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

Numerous systematic removal of Media Matters citations

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling has been systematically removing citations to Media Matters (a media watchdog organization) from multiple (seemingly random) articles, and replacing them with citation needed tags. (See: [1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17] and many more too numerous to list.) He continues to do so even after several users have pointed out that his interpretation of policy on this issue is incorrect, and that he should stop. (e.g. [18], [19], [20].)

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling argues that Media Matters is not a reliable source, and that the articles linked to violate WP:LINKVIO. Media Matters has been discussed on WP:RS/N several times (e.g. [21][22], [23] are the last 3 discussions), and the conclusion is that while it may be a partisan news organization, but it is still a reliable source, and can be cited the same way as other partisan sources, like for example, Fox News. Also, a reading of the policy 'Linking to copyrighted works' shows that it does not apply, as WP:LINKVIO forbids the linking to external Web sites that carry a work in violation of the creator's copyright. Media Matters is a well known, established organization in the US that carries video excerpts in accordance with 'fair use' laws, if they were systematically violating copyright law, it would have been sued by now. Also, the weblink can be removed if it violates WP:LINKVIO, but the reference itself should be retained.

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling has been polite about it, but he has been ignoring opposition to his systematic actions, and reverting people who undo his removal of these citations, demanding that those who oppose his actions justify themselves on the talk page of the respective articles. (e.g. [24], [25], [26].)

I stumbled across his actions when he removed this perfectly good citation [27] from an article I helped create, and reverted me when I undid his removal.

What I would like to see is LegitimateAndEvenCompelling agreeing to stop removal of links to Media Matters, and stop reverting people who undo his removals. Finally, if consensus can be reached that Media Matters is a reliable source, I would like him to undo all his removals, as he has created a huge amount of cleanup work for people to do (but this may be asking a bit much). --LK (talk) 01:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

MMFA is good for a secondary source for things already covered by the MSM. After reviewing the edits above, I would question the inclusion of a lot of the material. That being said, simply deleting MMFA while doing nothing with content is indeed disruptive and serves no purpose. This needs to stop. Soxwon (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Media Matters is extensively used by non-partisan information outlets like NPR (indeed, their On The Media show frequently uses them). They are with out a doubt a WP:RS. Removing them whole sale and placing citation needed tags is disruptive and pointy -- ۩ Mask 02:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Media Matters for America is an openly partisan source that is unfortunately used in place of journalistic sources more frequently that it proper. That being said, I agree that simply removing the citations with no apparent effort to locate other sources or otherwise mitigate the holes left by the removal is disruptive. --Allen3 ^talk 02:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

LK's claims are inaccurate. I have responded here to his efforts to keep an MMfA ref that disparages someone as a means to support the claim that people burn money. As to my other MMfA, almost none of them have been reverted because they are proper. Further, I do not remove all MMfA refs. Indeed in one case I even improved the ref by adding an author. I hope people will support me in applying Wikipedia policy and perhaps join me.

As to removing the refs and adding Citation tags, that is not inherently evil. Am I supposed to buy a subscription to Lexis/Nexis and source everything? Am I not allowed to comply with Wiki policy? The alternative is to remove the ref and the associated text. I see people do that and I don't like that. I choose not to do that. My purpose is not to eliminate things in the text, rather it is to ensure proper RSs are used.--LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, I am aware that people are using the Citation tags to properly source the information. In one case, for example, I can't put my finger on it, someone added a NYT ref where I had removed the MMfA ref. So the Citation tag is working exactly as it was designed to work. Wikipedia works to allow people to work together to improve articles. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Your appeal to policy is undermined by the fact that your interpretation of policy has been challenged. Your appeal for cooperation is undermined by your use of reverts. Even if you are 100% sure that you're right, you should still be able to step back and understand these problems. Melchoir (talk) 04:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The challenges made are based on either ad hominem argument or on the irrelevant claim that other MMfA refs have been found to be RSs. No one has yet gone to the specific context as required by RS.

As to my use of reverts, you are joking, right? I make an edit and specify exactly why I made the edit and include specific Wiki rules, a very few revert me with either no comment or a comment that has nothing to do with the RS/LINKVIO concerns, so I revert that, and suddenly I'm the bad guy for reverting a revert? Where's the WP:AGF in that?

I totally understand that some people are opposed to removing MMfA refs. But WP:RS is what necessitates the removals, not me. The only reason why my ensuring compliance with WP:RS is problematic to some is that I have applied the policy on numerous pages. Nevermind that MMfA refs in the hundreds are used all over Wikipedia inappropriately, as Allen3 generally agreed above. Suddenly I'm the bad guy for making a small dent in the removal of the non-RSs.

Look at the specific page about which LK complained, Burning money. Look in Talk. Look at the discussion I am having there. Tell me specifically why the MMfA ref on that page is a RS. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have dedicated a large part of your time over the last 2 months to removing MMfa sourcing, I suggest that you self revert and argue each removal in turn. You have been told on numerous occasions that your interpretation of WP:RS seems to be counter the consensus interpretation, notably around May 3rd. You could have saved yourself alot of time and effort if you had started by searching through the WP:RSN archives. They are, at the very least, a source which can be used with particular attribution. Unomi (talk) 06:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be a perfectly clear and consistent case of subversive editing.--Wetman (talk) 07:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Wetman, on the page you reverted, explain how MMfA is a reliable source for Institute for Energy Research funding coming from the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation. Don't just ignore WP:AGF. Is MMfA a RS for anything and everything? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Unomi, I am acting in compliance with Wiki policy. Most of my edits have not been reverted, almost all, that is. Why? Likely because the other editors agreed. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Even though everyone who has commented on this thread agrees that his actions are inappropriate, LegitimateAndEvenCompelling continues to remove Media Matters citations, and to argue with and revert users who disagree with those removals. A short preventive block might be in order. LK (talk) 07:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

One guy, Badger_Drink, is reverted all my edits claiming it is "vandalism".

And LK, to this point people are saying MMfA is generally a RS but no one, not a single person, has addressed the specific issues on any page. It's as if they know they have no legitimate substantive argument so they say things ad hominem in nature like "A short preventive block might be in order."

I am beginning to sense that the MMfA supporters care more about MMfA than about WP:RS or WP:LINKVIO.

I will need to get help with this as restoring non-WP:RS en masse is a serious problem. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Another editor has just reverted Badger Drink's restoration of an MMfA ref saying, "rmv disputed statement - only "source" was a copy of the cnn show, posted on some other site, with no additional commentary. does no-one understand notability anymore? So I see WP:NOTE may be another relevant issue as edits like this one are all over Wikipedia. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 08:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

As a preventative measure User:Badger Drink should be blocked for disruption - that user has mass reverted all the removals of MM as a source, but has failed to examine each case, leaving some very poor "sourcing" in this encyclopedia. BDs behaviour is nothing more than edit warring that will eventually have to be undone. Weakopedia (talk) 09:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

As a proactive measure, you should soak your head. If a stopped clock was right twice in a day, we don't start getting in a self-righteous huff over a clockmaker fixing it. That's not to say the edits in question by LaEC were correct, either - see below. Badger Drink (talk) 09:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Self-application of WP:TROUT

Just want to chime in with a vicious self-scolding. Badger, edit summaries like this are not helpful. Apologies to any and all who took offense. Badger Drink (talk) 07:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I just loooked at your latest contribution, which was rubbish.[28] If you don't understand basic policy you certainly shouldn't be going on any ill-advised reversion crusades. I've removed the passage you tried so hard to keep in, because it is poorly sourced. Weakopedia (talk) 08:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you fucking kidding me? Wikipedia statement which you removed: "Arthur Laffer made [a statement] on CNN". Media Matters link: "Economist Laffer [makes same statement] on CNN", complete with fucking video of him fucking saying it on fucking CNN! Honestly now, you're being beyond tendentious. Badger Drink (talk) 09:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at your second last contribution, which was rubbish.[29] You warred to have this "source" remain despite it not supporting the statement it is there to support. Weakopedia (talk) 08:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Funny you, of all participants in this discussion, should use the word "rubbish"... Badger Drink (talk) 09:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If that is the best you can resort to, then you shouldn't be editing here, full stop. While you are adding non BLP compliant material to BLPs, you will be reverted automatically. Good day. Weakopedia (talk) 09:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Taking the "shotgun approach" to discussion in the hopes something will stick - yawn. Are you really this stupid, or do you just assume that everyone else is too stupid to see your edits here for what they are? Anyway, let me know how the air on that lofty mountain of yours is. Badger Drink (talk) 09:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Both of you stop replying please and leave the issue in question for other editors to evaluate first. It'll drop the unnecessarily high temperature of this thread a little. sonia^♫♪ 09:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling's participation at WP:RS/N

I have just realized that LegitimateAndEvenCompelling knew full well that he was systematically removing reliable sources against the consensus at WP:RS/N. As these links show,[30],[31],[32],[33] he participated in many of the discussions about Media Matters at WP:RS/N, and so knew that consensus was against him. And yet he decided to systematically remove Media Matters citations even against consensus. This makes his behavior much less acceptable than I had previously thought it to be. I strongly support an indefinite block unless he agrees to reverse all his removals of these citations, and to not remove Media Matters citations in the future. LK (talk) 13:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

...he participated in many of the discussions about Media Matters at WP:RS/N, and so knew that consensus was against him.

What are you characterizing as "Consensus" from those RS/N discussion? JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The only concensus that I ever see from those discussions is a concensus from those in favor of MMfA saying that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid reason to treat MRC/Newsbusters and MMfA as two sides of the same coin. Until ideological editors agree that they should and must be treated equally these type of partisan battles will NEVER end. As long as one side feels that the other sides is getting preferential treatment there will continue to be edit wars. Unfortunately I don't see any give on the MMfA side. Arzel (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I've just read through the 3 (the 4th is a repeat of the 1st) diffs cited by LK, above. I see no consensus. If I can draw a mood from them considered as a whole, it is this: Cite MMfA's opinion rarely, only if their opinion is somehow relevant to the article. Cite them for facts only if the original source is unavailable. I, of course, haven't looked at each of LaEC's edits but I've examined quite a few including this sequence:

[34] American Family Association 13 June 2009

[35] American Family Association 11 March 2010

[36] American Family Association 11 March 2010

[37] American Family Association 6 April 2010

[38] American Family Association 6 April 2010

[39] American Family Association 25 May 2010

[40] American Family Association 27 May 2010

and see nothing wrong with this. Or any other edits. Have I missed something? Anthony (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed indefinite block of User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling

It's clear that LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk · contribs) is engaging in disruptive editing through mass removal of citations without discussion and against consensus. This constitutes tendentious editing, disruptive cite-tagging and a rejection of community input, all classic signs of disruptive editing. He has continued to do so even after this discussion began. He has a lengthy history of previous blocks, including one indefinite block for legal threats (since rescinded). Given this continuous and lengthy pattern of disruptive behaviour, it's clear that LegitimateAndEvenCompelling hasn't learned anything from his previous blocks. I therefore propose an indefinite block of this editor. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Additional note: Since it seems to have caused some confusion, please note that I'm proposing an indefinite block here, not an infinite one. If LegitimateAndEvenCompelling is willing to agree not to continue such actions, he should be allowed to continue editing, but without such an assurance a block becomes necessary as a preventative measure. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Reject Examination of the history shows many articles where MediaMatters was being used inappropriately. Those who are blindly reverting all removals of MM as a source should be blocked, as they are in many cases simply reintroducing inadequate, or even misrepresentative sourcing to articles, just to make a point. Weakopedia (talk) 09:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Bold>Revert>Discuss doesn't work if the person being bold refuses to actually discuss. The previous discussions where consensus in re: MMfA was formed were provided to LaEC, who chose instead to ignore it and insist that somehow they were right in the face of a multitude of editors suggesting the exact opposite. Indefinite need not necessarily be infinite, but given LaEC's past history, I would suggest that he would truly need to display that he understands that he went about this in entirely the wrong fashion and is prepared to make a serious endeavour to mend his ways before the block is lifted. Badger Drink (talk) 09:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support or possibly Restrict. If LaeC had really been removing dubious sources from articles, then in examples like CIA leak scandal timeline he would also have removed all the references to WorldNetDaily, a source from the other side of the political spectrum that at RS/N has repeatedly been described as even more unreliable than MMfA. But he left all of those in. Thus, it has to be described as nothing more than political POV-pushing. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

...he would also have removed all the references to WorldNetDaily, a source from the other side of the political spectrum that at RS/N has repeatedly been described as even more unreliable than MMfA.

I don't recall that specific descriptive being used (do you have a quote or two?) nor your paraphrase summary of recent RS/N discussions related to World Net Daily. Being that as it may, MMfA is being recognized (finally I might add) for what it is...and its RS status, unfettered by any other consideration, appears to now be history in Wikipedia. MMfA is a hyper-partisan source and its ubiquitous presence in this Wikipedia medium should give ANYONE pause. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

How do you reach that conclusion? Mainstream media outlets routinely source or credit MMfA in their stories. A google news search will show you recent items by CBS, NY Times, Boston Globe, NY Dailyt times - all referencing MMfA. Please see WP:YESPOV and understand that we are to reflect what might seem to you the apparent liberal bias of reality. Unomi (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Your argument is misplaced. In the examples you cite, substantive third-party sourcing can validate MMfA content just as RS third-party can validate WND, MRC, etc etc. But you place the NPOV cart before the WP:V/WP:UNDUE horse. NPOV relates to the balanced presentation of content, not to the POV of the source itself (which you appear to wrongly suggest I'm asserting). Like all hyper-partisan content from either wing, reliable third-party sourcing is mandated by WP:V/WP:UNDUE.JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

When you take in to use language like 'hyper-partisan' I was compelled to believe that you were arguing from the context of POV. You are making a false equivalence between MMfA and WND/MRC on the basis of your notion that they are both and equally hyper-partisan. News outlets routinely reference MMfA, this is not the case with the others you mention. From the ES' of LaEC in his numerous (~50+) removals he argued from the position of an imperfect grasp of WP:RS and how MMfA can in fact be used - albeit with particular attribution in contentious areas subject to editor discretion. He had been informed of this months ago, but continued with IDHT removals, that is why we are here. Unomi (talk) 01:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The MRC is also referenced by news outlets. It's a no-brainer that the left-leaning news outlets are going to reference MMfA more often than they reference the MRC. Drrll (talk) 02:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You are making a false equivalence between MMfA and WND/MRC on the basis of your notion that they are both and equally hyper-partisan.

Your opinion is simply not shared anymore by generally half of the participants in the most recent RS/N's on the subject. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean by that? Unomi (talk) 04:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Certainly not to the satisfaction of one who apparently holds MMfA as a breed apart from the hyper-partisan crowd. But you could start here.. JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I see that you misunderstood what I meant then, it is not a matter of their perceived political leanings, they could be equidistant from the center as perfectly as one could want, and they would still not be equivalent, that very archive spells that out with the citations in mainstream sources, the Columbia Review of Journalism article and the quality of the editors involved in MMaF and MRC respectively. Unomi (talk) 05:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support: Per Black Kite...can't say it any better. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support: Per Black Kite and Badger Drink, not necessarily infinite, but we need to break through the IDHT once and for all. Unomi (talk) 10:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: LaeC is looking for instances where MMfA is used inappropriately, and finding them. In some, few. instances, other editors disagree. Nothing wrong with any of that. LaeC does need to be admonished for ignoring WP:BRD. That's all. Anything else is an overreaction and smacks of "I don't like you." Anthony (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• This is not true. As the discussion on the talk pages of many of these articles show, consensus is that the removed citations were perfectly fine. LK (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Can you show me a couple of examples, please? Anthony (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: ChrisO, how far back in history do you want to go to skewer me? Don't people change? Have I done anything recently/currently to deserve a legitimate block, other than people doing what you are attempting to do, namely, use procedural means to avoid substantive discussion? Not a single person supporting the block has ever, not once, addressed any substantive issue relating to this matter. Indeed, before the en masse reverts made with ad hominem history comments without substance, most editors left my edits in place. The community accepted them. Look, here is the one and only instance where a person actually discussed substantive issues with me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Burning_money#Media_matters and when I responded, he politely bowed out. Blocking me will not solve the problem, but I will admit it will probably make you feel really good. What will solve the problem is the proper application of WP:RS, not the blocking of the person applying it. And no one told me this was going on here? What a disgrace. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You were informed of this AN/I thread here and you've already participated in it, so you have nothing to complain about on that score. If you believe that MMFA is generally not a reliable source then you need to raise that at WP:RSN, not unilaterally attempt to purge it from Wikipedia against the complaints of other editors. You've caused a substantial amount of disruption and damage in the meantime, and that needs to stop. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, but I was not informed of this effort to block me, indefinitely, no less. It was you who said on my Talk page, "Please cease mass-removing citations without discussion. You are likely to find yourself being blocked if you continue. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)" By that time I had stopped. Yet here you are yourself seeking to blocking me indefinitely despite your very own words! What shameful behavior! Are you proud of your actions?

Only 13 minutes after leaving me your message, you moved to indefinitely block me. 09:24, 25 July 2010 ChrisO (talk | contribs) (307,425 bytes) (→Numerous systematic removal of Media Matters citations: - propose indefinite block of User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling) (undo) How many "mass-removing citations without discussions" could I cease doing in 13 minutes??

