhiki05 15:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

No. Re-read this sentence:

"Their books may not be known to most of the general public interested in questions related to Jesus, the Gospels, or the early Christian church, but they do occupy a noteworthy niche as a (very) small but (often) loud minority voice."

--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

All books are not written by academics. Anyone can write a darn book and spout whatever they like.★Trekker (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

"bona fide scholars—not professors teaching religious studies in universities but scholars nonetheless, and at least one of them with a Ph.D. in the field of New Testament" They do not belong to the same field as Ehrman, but they are definitely academics. In addition, my task was just to prove negative, which I have successfully done.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I also cited FRINGE. And I don't feel very compelled to apologize.★Trekker (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

You didn't vote, but your apologies are warmly welcome.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

He didn't apologize. Nor does that quote support what you say, as it's clearly about popular opinion, as Nidhik says.

I won't apologize for invoking WP:FRINGE, as I disagree rather strongly with your interpretation of the passage above. But I do apologize for anything else I might have said that was hurtful. Things have gotten rather heated.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, I meant, his apologies would be very welcome.

Regarding the rest, I presented the words of a prominent supporter of the theory of histricity of Jesus, who (i) concedes that the JMT is a minority but a notable viewpoint that is a majority view in some parts of the West, and (ii) he, as well as many Christian scholar was unaware of that fact. Obviously, that means that Christian scholars work in isolation, and Ehrman's view gives as just a lower margin: CMT is at least a significant minority view. I see absolutely no possibility for a double interpretation. Anyway, you may disagree, but this my interpretation deserves a serious consideration, and if you ignore it, we have a serious CIR issue.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Bart Ehrman isn't a Christian.--Ermenrich (talk)

I meant not his religion but the scope of his interests.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Your gall is boundless. Stop it man. T8612 (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Part 3. Ermenrich. To be continued.

I suggest you to look at that. Briefly, I found the statement in one BLP article that the living person is a fringe theorist. When I examined some sources cited in this article, I found that this statement is at least controversial, so must be immediately removed per WP:BLP I was obliged to immediately remove this contentious material waiting for discussion, which I did. In addition, as an act of a good faith, I explained that on a talk page and made my best to inform users who decided to restore this material about possible BLP sanctions.

In that situation, Ermenrich had three options:

1. To revert me, which would lead to an ANI report per BLP. However, if Ermenrich is confident JMT is fringe, that report wouldn't do any harm to them, and just demonstrated that this user is ready to take risk, but they sincerely believe their POV is a majority view.
2. To refrain from revert, and to concede that the claim that JMT is fringe is probably contenious, because it cannot be placed in BLP articles. That would demonstrate Ermenrich is intellecually honest.
3. Instead, Ermenrich decided to go the third way: they appeared to be not brave enough to revert what they believe an obvious PROFRINGE edit, and presented this story as an argument against me on this page. This step is hard to explain assuming this user is intellecually honest, like Ehrman. This shakes my believe in his good faith. I would be glad to see the evidence of the opposite, so Ermenrich's explanations are welcome here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

This completely mischaracterizes what happened.I posted a neutrally-worded mention of the discussion at Talk:Historicity of Jesus [54]. I did not ask anyone to revert your edit or warn you, but if you're going to challenge the existing consensus it shouldn't be done article by article, as I state here, informing the talk page that I'd mentioned it at Historicity of Jesus. [55]. I am not an expert on this topic, nor do I hope to ever have much dealing with it (or you) again after this ANI is over.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

May be. But the absolutely non-neutral post at ANI completely disproves your above statement and cast a dark shadow on your reputation of a good faith user.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

the information was relevant to the discussion and if anyone disagreed about my concerns they were free to voice them. I even admitted that there may have been a problem at the article as it was written. You're reaching here just like you did when you tried to accuse me of WP:OWN.--Ermenrich (talk)

Part 4. Seth Kellerman's note

From to this post, I conclude that I am not the first user who has been attacked by a group of users sharing the same view. Since this situation poses a danger to Wikipedia, I am contemplating a possibility to file a request against the users who are listed above. I think it would be correct to ban those users from commenting on ANI when they are not parties (i.e. when they are not reporting or they have not been reported), per CIR. This is not an act of retaliation (I am pretty capable of defending myself), this is aimed to protect other users who express minority but not fringe views. That is why, as an act of my good faith, I am proposing the above users to apologize and to promise they will reconsider their approach to dispute resolution in future, and will take the arguments from others more seriously.

I am pretty sure this situation reached the point when ArbCom will take this case for consideration.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Part 5. BLP violation

The case described in the Part 3 definitely deserves ANI as WP:BLP violation. I removed this material again, and in the case if this content will be restored I'll report that user on ANI. That is not my habit to go to ANI, I prefer to persuade people on talk pages instead, however, since many people complain I am making to many posts, I'll try to change my strategy.

By the way, in the unlikely case if the contentious material about Carrier will be restored, and the case will go to ANI, we will easily see if CMT is fringe.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• The End.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• I'm really sorry, but it's late here in the UAE so I feel I must just intercede for a moment before I leave. I'm not being insulting and intent no disparagement, but I honestly believe this is really not normal and should be, in the interests of everyone here, shut down right now. That's just IMHO. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

+1. I have no words. Dumuzid (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I have to admit I'm a little confused now. What exactly demands that the ANI is over now?★Trekker (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

He is saying [56] that unless everyone will apologize to him, he will complain about you all to the Arbitration Committee. I do not think he is serious. This is just a threat. My very best wishes (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

What would happen if it went to ArbCom exactly? I've never been involved in one of those cases.★Trekker (talk) 17:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I believe if this will go there, I'll request ArbCom to impose the above described editing restrictions on all above mentioned users (and probably on you). That will not prevent you from editing, will not prevent you from filing reports on any noticeboards, and from defending yourselves when you are reported. However, you will not be allowed to support accusations thrown by others, for the above mentioned users demonstrated they are ready to support their fellow editors against those who has different POV without bothering to check factual accuracy of the evidenced presented. I believe you understand that is not a threat and not an act of retaliation. That is an attempt to protect other users from unjustified attacks by not sufficiently competent users. Again, it is easy to avoid by bringing apologies and promising to do careful analysis of evidences.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I was asking in general what a ArbCom is for, not what you would want to happen.★Trekker (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

This isn’t going to ArbCom. Toa Nidhiki05 18:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

It may not go if apologies will be brought. Otherwise I'll submit it to ArbCom, and the arbitrators will vote if they are taking it for closer consideration. Then each parties presents their evidences, after that the ArbCome will make their decision. I again losing access to a computer, so I am done. Good luck.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I get wasting time on enormous walls of text is your thing, but that’s not going to work here. You’re not going to threaten anyone into doing anything. Empty threats are empty threats. Toa Nidhiki05 18:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

You can't extort people for apologies, they need to be genuine to be worth anything.★Trekker (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Damn, you are right! I didn't think about that. Anyway, I expect my opponents to demonstrate a capability of accepting arguments, and a capability of presenting something more substantial than "you are acting against consensus". I am not expecting you to agree with me, but I expect arguments similar to the one presented by Joshua Jonathan. Otherwise you are disruptive, and your opinion has a zero weight.--20:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

If you know it's true why are you trying to threaten people into giving you apologies?★Trekker (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Labelling Richard Carrier as a "fringe" supporter, in the lead no less, is indeed a serious issue - and should be discussed at BLP/n - and absent strong supporting sources would be actionable at AE - you don't need ARBCOM as all BLPs are under DS. .Icewhiz (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not going to go to ArbCom regarding Carrier. By the way, we are discussing a violation that has not happened yet: this material has not been restored so far.

By the way, Icewhiz, is the topic as whole under DS?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

All living people are.Icewhiz (talk) 18:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you Alexandermcnabb, apologies taken. :-)--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

CMT is definitely fringe. See Christ myth theory#Scholarly reception and Talk:Christ myth theory/Archive 30#Once Again (sigh), It Seems that I need to Post This - Sources Saying that "most scholars agree". And believe me, I know. I love that theory, I'm the main contributor to the CMT-article (1,420 edits so far, sorry, sorry...), but CMT has no place whatsoever in the works of people like James Dunn (theologian) (Jesus Remembered] and Larry Hurtado (Lord Jesus Christ)(compare the number of citations for Carrier's books). The real reserach-questions are: what do the (Christian) sources tell us about Jesus, and how do we know what they tell us; and how did Christianity evolve from the man Jesus to the messianic Jewish movement from which the Christian tradition evolved? Regarding the second question, the main (naturalistic) explanation is that Jesus had a profound impact on his followers, who had strong religious experiences after Jesus' death, mixed with an inspired reading of the scriptures, which convinced them that Jesus was (the first) risen from the dead, heralding the onset of the endtime and the coming of God's Kingdom. This is basically what Dunn and Hurtado, both Christians, but also others, argue; it's a view that's offensive for 'orthodox' Christians. And yes, religious experiences and inspired reading are the stuff of mythology and faith; but that Jesus existed is the mainstream answer to the first question, while only a few authors conclude question one with the answer that Jesus never existed at all. And note, the literature on the origins on Christianity is so overwhelming, that Dunn lamented that even for professionals like him it's virtually impossible to keep on track with everything that's published. In this flood of publications, no CMT. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I will gladly discuss it with you later, when I finish reading on that subject. However, the data I found so far show that that theory seems rather popular among agnostics and leftist intellectuals (including scholars). As we can conclude from Ehrman's words (cited above), the scholars who study the Gospels seem to work in isolation from others, and they are not aware of opinion os historians who study a history of ancient Middle East from other perspectives. That situation is not uncommon: I already saw similar examples in genocide studies and other topics. Again, my opinion may change depending on what I find (I'll do my best to read the sources you mentioned too), but the question is definitely a subject of a serious and polite debates, not of !vote by persons who hate reading long and thoughtful posts and prefer to take sides without serious considerations. Hopefully, at the end of August I will be able to say something concrete. Good luck.--19:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

It is not true that "As we can conclude from Ehrman's words (cited above), the scholars who study the Gospels seem to work in isolation from others, and they are not aware of opinion os historians who study a history of ancient Middle East from other perspectives." As Ehrman writes on pges 4 and 5 of the very introduction to which you refer, "Serious historians of the early Christain movement - all of them - have spent many years preparing to be experts in their field ... Expertise requires years of patiently examining ancient texts and a thorough grounding in the history and culture of Greek and Roman antiquity, the religions of the ancient Mediterranean world both pagan and Jewish, knowledge of the history of the Christian church and the development of its social life and theology, and, well, lots of other things." I hope that this was not conscious misrepresentation on your part, and that the explanation is that you incompetently stopped reading Ehrman's introduction as soon as you found something you misconstrued in your favour. 80.41.128.7 (talk) 16:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

While it is possible its just a misreading on Paul's part, I wouldn't put it past him to just assume that anything he reads confirms his belifes. As he said above, he seemingly claims to not even have been aware that non-Christians could belive that Jesus was real. I don't put much stock into how he researches, even if he can site some published source which claims he's great at it.★Trekker (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, he even misrepresents his own writing. He argued "because it is based on just two small passages from Josephus and Tacitus, which are widely recognised anachronisms or later additions. No other evidences (if we do not consider the Gospels reliable) prove Jesus existence, so we have absolutely no ground to claim Jesus ever existed. Therefore, everybody who believes Jesus (the God or just a human) really existed is, to some degree, a Christian."[57] Less than 20 hours later, he claimed "my statement was based on what high quality peer-reviewed source says: it says that the researchers writing about Christ share similar goals and perspectives with believers, and, again, that is not my assertion, that is a published fact."[58] It blatantly wasn't. 80.41.128.7 (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

He behave similarly on other talk pages, except that on other pages he is usually more familiar with the topic. In the diff above he tells: "everybody who believes Jesus (the God or just a human) really existed is, to some degree, a Christian". That comment alone shows that Paul has no even slightest understanding of this subject. My very best wishes (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

When he argues that Tacitus cannot have written about Jesus because Jesus hadn't been invented yet,[59] it seems he lacks either understanding or the ability to reason. He sure can argue, though. 80.41.128.7 (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with Joshua Jonathan. As a note of order, Paul just started another unhelpful discussion: [60]. There was no any BLP violations at the first place. My very best wishes (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Poetry and humor. My very best wishes (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Admin's Prayer Our admin who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy encyclopedia come. Thy edits be done, in mainspace as it is in talkspace. Give us this day our daily watchlist, and forgive us our disruptive editing, as we forgive those who edit against consensus, and lead us not into tendentiousness, but deliver us from walls of text. For thine is the toolkit, and the {{atop}}, and the {{abot}}, for ever and ever, Amen. – Levivich 00:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC) Thanks, I needed that, lol.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC) Good. Now add ten Hail Jimbos and a Glory BLP, then repeat a bunch of times. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC) That is fun, ha-ha. What is more funny, is that while you are trying to pile more and more arguments about DE and CIR and excercise in humour, a calm, respectful and polite discussion is unfolding between me and Joshua Jonathan, a user who sincerely believes that JMT is fringe (he said he was a major contributor to that article), but who is ready to demonstrate his point with sources and arguments. I beg you not to interfere in this discussion and not to try to derail it, just watch how a real conversation between two persons who respect positions of each other should look like.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC) Boooooo. No fun. Bring back PastaPaul. No-fun Paul Siebert is no fun.★Trekker (talk) 04:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC) I'm not sure if any of that comment is directed at me, but let me assure you I have not read anything above the line that reads "The Admin's Prayer", and do not intend to. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposing site ban

Having stayed out of this discussion despite following it, the latest actions by Paul Siebert leads me to conclude the user needs to be banned from Wikipedia, not just topic banned. I'm ignoring the content disputes and the endless walls of text. The two behavioral problems I see repeated are:

• extensive edit warring. Diffs have already been provided above. Paul repeatedly ignores WP:BRD on article after article. He even continues to edit war while under discussion here. If a user cannot refrain from disruptive editing even while discussed at ANI for previous disruptive behaviour, then it seems very likely he will just continue in the same way.
• extreme entitlement. In all my years at WP, I never saw anything as self-entitled as Paul's post here previously today (see above). First saying I'll request ArbCom to impose the above described editing restrictions on all above mentioned users when it's Paul's disruptive editing and possible that users discuss, and then even It may not go if apologies will be brought. Otherwise I'll submit it to ArbCom is just beyond the pale. To me, this is user who feels above everyone else.
  

Combining these two aspects (continuing disruptive editing even when at ANI for disruptive editing, and stating others must apologise to him when he is the one under investigation) shows a user unable to cooperate with others. To be clear, I'm not commenting on the content disputes, nor do I dispute that Paul may have contributed well in some articles before, but the behaviour we see here is highly disruptive and detrimental to WP. For these reasons, having followed the discussion this far, I love that Paul be indefinitely site banned and for a minimum of six months. Jeppiz (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to move on from this, so I'll be brief. The reason why the discussion above was open for so long was because Paul hasn't been edit warring exactly, just discussing ad infinitum and refusing to get the point. If you want to say he is, after the discussion has been closed in a fairly satisfactory way, I think you'd better provide specific diffs.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Reopen discussion?

The close does not seem to reflect the complex nature of the discussion, and comes to a conclusion that few people actually supported - many supported a far broader topic ban, some people supported no ban.IDHT was covered in the discussion but there were numerous other policies that were cited but completely omitted in the closure. That the link to the article in the closure is red because the target is spelled wrong and that the topic ban has not been logged where it should are further indications of a lack of due care while closing this discussion.Lurking shadow (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

God no. That will only bring more pain and suffering into this poor world. And I'm sure Llywrch will get around to registering it.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @Lurking shadow: for mentioning those steps. I'm doing this from work between interruptions, so I was bound to miss something. I will also drop a note on Paul Siebert's page about this closing. -- llywrch (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually, some people partly supported the solution, but that doesn't change the rest - the total lack of mentioning anything except WP:IDHT.Lurking shadow (talk) 23:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Obviously the most important thing was his threatening the users who voted to TBAN him. You should just let this lie.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. Paul can be incredibly annoying, as far as I've seen now, in his quest to understand a statement, but he's sincere. He wants to understand, as far as I can see. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 01:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this is not the way to learn and understand anything. This is wasting time of other contributors and a perfectly legitimate reason for a topic ban. My very best wishes (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

On the contrary, Joshua Jonathan, the case is very similar to Robertinventor, who you took to ANI several times which eventually led to him being indefinitely blocked. Paul Siebert exhibits extremely similar patterns of bludgeoning, IDHT, over-posting, TE, stonewalling, and forumming. Someone so deeply entrenched in disruptive IDHT is probably going to eventually end up at ArbCom if they do not get the message now that Wikipedia is not a forum for their disruptive musings and endless arguments against consensus. Softlavender (talk) 02:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

We should wait and see if he gets the message before reopening this. He has said he'll be gone for a couple of weeks, the best thing to do now is just let it be. If this continues to be a problem, a new report can be made. And if he does decide to file an ArbCom case, then there will be no need to reopen the issue here. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

You've misinterpreted. If Paul Siebert does not somehow come to his senses and stop WP:BLUDGEONING talkpages, using talkpages as a WP:FORUM, endlessly promoting WP:FRINGE theories, refusing to listen, refusing to desist in the face of WP:CONSENSUS, and/or disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, he will end up at ArbCom because someone will report him and his manifold disruption. Softlavender (talk) 04:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

This seems like the most likely thing here. Honestly, I think the best would be to give him a long block along with a topic ban on Historicity of Jesus (maybe also something for Communism). It's clear he has done good stuff for Wikipedia, but I think his ego is way out of control.★Trekker (talk) 06:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm honestly unsure where this goes. His response to Llywrch [61] does not give me great faith that he's gotten the point. The problem seems to be that he knows almost nothing about the topic, but is absolutely sure that he's right and will distort any information he's given to support his views. He's still making claims at Talk:Richard Carrier that unnamed "secular scholars" support the JMT, while dismissing more or less every mainstream scholar as a Christian theologian who is unaware of this larger discourse. A larger discourse that Paul, of course, can't cite or substantiate. It's a very similar problem to a Christian fundamentalist, who would no doubt go around accusing all the historical Jesus scholars of being "secular scholars" (as regularly happens at, e.g., Moses). Anyway, assuming he actually does stay away now for a while (given how often he's announced he's going away only to return within hours, I have my doubts), we all get a nice reprieve from this. I'd suggest everyone just keep their eyes open and if there are more problems, we'll deal with them then.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• I think Paul is right about one thing. He tells in his reply [62] that he "participated in the talk page discussion that lasted just a couple of days.". This is true. Now imagine same thing happening for weeks and months on pages like Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes. Basically, this is happening until he "wins" the dispute. After realizing his editing habits I avoid all pages that he edits, such as Gulag, Mass killings under communist regimes, Gas van, and so on, and so on. This is the situation when someone with a lot of time and stamina automatically "wins" all content disputes on all pages visited by just a few contributors. My very best wishes (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh I know this "technique" all to well, very often used by editors with very strong "vonvictions".★Trekker (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I would have closed this with a broader topic ban, but I don't think the close written is entirely unreasonable. I suggest we let this go for now and give the topic ban a chance to work. If disruption resumes, bring it back here. GoldenRing (talk) 09:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I am disappointed in the very narrow scope of the topic ban. (Pinging Llywrch to notify, since he made the close.) Basically, this means we will have to babysit Paul Siebert's edits to ensure that he does not impose his fringe theory elsewhere. This is genuinely exhausting because it's not like you can put a person's contribs on a watchlist. And from the looks of it and My very best wishes's report, Paul Siebert's bludgeoning habits have been disrupting Wikipedia for quite some time, and will continue unless he is stopped; a warning about such would be in order. It's not too late for the close to be altered to include the broader topic ban of Historicity of Jesus, and an official warning against bludgeoning. The fact that the closer closed a contentious 225,000-byte thread "from work between interruptions, so I was bound to miss something" is definite grounds for a re-do or re-close. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I can only think of two points that I could comment on without re-starting this wave of verbiage once again. The first is that in my close I added the sentence, "Other Admins may extend this edit ban as they see fit, based on his further actions." In other words, there is no need for anyone to baby-sit him; there is no need for another 225,000-byte thread chock full of slabs of text in WP:AN/I to modify the close. I imposed a moderate TBAN on him in hope that he realizes that this is not an effective way for him to achieve his goals in an article, & changes his behavior. After all, at least one participant stated Paul Siebert had made constructive contributions. But if he attempts to bludgeon his way in another article -- which is something one just can't overlook -- in that case another Admin has the authority to TBAN him there as appropriate. If he still hasn't learned at that stage... Well, I hope he does. Because in my years of experience here at Wikipedia, I only seen temporary blocks modify the behavior in only a tiny fraction of those sanctioned.
      The second point is that my comment about work interruptions refers to the process of closing the thread & imposing some kind of protection to the wiki, not to reading everything Paul Siebert has written at Talk: Pontius Pilate & here. My God, the man can pontificate endlessly!!! And I thought I was bad. One thing I've learned from contributing to Wikipedia for over 16 years is that Mr Siebert is not the first person to try to push an agenda with a steamroller of comments on Wikipedia, & I can assure you he won't be the last. The important thing for everyone else to do is to clear their heads, then either move on or objectively study how he got control of the debate & figure out strategies to respond the next time he or the next person tries to civilly push his POV. Hailing people to WP:AN/I will not always work. (And I've seen cases where an outright ban has failed; some banned users have figured out ways to evade even that, sad to report.) -- llywrch (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Continued disruption at Cantonese, again, again.

As was previously reported on ANI, [here] and [here] before that, Jaywu2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) continues to periodically add unsourced changes to population of speakers in the Cantonese article. user:Kanguole, user:LiliCharlie and myself have left numerous messages on their talk page asking them repeatedly to discuss their changes on the talk page, they made a single post to my talk page [here], on 10 July, to accuse us of being "Cantonese haters" (which I found highly amusing being a Cantonese speaker myself) and in effect threaten to sock if they were blocked You can block me all you want, I'm just going to keep coming. Since then, they've continued to try and add their synthesis to the article. More recently, they've given up using the unreliable source and have gone straight for changing numbers irrespective of what the source already says, effectively misrepresenting the source altogether.