This is a serious witch hunt. Thanks, ChrisO, for helping to evidence it so well. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 11:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Let me add this. I see Black Kite has said I was POV pushing. That is not true. Black Kite asked me that on my Talk page. I guess he did not wait for an answer. (Now I see he make his non-WP:AGF statement here before asking me for clarification on my Talk page!) But my answer shows I was not POV pushing (as if compliance with WP:RS could ever be POV pushing). --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 10:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Well no - I said that removing sources that promote a particular POV will be seen as POV-pushing, which it does. I appreciate your explanation on your talkpage, though, and given that I have edited my comment above to include "Restrict". Black Kite (t) (c) 11:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
    • If the motivation for the removals really was not to push a POV, the much less reliable WorldNetDaily refs should have been removed first. The prima facie evidence shows a systematic biased removal of sources from one end of the political spectrum. I suggest that if LegitimateAndEvenCompelling wants to show his 'good faith', he should immediately stop removing MMfA refs and start removing the much less reliable WorldNetDaily refs; at least until he has removed as many WorldNetDaily refs as the number of MMfA refs he has removed. LK (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support See Black Kite above for a major plank of evidence. Clearly this guy does not have a clue as to the difference between a source "having a POV" and a source being basically reliable, and is blanket removing a good source of information which has a good history of quality, albeit a source which focuses on exposing problems in the right wing of the US. Weakopedia's comment (as of now) lacks substance and can therefore be discounted; same applies to Anthonychole's comment. Legitimate's own argument shown in the talk page section he references (permalink) is way off: for example, one of his arguments is that ". "E.H.H." Does that sound reliable to anyone here? MMfA articles do include full names of authors sometimes", ignoring the fact that most sources do not always include authors, and sources like the The Economist (which I consider overrated) never do. He argues that since WP:POORSRC (who keeps randomly changing these shortcuts??) includes the words "promotional in nature" and MMfA seems promotional, it is automatically questionable. Wow. He also seems to somehow think that because MMfA irrefutably displays its evidence in actual clips of video, it is less reliable. Wow, just wow. Such a tortured, ludicrous argument needs to be stopped. We should work on cleaning up this mess and restoring these sources as well. II | (t - c) 11:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support with caveat - if LAEC subsequently agrees not to engage in such behaviour, he can have another chance. It is clear that his behaviour in removing MMfA citations has been disruptive; deleting citations to what is widely enough considered a reliable source can hardly be otherwise. But as he himself noted at RSN on 16 July, " I admit MMfA is reliable for things about itself or incidents in which it has been directly involved, and I also admit its content can be useful for identifying actual reliable sources, particularly in cases where it provides links to such sources." [emphasis added] In this case, a non-disruptive approach would at minimum put the MMfA link on the talk page with an explanation, or replace it with the sources linked to by MMfA. Rd232 ^talk 11:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• • I do not see putting these citations on the talk page as an acceptable compromise, heh, and it is difficult to constantly watch over someone this extreme; also if he keeps repeating himself and calling it "discussion" while redoing the edit it is basically impossible to stop him. Perhaps a good start would be for him to self-revert his blanket removals. Replacing these with primary sources of the particular footage is also not the answer. II | (t - c) 12:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The actions being discussed here are clearly disruptive, but an indefinite block is an overreaction. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  • A permanent block is an overreaction; an indefinite block, liftable on LAEC agreeing not to continue such actions, is not. Rd232 ^talk 11:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree, but the proposal does not contain any mention of such a condition. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• I wasn't aware of WP:BRD until now. I was aware of WP:3RR, so 2 reverts was my max. Now I suppose it'll just be, what, 0 reverts. And Anthony is right, it would be unfair to be blocked indef for not being aware of BRD, while pursuing RS, no less. It is also unfair that I should get blocked and no one ever (except one now) responds substantively to the RS issues at hand on the various pages. So yes, Rd232, I agree to abide by WP:BRD. And I like your Talk page idea. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 11:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The only substantive complaint about this editor is ignoring (which turned out to be ignorance of) WP:BRD. They now know about the policy, and undertake to follow it. Can this be closed now? Anthony (talk) 11:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

BRD is an essay, not policy. BRD may be at times be advisable, but I'm not sure that it is appropriate for removing what is widely seen as a reliable source, without replacing it with a better one or at least moving it to the talk page. BRD is not the issue. Rd232 ^talk 12:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought they were only removing instances where it was not supporting the content, or not appropriate for some other reason. As for not replacing it with something appropriate, is it a policy violation to neglect that and just replace with "citation needed?" Anthony (talk) 12:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support a longish block and possibly a topic ban/editing restriction of some kind. The editor has been engaged in a clear and persistent pattern of POV pushing and tendentious editing. There are no excuses and no justification for that. An indef block may be a little harsh but acceptabe under the circumstances. Nsk92 (talk) 12:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Has that case (POV pushing and tendentious editing) been demonstrated somewhere? Or can you elaborate on that, with diff's maybe? (I don't want to defend a troublemaker who won't benefit from counseling - but that hasn't been demonstrated in this thread.) Anthony (talk) 12:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Updated 12:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Weak Support or Topic Ban - It is possible to argue that MMfA is not a reliable source, but that also means that Fox News and WorldNetDaily sure as shit ain't reliable sources either and should be removed from the site using napalm and agent orange. All news is canned gossip, anyway, and is either sold for a profit or proselytized for an agenda. Until more appropriate sources are found, MMfA, Fox, and WND will have to do. There is a thing in American law called "fair use," which Media Matters follows, which means that their videos do not violate WP:LINKVIO. All the articles I've seen either present a video, or present transcripts with some context. LegAEC seems to be sorta repentant, if only because of 3rr and now the threat of a block (not so much because of acknowledging any mistakes, so I guess repentant isn't the right word but compliant). Ian.thomson (talk) 12:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

No, Fox news is not the appropriate ideological opponent you are seeking; it's the Media Research Center. Fox News is the conservative equivalent of MSNBC, not MMFA.

There is little difference between the left-wing PoV pushing from MMFA and the right-wing POV pushing from MRC, and in a previous discussion on the RS/N, I suggested that neither should be allowed, because the egregious partisan spin both sources place on anything that appears on either site.

As for WND, nobody should be using it as a citation for anything, anywhere on Wikipedia, unless they are citing it as an opinion from WND or one of its contributors. Horologium (talk) 13:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose at this time. There needs to be a definitive consensus on the suitability of hyper-partisan "media watchdog" sources, including MMfA, FAIR, MRC, and AIM. I would support an RFC on the topic, but I don't think focusing on a single user is appropriate for this subject. Horologium (talk) 13:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that an RFC is a good idea, but this isn't about whether MMfA is a suitable source - it's about whether a single editor should make that determination himself and single-handedly attempt to purge Wikipedia of that source, against the opposition of other editors. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

LAEC has tacitly agreed to stop removing links to MMfA. I would support blocking him again if he continues if there is an RFC initiated on the issue. Without an RFC, I don't see a consensus at all, so a block would be inappropriate because it becomes an issue of editorial content, unless there is an edit war. When another editor with a different view follows an editor reverting every edit, there is another issue (wikihounding) which is equally disruptive, and needs to stop. Horologium (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Unless User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling agrees to undo all of his removals. If he really believes that those citations are bad, someone else will surely remove them. Also, he should agree not to remove Media Matters citations in the future. If he comes across a bad citation, he should instead raise the issue on the talk page for someone else to deal with. LK (talk) 13:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

What is even the point of being an editor then? Arzel (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose MMfA is almost univerisaly used for political purposes to promote a specific point of view. Its use should be limited to an extension of existing secondary sourcing and not a as a primary source, especially if MMfA is trying to establich a fact. MRC should be treated as the same way. To punish LAEC for attempting to maintain a basic pillar of WP is absurd to say the least. One only has to ask, do you want WP to be a better more neutral place? Arzel (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• I first noticed LegitimateAndEvenCompelling's systematic actions when he removed a citation in the Burning money article from this statement "people have publicly burned small amounts of money for political protests that were picked up by the media — Living Things at South by Southwest,[17] Larry Kudlow on The Call[18]". The removed reference [18] leads to a short article on Kudlow burning a dollar bill on The Call, with a video excerpt of the act. How is this 'used for political purposes to promote a specific point of view'? How is neutrality on Wikipedia improved by this removal? LK (talk) 14:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• The only reason MMfA or anyone else commented on that incident is because they are trying to make a political point against Kudlow breaking the law given his apparent attempt to run against a liberal politician in the near future. MMfA could care less about the actual act of someone burning a dollar bill, they are just trying to point out a conservative breaking the letter of the law which will undoubtably be used against Kudlow in the future as political fodder. Now, granted this is a rather benign incident, but the intent is clear from MMfA when you come to grip with reality and admit that they, just like MRC, are political animals. The question I ask myself, is, "Is this editor removing partisan sourcing from one ideology and inserting partisan sourcing from another ideology?" If the anser is Yes, then they are in violation of several WP policies. If they are simply removing partisan sourcing which appears to be in violation of NPOV then they are upholding the fundamental principles of WP. You have to admit, the people putting MMfA in as a source to begin with are very likely to partisan editors to start. LegitCompelling is simply trying to go around and clean up the crap. Arzel (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps even more importantly, did the sourcing for the content removed rise to satisfy WP:UNDUE sourcing or was it just coatracking of MMfA opinion? JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Good point. This particular incident didn't warrant removal. It isn't a coatraking of MMfA opinion. The only questionable aspect is that the sourcing is being used in conjunction with a fact (ie that their is no apparent consiquence), when the conjuntion is that this would be MMfA opinion. ehh, boarderline and technical. I did some searching and there isn't much else, so I would assume that burning a dollar bill on live tv probably won't ever get you in trouble. I did look at some of the others that LAEC removed and in general they are some longstanding wars regarding the blur between opinion and fact largely criticism of conservative figures which didn't recieve much press outside of the blogs. Those clearly should be removed, but it is usually a difficult endevour because of the political nature of WP, at the very least they should be expressly attributed as opinon of MMfA. Arzel (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose If you would indefinitely block LAEC, then you would need to indefinitely block other editors who regularly and consistently remove references from the Media Research Center. I lean toward excluding both sources, but there needs to be a consistent WP policy/guideline on this. In the case where this question was widely discussed on the RSN, using RfCs, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, Media Research Center, Media Matters for America, Newsbusters, the consensus was consistency in application of both sources, and another RfC there leaned against use of MMfA entirely. Because of the results there, the lack of a policy/guideline on the use of such ideologically-charged sources, and because of the regular and consistent removal of MRC sources by other editors, I strongly oppose an indefinite block on LAEC. As someone else has noted, there is going to be continued warfare on this front unless a policy, guideline, or decisive RSN ruling has been made to treat these two sources consistently. Drrll (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• This is not a good argument, per WP:OTHERSTUFF, just because there are other people doing unacceptable things, does not mean that we have to accept this one person doing unacceptable things. LK (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• So I take it that you would support indefinitely blocking--and will start ANI items seeking to indefinitely block--those who regularly remove references to the Media Research Center? Or does that not matter? Drrll (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

From your lack of response, LK, it looks like you are only interested in indefinitely blocking those who remove ideological sources that you like. Drrll (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Treatment of MMfA as something more than a hyper-partisan source is a "sacred cow consensus" that no longer stands up to RS/N scrutiny. Just like its peers (Media Research Center, Fairness and Accuracy In Media, Newsbusters etc. etc.), WP:UNDUE should require third-party RS to support any content solely attributable to MMfA. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - indef block for a first time offense? Seriously? He has been warned, he is responding to this discussion, he has been civil, and he seems willing to learn how his actions were inappropriate and adjust his behavior accordingly. He has a few blocks in his bast for edit warring, but most are in 2007 and he seems to have learned from those experiences. At most an appropriate length block (3 days to a week) IF he continued removing the MMfA stuff before a discussion at WP:RSN confirms it is non-reliable. Otherwise, blocks supposedly aren't punitive but preventative and thus far, the disruption appears to have stopped. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 16:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support per Black Kite. There's far too many one-sided ideologues who game the rules on Wikipedia. Strong action against them would hopefully curb this sort of behavior. Gamaliel (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I could make an argument that such a statement and other actions by you Gamaliel would get you blocked by this rule. Ideologues exist on both sides, it's a part of the site, deal with it. Soxwon (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• This sort of trolling is inaccurate, inappropriate, and irrelevant to this discussion. If you think any of my actions are inappropriate, take it to my talk page or to the relevant article discussion page. Gamaliel (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Hey, you were the one railing against one-sided ideologues, not I. Soxwon (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose – An indefinite block is taking this too far. How about a ban from removing references from the Media Research Center, enforceable by blocks if necessary? The use of MMfA and MRC sources has already been decided on elsewhere. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't know that. Can you please supply the diff? Anthony (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose give him a WP:WHALE, but i have seen enough good work out him to think it would be a waste to indef. I may support a Topic Ban from Editing Citations and Artilces closesly linked with MMFA Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support per Black Kite. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support per diffs provided by Black Kite. Note that it would be indef, not permanent, and lifted after assurances by LaEC that he would cease disruption. -- ۩ Mask 21:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Black Kite didn't provide any diffs. Anthony (talk) 21:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't need to. The example I gave, and many other of LaeC's edits, show clearly the removal of one source whilst not removing those referring to WND, right-wing blogs, etc. Thus his claim of removing unreliable sources is clearly false. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, your differences don't show much. If LAEC was using the linksearch function to find MMFA links (as I have done for Free Republic and Democratic Underground links), it shows that he was looking for links from that source, not links from other, even less reliable sources. When I go on one of my most populated->most populous tears (see my contribution history for examples) I don't look for other problems, and when people go through with AWB and fix specific issues, they will overlook things other than the specific issue on which they are working. It doesn't mean that they are shitty editors, and it doesn't mean that they have a partisan agenda, it means that they are focused on a single task. Horologium (talk) 23:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Are you kidding? - I haven't reviewed the consensus on this, but assuming consensus is clear that MM references shouldn't be removed as such, and/or that LAEC is persistently overstepping the bounds, can't we just make that consensus clear for the record and ask LAEC to honor it? No need to get any broader than that, and it's only a blockworthy thing if they get that firm message and won't abide by it. I know that an indef. block could be overturned if they only make that promise, but wouldn't it be simpler and less disruptive on all sides to take the administrative sanction step out, and go immediately to the end result? - Wikidemon (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I don't see that failure to remove other, more unreliable, references is a reasonable argument here. Either there's consensus or not to remove MMfA links, and either LAEC is being disruptive or not doing so. Nobody has an obligation to to anything around here, so I don't think it's fair or practical for anyone accused of POV disruption to show good faith by doing the same edits for the other side as well. It's not as if this is a single-purpose POV editor, they're just caught up in this particular issue at this time. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has any obligation to do anything here ... except not be disruptive. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose LAEC's actions are mostly correct in this matter. Jtrainor (talk) 02:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per AmnaFinotera. If he's here, discussing the appropriateness of the edits, and has ceased making such edits for the duration of this discussion, there's no ongoing disruption to be solved by such a block. Blocks are not punitive; they're to protect the encyclopedia from harm. When and if LAEC disregards an established consensus or becomes incivil in presenting his viewpoint, then we can appropriately talk about disruptive editing. Jclemens (talk) 02:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the last post by this user, it does not seem to indicate that he recognizes that there is an established consensus. Your suggestion to lay off MMfA refs sounds like you are asking me to self-censor. .. Now I have a demand for you, since you started this. You address yourself to the MMfA non-RS ref you reverted and you explain, for the first time, why that ref is a RS, and you do so without ad hominem argument or general statements about how MMfA has been shown to be reliable elsewhere. Unomi (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This particular case is this edit to Burning money - the MMfA page in question used as source is here complete with a transcript and a video of Kudlow setting fire to a dollar bill. LaEK's claim that he was unaware of BRD is frankly ludicrous when you consider that this particular account was created in 2006. His block for legal threats also came on the heels of idht regarding WP:LEGAL. Unomi (talk) 03:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That's 4 years ago! Be reasonable. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose LAEC and I are on opposite sides of the fence when it comes to MMfA links and whether or not they constitute WP:LINKVIOs, having had a very lengthy discussion on the matter. We still disagree on the LINKVIO issue (and I still hold out hope he'll concede someday, LOL). But for those editors here who support an indefinite block, please take a look at that discussion and also how it got started. Use this link and look at the edit history for July 13th. LAEC removed an MMfA link from a page I watch; I reverted, requesting clarification on the Talk Page. He did not revert my revert; instead, he went to the Talk Page and proceeded to patiently lay out his position and perspective on the matter, a conversation that went on for quite some time that you can see here. The conversation was undeniably civil and respectful. Hence, after my own personal run-in with him on an MMfA dispute, I am skeptical of the claim that he systematically steamrolls over people's objections without taking the time to stop and discuss the issue in a civil fashion. If he did revert someone who reverted his edit, please take the time to carefully examine the incident and see if an edit summary or reason was provided by the offended editor rather than just assuming so. Also, reading some of the comments in this thread, it's apparent there are strong feelings in play for some folks here. I would ask that each of you consider what level of examination and scrutiny you would want your peers to apply before voting to block yourself in a similar situation. LAEC has thousands upon thousands of constructive edits, so please do him that courtesy before you make up your mind.--AzureCitizen (talk) 05:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose It's hard to believe that anyone would oppose the removal of such viciously hyperpartisan sources as MMfA. Yes, they do often (but not always) link to reliable sources. But no, they are not a WP:RS because of the high-velocity partisan spin, editing out of context, selective presentation of facts, and general propagandizing in which they constantly engage. We need to amend WP:RS to clarify Wikipedia's policy on hyperpartisan sources such as MMfA and, at the other end of the rainbow, such right-wing trash as World Net Daily. Until that occurs, any suggestion that LAEC should be indef blocked raises my suspicions about any editor who would even suggest such an oppressive remedy, where there is no clear policy. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 09:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Relentless POV-pushing and IDHT over a long period of time. Xanthoxyl ^< 14:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support Wikipedia is far too lenient with disruptive editors. Ban and move on. Dlabtot (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose There is no ongoing disruption; the user in question is engaging in civil discussions about the disputed edits. There is nothing to be gained from a block. —Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 16:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

LEAC proposal

This is LegitimateAndEvenCompelling. Let me suggest what I have learned here and how I will respond, then people can comment and eventually agree that those actions will be acceptable. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I will continue to examine MMfA refs for compliance with all Wiki policy, most typically WP:RS. If I determine that the ref fails the test, I will take the following action:

1. Create a Talk page section entitled "MMfA refs".
2. On the Talk page, add the MMfA link(s) and associated text.
3. On the Talk page, briefly state why the ref(s) is(are) non-RS.
4. On the Main page, remove the MMfA ref(s), and typically leave the remaining text, though other policy may require removal, in which case I will briefly state why I removed the text in the Talk page. I have not done this much at all.
5. On the Main page, insert a Citation tag, but only if the MMfA ref removed is not duplicative of existing links or is not in the External Links section.
6. On the Main page, leave a history comment similar to the full disclosure I currently provide, including that an MMfA link is involved, but also adding See Talk:MMfA refs.

If I determine that the MMfA ref is Wiki compliant, as it is from time to time, I will take no action, except perhaps to improve the link, as I have done in at least one instance.

If I am reverted, I will take the following action:

1. If the history comment claims the MMfA ref is a RS, I will not revert but I go to the Talk page. I will take no action on the Main page until consensus is reached or if a week goes by and discussion on the Talk page has ceased without consensus. This raises a problem. What if all the folks here seeking to block me indefinitely create a consensus that a non-RS is a RS. What do I do then? RS Noticeboard, I guess. But what if the same thing happens there?
2. If the history comment is blank, I will revert, but only once, and thereafter return to Talk.
3. If the history comment contains ad hominem comments, I will revert, but only twice, and thereafter return to Talk.

I note that before this issue was raised and Badger did his mass reverts of all my edits, very few were reverted, and of those, even fewer stayed reverted. I say this to point out that I do not expect a lot of reverts, except if it is by the people here seeking the indef block. If those people revert me just because of what is going on here, that is a problem, and I am asking now how to address that, as that will clearly be for reasons having nothing to do with the RS issue.

The edits that Badger mass reverted, he should revert them all. Have any of you seen the personal attacks that guy made in the history comments? His actions went beyond the pale and he should revert himself--he has already trouted himself, but that's only of jovial consequence. Note well that I have not and likely will not take the route of using procedural means to intimidate him, such as this huge matter that has been filed against me to silence me for complying with WP:RS, though perhaps not complying with WP:BRD, although I was unaware of that until now and will now comply. No, I won't make official complaints against him, or against ChrisO for his move to block me 13 minutes after his comment on my Talk page saying I needed to stop something or someone might block me, or against Black Kite for his projection about POV editing (as if RS compliance is ever POV editting) made minutes before he too went to my Talk page to determine the veracity of what he just claimed was true. Given what has happened to me here and how I have responded in the positive manner I have and how many editors have supported me here and how the vast majority of my edits made over months were not reverted until Badger acted as he did, I ask that Badger be required to revert his mass edits of what I have done over the months, particularly since they were good edits never reverted for months until he came along and made his ad hominem attacks, and because the RS rule goes to the heart of Wikipedia.

Let me add this. In all this time, only one editor, and only once, has ever addressed the RS issue on a substantive basis. Everyone else every single time skipped over that and jumped to ad hominem argument or general statements that MMfA has been proven to be reliable. Then they move to block me indefinitely. Clearly they have no substantive argument or they would have made it. So here is the question. What happens if on the Talk page the discussion and resulting consensus never addresses the substantive RS issues? What happens if, like what has been happening 99 44/100% of the time so far, people choose to attack me or to make blanket statements about how MMfA is a RS on other pages? What is the means to prevent Wikipedia from being subverted in such a manner? What recourse do I have to get attention to that problem?

Okay, what do you all think of the above?

Thank you all very much. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Based on the persistent efforts to use ad hominem efforts to sway opinion, such as the raising of 4 year old disciplinary matters, among other things, and in light of the persistent avoidance of substantive RS issues in the context RS rules require, I think it might be reasonable to ask the editors seeking the indef block if they would be willing to volunteer whether they are MMfA members or MMfA supporters. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This thread is about your behaviour, and whether you're going to be indefinitely blocked. Do you mind if we focus on that now? The other important questions can be addressed on a new thread, here or at an appropriate forum. But, for now, can we just see how everybody feels about what you have proposed regarding your future conduct? Anthony (talk) 04:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it might be reasonable to ask the editors seeking the indef block if they would be willing to volunteer whether they are MMfA members or MMfA supporters. This betrays a completely inappropriate battlegound mentality, as well as being an egregious violation of WP:AGF. LAEC does not seem to fathom the possibility that someone may find his actions disruptive without being his political opposite -- and by his comment reveals the probability that his own actions have been ideologically motivated and not based on Wikipedian principles. Serious consideration has to be given to the question of whether this editor is capable of acting based strictly on grounds of policy, without guidance from his political views. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Eh, it was an after thought after all I've been through. Cut me some slack, even though you moved to block me indefinitely. I'll withdraw the question and strike it out. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok let's look at your proposal: it amounts to codified edit warring ("I will revert twice..."), and is therefore totally unaacceptable. What you need to do is wait until there is some consensus regarding whether the source is reliable or not, and then act. The lack of consensus is not license to do whatever you wish, the lack of consensus is merely an indication that the community has not yet made up its collective mind, and in that circumstance, one needs to act carefully and with due consideration for specific circumstances. Mass reversions when Wikipedia is still thinking about what to do is not being bold, it's being disruptive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless I am the one being mass reverted. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Those reversions returned the articles to the status quo ante. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to do in the case of disruptive editing such as your. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I made those edits over months, and a very tiny percentage were ever reverted, only a few, actually. They were not "disruptive" if you judge by the reverts you get or don't get. They were not reverted until Badger Drink did so en masse as a result of this AN/I, and with the ad hominem history comments for which he trouted himself.

I'm going to sleep now. Sweet dreams. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

With the striking of the offensive section, I whole-heartedly support this proposal. It accomplishes the goal of ending disruption and allows LaEC to voice his concerns without detriment to the project (it may even improve sources where there's consensus Media Matters is not the appropriate citation). All in all a better outcome then either extreme. Blocks are meant to be preventive, not punitive. We have mitigated potential damage, so none is needed. -- ۩ Mask 05:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is that you are still seeking to make the determination on a global scale of whether MMfA is a reliable source or not. It should be obvious from the discussion on this issue that there is substantial disagreement on that point. I see nothing in your proposal about getting the consensus of editors beforehand about whether MMfA is a reliable source. What needs to happen is a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard, followed by an RFC if necessary. Only then and only if the consensus is that MMfA is reliable should you attempt to carry out a systematic removal or replacement of MMfA citations. As it is, you're still pursuing the approach that got you into trouble - i.e. imposing your own view of MMfA on the whole encyclopedia without attempting to obtain any consensus for your actions beforehand. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"[A] discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard, followed by an RFC if necessary" for each of the hundreds of edits I make would be a huge roadblock that would essentially end my efforts to apply WP:RS, and it would be overburdensome to everyone involved were I to decide to do that. As ChrisO is the person who waited 13 minutes to move to block me indefinitely after advising me not to edit in a certain way that I did not, is it not surprising he would suggest such an onerous requirement. Recall that I made those edits over months, and a very tiny percentage were ever reverted, only a few, actually. Focusing on MMfA is not what got me in trouble with Wiki policy nonadherence, rather that was failure to comply with WP:BRD, although admittedly it was the MMfA that got me in trouble from the viewpoint of editors such as ChrisO who oppose removing MMfA refs even when they violate WP:RS, etc. So I am not "imposing [my] own view of MMfA on the whole encyclopedia without attempting to obtain any consensus for your actions beforehand". My "view of MMfA" is irrelevant. The point is compliance with WIkipedia policy and that I have found an easy way to quickly identify hundreds of refs that may violate that policy. To the extent that I have removed the MMfA refs and not provided a means to mine the refs for RSs or to allow for consensus, I have proposed a means to correct that. That is what is being decided now. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 11:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You are right ChrisO, there is substantial disagreement on under what circumstances MMfA is a reliable source. It is unreasonable to expect any editor to be guided by one particular contentious interpretation and not another. LAeC will follow WP:BRD, and preserve the MMfA ref's so others may use them to find RSs if they wish. That should deal with the disruption, from his side. Anthony (talk) 13:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

@LAEC - No not a RfC for every edit. There is so far no consensus that MMfA is NOT (that's NOT) a reliable source. Opinion is split. Until you have consensus that MMfA is NOT a reliable source, you may not systematically remove it from the encyclopaedia. That is WP:DISRUPTIVE. Either start at the RS noticeboard, or start a RfC to confirm that MMfA is not a reliable source. In the absence of that, you may only remove it where you can show that it is not a reliable source. This would involve demonstrating that it is the only source saying something, or that other sources contradict it, and cannot be done by mass removal, but must be done on a case by case basis. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree - Elen of the Roads is 100% correct. I will "only remove [an MMfA ref] where [I] can show that it is not a reliable source". Indeed, that is exactly what I have proposed doing. I have also proposed doing it "on a case by case basis." I will not do "mass removals".

On the issue of whether MMfA is a RS generally, I have no opinion on that. Further, I do not think is it constructive to raise the issue. WP:RS states, emphasis in original, "Proper sourcing always depends on context...." Also, "Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context." To me, that means each instance of a ref needs to be seen in context. I do not understand, given that Wiki policy, how any source, no matter how reliable or not, can be given blanket approval or opposition. Oh sure, refs from one source are usually RSs and refs from another are usually not, but a blanket policy cannot possibly apply where WP:RS requires that each ref be viewed in context. In other words, MMfA refs cannot be given blanket approval. They must be reviewed in context, like any other ref. My proposal does exactly that.

Someone made the suggestion that WP:RS needs to be updated to, basically, record what is being decided here so as to minimize the need to redo this kind of thing over and over, this being just the latest effort by so many people. I fully support that effort, should anyone actually carry it out. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

A thread has been opened regarding this [41]. Unomi (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears that none of the proposals are going anywhere, so this agreed to self-restriction by LEAC will likely be the only resolution. I think that on the whole, the community is fine with this outcome. However, I would like to remind LEAC to keep in mind that when removing sources that he deems unreliable, he should do so even-handedly, removing all unreliable sources and not just target those from a particular source. If he does this, people will not object to his actions. LK (talk) 04:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

That amounts to a variation on the topic ban proposal Lawrencekhoo also launched and also lost in the section immediately below. We all know Wikipedia is for people to do what they like within the rules, not to do as other people direct them to do. Besides, others have already discussed here that I am not required to do as Lawrencekhoo is yet again demanding.

People have also suggested Lawrencekhoo has wandering into WP:WIKIHOUNDING territory. At this point, I do feel Lawrencekhoo "is disrupti[ng] another user's (LAEC's) own enjoyment of editing, or [] the project generally, for no overriding reason." I'll assume the hounding has continued since I have acted again to remove the MMfA ref from the article that caused Lawrencekhoo to launch this AN/I in the first place, this time ensuring compliance with that to which I agreed regarding Talk page attention.

To the majority of people who have supported me, I thank you. To those who did not, I thank you for your input as well. I think this particular AN/I proves once and for all that no reference is deemed automatically reliable, not even MMfA, not even if MMfA has been proven reliable on other Wiki pages. So that should stop the tired, false argument that MMfA has been proven reliable again and again, therefore there is no need to consider context as required by WP:RS.

Most of all I would like to thank Jimbo Wales for creating a system that works to create fair rules for all. I know Wikipedia gets blamed for a lot of things that is not Wikipedia's doing. It is not Wikipedia's doing, for example, that MMfA refs/links/main page mentions are inserted by the hundreds whereever possible whether or not they satisfy WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, WP:LINKVIO, or any other policy. But, now that I have become aware that has happened, I will work within Wiki rules to bring about compliance with Wiki rules, and this AN/I proves anyone has a green light to do so, as long as Wiki expectations are met and/or exceeded. Happy editing, all. Here's a link I use to find MMfA refs that, in my experience, frequently violate one Wiki rule or another.

If anyone is wondering why I wrote this, it's because I am reacting to being wikihounded by Lawrencekhoo and he needs to know it is time to stop. I would not have written this otherwise. It really does feel good to have Wiki rules and a Wiki community to support me and others when we try to apply those rules. Really, thanks Jim. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

LEAC Topic Ban Proposal

Given that LEAC still doesn't get that it is inappropriate to systematically remove something from the encyclopedia without community consensus, I think its better if he were to leave the issue of MMfA references to others, and to make productive contributions elsewhere, I suggest a topic ban whereby:
LegitimateAndEvenCompelling is forbidden to remove any MMfA references from Wikipedia, or to systematically tag them as unreliable.

If he sees any violations of policy involving a MMfA link, he is free to raise the issue on the talk page of the article or any of the relevant noticeboards. If there really is a violation of policy, someone else will surely take care of it. LEAC needs to concentrate his energies elsewhere as he doesn't seem to understand that his actions are disruptive and not supported by the community. LK (talk) 15:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Can I suggest we wait for LEaC's response to Elen's very sensible post, above? Persuasion and education take a little longer than coercion, but create a nicer work environment. Anthony (talk) 16:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. See above section. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• I oppose this outright. There is no consensus that MMFA is a reliable source, so there is no community consensus that his removals are a bad thing. An RFC can make a determination, which will settle this once and for all. However, I think that LAEC should wait at least a week, to see if an RFC is drafted. If so, he should not remove any MMFA links until the RFC concludes. Removing links while an RFC is in progress is unquestionably disruptive, but this attempt to hold him hostage over links of disputed appropriateness is not acceptable either. Horologium (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You've got it exactly backwards. Please see Elen's post above, which gets it right. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with that interpretation. A lot of the difference in our positions may be attributed to differences in our interpretation of BLP; I favor a wide scope on that policy, which would result in more sources being disallowed when discussing living people. YMMV, of course. Horologium (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with BeyondMyKen and Elen. We need consensus on the question of appropriate use of MMfA and other such sites, and the polite thing for LAEC to do, who has been extended considerable patience here, would be to hold off on further MMfA edits until that is achieved. I have started a discussion at [42] Anthony (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. I have heard the contention that LaeC has been "systematically removing all references to MMfA" echoed around but so far have not seen it proven. It seems LaeC has been removing them on a case by case example and on at least one instance improved the citation and kept it there. Until it can actually be shown that his edits are blindly "systematic" and that a majority have indeed been disruptive I completely disagree with attempts here to block him.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 05:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. The proposed solution offered by LEAC himself seems best. And we need to amend WP:RS to discuss hyperpartisan sources such as MMfA and WND. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block on LK LAEC already sort of said he was sorry and anymore more on this post is violating AGF and harrassment. LK has not backed down so he should be blocked. Let's get back to writing, not bickering, after LK is blocked (unless he says sorry). RIPGC (talk) 04:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Pmanderson

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

---

This users continued incivility is getting beyond the joke. He has since the last ANI here said the following.

• [43] Accuses me of making false claims and ignorance.
• [44] Infers i require remedial education.
• [45] Says i am a semi-literate ignoramus, but at least i may be the nicest one.

These are clear breach`s of wp:npa and WP:TPNO

He is also in the habit of misrepresenting my comments [46] another clear breach of WP:TPNO which says, Do not misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context

I would like this user to be reminded that such incivility has no place on WP mark nutley (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark Nutley is attempting to impose a fringe view on a subject about which he knows little. His objection is fundamentally to having his own words, which include the claims that Greeks had no democracys [his spelling, since repeated, he also uses democracy's] and that the United States had no elections before 1789 quoted back at him. My "misrepresentation" has consisted of so quoting him.

He also has a tendency to remove sourced edits, because he (with no source) disagrees with them; this habit of WP:BLANKING really should be addressed:

• 21:17 14 July,
• 21:19,
• 21:21,
• 21:36

At this point the page was protected. He then put it up for deletion, and continued to revert.

• 09:28 17 July
• 12;27
• 12:29
• 12:30
• 21:11

His remedy is simple. If he strikes the nonsense he puts forth, I will cease to quote it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it ok to hat hab the off topic stuff above? This is not about content, this is about a users constant uncivil behaviour mark nutley (talk) 17:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If repeated WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT behavior regarding content eventually led an editor to to responses that are not exactly WP:CIVIL, the content discussion would seem to be related. Active Banana (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually no, those PA`s were made well after the diff`s provided above. mark nutley (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• A few words in defense. Pmanderson is irascible, blunt, and hardheaded. So were many of the best professors I had in college and grad school. I've observed his work for a year or two now, because our areas of interest often overlap. We've had arguments. I don't always agree with him. Eventually, however, I always see the intellectual basis for what he's saying, and sometimes I'm willing to concede that he was right and I was wrong. His arguments have had a positive, bracing, and clarifying effect any time I've encountered him, especially against those attempting ownership of an article. I've never seen him push a POV or argue for any apparent reason other than a truly impressive devotion to disinterested scholarship. Is he sarcastic? Is he unnecessarily harsh or contemptuous? Yes. He's also sometimes uproariously funny, and an editor of great intellectual breadth and depth, as indicated by the number of topics to which he can make informed contributions. Nor does he go around deleting content out of sheer zealotry; the fact that he spends so much time on talk pages indicates that he's engaging in dialogue. To me, this is crucial; I'm more worried about editors whose main goal seems to be blocking the contributions of others while adding little content themselves. Lighten up! People who place a premium on intellectual activity aren't always endowed with equal patience for the social hypocrisies aka good manners. But WP:CIV is not a club with which to beat the most spirited among us into submission. I would hate to see WP turn into a place where the Dolores Umbridges of the world can flourish and the Temperance Brennans are hounded out. I find it horrifying that people want to form a tribunal to judge editors not on the basis of the overall value of their contributions to WP articles, but on whether they adopt a meek and deferential tone on talk pages. That turns WP into some kind of gentlemen's club administered by a Star Chamber. I fail to see how the quality of the encyclopedia can be improved by this. What the community is going to do with PMA is a chilling phrase (from the Wikiquette alert that preceded this action), because it won't be the community doing anything. Most of the community will be going about their business unaware this is even taking place; it will be a few people ganging up on one independent-minded editor whose prickly manner is not calculated to win friends and allies. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Cynwolfe, i know what you are saying, but it does not matter. Just because he makes decent contributions doe not give him leave to call people vandal`s, liars, ignorant, or any of the other insults he chucks at people. This is a behavioural issue and it needs to be sorted mark nutley (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Cynwolfe, I'm happy Pmanderson made you realize you needed to know the subject better. However, he has lately neither made anyone feel like that, nor has he been blunt. He has been incorrect and persistently insulting. His main arguments are now personal attacks and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Agree with Cynwolfe's comment. I've had a look at the article in question, which brought a dispute to AN/I earlier, and aside from wondering why we have such an article, thought it takes quite a lot of intellectual and scholarly effort to improve the article. PMAnderson is blunt, but the few times I've been the subject of his bluntness I didn't feel insulted, but rather that I needed to read more and work to understand the topic better. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Then maybe he didn't actually insult you, but maybe he just was blunt? However, he has the last months not been blunt, he has been insulting. There is a difference. Take a look at his insults now, and tell me if he just is "being blunt". --OpenFuture (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• “prickly manner” is zero excuse for habitually engaging in incivility and personal attacks, Cynwolfe. I doesn’t matter if PMA has an I.Q. of 165 and herald angels guide his fingers on his keyboard; behavior like PMA’s is toxic to a collaborative writing environment. Moreover, his behavior is chronic; it’s clear he fancies Wikipedia to be a big game to play and has zero intentions of conforming to conduct-expected. Greg L (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Cynwolfe, How long was it before your "best professors" accused others of lying?  HWV258.  09:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Greg L

• Comment Things are entirely out of hand with Pmanderson. He has a long history of incivility and personal attacks. Something really needs to be done about it. Note that there was an ANI against him here 14 days ago with User:OpenFuture and here 8 days ago with User: mark nutley. All of it was over just this sort of thing. Neither resulted in action against him. Now Pmanderson is engaging in outrageous personal attacks on yet another editor again. Greg L (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