• 11 July
• 20 July
• 22 July
• 26 July
• 27 July
• 1 August

Prior to the 11 July edit, they were asked each time to provide a source, but Kanguole (bless their patience) has given up asking and just reverts their edit. At this point, it is obvious we're dealing with an editor whose disregard for proper sourcing and penchant for slow motion edit warring and I would ask for a block. I will be notifying all involved editors shortly. Blackmane (talk) 14:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

My impression is that this person is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and that they are consuming volunteer editors' precious time instead. I agree that a block seems justified. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 14:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked the user for two weeks, to stop the disruption. Perhaps he will reconsider his approach, though these edits don't inspire much hope.[63][64] If he continues after the block expires, I would recommend an indefinite block. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Based on the name of the citation (中国语言地图集 （第2版）Language Atlas of China (2nd ed.) i would guess the citation would only supported the number of Cantonese speaker of China. But may be missing the (estimated) figures of Cantonese speaker in Malaysia, Australia and North America, etc.. However, it is not a valid reason for Jaywu2000 to insert unsourced figures to the wiki article, especially insert in-between the figures and the citation. He did stated his figure was copied from ethnologue in his talk page (see Special:Diff/905543170), but i am not sure ethnologue had been discussed in WP:RSN as reliable source or not. And then the personal attack in his talk page (Special:Diff/905582502) had deteriorated my good faith on him. So, yup, he need to learn to use WP:RS and solving the dispute in proper way such as WP:Rfc, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests. Or he need an indefinite block to prevent further damage to wiki articles. Matthew hk (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Actually its a global estimate, but (as you say) this is something to be discussed on the article talk page. Kanguole 23:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Douchebagdelight2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), a brand new account, has just appeared making this edit to the article. Obvious duck is obvious. Blackmane (talk) 23:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Note, this user has now been blocked by User:The Blade of the Northern Lights as a username violation. Blackmane (talk) 01:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, it seem now the case need to refer to SPI or a quick ping in order to determine the block of Jaywu2000 should be extended due to socking allegation. In theory his temp block had "account creation blocked" but not sure there is way to bypass it. Matthew hk (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Possible shared account/paid editing?

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

---

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

There is this summary revert, in which its editing summary said something about 'series' [65]... I instantly consider this to be suspicious.

(The summary revert basically restored all kinds of factual errors.
E.g., (Error 1) The people of the Isle of Man and the people of the Channel Islands are (under domestic/national (non-EU) British (British Nationality) law), no less of British citizens than the people of the United Kingdom: i.e., the IOM and the CI are not foreign countries for British citizens (e.g., see the British Nationality Act 1948, section 33(2) [66]); and
(Error 2) British citizens do not have an automatic 'right of abode' in Gibraltar if they do not already also have Gibraltarian status [67];
(Error 3) British citizens in Ireland (Republic of Ireland) are covered by the Common Travel Area regime (implemented by domestic/national Irish law [68]) rather than by the EU Freedom of Movement regime;
(Error 4) There is (de facto) no EU/EEA Freedom of Movement rights in Liechtenstein for British citizens [69][70]; I could go on...)

All in all, it is just incredibly strange/bizarre for a single-person, unpaid, amateurish/hobbyist editor to create, edit and 'maintain' (as 'the user' sees it) articles about (and only about [71]) the entry/visa requirements of (almost) all nationalities in the world, since 2013... unless, the person(s) behind the account is/are working for/with Henley & Partners [72] (which are based/registered in Jersey in the Channel Islands)[73] and run their own Henley Passport Index. [74][75][76][77][78][79]

In no time did the user/editor explicitly declare any such links. (Personally, I think he/she/they is/are, and this sort of errors are deliberately introduced in order to manipulate the passport 'powerfulness' score, as Henley & Partners would see it.)

194.207.146.167 (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Unless you have some actual evidence to support your claim that Twofortnights is engaged in UPE, you're treading very close to violating WP:NPA. Other than the fact that you have a hard time believing that someone would put this kind of time into maintaining wiki pages, I haven't seen any such evidence presented. Frankly, if it weren't for people putting in unbelievable amounts of time curating and maintaining articles, most of Wikipedia wouldn't be here. All this said, I'd read Oshwah's comments below, and take them to heart. If you have content concerns, take them up on the article talk page. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 08:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The editing history for Henley Passport Index is also questionable [80], to say the very least! 194.207.146.167 (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

And so is that for The Passport Index [81]. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 09:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Under "series" I mean you should follow the same style used in all articles under Category:Visa_requirements_by_nationality which contains about 200 articles all using the same designations. But yeah go ahead and conduct any checks on me, none of the things you suggest are true. I don't care about your personal attacks much but I don't know if the company you mentioned might find your out there claims libelous. I am simply asking you to read and apply the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Thank you.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

You didn't really address the other points which I have raised, such as that British citizens do not have automatic 'right of abode' in Gibraltar. The 'right of abode' is term coined by the British Nationality Act 1981 ("An Act to make fresh provision about citizenship and nationality, and to amend the Immigration Act 1971 as regards the right of abode in the United Kingdom.") for the United Kingdom and the UK only. Gibraltar has its own immigration system, and the term 'right of abode' is apparently not (yet) used by the government over there.[82] 194.207.146.167 (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

These issues seem to be the issues for the article talk page not the discussion about my supposed corruption. I have already addressed several issues on Commons anyway.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Your reasoning that eTA [83], ESTA [84] and eVisitor [85] equal visa free in the Commons is bogus; and our invoking of the Manual(s) of Style is also bogus. There is no inherent requirement (or good reason) for every single Wikipedia to read and sound the same… unless, you are promoting them (different passports of different countries, for different nationalities) as commodities for 'sale'. The present page Visa requirements for British citizens read like an investment immigration promotional literature to some Russian, Ukrainian, Chinese or Indian oligarch or ex-military man to read rather than for the benefit of someone who lives in the British Isles, where the vast majority of British citizens are based (otherwise, you wouldn't need to include the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands in the visa/visa-free lists, because virtually every adult person who can read and write the English language in Britain, is a British citizen and actually has a current unexpired British passport would know this almost as a given); the arguably equally bogus inclusion of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands (Virgin Islands of the U.S.), Guam, the CNMI and American Samoa in Visa requirements for United States citizens would serve to confirm this. A lot of these articles read awfully like Henley & Partners or Arton Capital touting for business using Wikipedia on an unpaid basis rather than serving any useful purpose for the vast majority of this site's readers (if there is still any!)… otherwise, can we just remove all references to Henley, Henley & Partners, The Passport Index, the Henley Passport Index and Arton Capital, and if not, why not?! They have nothing to do with e.g. Brits (or any other nationality) wanting to go on a holiday (or vacation) aboard (or overseas), which is what these articles are primarily supposed to serve, not how many 'doors' a Passport issued by Country A would open versus Country B like some competition! 194.207.146.167 (talk) 11:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

This is insane. Please stop harassing me.--Twofortnights (talk) 10:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. The thread is Henley Passport Index/The Passport Index. Thank you. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 11:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

This is clearly throwing up more questions than answers. The other user is basically saying that no-one is allowed to change anything on any of those articles unless they are approved by Henley & Partners' [86] or Arton Captial's [87] staff, lest they interfere/mess up with their own silly little own (internal) "passport rankings". I now personally think that all "Visa requirements for XXX citizens" article be removed under WP:NOTGUIDE. (Furthermore, lot of these articles in fact related to 'unofficial sources' [88][89], such as Timatic, which is an internal database provided by the IATA purely to advise the airlines and is never intended as/supposed to be an official reliable/authoritative guide to the general civilian travelling public outside of the airport check-in staff of the civil aviation industry. The only purpose of Timatic is there to protect the airlines from being fined for carrying passengers without the correct paperwork.) 194.207.146.167 (talk) 12:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

194.207.146.167 - I can understand where you might gain suspicions based off a user's edits, but because someone reverts your edits with a seemingly legitimate reason stated in the edit summary doesn't give you the right to instantly file a report here (or in other noticeboards like you did at WP:COIN) and make multiple repeated accusations toward Twofortnights without substantiate and proper evidence to support them. This violates Wikipedia's policy on civility and respect and how you're expected to behave and interact with others. I don't get to go around and make accusations or claims against another editor unless I have the proper evidence and proof to back it up. You haven't supplied ample evidence to support the accusations and claims that you're making here. And what do you mean exactly when you state in your edit summary here that you "don't care about [Twofortnights]' series"? Why haven't you started a discussion on the article's talk page to try and work things out with Twofortnights before coming here? You need to do this if you disagree with the edits or reverts that Twofortnights, and you two need to discuss the matter and sort it out. Minus the accusations you're making, this is all stemming from a dispute at Visa requirements for British citizens that's clearly content-related. I'm happy to see that no edit warring has occurred there; please keep Wikipedia's policy on edit warring in mind and do not let things cross into that territory. Work things out by discussion and following Wikipedia's dispute resolution protocol, and I'm sure you'll find that there's a good reason as to why Twofortnights reverted your changes. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't know. I have come to the conclusion (sometime today) that these "Visa requirement for XXX citizens" article are not/never bona fide Wikipedia articles 'to inform', but are there primarily to 'plug' (promote)/tout/advertise either the Henley Passport Index, and by extension Henley & Partners, or The Passport Index by their (also) UK-associated business rivals Arton Capital, or both. This is an inherent commercial advertisement which appears on literally every single one of these articles. I do not think I would want to stick my neck out to do an AfD nomination (again) any time soon ((still) far too much 'hoo-ha' about), but do they not fall foul of WP:NOTGUIDE? It would seem they do, even if/when and after all references to The Passport Index/Henley Passport Index are removed. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 23:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

194.207.146.167 - If there's content on these articles that seem to be worded like an advertising, or is pushing a point of view that isn't neutral, then yes, I agree, that content should be modified in order to resolve this. If the revert that Twofortnights made citing style guideline issues also reverted changes to content that removed such issues, you should definitely open a discussion with Twofortnights on the article's talk page and mention this. You could also try modifying just the content and not anything related to style or cosmetics (since Twofortnights cited this as the reason for reverting your edits there), and then discuss that issue with Twofortnights afterwards. Regardless, I think you're making unfounded accusations toward Twofortnights for being a paid contributor and working for the organization that the content details. Just because someone disagrees with your edits or changes does not automatically make them bad-faith users or users with deceptive motives or intentions. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

"I don't care about your personal attacks much but I don't know if the company you mentioned might find your out there claims libellous." That was an indirectly-worded legal threat issued on behalf of the company. A simple "I do not work for them" would have done, but instead he went on the offensive. I don't really think how adding the words "(under/according to Part I of the British Nationality Act 1981)" is in anyway substantially breaking the article from the Manual of Style (except WP:IDONTLIKEIT). Deflect from the accusation with a counteraccusation... if anything, the user sounds more like a professional PR (public relations) hack or spin-doctor. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 10:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

[90] The general on-Wikipedia consensus is that, Taiwan is a state with limited recognition, and not just merely a "territory". Even List of sovereign states didn't go as far as lumping Taiwan with the Gaza Strip! Just a whole pattern of the User thinking that he/she owns all of the articles and picking arguments over changes he/she doesn't personally like, basically. The Taiwan Relations Act, anyone?! Taiwan is a simple, straightforward "country" for the purpose of international travel by U.S. citizens as far as the U.S. Government is concerned! (And this [91], contrasting with this [92]?! Consensus, or just he/she (again) imposing his/her personal views on things, unchallenged?!) 194.207.146.167 (talk) 12:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

As a side issue: And this [93] is even more questionable. If the Republic of Palau and the Government of Palau recognise Taiwan as a sovereign state (albeit) under the name "the Republic of China", then is it really up to User:Norvikk to put Taiwan under "Dependent, Disputed, or Restricted territories" for the purpose/benefit of Palauan citizens (which, this article is supposed to be about)?! And User:Norvikk and User:Twofortnights seem to know each other as well.[94] And the page's [95] editing history does suggest co-operation, if not also elsewhere and on an extensive basis [96]. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 13:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