'yet another' editor? This is the same Mark Nutley from 8 days ago, bring this back. Dougweller (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Doug no, these are further new PA`s from Pmanderson, i`m not bringing it back at all. Greg has made an error above though in think i was another editor mark nutley (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Ahh! Indeed. I corrected my mistake. I saw someone else’s signature and thought we were dealing with a different editor who is a “semi-literate ignoramus” who “requires remedial education”; I see it’s the same one. A thousand pardons. Greg L (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• P.S. Quoting Cynwolfe: Pmanderson is irascible, blunt, and hardheaded. Agreed. He is “irascible” (definition: “become angry”); “blunt” (being straight to the point); “hardheaded” (stubborn). And none of that excuses “uncivil and engages in personal attacks”, such as calling someone a “semi-literate ignoramus.” It doesn’t matter what the edit dispute is about, editors one week after another are the recipients of abuse by PMA—and those are just the ones who know enough about Wikipedia to come here to complain. PMA is toxic to this project, which is a collaborative writing environment. Greg L (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• I do not see any of Pmanderson's edits as warranting action at this noticeboard. TFD (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• And just who are you? Might you please illuminate us here as to your relationship—if any—with the involved parties here so we can fathom this logic of yours? And what is your knowledge of Wikipedia’s policies on WP:NPA? And why don’t you redact your 2¢ from my comment area and make your own so there is more room for other editors to be dumbfounded by your post. I do gather that you must not be an editor PMA considers to be a '“semi-literate ignoramus” who “requires remedial education”; do I have that much right?? Greg L (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oh, the irony. Dougweller (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Lacking Dougweller's confidence that the irony is self-evident, I'd like to point out as politely as possible that a comment opening And just who are you? would not serve as my model for civil exchange. This is why I dislike charges of incivility: how do you determine the threshold? You can't. It's too subjective. It isn't at all like edit warring, or lack of verifiability, or any of that. It's whether my feelings got hurt. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• You are wholly entitled to your opinion. And you were the one defending PMA for being “blunt”??? Most curious. Curious indeed. Perhaps, when you are done with what strikes me as posturing, we can get back to PMA. Or, if you embrace the philosophy that “the best defense is a strong offense” as much as I think you do, you are always at liberty to file an ANI over my “And just who are you?” You are certainly free to gloss over calling other editors “semi-literate ignoramus” who “require remedial education” and focus instead on my “And just who are you?” As I also wrote, I asked TFD to “illuminate us here as to [his] relationship—if any—with the involved parties here so we can fathom this logic” of his; that is not too much to ask. I note that he or she had yet to respond. Interesting. Greg L (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

  P.S. Quoting you: how do you determine the threshold [for incivility]? Why, by looking at the abuse and personal attacks heaped by PMA, and employing WP:COMMONSENSE. I don’t know about you, but I find “semi-literate ignoramus” who “requires remedial education” to be—you know—over the edge. Maybe I’m just too darn sensitive. Greg L (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Indeed. Those few who want to know much more about GregL's habits of civility and contributions to a harmonious working environment (and a little bit more about mine) should see the evidence for the date-delinking case. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Well, I can certainly see that you embrace the philosophy of “the best defense is a strong offense.” You are perfectly free to see if I am in the habit of calling other editors '“semi-literate ignoramus” who “requires remedial education”. Me thinks it a futile effort. This ANI is about you. If you want to start an ANI on me for chronic incivility, please, be my guest. Hopefully that will lighten up on the clutter here where you and your friends launch an attack on those who have the hubris to believe you actions have been profoundly uncivil. Greg L (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Greg L's chronic incivility has already been an Arbcom case (see the link). Would ANI do more?
  • But perhaps ANI will act; the pattern of demanding civility sanctions to win a content dispute is not unknown here. Not that I really need to underline the incivility of an editor who has already descended to boldface -er- ramblings. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• You may try to bait me by saying my posts are “ramblings,” but it won’t work; I am simply quoting what you wrote. Now, are you going to 1) apologize to User:mark nutley for the personal attacks you’ve been heaping upon him and 2) pledge to the administrators here that you will change your conduct from hereon(?), or are you going to act like you don’t need to change? Greg L (talk) 19:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• To answer the question, TFD is an editor who has a different view than me of Mass killings under Communist regimes, and is therefore spending a lot of time trying to discuss my edits instead of doing constructive things, like answering concrete questions about what kind of changes he wants to do. He supports Pmanderson in this, because he opposes me, nothing else. It's pure personal vendetta. See for example the RFC, where he absurdly claims that his WQA against me shows that I say things that "far exceed anything that Pmanderson has written", a statement that is patently absurd. This type of nonsense can't be allowed to continue. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This just shows how pointless it is to try to impose false civility. Greg L, you accused me above of misdirecting the tribunal's attention with my "posturing." That's an insult. How I respond to it, however, is my problem and should not impinge on your right to say what you mean. Again, "incivility" is subjective. I'm not trying to excuse PMA's verbal behavior on talk pages, because frankly, I consider it often self-defeating. But he's a gadfly. Arguing against him always sharpens my thinking, which in turn improves the clarity of the article at hand. Attempts to squelch him just because he has a harsh wit are contrary to my notions of free speech and don't benefit the creation of better content. The use of WP:CIV as a weapon is a bad trend, and that's why I spent time here on the subject. I've said what I have to say about the specifics of PMA's case. These kinds of accusations against otherwise productive editors almost always take on the character of a witch hunt. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If he is correct (which he is not), well read (which he is), intelligent (which he may be) is all irrelevant. It still does not excuse his personal attack, and Cynwolfe, I'm pretty sure you understand that if you just think about it a bit. It's also irrelevant if he is blunt. I'm blunt. I've never called anyone an ignoramus anyway. That's not being blunt, it's a personal attack.

We are never gonna get anywhere with loads of people making ridiculous excuses just because the agree with him on his POV. I've started an RFC: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Pmanderson. Pmanderson: Since you don't want me to notify you on your talk page, I notify you this way. You are hereby notified. If someone else feels like notifying him on his talk page, feel free. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It might be time here to look again at the three diffs proffered by Marknutley above, and judge whether his characterisations of them are fully justified:

• [47] Accuses me of making false claims and ignorance.
• [48] Infers i require remedial education.
• [49] Says i am a semi-literate ignoramus, but at least i may be the nicest one.

Is it possible that what Pmanderson actually posts is neither entirely inaccurate nor completely uncalled-for in the original context? The rest is sound and fury.--Wetman (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know mark nutley, and haven't had much dealings with him. But I know that Pmandersons insults against me are 100% wrong and completely uncalled for. In fact, he called me a vandal before we had even had a single interaction. So it's highly unlikely that he is correct here. And insults are *always* uncalled for. So the answer to your questions is: No.--OpenFuture (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the other dedicated blanker on the same page. Yes, I consider blanking of sourced material to be vandalism; so do many people; there's even an essay about it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, your personal attacks are uncalled for, your descriptions of the events are untrue. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It is ironic that OpenFuture would consider Pmanderson's comments offensive, when he has made the following comments along with countless others.[50]

Well, I'm sorry to say, you are as usual utterly wrong. 03:04, 18 June 2010

Your constant attempts of inventing your own Wikipedia policies are getting a bit annoying, to be honest. 13:45, 18 June 2010

Is this complicated for you to understand? 10:23, 21 June 2010

Talking to you is like talking to a wall. 21:37, 24 June 2010

You are, to be blunt, lying to yourself to avoid admitting that you were wrong. 10:24, 3 July 2010

As usual, your "facts" are pure fantasy. 05:45, 4 July 2010

His explanation was, "I repeat: There is nothing for me to explain. It is obvious, even out of context, that most quotes above does not represent any abuse...." 03:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)" How, OpenFuture, is this any different from Pmanderson's comments? TFD (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If i may interject here, this is about Pmanderson`s conduct. If you feel another editor is being abusive start another thread about it. I am fed up of being insulted and would like something done mark nutley (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I am writing in response to OpenFuture's comments, and would like to know why he finds that these comments are offensive. TFD (talk) 22:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

TFD's list above again suggests that lack of civility is a subjective impression. I've seen the kindest, most humane WP editor I know get a bit snippy. Why is everyone so afraid of tough language? I've yet to see evidence that even PMA's most dyspeptic remarks have damaged the quality of an article. What is the goal here? Cynwolfe (talk) 22:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I quite understand Cynwolf's spirited defence of the subject of this ANI thread, and am delighted for him over the mental stimulus he says he has enjoyed. However, it seems that quite a few people here do not feel that way. Much as the subject is made out to be some sort of Professor Kingsfield, I would submit that he is not. Nobody voluntarily walked into his classroom, except perhaps Cynwolf, and certainly nobody agreed to submit to being abused by same in the manner described. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Obviously there is some subjectiveness to it. But to use the bluntness that you appreciate, Cynwolfe: If you claim that any of the above comments by me are worse than Pmandersons persistent attacks, of vandal, ignoramus, windbag, POV-pusher, revert-warrior, "blanker", liar, etc, then you are not honest. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I asserted that editors should be able to engage in vigorous debate and speak freely. This is not a privilege I would extend to some and not to others; I consider it fundamental and necessary to the production of good-quality content. You can say whatever you want to me. I would point out, however, that to say I am "not honest" is to call me a liar. So if it isn't OK for PMA to allege or imply that you knowingly spoke falsehoods, why is it OK for you to say that to me? That, I repeat, is why charges of WP:CIV are too subjective to be used to block an editor, and why I have trouble seeing this as an effort to cultivate a more civil and productive environment in which to discuss content and related issues. The civ guidelines are too susceptible to tactical use in squelching genuine debate. Unless my character and intentions are impugned again, I don't really have anything further to add: I support the right of ALL editors to speak freely toward the goal of producing the best possible articles, which requires a focus on content rather than an editor's tone or isolated phrases on a talk page. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I did not imply that you are a liar in any way, shape or form. I did say the following: If you claim that any of the above comments by me are worse than Pmandersons persistent attacks, of vandal, ignoramus, windbag, POV-pusher, revert-warrior, "blanker", liar, etc, then you are not honest. That would imply that you are a liar, if you claim that my comments (from TFD's WQA above) are worse than Pmandersons attacks. You have so far not done that. You have just implied (and you did so again now) that I somehow engage in the same type of personal attacks as Pmanderson. I do not think you would claim that if you actually read the comments I made, and also read the links in the RFC. It is completely obvious to everyone, and I'm convinced it will be so also to you, Cynwolfe, that Pmandersons attacks and my comments above are not comparable at all.

I support the right of ALL editors to speak freely toward the goal of producing the best possible articles, which requires a focus on content rather than an editor's tone or isolated phrases on a talk page. - So you are saying that Pmandersons persistent personal attacks is wrong then? Can you say that out loud? Or are you trying to imply that its' OK for Pmanderson to attack us, but NOT OK for us to bring that up? Isn't that then exactly the kind of privilege you said you would not extend to him? And are in fact his "bluntness" not exactly such a privilege? Others are not allowed to be "blunt", only Pmanderson is, apparently. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I can only repeat that I believe every editor should be able to engage in vigorous debate and to speak freely. OpenFuture, you or any editor may be as blunt with me as you like. And I'll answer your question honestly: I think PMA is verbally agile enough not to use deprecating nouns in the vocative or in the predicate of a second-person sentence. No name-calling! The "semi-illiterate ignoramus" is bad form even if in context it is an honest and even reasonable response to what was said, and even if it was framed conditionally, as you carefully made your implication that my word is unreliable dependent on a sentence constructed in the conditional. I think PMA should rein in his rhetoric. It does not follow that we should rip off his epaulets and burn him at the stake. This entire discussion shows the dangers of WP:CIV as a weapon to squelch opposing voices. Every time someone points out that you and mark nutley have also made remarks that could be considered uncivil, the answer is simply "but this is about PMA." No, it isn't. It's about whether we're serious about cultivating a productive environment for the free exchange of ideas about articles, or (forgive the shorthand pop ref) whether Dolores Umbridge will be the head mistress. This pouncing on words and comments out of context to expose Wiki-speech crimes is detestable. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

So you think that WP:CIV and WP:NPA should be revoked, and people should be able to make any personal attacks they want? Why did you then get upset and claimed I called you a liar? According to what you said now I should be able to call you anything, including way worse things than liar. "No name-calling!" you say. Well, Pmanderson personal attacks are just that: Name-calling. I'm sorry, but does seem to me that you think Pmanderson should be held to a different standard than everyone else should. And interestingly, you are not alone. There is a whole group of people here that apparently thinks Pmanderson is so great that he can do nothing wrong, and that his personal attacks should be applauded. I find that very curious. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Question

Would a retraction of the "semi-literate ignoramus" comments and a statement by User:Pmanderson to avoid such statements in the future be enough to cut all the Wikidrahmaz here and start with a blank slate? Active Banana (talk) 22:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate it yes, along with the accusations of sockpuppetry, being a liar, and a vandal. excluding the edit summarys of course as they can`t be changed. mark nutley (talk) 23:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• This is the third ANI in three weeks. PMA’s incivility is now quite well documented and is not in the least bit insignificant. Would you please, Active Banana, explain why you don’t think PMA is in need of an attitude transplant via a 30-day binary-induced wiki-coma? Just why is it that you seem content to label these violations as “Wikidrahmaz” (translation: drama queen: get over it), and simply have PMA revise a post so it reads…

You are a semi-literate ignoramus [exhale carbon dioxide, which is good for plants] and I… (more barely-passable bitch-slapping)

…and then you would like us to all (once again) walk away and pretend that PMA isn’t going to go back and dish out more of this to more editors. The guy is beginning to seem like greased Teflon and I would really like to know how he pulls this off so many times in a row. BTW, please spare me how you really meant he would delete the whole comment; that amounts to the same thing: outrageously flout our rules over and over and get away with it… again.

Incivility seems now to be something that gives PMA “this-is-a-big-game rush” and there are clear rules against it. Yet here we are. Again. The only way I think that PMA should possibly be allowed to get out of here without a good long block is to 1) apologize to User:mark nutley for the personal attacks he has been heaping upon him and 2) pledge to the administrators here that he will change his conduct from hereon and abide by all requirements of WP:NPA, which are exceedingly clear about the sort of stuff he has been pulling.

So do you, or do you not, support requiring that PMA make the two-part pledge I outlined here? Greg L (talk) 23:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If you look through Pmanderson block log, you see a pattern: 1. He violates Wikipedia policy. 2. He gets blocked. 3. He apologizes, promises to never do it again and gets unblocked. 4. Repeat at 1.

I do not see any promises from Pmanderson as useful. He also, at List of wars between democracies have agreed to only use sources that explicitly call conflicts wars between democracies, but he continues to use sources that do not anyway. Although his excuses and promises surely are well meant at the time, it's clear that they are not enough in itself. I would accept an apology and a promise, but *only* if it also comes with the condition that any further incivility from him will cause an immediate extended block. Pmanderson is not going to stop being incivil, nor is he going to stop revert-warring by his own volition. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for admin action

It would be nice if a responsible admin (or more) would act on this one. The foul is clearly and sufficiently flagrant, the evidence is well documented above, as is the persistent pattern of behavior the community is seeing from Pmanderson (here 14 days ago with User:OpenFuture and here 8 days ago with User: mark nutley.) Pmanderson’s block log suggests that one or two-day-long blocks aren’t proving effective. His propensity to attack those who tire of his behavior and try to avail themselves of a remedy here and at Wikiquettes demonstrates that he prefers to embrace a philosophy of “the best defense is a strong offense” rather than simply modify his behavior and try to conform to conduct-expected. His style is toxic to a collaborative writing environment. Greg L (talk) 02:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Greg L., since you yourself have been blocked 6 times, including for "harassing blocking admin",[51] I question your opinion. mark nutley has a viewpoint that most readers would view as "crank" or "crackpot". He continually brings up fringe writings which he believes should be given the same weight as articles published in peer-reviewed articles. He does not accept WP polices of WP:V and WP:NPOV. Certainly the types of people that WP needs to contribute are irritated by this type of editor. What geographer for example would like to spend his time arguing with someone who thought the Grand Canyon was only six thousand years old? When readers come here they do not want to know that some people think Barack Obama is not an American, that the New World Order controls the world, that floridated water is a Commie (phil nutley's lingo) plot, etc. mark nutley has shown a blatant disregard for WP policy and has wasted the time of many editors arguing for the inclusion of fringe views. TFD (talk) 04:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you please provide a diff were i have tried to promote a fringe source over a peer reviewed one? Or were i have argued for the inclusion of fringe views? Do it on my talk page, this is off topic enough already mark nutley (talk) 09:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I've read through this and don't think i know any of the principals or had any contact with them or the articles in question (it appears to be about the peace theory of democracy; some editors appear to be removing information from the website that would appear to indicate this grand theory is, uhm, overegged by its supporters). Having done so, I demand that an administrator immediately award Pmanderson the senior editor's badge (with oak leaf clusters, even) and have one of the bureacrats arrange a reception for the ceremony in a suitably grand hall. If something could be done about the constant wikipedia problem of capable, edumacated folks having to deal with overzealous editors with idiosyncratic points of view, that would be nice too (but i won't hold my breath).Bali ultimate (talk) 09:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No, that is not what happened at all. You'd do well in reading the RFC in question. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'm sorry - I get along reasonably well with Mark, considering out differences of opinion - but there is nothing in PMAnderson's comments that was not warranted. WP:SPADE applies. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks mate, it`s nice to know you think i`m a semi-literate ignoramus who requires remedial education, and is a liar a vandal and ignorant. Cheers mark nutley (talk) 11:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No one said you are. PMA said you may be, and a nice one at that! Also when he provided remedial education he never said that you required one. After reading on remedial education, I can conclude that 99 per cent of WP editors require one. I, as Dougweller above, also see some irony in the fact that anonymous teenagers have the ability to chastise old professors in Wikipedia (I am not implying that you are a teenager, just that it happened before). (Igny (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC))

That is first of all a ridiculous excuse. You would not accept it if I said "It may be that Igny is a moron" every time I commented something you said. The "may" is not an excuse for personal attacks. Secondly you are wrong. PMA's personal attacks are usually not preceded by any "may". Maybe look at the RFC and see the diffs before you say anything? --OpenFuture (talk) 14:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would not accept that, and yet you said that. I suggest you strike it out and apologize. (Igny (talk) 18:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC))

Yes, I would not accept that - But you claim that mark nutley should accept it from Pmanderson. Why is that? Should Pmanderson be judged by a different standard than me? How come I must follow I higher standard than him?

and yet you said that. - No I didn't. It was purely hypothetical, as you well know. I don't think you are a moron, I never said that you are, so there is nothing to apologize for. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• I still haven’t yet received a response from Pmanderson. Are you going to 1) apologize to User:mark nutley for the personal attacks you’ve been heaping upon him and 2) pledge to the administrators here that you promise to change your conduct from hereon and never resort to personal attacks on other editors? Please answer this question; that is not too much to ask. Greg L (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There have been enough facts collected — Time to act

• (*sigh*) Once again, PMA and his followers have managed to momentarily divert the direction from one of PMA’s outrageous incivility and personal attacks upon another editor (calling them things like “semi-literate” and “ignoramus”) and have gotten Mark Nutley, above, defending his edits during his edit wars with PMA. The rules on Wikipedia are clear: Editors are supposed to discuss their disagreements on talk pages and try to draw other editors into the discussion so a consensus can be developed. Then, the consensus view goes to print. During that discussion process, one editor is to not batter another editor into submission and intimidate them and drive them away by belittling them with public (or private) personal attacks such as declaring openly that the individual who has the hubris to disagree with PMA is “semi-literate” and an “ignoramus”. Now…

  Questions for those here:

1. Who here thinks PMA’s conduct towards Mark Nutley is in conformance with our requirements of WP:NPA?
2. Since truth is allowed to be spoken here, let’s ascertain a basic fact. Mr. Nutley, are you, in fact, semi-literate?
3. Are you, Mark, an “ignoramus”? I know you take umbrage to these labels; but is the allegation true?
4. TFD did a magnificent job (Bravo; PMA has clever followers) drawing an analogy to an editor alleging that the Grand Canyon is 6000 years old and this diverted Mark Nutley from the task here of deciding what is the proper path for the community to rein in this chronic behavior of PMA. So who here thinks that whether or not TFD and Pmanderson agree with Mark Nutley’s edits—even if they think Mark Nutley’s edits to be galactic-grade el toro poo‑poo—that this is somehow an excuse for PMA to engage in personal attacks like he did in an obvious effort to publicly flame and intimidate Mark to the point that he goes away? If someone thinks the nature of Mark’s edits excuses the personal attacks, please cite specific language from a specific policy (with links).

Please answer below. Thank you.

I request that a responsible admin step in here and do the right thing. PMA’s behavior is now well documented. He has been advised three times above that if he simply apologize to the editors and pledge to never do it again, we can be done with this. He has posted since then, but ignored the offer. He is not apologetic. He continues to engage in flagrant personal attacks on editors who have the hubris to disagree with him. If those editors continue to disagree with him, the PMA’s standard practice is to simply publicly ridicule them and question their I.Q. and education with names commonly heard during 5th-grade recess. Greg L (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Answer area for the above four questions

I recommend that Pmanderson continue to ignore you.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• That would be unfortunate for PMA if he heeded your counsel because a simple apology and a pledge to the administrators here to not engage in personal attacks again might avoid less desirable remedies the admins are at liberty to dish out. This conduct of PMA’s seems to be chronic and he shows no willingness to conform to conduct-expected. Greg L (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Admins aren't going to take any action here. You haven't figured this out yet? Drop the stick. You already have an RFC going. This thread aint going nowhere.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion and I defend your right to have it. Methinks, however, your highly confident prediction of what admins will do here won’t influence what they actually do. Haven’t you figured that out yet? And, no “I” don’t have an RfC going; two users (User:Marknutleys and User:OpenFutures) started that. I never knew either of them before this. As for “drop the stick” (*oh my*) are you referring to the part where I and others here active on the project endeavor to do something about chronic and flagrant violations of WP:NPA by Pmanderson? Greg L (talk) 18:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Bali: Requesting that Pmanderson ignore those whom with he disagrees is probably not going to help, as he needs to engage with the to discuss the article. He has a long list of topic bans since his earlier 3RR violations, so that would fix this particular problem, but he'll just move on to somewhere else, and get banned there too, etc, so that's hardly a solution either. You are right that admins apparently are ignoring both WQA and ANI, making them in effect useless. That's too bad, but little can be done when it comes to that. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Or are you, Bali, suggesting that if…

1. PMA is highly regarded for his edits, and
2. enjoys a cabal of long-term ‘insiders’ who all have their Ovaltine decoder rings, and
3. the individual who has been the subject of a clear personal attack has only been on Wikipedia for two years, and
4. doesn’t enjoy a bunch of fan-boys, and
5. made some edits that PMA considers to be imbecile-like ones, so
6. PMA declares that said editor, with whom he disagrees, is “semi-literate” and is an “imbecile” — you know… perfectly permissible straight talk ;-) —, then
7. The wikipedian community (club) will happily embrace a double standard where we allow established editors to persistently break WP:NPA rules because said editors know how to toe the line between tendentious editing and blatant disruption. In other words, we do bite the newcomers… you know… whenever we like-ta.

I have no problem with that… so long as we openly declare that this is the case and don’t pretend that Wikipedia in general—and WP:ANI in particular—is a place where the rules apply to all and admins don’t feel they have to cow-tow to cabals in order to stay *popular* and get promoted. Personally, I prefer to pretend this *is* the case. I prefer to think that people will be people, cabals will act like cabals, admins suffer from self-doubt and impostor syndrome at least as often as anyone else, and PMA will ultimately get yet another 48-hour block (or longer since he thinks it *sporting* to do as he does). By allowing his behavior to persist unabated, we only encourage PMA and people like him to amp-up his incivility. The community will spend even more time with wikidrama in the future here as a result.

PMA’s persistent and clear flouting of the rules has been amply documented. I have zero intention of letting a system behave like it is morally bankrupt and get away with it unless someone here admits that the enforcement of rules is not done even handedly and *popularity* guarantees Teflon-coated status. Either that, or someone explains how PMA’s conduct, which has been amply documented here, is in conformance with Wikipedia’s rules. Greg L (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There is not going to be any admin action. Not on the RFC either. The admin reaction was an aggressive and hostile answer that we hadn't shown that we had tried to resolve the issue, and that the RFC will be deleted soon. It does indeed seem that Pmanderson somehow are allowed to play by different rules than everybody else. This is fairly curious. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Summary of the original complaint

• "Mark nutley's claims are false. His ignorance of the subject, and of the English language, are plastered all over Talk:List of wars between democracies, xo I cannot say that he is deliberately lying;"

This is not a personal attack, simply a statement that MN is ignorant of the subject.

• "I see this is going to devolve into another remedial education course. Let me, therefore, be brief:"

Not a personal attack. PMA is saying he is giving a remedial lesson.

• "He may be the nicest semi-literate ignoramus on Wikipedia (although that seems doubtful), but that does not justify his actions."

... okay, "ignoramus" is rude, gotta grant you that.

So, aside from the third diff, there's a whole lot of nothing here. And opening an ANI for "ignoramus" strikes me as overkill. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Without having read more than the discussion here and the diffs provided, I agree with The Hand That Feeds You. The first two diffs do not show personal attacks. I consider myself a very intelligent person, but there are certainly subjects on which I am ignorant. While I might be a tad unhappy if someone points that out - especially if I disagreed with that assessment - that is by no means a personal attack. The third diff is over-the-top, but I'm unwilling to pass judgement without seeing the whole conversation, either. I see zero need for admin intervention here, especially now that you have opened a user RfC. Disclosure: I'm uninvolved in the current dispute, but PMA and I both work on the article Catholic Church. Karanacs (talk)

So, semi-literate is not a personal attack? Wow. Can you please give an example of what *is* a personal attack? And what about these diffs? Also not personal attacks?

1. [52]
2. [53]
3. [54]
4. [55]
5. [56]
6. [57]
7. [58]
8. [59]
9. [60]
10. [61]
11. [62]
12. [63]
13. [64]
14. [65]
15. [66]
16. [67]
17. [68]
18. [69]
19. [70]
20. [71]
21. [72]
22. [73]
23. [74]
24. [75]
25. [76]
26. [77]
27. [78]
28. [79]
29. [80]
30. [81]
31. [82]
32. [83]
33. [84]
34. [85]

(Sorry if there are any duplicates) --OpenFuture (talk) 21:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You do realise that most of what you are doing here is pointing up the defects in the original edits - which were made by you I believe - such as removing sourced material, removing sources, and making some very strange assertions about the Greeks. Really, dropping it would do you much more favours.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

1. I have not removed any sourced material. The sources does not support the claims. Which I diligently pointed out.

2. That still does not warrant personal attacks. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• I have to LOL at Igny's comment. The subject of this complaint has consistently been able to skirt the sort of condemnation which would have been afforded to mere mortals because he may be regarded by some as a learned Professor who 'stimulates thought'. Truth be told, the subject is clever enough to merely plant suggestions and make insinuations rather than overtly slander or threaten, so he never falls foul of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA, according to the definition his spirited hoard of defenders. It is the sort of rank hypocrisy that makes me seethe. What if I were to hypothetically or tangentially refer to the subject as 'Mandy'? Will he go to great lengths to prove that I am aware it's a nickname he hates, as he has done so in the past, and perhaps take me to Arbcom for being grossly uncivil? I suppose, noting from his silence here in the last 24+ hours, he wouldn't want to take the chance of reigniting this dying thread. ;-) Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin response

Carefully considering the background, specific comments, and discussion above...

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

• PMA - That was rude. Don't do that again.
• mark - That was unreasonable. Don't do that again.
• Greg L - That was unreasonable. Don't do that again.

Thank you. I recommend closure of the thread in reasonable order. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• I shouldn’t do what again? And why would you recommend that PMA be given merely a warning for this? Greg L (talk) 01:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The guy's got a fish and he'c clearly unstable. Just smile and back away. --FormerIP (talk) 02:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Back away, yes, but Mr Anderson needs to be issued with a warning. There is too long a history of upsetting other editors not to take such minimal action. Tony (talk) 04:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Pmanderson has already been whacked with a fish and told not to do that again, in June: [86]. It just made things worse. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Since I got a (perfectly polite) comment on my talkpage, thought I should clarify that the above comment was just a bit random. I'm not actually accusing anyone of being unstable and it was not a reference to PMA. I haven't event read the contents of the thread and, whatever the rights and wrongs of this complaint I have nothing against that editor. --FormerIP (talk) 10:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I am unsure as to why i got trouted :) Personally i am fairly certain i was not rude to PM and did not deserve what has been to said to me, but if trouts all round is all on offer can i at least have mine grilled :) mark nutley (talk) 11:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Just like most everyone else here, our admins are volunteers. There is a distinct possibility that George was not as thorough as he thought he was when he wrote Carefully considering the background, specific comments, and discussion above. He may have just skimmed and saw PMA and mark and Greg L going “Waaa!” at each other, his eyes glazed over, and he wrote what he did. That’s what I would probably do when faced with the prospect of poring over a petabyte of rants.

  It helps to summarize things when threads get too long. So… (*sound of cracking knuckles*) I’ll give it a try:

  Mark nutley did some edits Pmanderson thought were stupid. Mark dug in his heels. PMA, who has a long and distinguished history of name calling (i.e. violating WP:NPA) (*sigh*) and was the subject of an ANI over this two weeks ago and again a week ago, declared that mark is a “semi-literate ignoramus” who “requires remedial education”. Mark took hubris to this. I (Greg L) wasn’t involved in the edit waring but jumped in here on this ANI after it was started so I could opine that I think PMA is in need of a digitally-supervised wiki-break.

  There. The above green-div is less than 100 words and is much more digestible for those volunteer admins who have a life outside of Wikipedia. Let’s see if this might result in a sanction against PMA that doesn’t amount to “For shame - for shame - for shame” again. Greg L (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Labeling edits as 'vandalism' when they are not deliberate attempt[s] to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia is inappropriate, as is calling an editor a 'semi-literate ignoramus'. Surely we can disagree with eachother on matters of content without resorting to such behaviour? I do note that there is an RFC on this matter currently open: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pmanderson, perhaps this thread should be wrapped up with a pointer over there. –xeno^talk 15:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Labeling edits as 'vandalism' and referring to other editors as 'liars' in edit summaries is not appropriate. While I probably wouldn't refer to someone as a semi-literate ignoramus, I'm not sure it qualifies as an out and out violation of NPA. I guess the RFC is the right place for all this, so I'll just mark this thread as resolved. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I do agree that PMA was rude, and said so in the trouting. Xeno's observation is valid. The trout was to put it in context - I did in fact go check the referenced back context, and IMHO the initial rudeness was real, but not worth a long long LONG ANI thread about, and certainly not worth the amount of conflict that the three primary assailants ended up dishing out (though PMA largely behaved himself here; his primary offense was earlier/elsewhere).

The scope of the offense was minor compared to the reaction here. If the reaction here is bad enough it becomes a new problem in and of itself. The Trout was an attempt to indicate this, without stomping on anyone too badly. ANI posts and threads should be proportionate to provocations; this wasn't, and that was bad.

Incivility is particularly corrosive in some ways because it encourages people to feel victimized and respond rudely themselves thinking that they're trying to get appropriate help from authorities. There's little that someone outside can easily do to turn that feeling off once the initial incivility has happened - if someone's reaction generates the righteous indignation then it's on.

But that doesn't mean that admins can and should overreact to the original provocation, just because someone got righteously indignant at the rudeness. We have to be the independent uninvolved reviewers. In some cases that means cutting righteously indignant people who were in fact insulted by some rude action off, because the righteous indignance is becoming disruptive.

The overreaction isn't PMA's fault, but he did start all of it.

The overreaction reached the point that cutting it off was appropriate, but not to the point of formal warnings or sanctions.

I'll take it up with PMA on the RFC or his talk page later. It is important for people to realize that incivility leads to things like this, and that avoiding it in the first place is the only way to avoid things like this happening. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

-

• I agree with Xeno, OpenFuture, and OhConfucius here. Editors of long-standing are of course valued. But they should be especially on guard, inasmuch as they know the rules, as to what behavior is inappropriate. Attempts to pooh-pooh such behavior in the past seem not to have been sufficiently effective. Efforts by some here to turn Nelson's eye to the matter are perhaps unlikely to be helpful in addressing the behavior. --Epeefleche (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Noting Georgewilliamherbert’s comment: …long long LONG ANI thread about, and certainly not worth the amount of conflict. This thread grew long for one, single reason: because the admins looking on here chose to sit back and do next to nothing about it for far too long. The community elects admins to their posts for a reason: enforce our rules. And an exceedingly important element of that is to properly discharge their duties and reign-in abusive editors. Then there is that little issue whereby ANI threads that have been inactive for 24+ hours automatically get archived. That does three things:

1. it creates an incentive for admins to create a de-facto pocket veto by sitting back and doing nothing in hopes that the dispute evaporates away, and
2. it incentivizes the offended party(ies) to keep posting simply to prevent that archiving, and
3. it incentivizes the accused to just hang low and not deal up front with the matter and his behavior in hopes the fire in the complainant’s hair will self-extinquish.

The end result are long threads—just like this. I don’t think that should come as a surprise to anyone here. And then, once faced with the shear magnitude of what was allowed to accumulate here on this thread (no sane person would want to pore through it all), we get worthless nonsense like Georgewilliamherbert’s 00:38 post, above and an obligatory CYA post for pulling such a boner. The system doesn’t work very well, IMHO. *Little birdies* have told me why. But I didn’t need to hear from these birdies to figure that much out on my own. Greg L (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Please do not mistake my actions here for disinterest or casually ignoring what you had to say.

I told you specifically on my talk page when you asked, that you became part of the problem. I repeated that here. That's not OK.

You decided to join in and butt heads with PMA here. Technically, all 3 of you primarily involved could be sanctioned for disruption. The Trout is intended as a warning-short-of-beating-you-up. It's a "you did something wrong, please quit it and work on perspective".

You have a right to call our attention to something. But you don't get to set the terms of what admins decide about the situation. If admins decide it's not actionable or not worth responding to, that's it. You sitting here beyond that demanding action is not OK. You didn't exactly do that, but you're admitting to having been thinking along those lines, and that's not OK. We tell people to knock it off and in some cases block them for doing that more actively or overtly.

Following up with personally attacking me for telling you this the first couple of times is not helping your cause, either.

There are good ways and bad ways to engage on ANI. More verbosity and more vehemence are bad ways, not good ones. I hope that you will receive the message and avoid pushing buttons next time something comes along which is worthy of reporting here.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

George, mark this as resolved and lets be done with it mark nutley (talk) 23:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not resolved. We can mark it as resolved once the RfC gets certified. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It is certified now (2 users). I have commented in an outside view there, reinforcing the importance of people not being rude to each other on-wiki and the consequences thereof (as demonstrated in this case).

Are there any objections to closing this now? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Please just let me say one thing to Greg L first. @Greg: Oh, no, indeed, this thread didn't grow unconscionably long "because the admins looking on here chose to sit back and do next to nothing about it for far too long." It grew long because of your interminable repetitiousness. (And somewhat because of OpenFuture's.) Must you be so prolix? Must everything be said so many fucking times? Must you post 20 times in the one thread? Do people have to be bored out of their skins? Would you like me to count the number of times you quote "semi-literate ignoramus" and "remedial education"? Do you think people have unlimited time to spend reading same-oh same-oh by you? Unlimited bandwidth with which to load this page? Show a little consideration. You're abusing ANI and abusing our patience. By the way, the irony of actually offering us a four-line summary of your views[87] (but not until the end is in sight) is painful. Bishonen | talk 00:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC).

• First, the facts. There are 9475 words, above. If you strip out my comments, there are 6550.

  As to *why* the thread grew long, I think you are confusing cause & effect. The thread grew long—and I certainly contributed to that, and others responded to my comments (it takes two to tango)—because admins, rather than merely state that the complaint doesn’t seem actionable, instead thought it somehow a wise idea to just remain moot; that is hardly helpful. It should come as no surprise that not jumping in to settle it one way or another with a helpful comment will just result in prolonged bickering.

  As for my repeating PMA’s comment, a standard tactic of those who have been accused of misconduct is to try to justify their actions by getting off-topic about how the complainant was doing bad edits. My strategy was to steer the discussion back on track by stating that complaints about incivility are not properly excused by such extraneous arguments. Steering it back to the main point resulted in my repeating the point; yes, as you say “interminable repetitiousness.” You might also note that the “How to use this page” header at top doesn’t mention that an editor shouldn’t try to prevent others from taking things off-point. The header does say that the thread will automatically be archived if inactive for 24 hours—hardly an adviso that would tend to shorten threads.