[97] and this as well. Her Majesty and Her Majesty's Government do recognise Kosovo as a sovereign independent state [98][99], and so does the European Commission on behalf of the EU [100][101] (for itself as a sovereign organisation under international law but not necessarily for and on behalf of each of the individual EU member states), and again, it is not really up to anyone (or someone in Belgrade, Moscow, Minsk or Leningrad/St Petersburg?) to dump Kosovo down to the bottom. (And anyway anything Kosovo-related is definitely sanctioned.) 194.207.146.167 (talk) 15:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Stop bolding and underlining things, it's obnoxious. Also let other people talk. 2001:4898:80E8:8:B9A5:5A22:C3FB:880D (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

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

183.177.231.187 IP editor mass !voting at AFD (almost botlike)

[102] is posting massive amounts of !keep votes at AFD's with just keep as a comment. I'm not sure though what the game is here, but just thought I'd bring this to the attention. I do suggest a mass rollback and a block of the IP editor if possible. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

This IP doesn't seem to be the only one involved though. From what I saw earlier and what is currently on AIV I'm not sure how effective blocking will be given the range of IP addresses involved. Maybe page protection or an edit filter might help? Sakura Cartelet^Talk 03:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have seen multiple another IPs spamming on smaller numbers of pages as well, including:

1. 175.120.209.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
2. 111.118.45.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
3. 172.218.222.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This is almost certainly some sort of concerted attack especially considering just how insanely fast the first IP Sir Joseph mentioned is spamming. Toa Nidhiki05 03:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I started a case here because I wasn't sure where to go - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/210.164.164.104. It has two different IPs than the above, but they are doing the same thing. SL93 (talk) 03:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks like something is going on, but even if those IP's are blocked, I think we would want a mass rollback of the !votes at AFD, which would not happen at AIV. I think there is a script or tool that does it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also:

• 180.200.51.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 210.164.164.104‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 1.250.164.112‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)

creffett (talk) 03:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Rolled back all of these I can. I think almost all of OP’s originals IPs have been taken out as well now by myself and many other editors. Toa Nidhiki05 03:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• 122.132.28.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Also this mass voter. Blocked by User:JJMC89 --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Initially blocked by me for disruptive editing, JJMC89 changed the block settings. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• 31.223.107.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This one too. Lamest bot invasion ever. Toa Nidhiki05 03:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• 211.243.200.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) another one Toa Nidhiki05 03:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

On the off chance it becomes relevant, most of the WHOIS entries on these resolve to ISPs Japan and South Korea, though there are a couple in other places. Also, I've found a rangeblock that covers all of this...it would just block everyone else on the internet in the process creffett (talk) 03:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Creffett, maybe they're using a VPN?

Reckon they are all related? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Tyw7, at least one of their edit summaries would seem to suggest either concerted or long-term disruption. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Rosguill, ah that edit summary looks damning. But can anything be done against this other than range blocking?

That said, there is an SPI investigation opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/210.164.164.104 by User:SL93 --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't have the faintest clue how to stop this, just figured that I should mention that the behavior was even more ducklike than it first seemed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• 133.175.127.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Another possible IP vandal. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 2) Blocked. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• More blocked IP Vandal 27.114.29.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) in case anybody wants to find any corrolation and add a spam filter. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• 126.227.218.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) back --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Do you think we should maybe temporarily lock AFDs from IP edits for the time being? Maybe say 24 hours? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Is that even technically possible (or desirable) to lock down AfD from all anons for a period of time? Sakura Cartelet^Talk 04:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Sakura Cartelet, Well as seen above the AFD is being trolled by an IP. Usually, with articles, this will trigger a temporary lock. PS please ping me if you reply as I don't add ANI to the watchlist. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I know that it is likely one person doing all of the damage to AfD. I was more wondering how we'd protect all of the pages in AfD (even if only for a limited amount of time) without causing unnecessary harm to (potential) good faith AfD contributors. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 04:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Just looked at the open proxy detection page and a few of the blocked IPs are on there so it appears that the vandal is using them (and other unlisted ones) to continue their disruption. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 04:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Sakura Cartelet, if this happens in the future it might be worth pre-emptively blocking those IPs? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I suppose it might be a good idea to do this although since I'm not an admin somebody else would have to do it in my stead. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 20:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

This is a known vandal, commonly known as derp (search the archives). The IPs are going to all be VPNs, and if there's a recurrence, please insta-block any IPs but also poke an edit filter admin. Edit filters are much easier than protecting all AfDs (or anything else - they will just move on elsewhere). Just a note of caution, for various reasons it might not always be best to use rollback where this vandal is concerned. One should usually check the page history. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Someone should probably make an LTA page for the vandal if they haven't yet. Seems like it would be helpful. My two cents. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 03:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Is it possible to use something like cascading semi-protection to the daily AfD logs? Or is cascading only for full protection? MarginalCost (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

If I recall correctly Cascading semi-protection is not technically possible to avoid people without sysop rights being able to (indirectly) protect a large number of pages. Edit: Yes I was correct here's the link describing it. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 20:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

While we can't protect these pages, it would be trivial for a competent person (which I'm not) to create an abuse filter that would reject attempted IP edits to any page with "Articles for deletion" in the page name. Nyttend (talk) 22:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

49.206.219.155

Very possibly ignorable, but does User:49.206.219.155, who has just spammed several users' Talk Pages, apparently at random, ring a bell with anyone? Narky Blert (talk) 11:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• 183.83.93.218 (talk · contribs)  · 206.210.160.96 (talk · contribs)  · 87.200.50.33 (talk · contribs)  · 45.64.178.87 (talk · contribs)  · 49.206.216.135 (talk · contribs) All seem to have been reverted and ignored. Uncle G (talk) 12:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Insulting messages being directed following a discussion - User talk:WilliamJE

I am aware that this is not as severe as some other cases previously stated here by other users, but I must say, the user in question's attitude toward me is appalling and following a query into the deletion of a large chunk of text on a page I had worked on, User:WilliamJE challenged my literate capability and directed a blatant insult toward me in the summary of his edits to his talk page. Referring to me as a "Pathetic loser" multiple times.

As far as I am aware, and following the guidelines set by the article - Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks, "Attacks that are particularly offensive or disruptive (such as physical threats, legal threats, or blatantly bigoted insults) should not be ignored. Extraordinary situations that require immediate intervention are rare, but may be reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents". I am interpreting that as a viable excuse to escalate this further, as his behavior should not be tolerated. (Particularly focusing on the insert "blatantly bigoted insults" in the quote provided)

To summarise the case, I had helped work on the page - 2019_Pakistan_Army_military_plane_crash the day of the incident, as a result, the sources that had been provided in the article were subject to change. I sourced what I could at the time with the information that was available to me and left it there. I soon came to realise that the information I had added had been deleted when the article was reverted, which User:WilliamJE claims was "bs" despite the fact that the BBC article had been updated to cater for new information and confirmed death tolls. I went to the users page to enquire about the issue, potentially falsely claiming it was vandalism as I was not aware it had been reverted at the time. The user then refused to comply with the question that had been asked and instead referred to me as "pathetic" and a "loser" and told me to "get lost". I then responded saying that he was acting unprofessionally and had no intention of resolving the dispute, which was clear from his demeanor at the time. He removed that post, again, using blatant insults for no particular reason. Perhaps it was a mistake for me not to leave when asked, and for that I sincerely apologise to User:WilliamJE, but again I do not feel as though it warrants the behavior displayed

I will inserts the links to the evidence I feel is appropriate to resolving this issue here:- [103] [104] [105]

Moving forward, I honestly just want a response, and proper criticism so I am able to properly ammend the article. I also wish for this to be looked into incase it does actually violate policy as I had figured, and so correct action can be taken for future reference. I am able to provide further information if required. WETiLAMBY (talk) 16:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

This editor is

1. Editing not signed in as shown here[106] and here[107]. In the second of which they accuse the wrong editor
2. They have violated talk page rules as seen here[108] by reverting comments made not just by me but another editor. That is clearly a case of following and reverting or WP:DISRUPT.
3. There is no proof the BBC article ever said what they claimed and I've had a long history of removing false entries in aviation accident articles. Here[109] and here[110]. The first of which earned me a Barnstar from a administrator another editor who does lots of aviation accident article work around here. Based on their history with me and actions at List of Mayday episodes talk since I am only more convinced this editor deliberately entered something wrong on that article.

I am not going to apologize for anything I said. My talk page has had to be page protected multiple times due to abusive editors . That conduct has happened to me t other talk pages also. My talk page protection history should be adequate proof of that. Also I have made it clear that I don't think too highly of editors (Established long-term ones or IPs) that put what I term 'bullshit with a reference' around here and that is what we have here with Wet....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• @WilliamJE: One of your diffs above shows an IPv6 editing the Talk page of List of Mayday episodes. What makes you think that IP is WETiLAMBY? They've never even edited that article, I don't believe. Plus stylistically it doesn't look at all right.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't believe too much in coincidences and both that The Rambling Man reverted Wet at my talk page while saying not to post there anymore and that my post to Mayday Talk was one of my very last talk page (Where I have been very active over the years and has the original source of other abuse and probably by the sock of a blocked editor) edits before this happened and the reversion of which came at the same time what was going down on my talk page. Based on the history I mention, I got justification to think these two could be connected but I could be wrong....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm going to say that for the record, I can completely confirm that I am not in the slightest affiliated with that address and I know absolutely nothing of this user. How you have linked this person to me is completely beyond me, there is no evidence supporting that whatsoever and for good reason. My Wikipedia account has been around since 2015 and have no reason to sign out. WETiLAMBY (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• Can I just add that I did apologise for reverting the comment and not leaving, like I said. Also, as stated in, and as previously mentioned Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks - The contents of this article suggest that using the stated response as an excuse is not justifiable and still makes your disrespectful comments extremely demeaning and hurtful, and I am shocked by how you decided to deal with the situation and referring to me as "Illiterate" and a "Loser" degrading and immature. You seem to have no respect or no regard for any other users which I suggest should also be taken into consideration. I have said what I needed to say and I shall leave it at that to see what else can be done.