  If you want to “publicly” discuss this here, I suppose I would be willing to respond here; it was only by accident that I checked in this evening because I hadn’t deleted a URL shortcut to this thread and clicked on this one rather than a different one. You might want to offer such comments on my talk page. If you desire to engage in an open discussion or debate here as to how ANI’s processes or guidance in the header, above, might be improved, that is fine too but really belongs on Talk:ANI. Frankly, I think this has been flogged too much already. I certainly won’t be exceeding my share of posts next time around—that’s for sure. We might visit this issue of long threads again sometime in the future when another thread grows long and no admin saw fit to step in to merely pen “There’s nothing actionable here and this will go nowhere.” Greg L (talk) 04:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• P.S. Quoting you, Bishonen: Must everything be said so many fucking times? I genuinely like your style, Bishonen; plain-speak for grownups. You might enjoy my essay, "Fuck” is not necessarily uncivil. Greg L (talk) 05:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Although I do agree with Greg L's description in as much as I believe repetition is a response to admin inaction, and not the other way around, I don't think neither me not Marknutley has posted things to keep the discussion from going stale. If admins really, as Bishonen implies, thinks that this issue is mine and Marknutleys fault, why doesn't these WQA's and ANI's get closed promptly, telling us that? When TFD made his WQA against me is was closed quite promptly. And when I brought TFD's ad hominems up I was quickly told to not bother, because ad hominems are ignored, because there are enough personal attacks to deal with. So if there really is no issue here, why aren't we just told? If Pmanderson really has special rules, and he really is allowed to do personal attacks as he likes, then just close this and tell us and have it over with. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Pagemove consensus formed on Wikiproject page

Perhaps there is nothing wrong with this, but I think the normal procedures have been circumvented. A page about something connected to Judaism (but also to classical antiquity and Christianity) being moved to a more Jew-centric article title with a discussion on Wikiproject:Judaism (Here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#Building_and_destroying_the_Beit_Hamikdash) instead of on the talkpage through the normal "requested moves" process.

I left a comment here: Talk:Second_Temple_(Judaism)#Page_move and notified the mover, but would appreciate some admin feedback.

This appears to affect multiple pages.

Cheers. --FormerIP (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why they did that, WikiProjects don't own article or decide their names. Feel free to list it at WP:RM to get a discussion beyond a single WikiProject. Fences&Windows 23:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Is that the only way to handle it? It would reverse the burden of proof, so that if there is no consensus it stays at the new address. --FormerIP (talk) 23:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the page move should be undone, and proper discussion to take place. The discussion and a vote was started at pretty much the same time, and the person who started the discussion decided the outcome. Apart from the temple articles, it was only judaism related pages that were notified, and I do not know why this wasn't listed at WP:RM. Quantpole (talk) 08:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Quantpole: It is only logical and correct to assume that a subject that primarily concerns Judaism and is critically important to it should be centralized at that subject's main project talk page as was done. Every religion's project talk page need not have been notified. Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc etc etc do not identify Judaism editors when holding serious discussions about topics that are central to their religions. Otherwise it would have become a real spam fest to notify dozens of pages when already ten had been. WP:RM need also not have been notified because at the outset the redirects and page moves could have been done by anyone in any case because at the time First Temple (Judaism), Second Temple (Judaism), Third Temple (Judaism) were all empty red links. (They have now been trimmed to the more neutral sounding, but still objectively correct First Temple, Second Temple, Third Temple.) "Proper discussion" as you call it did take place starting over two weeks ago and it was quite comprehensive. The outcome was decided by the consensus and the votes were a clear-cut and precise way of measuring and recording the outcome as each user either commented or voted or both. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 11:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, there's no point really going repeatedly over what should or shouldn't have been done (apart from that I encourage you to read WP:VOTE). However, now that there are concerns, the correct thing to do should be to reopen discussion to properly achieve consensus. To avoid a fait accompli in case consensus is not achieved, the old titles should be kept for now. Quantpole (talk) 13:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi again Quantpole: So far you and user FormerIP have that position that flies in the face of legitimate discussions and a clarifying vote that reached consensus and that even admin Fram (see below) has not done what you think based it seems more on WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT than anything else, which is not good enough. Admin Fram has been more reasonable and made the most neutral changes that everyone can agree to at this time. User FormerIP expressed some concerns and at that he mis-stated them when he said that there had been "no discussion" which has been proven to be false. Not only were there lengthy discussions but it was also proven and cited in the discussions that based on Google hits the terms First Temple, Second Temple and Third Temple are the most commonly and frequently used, and that one lone user's weak and unfounded complaint cannot be a basis for overturning the learned opinions of multiple users who supported and agreed to the changes, namely:

1. Slrubenstein,
2. Yoninah,
3. Mzk1,
4. Avraham,
5. Chesdovi,
6. Malik Shabazz,
7. ACogloc,
8. AMuseo

The above provided more than adequate consensus and it would be horrendous to call their votes into question. IZAK (talk) 01:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• All I am saying is now that the process you used has been called into question, the discussion should be reopened so that users outside of judaism related topics have the opportunity to comment. I am not calling anyone's opinion into question, and have not even expressed an opinion on the subject matter (I'd have to do some research first). Quantpole (talk) 07:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Quantpole: I have gone to great lengths to explain the background to these moves, something that the one complaining was not even aware of when he started his complaint. While at least eight users have agreed to the moves, only one has raised some questions now. We have gone back and forth and an admin has already made a useful decision, (see Fram's decision below) with good changes that are certainly very agreeable, reasonable and meet all aspects of WP:NPOV. That seems like a good way to end the matter for now. You are standing on the sidelines, admitting that you need to do more research, so why not go and do the research first and then come back when you are ready and your views will be gladly welcomed, but for now it serves no purpose. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 08:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
    • This is going nowhere, and you are not getting the point at all. The next step will be to list them at WP:RM. Quantpole (talk) 10:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
      • No it won't because an admin (Fram, below) has already reviewed the entire case and made the requisite WP:NPOV adjustments already. You are veering into WP:POINT territory and as far as I am concerned you are violating WP:AGF with me. IZAK (talk) 04:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
        • My moves were just a correction of the most basic errors with your moves. They do not mean that discussion has to end, and I have no objection whatsoever to a discussion at RM, or to the re-moval of these pages to other titles (as long as they follow the basics of the MoS, like no disambiguation when none is needed). If people prefer these pages at Second Temple of Jerusalem, Second Jewish Temple, Temple of Jerusalem (date build - date destroyed), or whatever is the most common name in the English literature about them, that's all fine by me. Please don't use my moves as a reason to end all discussion on this. Fram (talk) 07:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
          • • Hi Fram, my moves were not "in error" they followed a lenghthy discussion to attain WP:CONSENSUS. Obviously the discussion is not over, it's been going on for 3,000 years. For some odd reason the Jewish temples seem to be subject to undue attention from non-Jewish sources as to what they should be, even if they should be built, exist or be destroyed, or what their names are or should be. It is logical to assume that the terms used in Judaism and by Jews should be the preferred ones for Jewish topics. Until now you had not clarified yourself, thanks for doing so now. In fact your moves were perfect and are supported by the research using Google that uses the terms "First Temple", "Second Temple", "Third Temple", more than any others. IZAK (talk) 09:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
              • Apart from the fact that you did a copy-paste move instead of an actual move, that you didn't follow the Manual of style in your names, and that it is debated whether the method and location of the move suggestion debate was correct, you are right, your moves were not in error... And please don't bring in utterly irrelevant things like "it's been going on for 3,000 years". We are discussing the page names of some pages on Wikipedia, not the actual buildings and locations. You are incorrect in your assumption that the terms used by Jews or Judaism should be preferred. The most common terms in English should be used, no more, no less. Whether these names coincide with the preferences of Jews, Christians, atheist scholars of Antiquity, or any other group is not important and should not be taken into consideration. Please don't drag the religion of editors or the actual history of the buildings into this debate any longer, it is not helpful at all and only works to antagonize editors (by e.g. giving the impression that the opinion of non-Jews is irrelevant for this discussion). Fram (talk) 09:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

All talk pages, and more, were notified about the discussions and proposed moves

Hi: The above depiction by User:Former IP is not correct. Firstly, there most definitely was a very lengthy centralized discussion open to all users for the sake of orderliness and reaching consensus was at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Building and destroying the Beit Hamikdash since 14 July 2010. Secondly, all users, no matter what "projects" they do or don't belong to, were notified on the relevant talk pages as well as a few other talk pages of effected articles were notified about the proposed redirect, also on 14 July 2010, (at a cost of being accused of "spamming" which it was not for this purpose), see:

1. Talk:Temple in Jerusalem#Correct names for the First and Second Temples
2. Talk:First_Temple,
3. Talk:Second_Temple,
4. Talk:Herod's_Temple,
5. Talk:Third_Temple,
6. Talk:Jerusalem, as well as at
7. Talk:Judaism,
8. Talk:The_Three_Weeks,
9. Talk:The_Nine_Days,
10. Talk:Tisha_B'Av

So relevant talk pages were fully notified and editors were given enough time to respond, as a decent amount did, but now with the "corrected" redirects for some pages, some of these older displaced histories may be not showing up for some odd reason, even though I have located them and they are still there in their original places. Therefore, users who still have or had (for the four articles moved) these pages on their watch lists had more than two weeks to partake, share their views and make comments and suggestions. Those editors who did were mostly reliable Judaic editors who are trustworthy and responsible. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I moved the three Temple pages to the undisambiguated version (i.e. without (Judaism) added to it). Pages shouldn't be at a disambiguated title when there is no need to disambiguate at all. The page move discussion was indeed mentioned on the talk page of the article, but it was very unclear that this was actually a discussion about a page move. Looking at the move discussion, there was clear support for having the pages at first temple and second temple, but much less support for moving them to the (Judaism) disambiguation as well. Fram (talk) 08:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Fram: This is very fair and equatable move by you and will lead to more coherence and result in less confusion stemming from conflicting names. IZAK (talk) 11:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

IMO, there isn't validity to the discussion at Wikiproject:Judaism, because it isn't an appropriate forum for discussion of a page move. As IZAK points out, it is technically true that this was open to all editors, but I think it is also clear that any discussion on the talk page of a Wikiproject is likely to be slanted towards the views of its members. Plus, WP has a process for page moves which was not followed. So I think, strictly speaking, the page should be moved back to where it was and a new discussion launched if needed. I think "Second Temple" even without the bracketed "Judaism" still reflects a Jewish POV and is insufficiently descriptive (v. recent porposal to move Second Amendment to the United States Constitution to Second Amendment).

Thanks, though, Fram. I should probably mention that you forgot to move the talk page. --FormerIP (talk) 11:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Think the views of a few admins as to what is best in the circumstance outlined would be useful. If admins would prefer to leave things as they are, I won't start a campaign over it, but I don't think it would set a good precedent. --FormerIP (talk) 11:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Former IP: You go too far when you allege and complain that "Second Temple" is a "Jewish POV" when the subject itself is part and parcel of Judaism and was for its entire history. The Two past destroyed Temples and the desire for a rebuilt Third Temple are central to Judaism and the Hebrew Bible and to the spiritual goals of all Jews throughout the millennia. To set the record straight the discussion was not just about a mere few page moves, as anyone can clearly see, it was about creating cohesiveness and uniformity in the entire subject starting with the names of the First, Second and Third Temples, even though they have alternate names, but the discussions showed that there are more Google hits from a number of directions for the First Temple, Second Temple and Third Temple names, and also starting discussions how to subsequently streamline this entire subject of the Three Jewish Temples and hopefully you do agree that they were and are Jewish Temples and that it is logical and reasonable to expect that they should be known by their Jewish names (in any case there is no problem with calling them First, Second, Third in English directly translated from Hebrew usages over the ages) and not by subsequent names thrust on them albeit in usage in some circles. As for your point that "Second Temple" alone is "insufficiently descriptive" that is precisely why naming it Second Temple (Judaism) is the perfect and accurate name for it that would take care of those kind of concerns, but evidently you feel that the Jewish Temples must be "de-Judaized" and detached and reformulated as entities not belonging to either the Jews or to Judaism, as implied in the criticism not to take it to the Judaism project talk page and your grumbling about the Temples' basic names. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean, IZAK. How does the word "Jerusalem" constitute "de-Judaizing"? In any event, the main issue here is process. --FormerIP (talk) 12:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

FormerIP: Not sure what you're talking about. While the first two Temples may have been physically located in Jerusalem as will the third one according to Judaism, their real over-arching and fundamental importance and position within Judaism are immeasurably far greater than any mere finite geographic locale or structural building, even if it is in as important a place as Jerusalem. Judaism and Jews have remained attached at the hip through their beliefs, prayers and studies to both the notions of the Temples and to Jerusalem as spiritual holy centers for millennia even though they have had neither a temple nor access to Jerusalem for (most of) the last 2,000 years. IZAK (talk) 01:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

That's probably nice for them, but I don't understand why you think it means you don't have to follow the normal WP procedure for moving a page. --FormerIP (talk) 02:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

FormerIP: As I have clarified, once the discussions reached a consensus I could have easily moved the pages to "First Temple (Judaism)", "Second Temple (Judaism)", "Third Temple (Judaism)" which were empty, open unused red link pages that I had created. There would have been no problem with that. I made a technical error by not moving the pages with the move buttons on "Solomon's Temple", "Second Temple in Jerusalem" and "Third Temple" without any problems. My mistake, and it was only a mistake, was to cut and paste instead of making the easier moves (the reason I did that is that I was working quickly and I was a little rusty about making pages moves), but I then asked User Avraham to iron out my oversight, which he did do. So please do not make a mountain out of a mole hill when nothing untoward has happened. Thank you for your understanding. IZAK (talk) 02:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem isn't to do with the actual mechanics of the page moves (I'm not aware you did anything wrong there), it is that the move requests were not listed at WP:RM and the discussions about moving the page was held in a forum where a particular POV was likely to prevail. You even opened the disucssion by talking about "confusion...stemming from opposing secular and religious scholarly outlooks" and suggesting that certain articles should be renames on the basis that they "belong" to Judaism. This, I think, is out of line with the normal spirit of inclusiveness and NPOV on WP. --FormerIP (talk) 09:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The topic is about the Jewish temples not about Christian or another religion's ones. Jewish articles carry far more secular content than would be allowed or accepted in regular topics. There is and will always be room for lots of different views in the Jewish Temple articles, in fact there is not a huge amount in them from a purely Jewish POV in them and all I was proposing, or requesting, was to create the correct balance but so far absolutely nothing has happened. You are misunderstanding and misusing the policies of POV by claiming the absurd, that a key subject that is inherent to a project should "not" be discussed there. That would like saying that no discussions or decisions about medical topics should be made at WP:MEDICINE unless they are first discussed somewhere else where they don't deal with medicine. Nothing wrong happened. I should hope you understand the analogy. IZAK (talk) 04:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it would be like saying that no pages relating to medical topics should be moved solely on the basis of a discussion at WP:MEDICINE, which AFAICT is the case. --FormerIP (talk) 11:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The most important thing is discussions at the article talk page. It seems to me that notification was placed on all the relevant talk pages, so anyone watching the article knew about the discussion. That is our standard. That said, calling it "the Second Temple" seems to me to follow the conventions among historians and is the most common name for it, so it ought to be the title. If people call it other names, and I have no doubt that they do, we handle that through redirects, so there is never any fear of someone not finding the article. But this is the most common name. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that the standard is listing at RM, templating the pages and holding a discussion about each one individually, normally on their respective talk pages, Sluberstein. The notice on the Second Temple page disappeared (though I am not saying this is IZAK's fault). In any event, launching the discussion (that you were involved in) on the Judaism project talkpage with an intro effectively saying "let's do something about the non-Jewish bias on these articles" is not an appropraite way to go about it. --FormerIP (talk) 14:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It makes no sense to say that the articles had a "non-Jewish bias" (your words) and then oppose the discussion from taking place at WP:JUDAISM. IZAK (talk) 09:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake! Note where the quote-marks are in the last sentence of my post. I am not saying that the article has a non-Jewish bias, by any means. --FormerIP (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

@FormerIP: You write, "My understanding is that the standard is listing at RM," and I have no idea how this could be your interpretation of the following clause taken from the intro to the policy: "There is no obligation to list such move requests here;" you are right that there should be notification on the article talk page - but IZAK did just that, he left a message on the talk page, so anyone watching it new about the proposal and had an opportunity to weigh in.