  Oh and I must also add that, yes, User:WilliamJE is known for ammending articles by removing falsified entries, however this case is different. Not only did he remove the supposed "fake entry" but he just straight up reverted the entire page back to what the previous user had done, reversing all the 100% factually correct information on the page. In my eyes that is not "removing false entries" but instead "removing everything because a single line could potentially be wrong." and at the end of the day, I was right anyway, as the death toll did infact increase to 19 <ref>https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/south-asia/article/3020564/five-soldiers-among-12-killed-pakistani-military-plane-crash</ref>WETiLAMBY (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Special:diff/909291658 ("Iliterate, pathetic, loser go away.") deserves a block. WilliamJE has a history of civility issues issues (block log). — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 18:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • So what. I never saidWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive240#Is_this_now_considered_acceptable_from_an_administrator? '"You know what, fuck you. You're a petulant, narcissistic piece of shit." That was said by administrator around here and he wasn't sanctioned by the community. If that happens to me, how can possibly that be anything but hypocrisy when an administrator get off for the same or much worse except for this place having double standards around here. Not afraid to say what I feel around here for 10 years and won't stop calling shit what it is or that there is double standards around hereUser_talk:WilliamJE/Archive_7#ANI for certain people....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
    • @WilliamJE: Isn't it rather weird to be citing ANI stuff from seven years ago to justify your own current attitude issues and insults to editors? (Have you even read it - the offending admin back in 2012 even offered an apology for their offensive email, so it's a very poor example to hide behind.) I think it would benefit the project if you were to take a step back, re-read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, take a look at WP:FRAMBAN (a recently blocked admin) and maybe even take a hint from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It's disappointing when lack of respect, insults and personal attacks get in the way of cooperative working here, so I would like to see you dial back the insults quite a few notches, please. Do you think you could do that? I do actually agree with you: WETiLAMBY was wrong to speculate in their edit to 2019 Pakistan Army military plane crash (based on the one cited BBC source) that further deaths were expected, because clearly the source didn't suggest that (even if further deaths did happen). But WETiLAMBY added a lot of other good stuff too to what I guess was a breaking news story. I also guess your restoration to an earlier version, which also removed their other valid improvements to the stub, was the kind of error that anyone could have made - I've done similar myself when in haste. But I've either explained myself or apologised when called out for it, never attacking another editor personally as you did. I see an unacceptable incivility and arrogance in the way you then responded to WETiLAMBY, repeatedly calling them 'illiterate', 'pathetic' and a 'loser' (here and here). I can see you've been on the receiving end in the past of abuse from multiple editors, and that's not nice and might have led to a jaundiced view of other editors. But your attitude in your responses above leaves me feeling you're unwilling to change, or recognise that another editor might also be working in good faith, and that behind their keyboard is another human being who shouldn't expect to be insulted and attacked by you for a simple error (from WP:NPA "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all.".) That kind of thing drives other editors away and is not acceptable. Maybe it was a bad day for you -we all have them - so I would invite you to apologise to WETiLAMBY for your remarks, and I'm afraid I would support a short block for an appropriate period of time, per WP:NPA, if that were not forthcoming. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Note that the edit referred to is not solely based upon one source. It cites the BBC and a WWW site. The latter is just aggregating two further sources, published by The News International and Dunya News, neither of which state that the toll was expected to rise. Nor, according to the Wayback Machine, did the BBC. It pays to get the facts straight, because doing otherwise is exactly what leads people years later to point out how bad these noticeboards are at this. Uncle G (talk) 08:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Good point (the aviation safety website did actually state "Rescue officials said the death toll could rise since some of those injured were critical.") which only serves to make the abrupt removal of WETiLAMBY's edit even more unjustifiable by WilliamJE. Maybe he missed that, just as I did. But it is still WilliamJE's personal attack which is the issue of greatest concern here. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• • • I entirely agree with Nick Moyes. An apology for the personal attacks or a block. I don't care if the apology is offered due to that threat, just do it. And cut those personal attacks out now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Propose block WilliamJE

until they 1) apologize or 2) otherwise show they will adhere to WP:CIVIL from now on.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• I would support indefinite block for WilliamJE. The community should also consider a civility restriction. Some examples of problematic edits over the last few months:
  • Special:diff/899173888, Special:diff/899175831 ‎Are you nuts? ... I should expect this from you since you are the same nut who idiotically accused me of sockpuppetry.
  • Special:diff/881475020 I'm sick of idiot editors who don't know what they're doing, or editors who rather whine than fix their mistakes.
  • Special:diff/876291483 Your citing an article you obviously didn't read is hysterical.
  • Special:diff/849644224 You can't even put things on my page right... You rather complain about me than fix bs or admit you're wrong.
  • Special:diff/909222878 I called it what it was. Bullshit. Ruiz didn't die so it is BULLSHIT and there is far too much of it around WP.
  • Special:diff/880157903 Why are you stupidly removing valid categories?
  • Special:diff/882427914 You obviously can't read.

— BillHPike (talk, contribs) 20:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• Hold on there, Bill. Whilst I do support a block, as stated above, for their nasty personal attack, let's not be too hasty to "string 'em up high" with talk of an indefinite one just yet! We need to encourage good contributors and encourage an improvement in their attitude towards other editors. Personally, I'd prefer to see their apology and their assurance they'll adhere to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA from hereon in, than see anyone blocked. (ANI will always be here if they don't.) But, oh dear, I've just noticed this. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@WilliamJE: Seems to feel justified in their incivility. He may or not be the only one needing a block for incivility. We need to look more deeply at this. @GoldenRing: did try the voice of reason on his talk page.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is an example of how incivility poisons the work environment until brawling like ego-drunk adolescents becomes the norm. This is an example of how WIkipedia has failed itself. I still think William neds a block, but I think he is not the only one. Someone else can please sort this all out.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: Can you be more explicit as to who else you think needs a block for personal attacks (what William said is far worse than "incivility")?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, the overall tenor of the discussion(s) is/are so fraught with incivility and "yeah, but's", I just couldn't sift it. WilliamJE is using the incivility of others as an excuse for his own, and I just cannot wade through it enough to be more specific. If, as from his responses, @WilliamJE: could enlighten us as to 1) who was incivil to him in this latest contre temps 2) provide us with supporting dif's, and 3) indicate whether or not they later apologized, I'd be much obliged.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

But yes, as he has said he has no need/reason to apologise, I see no other choice but to block him.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Forgot the @Bbb23:-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• I've blocked William for 48h for the personal attack and refusal to apologize. As far as I can tell, William has not presented anything that justifies the attack. In addition, any supposed attacks against him that he has mentioned occurred years ago and are irrelevant to his own behavior now. Finally, his inclusion of "hypocrisy" as a defense because so-and-so gets away with doing this and that (e.g., the use of the word fuck), is equally irrelevant.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Good block. Right duration. Thank you. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: He sent me an email referencing the talk page posts above my post there, which I was supposed to figure out. Do not know if they are for the "years ago" stuff. I left simple instructions above. Perhaps at some point he could follow them. Hope the block communicates the message. As I said in another thread at the top of this page, one can deal with problem editors and problem edits without rudeness, incivility, name calling and, in this instance, coarse labelling.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

At the risk of stooping to the current level of (crude vulgarism) what passes for discourse today, "I'm fresh out of (vulgarism omitted) to give."-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Persistent unsourced edits and disruption

After four warnings, Xqq1238 (talk · contribs) has continued to make unsourced additions and changes, often contradicting existing sources. Many of the changes are to countries' population and area figures. The changes are sometimes correct, but often false. The latest change, after the "final warning" was: [111] (the sources mention neither "Arabs" nor "Africans", and the figure for "Americans" doesn't correspond with the source.) They have also been edit-warring, for example repeatedly inserting the same unsourced figure for the area of Germany: [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118] (apparently they've taken the number from de:Deutschland, but it also contradicts the given source in that article.) Most of their edits have been reverted, for being unsourced or otherwise disruptive. Some other examples of unsourced changes to statistics include: [119], [120], [121], etc.

I've already reported them two weeks ago as an obvious sockpuppet: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ufufcguc, an editor with a long history of thousands of exactly the same type of edits, going back to at least 2016. Not sure why it's taking so long, but in the meantime they're causing a fair amount of disruption, as usual. --IamNotU (talk) 23:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• They've edited after this was posted, so I warned them to respond or risk being blocked.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Kwanele22

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

---

Kwanele22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It seems that all edits only consisted of tests. These resumed despite previous warnings. Perhaps a vandalism-only account? A recent edit was a page creation in another user's space (User:Wooyi/laboratory/storage/Ikkyu2's_essays). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 00:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually, there is no such user as Wooyi.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - He's been here since June of last year, which is more than enough time to have evolved beyond "test" edits and more than enough time to stop disrupting / vandalizing other people's user pages. It may be a competence issue to be honest, even if it isn't deliberate vandalism. Michepman (talk) 00:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• Update: indefinitely blocked by Bbb23 as not WP:HERE. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 02:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Persistent IP editor adding wrong info (2)

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

---

See previous discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1014#Persistent IP editor adding wrong info. This IP editor found a way around the existing block and restarted the disruptive edits, see 107.215.191.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Please extend the block to this IP address range. Thanks. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 03:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Any action on this? The longer this IP editor runs amok, the more reverts we will have to do... -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Luismuyalde12

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

---

• Luismuyalde12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Obvious sock is obvious, and still adding ISIS as perpetrator without a source.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Viestijä2017

Viestijä2017 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Suspected undisclosed paid editing (all edits). Account was previously forced to rename from "TEM viestintä" [Ministry of Employment and the Economy communications] to "Viestijä2017" [Communicator2017] on fi.wiki. No paid-contribution disclosure anywhere. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive edits from IP range 2604:2000:DED1:4E00

Active since 22 July, disruptive edits originating from this IP range (Special:Contributions/2604:2000:DED1:4E00::/64) have been made on articles pertaining to superheavy chemical elements, the New York City Subway, and the Hong Kong MTR. Many of these edits were either against consensus (as in the case of elements) or constitue edit warring with terse edit summaries, and they have not engaged in discussion even in response to non-template messages. So far, one page has been protected, but others have since been affected and the IP is quite dynamic. I'm not sure if this is enough to warrant a ::/64 rangeblock, but other measures have so far proven ineffective. ComplexRational (talk) 13:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I think it's probably just someone who doesn't realize that it's not their personal site or something like that. Nevertheless, given that they're not responsive, I wouldn't hesitate to encourage a range block. Jc86035 (talk) 13:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure if anyone in the /32 range is related, but one of them has been editing pages like User:Epicgenius/sandbox/draft5 (though certainly in a more coherent fashion). Jc86035 (talk) 13:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so. A quick check of the /32 range finds many edits that are probably unrelated (e.g. those from E010 and 15C0); such a large rangeblock could create lots of collateral damage, whereas the /64 range probably is allocated to this user or an otherwise very small group. I found the essay WP:/64 rather insightful on the mechanics of this. ComplexRational (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Bus stop at Talk:Oakland Ghost Ship fire

I can't believe it's come to this, but Bus stop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) thought it proper to abuse rollback to edit war with me over hatting his comment, which was needed since consensus has strongly rejected his argument and his comment is now distracting from the next stage of the discussion. I request that his rollback privileges be revoked, my hatting reinstated, and Bus stop warned to drop the WP:STICK.--Jasper Deng (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Jasper Deng—you should not unilaterally impose your will on somebody else. Bus stop (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not my will, it's the will of the other editors there too. And you certainly don't use an antivandalism tool in such a dispute. I'll leave the rest to an uninvolved admin since clearly I'm beginning to lose patience here, thus my further direct participation will not be constructive (beyond carrying out the requisite ANI notices).--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

No one else hatted my comment. You hatted my comment, repeatedly. I took time to compose it and put thoughtfulness into the wording of it. It is of course your prerogative to respond to it in such a way as to tell me that you think I am full of hot air and off-the-mark with my opinions. But you not just once—but repeatedly—collapsed my comment. That is not the way to engage in civil discourse. Bus stop (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Having taken a closer look at the discussion, it really would be wise for you to drop the stick. No, Jasper should not have hatted your comment once (let alone multiple times), nor does he really have the right to insist that you stop discussing a particular aspect of an open discussion. That said, it is not hard to see why he is annoyed. The arguments for and against including 'Oakland' in the title have already been made. Newcomers to the discussion have sufficient information upon which to base a conclusion and it seems clear that neither you nor Jasper will change the other's mind. At this point, you are wasting your own time. Lepricavark (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Bus stop consistently shows a lack of understanding of talk page PAGs and accepted practice. He provides an example of this in his first comment here. For better or worse, we are largely responsible for policing the behavior of those we are required to work with, and it is completely routine to "unilaterally impose your will on somebody else". I daresay I've seen Bus stop do exactly that himself, so we can add the adjective "hypocritical". I could go on and on, but that's about all I have time for at this juncture and I don't have much faith in ANI's ability to address established problem editors like Bus stop anyway. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

As a general rule, when one is embroiled in a disagreement with another editor, one is probably not in the best position to objectively determine whether the other editor's posts should or should not be hatted. Jasper, you didn't have to bring yourself to 3RR, and I don't think you should be incredulous over Bus stop's use of rollback. Maybe Bus stop does need to drop the stick regarding the RM (which isn't closed yet, so you don't officially have consensus), but this edit war (and resulting ANI threat) is a completely unnecessary sideshow. Lepricavark (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• The hatting and revert war it sparked is unfortunate, but must be understood in the bigger context of what led to it. I am perturbed that the hatted veteran editor who was involved in a run-of-the-mill article move request debate can find himself here so quickly, but a quick check of the archives finds that this has happened before for similar reasons. The editor demonstrates that he can admit to being in error one minute, then turn around to rehash the same error shortly after, followed by a long session of beating the dead horse. I am also aware of the possibility that the editor, being an artist himself, might be more emotionally involved in an article about an artist colony. I just wish it didn't have to come to this, but it's always possible that a trip to this forum might make the editor see that this way of doing things is uncollaborative, disruptive and harmful to the proceedings. StonyBrook (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• It looks to me as if Bus stop is too emotionally connected to the tragedy to make an objective assessment of its proper title on Wikipedia. And this is the wrong hill to die on if one was trying make sure the reader knew that the city of Oakland had some level of culpability for the fire. The right way is to emphasize text talking about the several missed opportunities for Oakland to shut down the Ghost Ship as unsafe. Binksternet (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• Jasper Deng, you were in the wrong in the hatting. It is not proper to hat a single 138-word comment, simply because you disagree with it, don't like it, or think it is repetitive. It is certainly not proper to hat a single 138-word comment with the title "@Bus stop: it's been explained to you several times, your position doesn't have consensus, drop the WP:STICK and move on." You could have posted that as reply to him, but you can't hat his comment with that clearly biased statement. If Bus stop is violating talkpage guidelines, or being otherwise disruptive, then you can report him for that, but you cannot report him for justifiably un-hatting his own single 138-word comment. Hatting is used for lengthy tangential conversations which have become distracting in their length. Softlavender (talk) 01:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • His comment was distracting. At the least he should not have put it in the warehouse or not discussion. I didn't hat because I disagreed with him on the content issue; I hatted because he was, in my view at the time, disruptively attempting to further an already-rejected argument (which is obvious from a simple headcount after the initial debate) and distracting from the next point of discussion. Maybe my hatting was improper, but the rest of my actions and comments still stand. He abused rollback and won't drop the stick. This isn't the first time he's been told this either.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I do not agree that use of rollback (even repeatedly) to unhat his comment which had clearly been hatted without warrant is or was in any way sanctionable. You were at fault. If he "won't drop the stick", that is another matter entirely and you can address that by responding to his talkpage comment to that effect. Softlavender (talk) 01:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Since edit warring with rollback is a bright-line abuse of the tool, I think otherwise so we're going to leave it at that. I'm not at fault for anything but hatting in lieu of replying directly. I brought it to his talk page as well. I don't perceive your involvement here as helpful here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
• No comments on the merits or demerits of the substantive issue, but the linked contrib does look like a misuse of Rollback to me. See WP:ROLLBACKUSE. I don't see other examples of Rollback misuse in Bus stop's recent contribs using Rollback however, so I don't think revocation of Rollback is necessary here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Bus stop appears to have disengaged from the particular conversation here, which I now appreciate. The one remaining issue for me: Personally I am still strongly in favor of having his rollback privileges revoked for what was a bright line abuse of it, and making him promise to not abuse rollback again. At the least, he needs to be formally warned that future misuse would lead to revocation.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I'd be in favor of a formal warning (though not necessarily a "final warning") on the basis that it was clearly not a proper use of Rollback, but not in favor of revocation in light of the fact that there doesn't seem to be a pattern of misconduct with Rollback. I don't view the earlier reverts as being part of a pattern of misconduct which could support revocation of Rollback. Having made some boneheaded misclicks with Rollback myself in recent weeks, I could see the click on "rollback" instead of "undo" as a possible explanation. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
      • I un-hatted my comment 5 times. The first 4 un-hattings were accompanied by polite edit summaries. Only in the last instance did I simply use WP:ROLLBACK. I'm not in the habit of using rollback in interactions with other good-faith editors. Bus stop (talk) 03:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
        • Right. I just don't think you should have used Rollback there. Even if you could argue that "the reason for reverting is absolutely clear" in line with WP:ROLLBACKUSE #1, you were pretty clearly in a revert war. You're not supposed to use Rollback in pursuit of a revert war. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
          • You are right. It is a poor way of interacting with people. I apologize to Jasper Deng. Bus stop (talk) 03:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
            • I'm glad we can all agree that the use of rollback was inappropriate. However, I feel that Jasper's hatting a comment from an editor with whom he was in a dispute was actually more problematic, as was the insistence on edit warring to keep the comment hatted. Frankly, Jasper seems way too offended over the misuse of rollback when Bus stop could legitimately be offended by Jasper's repeated hatting of his comment. It should be noted, again, that the RM has not yet been closed and that Bus stop was therefore not editing against consensus, even though a consensus may be emerging. In other words, Jasper did not have valid grounds upon which to hat the comment and the ensuing edit war, the misuse of rollback, and this thread would not have happened if he had not overstepped reasonable boundaries. Oh, by the way, while Bus stop's comment may have seemed distracting, as of yet nobody has actually responded to it aside from Jasper's ill-advised hatting and edit war. Lepricavark (talk) 12:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
              • If I've never used rollback inappropriately before, which I don't believe I have, can this be dropped? There is a level of persistence that I exceeded. I wanted to express my objection to acronyms. Believe it or not I actually regret not mentioning WP:COMMONNAME in that comment. We all should be thoroughly familiar with policies. But over-reliance on policy acronyms is not productive, in my opinion, in dialogue with editors who have been editing for ten-plus years. In my opinion the burden under such circumstances is in "translating" into one's own language the way in which one feels policy guidelines have bearing on the dispute under consideration. Sorry to sound off—I like engaging in real dialogue with those editors representing positions with which I disagree. I am sometimes flabbergasted by the barrage of acronyms that sometimes substitute for verbal interaction. I understand Jasper Deng's frustration. I apologize for rephrasing my argument ad nauseam. I was saying nothing new; I was just saying it differently. Bus stop (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

User: Artinpl1 also using IP 212.180.254.29

The user repeatedly has tried to add an otherwise unknown image uploaded, identified and sourced only by h-self as "Artinpl1" or "Marcin Latka" (same person as per self) to a number of Wikipedia articles in various languages (most reversed by me today). Here help offered by a a WP:3O volunteer was ignored, our reliable source requirement has been summarily disregarded and the talk culminated (just now) in more aggressiveness & ridicule plus the statement "I am signing my own research with my name, this should be sufficient, no matter where published."

Further such activity this year (adding info with no source or h-self only as source) can be found here [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131]. It is hard to find good faith in this work. I have not looked through all the input by IP 212.180,254.29 but must assume that the rest of that too mainly is to promote the personal POV of "Artinpl1" a.k.a. "Marcin Latka" sourced only to Facebook or Flickr or Pinterest pages etc all created by that person. I've found no other kind of editing from the registered user or that IP.

Because of what looks to me like a deliberate hoax, or at least a very doggedly clung-to error, in the case of the Anna Vasa image, I believe all of this person's image identifications must be questioned, and that an administrator or two should try to curb this activity asap. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I have now also had reason to notify Commons administrators of this problem. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Block adjustment

2001:16a2:51b9:9400::/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was blocked today, but the ip has continued their edits with 2001:16A2:544E:3500:59BD:370F:7A80:66F (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Cards84664 (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The IP editor seems to be jumping around the /36, so I did a short range block on Special:Contributions/2001:16A2:5000::/36. If it keeps up, page protection might be a better solution (if possible). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I already put a request in for protection, thank you. Cards84664 (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, does your block include the entire range that was first mentioned? Not complaining, just (almost) clueless about IPv6 rangeblocks. Nyttend (talk) 22:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. CIDR looks more confusing than it actually is. For IPv6, when the number after the slash (n) is divisible by 4, it matches the first n/4 hexadecimal digits in the IP address. So, a /36 will match the first 9 digits (2001:16a2:5xxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx). A /64 would match the first 16 digits (2001:16a2:51b9:9400:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Well now, if I can remember that, it will be easier :-) Thanks! I've unblocked the first range — that was my main reason for asking, since I wasn't going to unblock unless all of its addresses were covered by your block. I just wanted to avoid the confusion that might result from two rangeblocks applying to the same set of addresses simultaneously. Nyttend (talk) 12:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

HarveyCarter

78.16.84.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Classic trolling fitting in the Harveycarter-line on here, in a discussion from 2012, here, unsourced, here and [132] plus a few more inflammatory edits on the pages mentioned.

See also: Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/HarveyCarter. The Banner talk 20:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The geolocation for this IP is all wrong for them to be HarveyCarter, unless they're on vacation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Favonian:, who is very familiar with HC's editing. Also note that The Banner filed an SPI here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@The Banner and Beyond My Ken: HC has certainly been known to express opinions similar to those of the IP, but they are not exactly uncommon in the Republic of Ireland. In consequence, I'm reluctant to block the IP at present. Should they "diversify" into some of the known obsessions, we can revisit the case. Favonian (talk) 11:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken's first comment is a great example why we should oppose WMF's attempt to start hiding IP addresses for people editing without accounts. Nyttend (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Exactly! Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, I'm going to push back on that a bit, subject to a caveat. The caveat is that we don't know precisely how that proposal would be implemented, but I can't imagine a proposal getting community buy-in that doesn't include the ability for a substantial group of editors to have access to the underlying IP address. Would think any reasonable definition of that group would include Beyond My Ken, so this observation about location would've been possible under a proposal to make IP address is less visible. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Really? In the wake of FRAMGATE, you really think that?

The proposal specifically says that they don't have any idea at this point who -- if anybody!!! -- is going to have access to IP information, and therefore to geolocation data. That means that a rank-and-file editor such as myself will no longer be able to go to any admin and say "Here's this information: the edits are just like this person's previous ones and the IP geolocates to the same place." Instead, I'll have to file an SPI or bother an overworked CU (presuming they are the ones who will be able to see IP numbers and geolocation data). That's a recipe for more vandals and LTA's to slip through, as regular editors can no longer build up a mental database of the attributes connected to these people. The WMF obviously doesn't see that as a problem, but I do. Besides HC, there are at least four other vandals/socks/LTAs that I recognize from the combination of content & geolocation, and I suspect other editors recognize many more than I do.