Why is is inappropriate to discuss an article of central importance to Judaism on the project Judaism talk page? It is not like anyone is banned from contributing to that discussion - did you post a comment which someone deleted? Isn't this article categorized under Wikiproject:Judaism? Slrubenstein | Talk 09:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

That same page, WP:RM, goes on to say that "Discussions about retitling of an article (page move) can always be carried out at the article's talk page without adding an entry here." It doesn't mention project pages. However, in general, I don't think there is a problem with discussing page moves on a project page, certainly not when (like here) multiple pages are involved and some consistency between them is wanted. The problem arises when the project is chosen to give one particular point of view preference. Even if it is a relevant PoV like here, this violates WP:NPOV and is a form of canvassing. See the comments by IZAK (who proposed the move, determined the consensus and performed the move) above: "It is logical to assume that the terms used in Judaism and by Jews should be the preferred ones for Jewish topics." This is incorrect: we don't use the terms preferred by the involved groups. Myanmar is here described in the article Burma, because that is the term most used in the English literature. Another incorrect factor in that statement, that the temple (certainly the second one) is not only a Jewish topic but also a Christian one (and all of them are general historical and archaeological ones) is therefor not relevant for a naming discussion. Fram (talk) 10:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that the title of the article should follow the conventions of 1st century historians. And the most common designation is "the Second Temple." That is why I think he article should be named "the Second Temple." Slrubenstein | Talk 11:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? The conventions of 1st century historians? Why should we follow those? Fram (talk) 11:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Drive by tagging from User:Bigvernie

In the past two days, Bigvernie (talk · contribs) has made more than a hundred edits, nearly all of which have been about notability. Some he's just tagged as non-notable; others have been PROD'd. Some have been fairly frivolous, as the articles are clearly notable. I wouldn't have brought this up, but notes to his talk page have been regularly removed. I don't know if he's intentionally being defiant or what, but this seems to be increasingly disruptive. Oh, and in full disclosure, I notified the user about this thread, but he removed it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)`

I also note that you have attempted to discuss it with the user (as have others apparently) but the user has removed those notices also. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

He added a prod to Wang Jinghong, a slip of an article but mine own, a kind editor removed it saying "a fairly obvious de-PROD" - I don't know why he PROD'd it. He's clearly an experienced editor. I guess I should add my comments on his talk page, if he won't discuss his actions, then he'll have to stop until he does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 20:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, first I'd suggest to remove their ability to use Twinkle; then, I think an admin should give them a final warning that they're being disruptive; in my opinion, failure to take heed should, finally, result in a block. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 20:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I've closed ACE Cougar as a snow Keep (yeah, trout me for having an article prod'd and doing this). I've also told the editor I expect him to start communicating on his talk page and here, if he continues without discussion, block him. RL calls. Dougweller (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've revoked this editor's Twinkle privileges. Courcelles (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I've just declined his PROD of Zone of immunity because it essentially argued that there were more definitions than were represented in the article, which is of course a perfect reason to expand an article but a lousy reason to delete it. I was going to mention it on his talk page but when I checked the history it didn't seem like it would be worth the bother. This project works by consensus, users who refuse to discuss matters with other users need to be shown the door. Hopefully Vernie will get that message and it won't come to that. I agree that his ability to use Twinkle should be revoked in order to send the appropriate message about this type of editing and slow the disruption being caused by it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hm, seems I didn't close Ace Cougar after all, some sort of clash, Bigvernie withdrew his nomination saying "Withdraw nomination - I didn't know that "the author" owned this article or that other editors needed to wait for him/her before raising what I believe are valid concerns about this article. Although I do not share the perspective of those above, I can see that the wagons have effectively circled this article. ". Not good., but he's responding on this talk page, I've reminded him that he was told about this discussion. G'night. Dougweller (talk) 21:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

He PROD'd ACE Cougar. I removed it, as it was clearly notable, and the author is away (you are meant to notify the author when PRODing, but as it clearly states on their user pages they have no access to the internet until August 10, it seems common courtesy to to wait until they're back.) Not pleased with this, Bigvernie then decided to AfD it. It is very suspicious, as these action are being repeated on various articles. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 21:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I just realized there was a thread on here about him. I was just pondering if he is the same person as User:Andy14and16 who was doing similar drive by tagging and was blocked as a sock puppet [here]. I have no proof other than the behavior seemed similar to me and that he had targeted some hip hop and hockey articles which are the same sorts the other user did. -DJSasso (talk) 22:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I have the feeling that this could be User:Dalejenkins since he liked to mass-AFD things. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• It was certainly disruptive at Theological hermeneutics (AfD discussion). It completely derailed the discussion that had been occurring on the article's talk page. Uncle G (talk) 01:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand how adding refimprovement and notability tags can be regarded as disruptive? I am just trying to point towards the improvement of these articles. And when a prod tag is placed, can it not be just removed by another user if they think it needs discussion before deletion? And is not the proper place to discuss the proposed deletion of an article at an AFD? I am reading and checking the articles before I place a tag, and most of the time I do nothing at all. When i am accused of being a "drive by" i think that means i am being accused of not paying attention to what I do, but that is not true. And anyway, the vast majority of articles that I read I do nothing to. I am tagging maybe 2% of the articles I have read. I am not very sure about editing the articles myself. I thought i would be helpful by adding a tag when I saw it was required. I just don't understand what all the fuss is about. If I made a mistake, sorry, But none of my edits are to vandalize or disrupt. If I make a msitake, just correct it. What is the bigger issue here? Bigvernie (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The bigger issue appears to be that your relative inexperience is causing you to prod and AfD articles that are not good candidates for deletion. As a result, you're artificially creating a large workload for other editors to undo your prods, comment on and close your AfD's, and otherwise clean up the messes you're leaving behind. Please familiarize yourself better with WP:DEL#REASON, WP:CSD, and all of the other relevant guidelines (like WP:N and WP:GNG) before mass-nominating any more articles for deletion. SnottyWong ^gab 23:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

"Drive-by tagging" also means, to put it crudely, putting tags on articles without investing even the tiniest smidgen of energy toward improving it. Gerardo Yepiz is a case in point: claiming it's not notable simply means you couldn't be bothered to actually do anything. I don't believe for a moment that you (as you claim) "checked" the article. Prodding things for no good reason is disruptive, of course, and means that other editors have to invest time and energy where you could have easily done something about it yourself. And those statements you made at the AfD discussion for ACE Cougar, that's just complete bogus--circling the wagons? Pff. But the biggest issue here, as far as I'm concerned, is the complete lack of communication and the consistent removal of questions and commentary from your talk page. I don't like editors who are incommunicado when it is obvious that their edits are questioned by others. Drmies (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

@BigVernie: Less pointing at problems and more fixing of problems, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Experienced user insisting on info which is not in source

Hi, Taivo (talk · contribs) repeatedly adds info while sources does not contain that, removes "not in source" tags and does not accepts changes in accordance with sources which reverts to his own interpretation [88] [89] [90]. See also Talk:Ukrainian language#Ukrainian not a language - just a dialect of Russian discussion from May 6th. --windyhead (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Please attempt dispute resolution, such as seeking a third opinion, advice from Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages, or the content noticeboard. Fences&Windows 21:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I already raised the problem at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 12#Disputable info with orphaned quotations, no reaction --windyhead (talk) 07:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No he's not. As he has stated repeatedly, he has read the entire book. You appear to be the taking one or two sentences to which the reference applies as a quote, and arguing that the 'quote' doesn't contain the exact words. In fact, Taivo is summarising much larger chunks, and referencing them to the work he is summarising. What he's doing is fine. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Where you have this information from? And if we'll assume this is true, how to check that his summary is correct? --windyhead (talk) 07:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Borrow or purchase the books I've cited and read them. --Taivo (talk) 07:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this the only way? --windyhead (talk) 08:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If they are not available on google books, then yes. This is going to be a topic of scholarly discussion, with quality sourcing largely available only in books. Wikipedia supports the use of books as reliable sources. Sometimes this does mean you need access to a library - or to someone who has access to a library. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Interlibrary loan often helps if your library does not have these sources. If your entire library network does not have them, then you could try asking Tavio for assistance. They say that they are an "associate professor of Linguistics at a major U.S. university", so if you ask politely, they might willing to work with your library or even directly with you. NW (Talk) 14:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Can somebody please step in. First off I believe that "to read the book" is not the only way to perform verification process, another way is to ask the editor to provide confirming quotes, and if the insisting editor said the quotes are enough to verify, the verification can be performed on them. But okay, I checked sources and the info is not there, of which I informed the parties [91] [92] , but the editor continued reverts after that - unexplained revert [93] , revert removing "disputed factual accuracy" template [94] with misleading justification "needless tag" and "to lay off until you have actually read the sources" even while I have informed the editor that I do checked the sources. --windyhead (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Six hours ago you were at a loss at to how to check the sources without reading the books and now you have miraculously "checked" all the sources? I'm sorry, but I don't believe you. You are still asking for ways to verify the material without reading the books, but then you claim that you have checked all the sources? Which is true? One of your statements is false. As far as the "disputed" tag goes, you have been told by multiple editors (and have been reverted by two different editors) that it is your responsibility to read the sources if you question the accuracy of the statements. The partial quotes are, indeed, quite sufficient to verify the intent of the source and any linguist will see that immediately. The "disputed" tag is not for cases where you haven't bothered to read the sources, it is for cases where different sources are at variance with the text or the interpretation of different sources is in dispute. In this case, you have neither read the authoritative sources which I have provided, nor offered sources that have a different viewpoint. You are simply placing the tag there because you don't like the information, no matter how accurate. Indeed, the paragraph itself is NPOV since it takes no side in the matter. It simply says, 1) there are different viewpoints, 2) one viewpoint says they are one language, 3) the other viewpoint says they are different languages, 4) the matter cannot be decided on the issue of mutual intelligibility alone. What's POV about that? It covers all sides of the issue. Yes, can someone step in and shut this guy up? He is providing nothing useful to the issue, but only complaining that he doesn't like the result. --Taivo (talk) 22:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh, can someone summarize this thread for me? My brain locked at the point where windyhead asked if the only way he could verify Taivo's citations was to read the books themselves. Or did I misunderstand what windyhead wrote? TIA, -- llywrch (talk) 06:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Taivo added questionable info into the article and supported it with offline sources. I requested confirming quotes to verify. Taivo provided orphaned quotes and said they are enough to verify [95]. I performed the verification, informed of the results (not in source), and updated the article. Taivo reverted [96] [97] insisting that quotes and sources do back the article statements [98] . I then performed the verification of first disputable sentence on the sources itself, informed of the result and updated the article. Taivo reverted with no arguments [99] and removed "disputed factual data" tag on the grounds that "you have not read the sources" [100]. He also degraded to comments like "you to lay off" [101] , "shut this guy up" [102] and [103] --windyhead (talk) 13:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Or the alternative version. Taivo has added some information to the article, neutrally summarising some significant mainstream sources. Windyhead doesn't like the information that Taivo has added, because it doesn't suit his POV (I say this because Windyhead hasn't read Taivo's sources and has offered no other sources, so I'm guessing he's not an expert with the definitive answer) and he doesn't like that its in books because he hasn't got access to the books, so he's edit warring to remove the information and accusing Taivo of POV editing.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I already asked you about your sources of information about other's actions and intentions. Again, where you are getting your information about others ("neutrally summarising some significant mainstream sources", "Windyhead hasn't read Taivo's sources", "he hasn't got access to the books", and previously "Taivo is summarising much larger chunks") from? Also what are grounds for your edit warring accusations? --windyhead (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Ilywrch. Yes, my brain kind of spasmed, too, when Windyhead asked if the only way he could check my sources was to read the books. Elen of the Roads has summarized the issue clearly--I added scholarly information properly sourced and verifiable from reliable sources and written in a balanced and neutral way. Windyhead doesn't like the information because it conflicts with his worldview. So he started adding "disputed" tags, "POV" tags, etc. to the paragraph in question and began a rather pointless series of posts on the Talk Page without offering any alternative scholarly references. He repeatedly asked for extensive quotations from the sources I've referenced (even though the quotes in the article are quite sufficient to prove the point). He then began forum shopping here and here to get input from other users on my actions. He thinks that all information should be available on-line so that he doesn't have to read any actual books. He hasn't actually edit warred, but his repetitive posts and refusal to read the books are annoying. --Taivo (talk) 20:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Just so you know what we're talking about here, it's a paragraph that says, in summary: "The languages are mutually intelligible so the question can't be decided with linguistics alone. Most scholars say X. Some scholars say Y." It's the "mutually intelligible" part and the "Some scholars say Y" parts that conflict with Windyhead's worldview and that he finds objectionable, even though I have provided references (as well as sufficient quotes) for both statements from authoritative scholarly sources. --Taivo (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No, the text you added to the article was not what you present here. The text you added can be clearly seen from my diffs above. And it was actually you who reverted my "in terms of immediate mutual intelligibility" addition (which is what the source says) to just "dialects" [104] [105] (which is not in source) --windyhead (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You were continually making a mess of the paragraph in your attempts to remove the statement that some sources list Russian and Ukrainian as dialects of a single language. You could post just about any diff and claim that you were "right". Well, you weren't right and you worked very hard to not read the sources and to not understand what they said. The paragraph is now almost exactly the paragraph before you started your crusade. Faustian and I rearranged a couple sentences, that's all. Your "contribution" was nothing and resulted in nothing. The issue, as far as I'm concerned, is closed now. You'll surely post something self-serving after this, but I'm not going to look anymore. --Taivo (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Bambifan101: The last straw.

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

---

He's done it again: User:Spídér's Wéb: A Píg's Tálé 88 has been tagged and bagged. The problem here is this: I've contacted Jimbo Wales about this idiot and apparently nothing is being done.

I have blocked four or five complete IP ranges, one school IP range, reported this little freak countless times at CU, tried three times to mentor him, gotten my offers shoved in my face and still he continues.

Unless and until this freakazoid is shut down once and for all, I am off this project. Leave word on my talk page if you have any questions; my e-mail's been disabled for a little while due to a technical issue on my end. Disgusted, I remain, PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, that'll sure put him in his place. Bravo, you, and keep reaching for that star. HalfShadow 03:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't you think you're feeding the troll just a tiny bit? What precisely are we supposed to do, send out the hunter-killer robots? Fences&Windows 23:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but as long as there are proxies, there will be compulsives like Bambifan. He's not unlike MascotGuy, in that he's easy to spot and catch. His edits don't last for more than a few seconds before he gets blocked. They're not bad enough to require revision deletion. I say we just keep RBIing him. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you want done that hasn't been tried. Sometimes, nothing works, and you just have to keep up RBI until someone changes their medication. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I would personally like to medicate this idiot with a very large right fist, but I make it a point not to punch people out. Kind of a general guideline in my life. Need a break anyway and I'm going to be on vacation next week; hopefully, I won't be anywhere near a computer. OK, I'll be fine...this has gone on for yearsand I just want it to stop. PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It will. He can't possibly continue for more than another 80 years. Maybe less. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope cause some other guy will take his place. Wikipedia will always attract "Bambifan101s", the best way to combat them is to just WP:RBI.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 00:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I think PMDrive has a right to be frustrated with both the vandal and Wikipedia's impotence in dealing with that particular brand of stupidity. Has anyone ever tried filing abuse reports with his IPs? There has to be some way to get tough with these folks. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Could a checkuser figure out where that looney is physically located and deal with him somehow? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I feel your frustration - I've been targeted by another serial, IP hopping vandal. Just RBI. Connormah^talk 05:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I've always thought the best approach to the whole abuse report thing is to schedule an in-person appointment and show up with file in hand...because then you're right there with evidence in a place where they can't just ignore it by getting off the phone asap or ignoring emails. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 08:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Some of you may recall that I was really wrapped up in combatting this serial idiot a ways back. I felt the same frustration, but I dealt with it by removing all the BF target pages from my watchlist. Enough users are aware of the problem now that the same two or three users don't have to do all the work anymore. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there is a technical solution here. The edit filter can see the underlying IP range from registered users, we've just disabled that because of privacy sensitivities. Re-enabling that would go a long way towards preventing edits from editors like Bambifan101 and Brexx. I get very frustrated dealing with this crap for pretty much the same reasons at PMDrive1061: it feels futile at times, and knowing there are technical fixes for most of it makes it worse.—Kww(talk) 20:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Does WP:NPA not apply here?