And, no, I do not think that I, a non-admin, would ever be trusted to see IP numbers and therefore geolocation data. Given the WMF's positions, I'd say that only advanced permission holders, such as CUs, would be able to see it, but I doubt that they'd even bundle it with admin rights. Their thing is tightening up access to information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Non-neutral RfC

A discussion was begun at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Names and birth dates of non-notable children (again) that is constructed as an RfC and that people are responding to as an RfC, yet which has been designed a completely non-neutral manner. It is in contradiction of WP:RfC's requirement for a neutral opening statement and does not use the RfC template that announces the RfC to the relevant Projects. This appears to be an end-run around proper RfC process in order to limit discussion and achieve a biased outcome. I ask for admin inspection of this discussion. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not explicitly stated, nor formatted, as an RfC, so I don't believe it violates Wp:RfC. Nor does my reading of the initial post seem to be an attempt to change policy, merely to understand policy. Nor does it seem to be attempting to limit discussion, there are many more contributors there than in an average discussion. If you don't like the current discussion, I'd say open up an actual RfC that follows RfC guidelines in a new section on the page (or ask someone neutral to do it). Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not uninvolved since I expressed an opinion there after visiting it for the mention here. But as I said there I don't think we need an RfC on the issue since it seems obvious that the RfC did not change policy, and so I think it's fair enough that one was not opened. Not all discussions need RfCs. However if any feels there is need for an RfC, they are free to open one. Until then, I think it would be obvious we will go by what our policies and guidelines actually say, not an RfC where the closing statement just says what to do in that one article. Nil Einne (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Bellbrook, Ohio

Bellbrook, Ohio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could I ask for an admin's eye on this page (which happens to be the hometown of the Dayton shooter), please? AIV is backlogged. General Ization ^Talk 23:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Semiprotected by Scott Burley six minutes after you made this request. Nyttend (talk) 03:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

IP disruptive editing on day of the year pages

I don't know much about how this works, but I believe a single user is using multiple IP addresses to vandalize February 13, April 5, July 3, and July 9. Please look into this and address the situation. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 23:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the exact same edit is being made on the exact same page by similar IP addresses. I am not tech savvy enough to know what this means, but I need a sysop to look into it and stop this now. The edits are constant and I can't keep up. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 00:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

This is either a single discontinuous mobile range (thanks, Telstra), or the user is on the border between two ranges or something, and depends on which tower his phone feels like using that second. Anyway, the ranges are Special:Contributions/1.129.0.0/16 and Special:Contributions/1.144.0.0/16. I did look over the entire assigned range, 1.128.0.0/11, but did not similar edits from any other portions of it. This is an extremely busy range, and represents at least several hundred thousand Australians, possibly millions if Telstra is distributing these very unevenly. Could block them, but since the interest seems to be so focused an edit filter to stop this range from editing day articles might work. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

​I'm not sure if you did anything yet, but I thought I'd let you know that it's still happening from a unique IP address. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 00:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Continued disruptive editing by COI editor

Numerous issues. It's been dealt with on COIN, page has been appropriately dealt with. Very transparent COI by multiple SPAs. The last refuses to admit such behaviour, still insisting they are neutral, but clearly still fixated on the one and only topic they edit. Now close to 3RRing. Just not letting up. It's disruptive and a waste of everyone involved's time. User talk:Inca28a, latest reverts here, COI discussion here. I did a deep dive into the article and there have been 10 incarnations of COI-SPA editors with shared behaviour, it is a long-standing issue. It would probably help if this person was given a topic ban or other appropriate sanction to help keep the article independent - and this way they wouldn't be prevented from fulfilling their desire to help 'contribute with accurate information to Wikipedia, like everyone else'. Rayman60 (talk) 00:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Fellow Wikipedians,

I've responded to every threath on this editor and send all my information and details when was requested. This editor, clearly has a personal issue with the subject. Why he hasn't clarify that? Why am I the only one responding to your questions. The only thing I've been doing is adding sources, references, citations and only mentioned Fraser T Smith REAL work, nothing to do with promotion, advertising, et. like you mentioned. Now again, What's Rayman60 issue against Mr Fraser T Smith? Inca28a (talk) 12:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

A consensus from established editors about this achingly transparent behaviour has long ago been reached. Almost immediately after this report was filed to help curb disruptive behaviour, an identical edit (third RR) came from an IP. Editor claims true independence and venerable desires but if the duck test was applied to this, the quacks would be deafening. This report is really just to request appropriate tools to limit this behaviour which is of detrimental benefit to the project.

• A topic ban on just this article and related (i.e. on an album by third party produced by subject) would allow editor to continue their quest to contribute to Wikipedia and would allow that article to remain truly independent. An employee of a hotel with no commercial connection to the article would have zero resistance to such a solution. Rayman60 (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Inca28a is a single-purpose editor doing nothing but promoting (through adding unsourced claims and general name-dropping and puffery) Fraser T. Smith, a British "record producer, songwriter and musician" of dubious notability. So there is IMHO no doubt about it being either COI or paid editing. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

"dubious notability" Wow. Clearly, you know nothing about the Music Industry. Are these the people moderating Wikipedia? Inca28a (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

People who are truly notable don't need the unsourced name-dropping and puffery you're repeatedly adding... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Phediuk adding unsourced content to article after multiple warnings

Hello! @Phediuk: has added some unsourced content to The Haunted Island here. Everything they added except for the devs nationality was unsourced. They've been warned about this several times in the past, too. Sorry if I did this wrong or if this isn't a major offense, I've never reported anyone here before. TheAwesomeHwyh 01:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

One of the warnings they received said they would be blocked if this happened again, its on their talk page. TheAwesomeHwyh 01:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Update: he added the platforms back, but with a source this time, which is good. TheAwesomeHwyh 02:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The sources already in the article identify both the game's platforms and identify it as an adventure game: the first sentence of The Verge article, for instance, says, "The Haunted Island: a Frog Detective Game is a first person adventure", while at the end of the same article it says, "You can get it on Steam or Itch.io for $4.99 (Windows, and Mac OS.)" I didn't add anything that wasn't clearly indicated in the article's sources; nevertheless, I've added a link to the game's Steam page, too., if that would help. Also, one of the previous "incidents" you're referring to is literally someone telling me I was wrong for calling a developer a British studio because they were a Scottish studio, despite Scotland being part of Britain. The incident before that was me confusing two studios which had the same name, which I corrected as soon as it was pointed out, and thanked the editor who did so. Please notify me on my talk page if there are any questions about one of my edits.

To summarize: 1. All of the information I've added was already sourced. 2. I've added another link directly to the game's Steam page, which, like The Verge article that was already cited, says it's on Windows and macOS. 3. The previous "incidents" I've been involved with were minor, quickly acknowledged and resolved. Thank you for your time. Phediuk (talk) 02:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thats great but, you didn't cite your sources... just because a source is already used in an article doesn't mean you can just add content from it without citing it... TheAwesomeHwyh 02:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

If that's the only issue here, then I will cite the exact passage from The Verge article that calls it an adventure game, too. Thank you. Phediuk (talk) 02:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm one step ahead of you :) TheAwesomeHwyh 02:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I think this is resolved then. P.S don't add bare URLS as sources. TheAwesomeHwyh 02:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, this matter is resolved. Feel free to comment on my talk page if there are questions about any future edits, as I often look over new video game articles to see if any vital info needs to be added (i.e. platforms, developer, genre.) Phediuk (talk) 03:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Paladin5555

• Paladin5555 (talk · contribs)

I think this account needs a WP:NOTHERE block. I am involved as I just reverted this edit to Prague. Looking at the user's contributions, aside from that bit of subtle POV-pushing, they consist mostly of vandalism. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Blocked. Given the rest of their edits, I don't think there would have been any issue if you'd blocked them yourself. The Prague edit was probably the least bad edit they made. Acroterion (talk) 12:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive IP 85.175.194.16

This incredibly problematic IP has over 3 years of final warnings on their talk page, miraculously without ever being blocked for constantly adding unsourced genre's to album and band related articles (see here, here, here and here for some recent examples). No attempts have ever been made to communicate from their side so it seems fair to say they are not here to build an encyclopedia. Robvanvee 12:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Robvanvee, a note from May 2017 on their talk page states that this is block evasion by Mrwallace05. Home Lander (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Home Lander, thanks, I see. Are you suggesting this should go to SPI? Robvanvee 15:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Robvanvee, well, no, I don't see much point in that. But probably could be blocked for block evasion if behavioral evidence is strong enough (a casual glance shows interest in similar article types). Home Lander (talk) 15:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I couldn't be bothered to try match the accounts but just figured, given their editing history and talk page, user should be indeffed! Robvanvee 15:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Based on the IP's location, there is no block evasion, and IPs are never indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Coolbruh123

User:Coolbruh123 has a fairly long history of problematic edits, such as this one which was part of a pointy campaign related to K-pop singers. On that occasion I warned them about page blanking (side-note: Coolbruh123 has removed many warnings from many editors from their talk page, as they are entitled to). Earlier today they made this edit with a particularly nasty personal attack in the edit summary. I warned them about this, and received a personal attack in the edit summary [133] reverting my warning. This is not the first time they've resorted to incivility and personal attacks in edit summaries, eg [134], [135] and [136]. I'd appreciate an admin reviewing this. Thanks, Railfan23 (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Why spot only the bad sides of what I have done, and not acknowledged the useful stuff that I have done. They all said to discuss it in the talk page, yet no one discussed anything and had to do it their own ways when Chungha clearly rapped. Do they have anything against rappers? I don't get it. Personal attacks? Oh well Coolbruh123 (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Generally AN/I isn't interested in the useful things an editor has done. And the linked edit summaries are definitely outside the bounds of appropriate comportment within Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

"Personal attacks? Oh well" is exactly the kind of attitude we don't need on this project. WP:NPA is a policy. It is not voluntary. If you can't respect it, you will be shown the door.--WaltCip (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

How not to get into trouble for edit summaries: Only describe and summarize the edit being made. Uncle G (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

That is certainly a standard to aspire to. But even when we fall short, we should avoid personal insults and acronyms such as "ffs". Simonm223 (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

this edit summary seems like it should be worthy of a block. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 21:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Seemingly persistent disruptive user

Billiekhalidfan (talk · contribs · count)

I have no current issues with this user (I have in the past}. I just saw (on my watchlist) another warning given, didn't even read it. I just thought it's time to bring this to the community. All the evidence is listed on their talk, there's been many users trying to help and guide this "new comer" (including myself and a very good Admin). Anyway, here it is lets see where it goes, Thanx - FlightTime (open channel) 18:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing by User:Fæ

Fæ (talk · contribs · count)

This report concerns Fae's activities on a page regarding Jessica Yaniv and the subject's court case before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. Fae does not want this page to exist and is in the midst of trying to have it deleted. Fae has also fought to keep properly sourced material out of the article, even to the extent of violating the 1RR sanction that they asked for in the first place.

But this concerns Fae's remark on the talk page for the article: "I'm actually starting to wonder if I should argue the case the other way, deliberately quote ten more shitty transphobic ranty sources, and get this article deleted as an attack page." [[137]]

And that is precisely what they did just thirty minutes later, adding statements to the effect that transgender people go against common sense, among other things. [[138]]. This is apparently an attempt to make good on their promise to add transphobic content to the article in order to have it deleted as an attack page. They began edit warring to keep this material in the article, but stopped after an admin pointed out that they violated the 1RR rule in the process.

Another editor pointed out that "This seems like editing to illustrate a point." [[139]] I noted that deliberately adding material to an article in order to bolster a deletion argument is disruptive. [[140]]

I asked if Fae would cease this kind of disruptive editing. [[141]]. They responded that they would not. [[142]]

I have no idea what else to do, aside from bring it to ANI for resolution. Cosmic Sans (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Cosmic Sans: I'd appreciate a courtesy ping if I'm being quoted somewhere else. For the record: the page has been nominated for AFD (by me), and saying Fae is "trying to have it deleted" like that's some kind of crazy position is silly. I do think that Fae's adding that content was disruptive and WP:POINTy, but (to the extent that anyone cares about my opinion) I also think you were being pointy when you added it in the first place. You went from agreeing that a statement from a Human Rights Lawyer should be removed from the article, to adding tweet from Ricky Gervais a couple hours later. I find that pretty inexplicable. Nblund ^talk 22:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not inexplicable when you consider what I actually did and what the reasons were for that. I did not, as you say "add a tweet from Ricky Gervais." In a sentence regarding the international coverage of this case, which is rare for the BCHRT, it was noted that Ricky Gervais mentioned the matter and that had garnered media attention. His actual tweets were not included - if you'll check, I was using the same verbiage as the source. The purpose of this edit was to illustrate the international media attention this case has garnered, which is rare for a BCHRT matter. Cosmic Sans (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC) And I believe you're taking my comment about the human rights lawyer out of context, as well. At the time that I said that it should be removed, it was quite literally the only content under a heading called "Commentary." The section has developed since then, and it's now appropriate for inclusion when you look at the entire section. Cosmic Sans (talk) 23:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I've been watching this mostly from the sidelines and am not enamored with Fae's behavior in continuously ratcheting up the tension level on this and related pages. Fae has, in connection with this and another case (though Fae would deny the connection), recently been cautioned at WP:ARCA for very similar behavior ([143], [144]), again, ratcheting up the tension level and repeatedly seeking to impugn and discredit the motivations of good-faith discussion participants. I think there may be grounds for reconsidering whether Fae's editing in this topic area is a a net positive. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• The material I added was providing context for the inclusion of Tucker Carlson as a commenting pundit on the BC Tribunal case. Carlson is exceptional famous for ranty diatribes and has promoted white supremacist views and homophobic views, and these are exceedingly well sourced. The context I added was Carlson's precise words, from the comment about the BC Tribunal case that had been added to the article by others, along with new sources. This is not excessive, it is providing context for the casual reader who may not know that Carlson is not an neutral journalist reporting the case. It remains odd that these tangential views are being argued by Cosmic Sans as being necessary, when they are at best tangential. However if they are to remain in the article on this case about a trans woman, then Carlson's actual comments being made should be explained, especially the misgendering of that trans woman he was talking about, and calling Canada "sick".

Per WP:BLP, tabloid journalism should not be in articles like this. If the argument put forward on the article talk page is accepted, that this is not tabloid journalism, then it is reasonable to give it context. To deny context because the context looks like tabloid journalism, but leaving the context out but still including the comment as notable, is a bizarre catch 22 argument.

By the way, this catches me as I go to bed, and I may not look at this tomorrow, being busy with building work. --Fæ (talk) 22:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Interestingly, it strikes me that you're describing mainstream journalism as "tabloid journalism" merely because those mainstream articles refer to information from a tabloid source. We don't call that an unreliable source, we call that a secondary source. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Mendaliv, I think you should try and read the talk page to get a better understanding of the valid points Fae has brought up about the news coverage of this story, which indeed seems to be just another sensationalist thing to sell headlines with. This is just pure bullshit; no matter what reputation the Toronto Sun might have, I cannot accept a paper that prints that kind of (transphobic) trash as a reliable source for a BLP. In fact, we should not even accept what it claims are basic facts. Drmies (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

That may well be true, or there may be alternative sources that can be used, but all of this is obscured by Fae's battleground, combative misconduct, on this article and on others. That is the problem being addressed by this thread. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I guess one clarification we might agree on, is whether editors can call objectively transphobic abuse in a source that another editor is adding to a BLP, "transphobic", or whether that word, even if accurate is always off limits. In most other places, it is okay to say that misgendering a trans woman is transphobic language or simply transphobic, because it meets the accepted definition. In the past on Wikimedia projects I have used "t-word" rather than writing "transphobic" because that word was so inflammatory even if accurate. If folks want to try doing that, let's all make an agreement to limit our language and we can be consistent about it. --Fæ (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• So don't accept it. If that's a trash source, then we just don't use it. End of story. A problem with this incident is that it has played directly into the TERF and reactionary right narrative. This is the "female predator"(Fiona Robertson's term) in the girl's locker room that they warned us of. So unsurprisingly, the right-wing and trash press have been quicker to cover it than anything more balanced. But that's not to say that there's no better sourcing available to us. We can use that, and it's enough to work with. This complaint of poor sources has pervaded the AfD out of all proportion to the actual problem it presents to us. We ignore the dross and work with the better stuff alone. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment I've also watched Fae's editing behavior from the side. Though I don't have difs handy, I've seem plenty of battleground behavior, edit warring (as recently as today), bludgeoning, unwarranted accusations of bad faith editing. Fae seems to have an extremely pointy POV that is being pushed at the expense of the quality of the articles and the civility of the talk page interactions. I would suggest considering reinstating Fae's previous Tban lifted in 2016 [[145]] Springee (talk) 23:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I should note that Fae called me "abusive and transphobic" in an edit summary today [[146]] because I added the following sentence to the article: "Yaniv's case has garnered international attention, and was featured in a segment on Tucker Carlson's television show on Fox News." I think this is excessive to say the least. Cosmic Sans (talk) 23:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, Fae called the content "abusive" and "transphobic", but I would argue the context suggests it was intended to be a personal attack, and in any event making those kinds of edit summaries rather than making a straightforward referral to the talk page without further editorialization is just another sign of Fae ratcheting up the tension levels to an intolerable level in order to drive away people who don't wish to be associated with edits that anybody calls transphobic. I can see many people whose on-wiki personas are known elsewhere or who edit under their real names being seriously chilled by such conduct simply out of a desire to protect their own livelihoods. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I guess you could read it two ways. For various personal reasons I was a little upset by the implication. Cosmic Sans (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I completely understand, I would've been fuming myself to be told I was doing something that was transphobic and abusive. Like I said, it's yet another example of Fae ratcheting up the tension level. Andy Dingley lists a number of other examples below. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

(ec) I find this reading bizarre as I just cannot read it differently to the way I intended. Sorry if you read it as an accusation about you, but my words in the edit comment are intended as factual statements about the content, not about any Wikipedian. --Fæ (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of the intent, it's a very hostile way of editing and I think you've shown a pattern of hostile editing throughout this article and other articles. I understand you were topic banned for this sort of thing back in 2016. Cosmic Sans (talk) 23:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

My worry would be that a taunting edit summary like that is less about driving editors away (anyone still here is thick skinned) but rather an attempt to provoke them into a harsh reaction in turn. Because Fae is excellent at then playing the victim. And woe betide anyone who might act in a way which could then be presented as the faintest suspicion of transphobia! Andy Dingley (talk) 23:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• Fae's behaviour has been way past acceptable across all of these Jessica Yaniv articles and pages: Jessica Yaniv genital waxing case, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Yaniv genital waxing case, British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, Meghan Murphy, Talk:TERF, WP:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_GamerGate et al. Their editing within mainspace is domineering and bullying, their attitude to other editors in talk: spaces is dismissive and abusive, with scant regard for basic accuracy, let alone any acceptance that any other editor might have a valid viewpoint. This is full-on righting-of-great-wrongs and to hell with everyone else.

As a quick example from many, four days ago they posted this: [147] " no matter how much Andy Dingley loves it, presumably because it includes some bizarre and unsupported unverified hearsay about child abuse, it is still transphobic crap," to which I replied " you are the only person here who has mentioned child abuse. Now stop assigning motives to other editors, and throwing loaded terms into the debate which no-one else has used, or else you're going to be doing it at ANI." There has been no such change in attitude, and so yes, we find ourselves at ANI.

Naturally everyone involved has had a dire warning of GamerGate Discretionary Sanctions dumped on their talk page. Today Fae went to 3RR to remove something from the article (wasn't there already a discretionary sanction in place?) and then imposed a unilateral 1RR across the article Talk:Jessica_Yaniv_waxing_case#One_revert_rule_is_in_place, just to make sure that their now "correct" version would stick. Fae just will not accept that the same rules bind all of us, Fae included.

I would certainly support reinstatement of a TBAN. Or maybe Fae just complying with the basic policies which apply to all of us regardless, would be a good start? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

A topic ban on transsexualism? Jonathunder (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps a ban on edits dealing with gender and gender identity. Fae would probably agree that one could be placed as a discretionary sanction under the GamerGate DS regime—though I don't think said regime is so broad, and would therefore prefer we did so through a proper community-based discussion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• I understand there's a TBAN from 2016 which has been suspended? Maybe that would be suitable for reinstatement. But Fae seems unable to proceed in this area without behaving inappropriately towards other editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not an administrator, so it's not my call about 1RR.

I am happy to comply with all basic policies as you suggest. Feel free to highlight any policy violations you perceive about my edits on my talk page and we can discuss. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, if I'm not mistaken you, Andy Dingley, advocated using a blatantly crappy source for a BLP, so that thing about "basic policies" applies to you also. By the way, you made a completely ridiculous accusation, that I somehow implied you were someone's sock? This was a dumb comment. Drmies (talk) 23:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

As I said above, Drmies, this problem could have been prevented had Fae's combative misconduct not taken place in the article. By continually ratcheting up the tension level, Fae has created a hostile editing environment in which mistakes like you describe are not only more likely, but are bound to be made. Many editors, myself included, will not edit in this topic area because it is quite simply radioactive. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• This is at ANI already. So you do not make hand-waving accusations at other editors like that, you provide diffs at the same time. No ifs, no buts, so I've struck it until you specify just what source and when I was "advocating". And in particular, you don't pull this "Oh, I might have been mistaken all along, I did mention it, don'tcha know?" crap. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah Andy Dingley: you referenced or linked to claims that Yaniv was a "sexual predator" five different times (4 in that deletion discussion alone): 1,2, 3, 4, 5. One of those is a blog post from Miranda Yardley that is rife with BLP violations. I agree that some of Fae's rhetoric has been over the top, but I think that's an odd instance to point to, and it clearly wasn't out of the blue. Nblund ^talk 00:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

One of those is a blog post from Miranda Yardley that is rife with BLP violations. Point of clarification: Does WP:BLP apply to the content in sources? I don't think so. It can be perfectly fine to cite sources containing things that we would never say in Wikipedia's voice. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• No-one, certainly not me, is going to use Miranda Yardley as a source anywhere near BLPRS. But I'd also point out that Fiona Robertson, the National Women's and Equalities Convener for the Scottish National Party used the term "female predator", and we can source that through the Glasgow Herald (which still isn't a tabloid). Now, whether we need to is a good question - it has little to do with waxing, but that's one of the reasons why I advocate widening the scope of this article to Jessica Yaniv more broadly, at which point these many accusations and the widespread allegation of inappropriate and predatory behaviour towards young girls will come up again. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry, in which of those diffs did I "advocate[d] using a blatantly crappy source"? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Or did you mean the Vancouver Sun, which you have classed as a tabloid on the grounds that its writers also wrote for tabloid papers? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I think it's a reference to your comment here where you said calling Yaniv a "sexual predator" would be "on the table" on the basis of a Miranda Yardley blog post. Perhaps I misunderstood you, but I took it to mean you thought that this sort of commentary might be acceptable on a BLP. In any case: you referenced those claims a whole lot, and presumably that's what Fae was bringing up. I'm not saying it warrants sanction, but I also don't think Fae's comment is way off base, taken in context. Nblund ^talk 00:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

How about this, I have spent too much time on the BC Tribunal case article, getting trapped in circular debate, and some of the content does make me sad, including the anti-trans material and abuse claims that I have felt obliged to examine in detail, stuff I would never, ever, seek out normally as you cannot "unsee" it. I am clearly arguing for one point of view to the exclusion of others, my intent being to address an imbalance of discussion, but even starting out with good intentions, that's not a proper way for any Wikipedian to think about articles in the long term as we individually should be concerned with all the evidence.

I'm removing it from my watchlist, and I'll no longer participate in the associated AfD or any other discussions about it. I'll trust the community to stick to the high requirement of BLPRS to sort it out.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

That's not good enough. It's a great (and well-known) strategy to avoid ANI by either not engaging with it, or walking away from a particular battle. But that's not enough. You've gone too far. Other editors need and deserve protection from your combative editing like this. Just saying "I'm walking away and I won't do it again (but only this one page!) doesn't cut it". Andy Dingley (talk) 00:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)