No. Protonk (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm less concerned by the application of the terms "freakazoid", "idiot", and "looney" in the above section than I am with the general pattern of comments made by User:PMDrive1061 who is an admin and should therefore make a better attempt to follow our policies. Some recent samples: "retarded little asshat" "Bunch of retarded apes" "little asshole" "moronic little children" Far more troubling is the overt threat of violence "I would personally like to medicate this idiot with a very large right fist...". There is absolutely no justification for this type of comment. This seems to be a recurring pattern for PMDrive1061 (although I have just used recent examples). PMDrive1061 seems to get stressed out by "vandal fighting", which is precisely why he should not be involved in this area. Note also that a user brought a complaint to ANI PMDrive1061 told a user to "piss off" (page now deleted by PMDrive1061) but it was deleted and ignored. Sometimes even the trolls are right. This pattern should not be allowed to continue - at the very least, PMDrive1061 needs to voluntarily withdraw from "vandal fighting" and leave it to admins who are able to WP:RBI, but I think a block may be in order for the threat of violence. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Well, the 'retarded apes' comment was directed at 4chan vandals. I believe that's a scientifically accurate description of them. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC) It is also a clear violation of WP:NPA ("some types of comments are absolutely never acceptable: ... or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities)") and while "retarded" as in "mentally retarded" was once considered inoffensive, times and attitudes toward people with difficulties in cognitive functioning have changed. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC) 4chan aren't people. I firmly believe the members are some form of cockroach. I may go so high as 'rodent'. HalfShadow 16:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Perhaps the advice to PMDrive to frequent other areas of the project will be heeded. Regardless, however, I don't think a block is justified here. We put up with far more from far less productive users; while I agree the sentiment was slightly inappropriate, I think the point has been made here. If you disagree, perhaps WP:RFC/U is a more appropriate venue.  Frank  |  talk  12:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC) I suggest that PMDrive1061's activities are far more productive for the trolls and vandals than they are for Wikipedia. Threats of violence should not be dismissed so blithely. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC) I shouldn't think that Bambifan101's sensitivities are being assaulted in this instance, since they are very unlikely to be reading these pages; it does not form part of their preferred area of operations. I also think that PMDrive1061 should not withdraw from vandal fighting, if that is what they want to continue doing, because I do not want to see another editor driven away from this site - Bambifan101 has already been the cause of one contributor to withdraw. As for the other comments directed at B101, I don't think they are reason for rebuking the editors concerned; B101 seems to think that Wikipedia is a convenient arena for them to indulge in their fantasies and appear uninterested in helping build content, so it is not as if we might upset someone who is adding value to the project. It might be unseemly if a third party came across the comments, but such is the case on many pages on WP. I think that people displaying their frustration at an unrepentant vandal's continuing contempt for the purpose of this website is quiet understandable. Perhaps you, Delicious carbuncle, might like to take on the role of being the principle combatant of this particular editors disruption - walk a mile in PMDrive1061 and Collectionian's shoes, rather than chide the indiscretions of those who have been clearing up after the little shit these last few years. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC) I have no desire to be the "principle combatant", although I will take your suggestion as an endorsement of my upcoming RfA. As I've said elsewhere, I do not believe that "fighting vandals" is productive and any admin who adopts that mentality is playing a losing game. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC) If someone can't stand the heat they should get out of the kitchen. Those types of comments are completely unbecoming of an admin. What's wrong with recognizing the good vandal fighting work being done and admitting that this language should not be used? I understand that people get frustrated while doing thankless work, but understanding why remarks like that come out is not the same as condoning them. Let's not condone them here please. Someone should tell the admin to cool it with the remarks and to take breaks as needed if the vandal fighting is getting too hot.Griswaldo (talk) 13:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Speaking of admin mentality and endorsing RfA's, I don't think I will endorse anyone to become an admin when they have the school playground mentality of running to the headmaster when someone else does something naughty. "Sir, sir, PMDrive has said a dirty word!"[106] Fram (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Perhaps you are unaware of Jimbo's well-publicized personal interest in the issue of civility, which was my reason for posting on his talk page. Do you have any comment on the issue at hand? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC) That he is interested in a subject doesn't mean that you should go and invite him over here. Inviting people to a discussion when you know beforehand which position they have, and where their position seems to coincide with yours, is canvassing. It's small scale (only one person), but an appeal to authority which is hardly needed or helpful. Anyway, "First, and most importantly, we need to create an online culture in which every person can participate in an open and rational exchange of ideas and information without fear of being the target of unwarranted abuse, harassment or lies." Since the other party here has not worked on an "open and rational exchange of ideas" but is a relentless vandal, one can argue that the "unwarranted" cluase of Jimbo's thoughts has become invalid here. Consider his final comments: "But we can only do so if we prevent the worst among us from silencing the best among us with hostility and incivility." If you consider PMDrive as one of the worst, and BambiFan as one of the best among us, then I don't think we have naything more to discuss here. If you don't, then I don't see how the statements by Jimbo are at all relevant to what has happened here. In any case, your answers still haven't given me any reason to believe that your post on his talk page was anything but an attempt to get authoritative support for your position. Fram (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Fram, would it be acceptable for me to call you an asshole, an asshat, a retarded ape, and a moronic little child? Would it be acceptable for me to state a desire to do something violent to you? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Does whether someone else has violated policies justify your actions? I am not discussing what PMDrive did, I am discussing what you did. Using the wrong methods for what may be the right desired outcome is still using the wrong methods. Your question to me is a nice diversionary tactic, nothing more. So again, your answers still haven't given me any reason to believe that your post on his talk page was anything but a canvassing attempt to get authoritative support for your position. Fram (talk) 14:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC) It is difficult to have a reasonable discussion with someone who calls your attempt to get back to the topic a "diversionary tactic". Fine, I'll agree that my post on Jimbo's talk page was canvassing. Now, would you like to answer my question? Would it be acceptable for me to call you an asshole, an asshat, a retarded ape, and a moronic little child? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC) The topic of this subthread was your convassing, not the comments by PMDrive. That you didn't want to recognize your coanvassing for what it was made areasonable discussion of it difficult, not that I wasn't fooled by your diversion. Anyway, since I haven't acted like an asshole or a retarded ape (or at least not as blatantly as Bambifan), and have many mostly constructive edits, it owouldbn't be acceptable for you (or anyone else) to call me such names. More in general, I don't think it is ever constructive to call people such names, but in some cases (like here), it is perfectly understandable. Yes, it is a sign that PMDrive should move (temporarily or definitely) to other on-wiki actions, so that being on Wikipedia for him or her is a fun or a rewarding experience, not a mainly frustrating one. But just like someone venting on his talk page when being blocked is usually not grounds for an extension of the block, so should someone venting here in such a sitaution as this one be calmed down, not attacked or blocked. You could have discussed this with him on his talk page, and asked him to refrain from such language and behaviour in the future, and suggested some ways tio avoid this. Or you could have recognised that he has taken a wikibreak, and that all this isn't helping anyone at all. Fram (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Fram, we seem to be getting closer to some form of agreement. I understand that PMDrive is frustrated with the situation, but this is a situation in which he placed himself and which he could have chosen to leave at any time. Instead, he resorts to name-calling and incivility. He was not venting on his talk page, he was being abusive on the talk pages of others and here at ANI. This is not a new situation with PMDrive and I believe it has been discussed before. There is also a larger issue of admins flouting WP:NPA when dealing with vandals, which only serves the vandals' interests (in my opinion). I was fully prepared to be attacked for making this post (and I have not been disappointed). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Block PMDrive to avoid further disruptive violations of our civility and personal attack policies. There is plenty of civil editors that can fight vandalism, and if an editor does not follow policies, he/she's not less a vandal than the ones he/she fights. --Cyclopiatalk 13:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Nonsense. That would be nothing but useless escalation. No vandals were harmed in the production of this drama. The purpose of NPA is to protect a constructive work atmosphere; with Bambifan there is no work atmosphere to be protected. He will never read this, and if he does, so what. Occasional venting is only human; vindictive NPA policing just for the sake of it is pointless. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC) I don't know that a block was needed, but the "constructive work atmosphere" does not simply include the vandal and the potty mouth. It includes all the rest of us. Using this type of language does indeed have negative effects on that entire atmosphere (see this conversation for instance). Once again I think the black and white way of looking at this is completely unproductive. Let's not "vindictively police" this but lets acknowledge that the language is unproductive and should be avoided. Why is that so hard to say out loud? Why is it so hard to ask the admin to refrain from this in the future? I don't get it. Let's move on, but lets do the mature thing first.Griswaldo (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC) The negative effect on the working atmosphere here was not caused by his cursing. It was caused by the hysterical over-reaction to it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Funny, I was almost entirely certain I had typed WP:HORN* into my address bar to arrive at this page? jæs (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC) *Wikipedia:Hysterical Over-Reaction Noticeboard. Chicken here egg there, I really don't think identifying one as the cause is objective observation of the matter. I would tend to agree about most of the comments made being molehills and not mountains, but where I come from using the word "retard" is like using the word "fag", both of which are completely inappropriate. Those who are mentally disabled do not deserve to be associated with childishness and vandalism. Just because carbuncle has had an exaggerated response doesn't change that fact either.Griswaldo (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Do not block for incivility. That will just provoke a huge, wasteful drama. Instead, start an WP:RFC/ADMIN instead, and request removal of sysop access via ArbCom if the RFC reflects a consensus to do that. Jehochman Talk 14:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Do not block. Yes, those comments were inappropriate. But all that is needed is a request for some civility. Daicaregos (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC) No block required. PMDrive notified of thread.  Frank  |  talk  15:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Do not block User was obviously stressed and verging on ad hominem territory. He has since recognised this and taken a wikibreak. GainLine ♠ ♥ 16:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Good grief. I hit a wall after cleaning up after this kid for four years. That's why I posted my frustration here. I have, until now, refrained from using really vile language to describe him. His behavior is simply unacceptable and no one who actually pays to run this project seems to be aware of what goes on in the trenches. As for the language, mea culpa. That's why I'm taking a break and apologize for the drama. As for the "piss off" comment, it was made to a sockpuppeteer spamming on behalf of some pharmaceutical firm who first told me to do likewise and wished for me to become sick so that they could "withhold" medication. Another sockpuppet cried foul and "reported" me for the comment. Sorry if I opened up a can of worms, but between those vile, unrelenting insults hurled at us through 4chan/ED and the unrelenting attacks by Bambifan, I just boiled over. By the way, my "threat of violence" was meant as a joke if you'll read the rest of the comment. I have no real desire to physically harm anyone, let alone some kid. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

One point to note though, if you show frustration with colourful comments then it is more likely to lead to further mischieviousness - bit like getting a reaction from teasing. I do think it is probably easier just shouting an expletive at the computer screen while typing calm and neutral language rather than typing out frustrated words (???) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if you express too much frustration, then they know they've won. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

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

I have blocked Delicious carbuncle

A quick look at Dc's most recent contributions shows that they were making pointy edits to WP:NPA to "reflect" the discussion above, and edit warring to keep them there. I considered it disruptive, and blocked them 24 hours. Since I was involved in the above discussion, and had previously blocked Bc, I feel my block should be reviewed and varied if considered appropriate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Reviewed edits. Good block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this block was unnecessary and punitive. Delicious Carbuncle is a regular contributor and was given no warning of any kind. I do agree that his edits to WP:NPA were POINTy and unncessary - but a block was neither necessary nor helpful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I think your opinion is in the minority here. Delicious Carbuncle was effectively harassing another regular contributor who was clearly showing signs of burnout. Sometimes we should ignore the rules out of respect for our fellow unpaid & far too often underappreciated volunteers, & not worry about the tender feelings of some vandal who is wasting our oxygen. -- llywrch (talk) 06:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, I know this is your site, but you haven't dealt with DC. He has drove at least three users away, harrassed a fourth, put me in semi-retirement for 4 months, causes problems wherever he seens fit, trolls the Wiki for nonsense and makes long, never ending threads about them, I could go on. DC needed to be blocked a long, long, long damned time ago. I would die a happy man if DC was never seen on this site again, but I will have to wait for that. Jimbo, good block by LessHeard, best damn block I have seen in weeks, and ZERO need for overturning it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

If that isn't the very definition of punitive, I don't know what is.  Frank  |  talk  15:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary, perhaps - I did consider warning, but the reverts to NPA were against good faith corrections of Dc's edits lead me to believe that they were not interested in communication - but a matter of opinion, but never punitive; I don't do that. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Considering that DC does not view the edits as pointy [107], I don't see how the block could be considered punitive and not preventative. Obviously if they don't see the problem, why would they stop being disruptive? --Smashville^talk 14:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It would have taken only a few seconds to say "Your edits to NPA are POINTy, stop doing that or I will block you." I think there is no question he would have stopped, even if he didn't agree.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it concerns me that a user was blocked without warning because they were arguing a point that was unpopular. It comes across as being very heavy handed. While I don't agree with a lot of what DC was saying, a warning would have been a good start. I have seen far worse behaviour not resulting in blocks in the past. GainLine ♠ _♥ 18:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that line of thought, Jimmy, is that it leads to an editor forming the belief that they can edit war to make a point, inserting the material three times over a period of over two hours, up to the point that they are threatened with a block. Contrary to what you may wish to think, a block has more than a preventative effect (although prevention was sorely needed in this case); it also strongly reinforces the lesson not to do it again. Personally, I do not see that as punitive, but as an extension of prevention, YMMV. The block may have been harsh, but well within normal practice, LHvU. --RexxS (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. A regular here edit-warring on a policy page should not need to be warned -- they should know better. Requiring a warning under these circumstances is a license to disrupt.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

He wasn't blocked because he had an unpopular point of view. He was blocked for edit warring on a core policy page in order to make a point (a particularly baseless point, but that doesn't really matter). Jimbo is entitled to believe that DC would have stopped edit warring if we asked him to, but I don't think that's a hardline requirement before blocking in this instance. Admins aren't clairvoyant, but looking at his contribs immediately before he was blocked gives me the impression he was on a tear and hadn't stopped at the moment of decision. Protonk (talk) 20:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, I feel that the block placed on me by LessHeard vanU was unnecessary. I have to give LessHeard credit where credit is due for once having blocked User:David Shankbone for calling another editor a "cunt", and I didn't make a fuss when they blocked me previously in what they admit was abuse of their admin powers, but I would prefer not to become a favourite target of theirs.

I waited out my block rather than inflame the situation, but look at the facts - I made good faith edits to a policy based on what is clearly common practice, even just based on this thread. I was reverted with no explanation by a shared UK GOV IP, and then by an IP whose edit summary was "rv. Delicious carbuncle needs to give some thought to finding a new hobby if he is going to behave like a juvenile.". Would anyone care to own up to that one? I was perfectly willing to discuss my changes, but neither of those to reverts seemed like anything other than someone trying to be annoying. Incidentally, I will start a discussion on the policy's talk page soon. In the meantime, let me point out the following ignored breaches of WP:NPA just in this thread:

• User:PMDrive1061 - "idiot", "litle freak", "freakazoid", and "I would personally like to medicate this idiot with a very large right fist"
• User:Beeblebrox - "this serial idiot"
• User:FisherQueen - "Well, the 'retarded apes' comment was directed at 4chan vandals. I believe that's a scientifically accurate description of them."
• User:HalfShadow - "4chan aren't people. I firmly believe the members are some form of cockroach. I may go so high as 'rodent'."

Three of those are by admins. Are they serious breaches? For the most part, no, but it is ridiculous to pretend that the policy is being followed as currently written. We should either change the policy or change our behaviour. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Quod licet Iovi non licet bovi. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the block for the same reasons as given by Jimbo. A warning could have been given first. Only when you know beforehand that this is pointless, e.g. based on the block log, you could decide to block rather than e.g. engage in a long discussion. It can be the case that you suspect that such discussions would escalate in insults leading to an even longer block. But I don't think that in this case this was a factor to consider.

Then the edits the dispute is about were made in a pointy way, but there is clearly an issue here that the NPA article should address. DC did not do that in a reasonable way, but it seems to me that there should be a section in that article devoted to dealing with problem editors. Count Iblis (talk) 22:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jimbo (note: I have often, and publicly, disagreed with him). Poor block, a warning should have been given. The block key is a last resort, not a first. Adminship should be exercised with deftness and nuance.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous is not a member of the wikipedia community. Bambiefan is not a member of the wikipedia community. Casting aspersions at 4chan or at whataver malign soul is behing bambiefan may be poor form, but it isn't against any sensible policy we adhere to. There are general suggestions, such as "don't insult the vandals" and explicit prohibitions against personally insulting users on the site. But there is no and should be no wikipedia policy which restricts me from talking freely about people outside the wikipedia community (w/in the confines of BLP and NOT). I assume you are merely confusing prohibitions designed to make the community work, and not purposefully missing the point. But I'm growing less sure of that. Protonk (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm clearly not smart enough to get understand the subtlety here, Protonk, but you appear to be saying that you both think I should have been blocked for my changes to WP:NPA and stating a position that exactly corresponds with the changes I was blocked ofr making. What am I missing? (And this section of WP:NPA defines "every person who edits an article" as a "Wikipedian" - if that's not the case, let's change it...) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Look. Your opinions about NPA are your own. you were blocked because immediately following the closure of a block discussion you initiated you went off to change a policy page in a POINTy manner. The underlying dispute over what NPA should say is almost immaterial. Focusing on it misses the point. In fact, focusing on it obscures the point. Protonk (talk) 00:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Deleting of reference, belittleing small nations and national institutions

User Chipmunkdavis is deleting references from the article. The references that link to national bureau of statistics [108] [109]. Chipmunkdavis's remark as "Croatian POV spam" is on the ethnic basis, belittleing one nation. Ethnic insult. Bureau of statistics=spam????
Chipmunkdavis has been removing the references from the article [110] (this reference [111]).
That's not cooperative behaviour, that's disruptive. It's not the link to some childish freepage, it's a link to scientific magazine.
Since 16-23 July 2010 he engaged in edit war in the article Serbo-Croatian language.
Here's his edits Special:Contributions/Chipmunkdavis.
00:47, 23 July 2010 (diff | hist) Serbo-Croatian language ‎ (Undid revision 374929857 by Croq (talk) It is hard to believe. Very persistent though, knows what they're doing.) [112]
00:05, 23 July 2010 (diff | hist) Serbo-Croatian language ‎ (Undid revision 374926885 by Croq (talk) And remains so in most of its successor states.) [113]
00:01, 23 July 2010 (diff | hist) Serbo-Croatian language ‎ (Undid revision 374925904 by Croq (talk) Agree with direktor. Besides, Croqs lying, he did more than remove a sentence. And the sentence was NPOV.). [114]
Note: He deleted this quoted reference [115] from the text. Who's Chipmunkdavis to declare scientific magazines as NPOV?
This was WP:3RR in 47 minutes!
More of his recent edit wars (under "lots of text"):

lots of text

00:09, 19 July 2010 (diff | hist) Serbo-Croatian language ‎ (Undid revision 374199442 by Croq (talk) Reverting edit warring by Croq)
23:45, 18 July 2010 (diff | hist) Serbo-Croatian language ‎ (Undid revision 374198397 by Croq (talk))
23:23, 18 July 2010 (diff | hist) Serbo-Croatian language ‎ (Undid revision 374192842 by Croq (talk))
00:53, 18 July 2010 (diff | hist) Serbo-Croatian language ‎ (Undid revision 374042564 by Croq (talk) If that is a good source, its bad grammar anyway.)
00:28, 18 July 2010 (diff | hist) Serbo-Croatian language ‎ (Undid revision 374041605 by Croq (talk)No reason it should be mentioned in the lede, otherwise there'd be names everywhere. Please discuss at talkpage)
00:15, 18 July 2010 (diff | hist) Serbo-Croatian language ‎ (Undid revision 374039850 by Croq (talk) A passus is a Roman unit of measurement...)
00:05, 18 July 2010 (diff | hist) Serbo-Croatian language ‎ (Undid revision 374038759 by Croq (talk) That's fine, but unimportant in the lede. In the body it may be included. Lede=summary, not detail.)
23:50, 17 July 2010 (diff | hist) Serbo-Croatian language ‎
23:43, 17 July 2010 (diff | hist) Serbo-Croatian language ‎ (Sorry Croq, seems like a direct politicization of the issue at hand. Please bring edits up in the talk page)
23:05, 17 July 2010 (diff | hist) Serbo-Croatian language ‎ (Undid revision 374029083 by Croq (talk) Who doesn't consider it a south slavic language?)
At least 8 reverts in 25 hours.

The other side in this case, user Croq, has been blocked [116] (because he reinserted references in his 3RR). Croq made 3RR, but he was enriching en.wiki.
Chipmunkdavis violated 3RR rule, but he remained unsanctioned for removing the references[117]. Chipmunkdavis disrupted en.wiki.
And Croq was blocked by the admin Kwamikagami that was in the conflict of interest [118] [119]. Admin Kwamikagami has blocked the opponent on the article. That's misuse of tools.
Problem is basic: deleting of references, 3RR, engaging in revert war, misuse of tools. Kubura (talk) 04:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

27 July 2010 Chipmunkdavis continued edit warring and deleting references.
He also deleted {{NPOV}} tag, although there's a heated discussion on the talkpage about that and big disagreement between editors (talkpage sections named NPOV Stop POV pushing in this article NPOV Tag POV that should be removed.
17:56, 27 July 2010 (diff | hist) Serbo-Croatian language ‎ (Undid revision 375748874 by Croq (talk) I'm undoing to remove the census info. If you want to add NPOV, do it without adding others info.) [120]
17:44, 27 July 2010 (diff | hist) Serbo-Croatian language ‎ (Undid revision 375746919 by Croq (talk) Well-intentioned redundant edit at best, blatant POV at worst.) [121]
Users must have equal treatment. If Croq was blocked for readding first-hand source (National Bureau of Statistics), then Chipmunkdavis must be blocked also, and even more, since he removed those sources and because he belittled small countries [122] (see above "Croatian POV spam"). Kubura (talk) 02:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I in no way see how I am belittling a nation and adding an ethnic insult. I reverted the continuous additions (which broke the edit revert discuss cycle) because they were an attempt to push a Croatian POV, that is that Croatian is not a type of Serbo-Croatian. Such issues have been discussed many times in the talk page. Croq was blocked for one day because he kept trying to push his POV against a consensus and ignoring the discussion of the talk page. As stated by another user when they reverted the same edits which are getting me in trouble, "Having a Ref does not magically make it neutral."

I disagree that reverting the addition of the bolded text in the following sentence "In its by the Yugoslav language unitarianism never fully standardized form" I am preventing the 'enrichment' of the article.

This is what has been continuously added [123], where it adds what is best redundant information, and what appears to be an attempt to show that many Croatians do not speak Serbo-Croatian, especially since it gives different numbers for both Serbo-Croatian and Croato-Serbia, which are the same language.

Croq was not 'enriching' en.wiki but merely trying to push his POV through, repeatedly making the same edits against consensus. He recently started using the talk page to discuss, a move I welcomed. I object that Kwamikagami abused his administrator powers, he was stopping an edit war that was being created by only one person against the consensus of everyone else on the talk page.

As for the NPOV tag, I refrained from ever removing it, and even told another user who deleted it that it be left there. The one time I did remove it was when it was added with some other edits that again were breaking the edit revert discuss cycle.

Notice Croq is Croatian, and that Kubara is probably Croatian, given he claims he speaks it on his userpage. The other users trying to push the point also claim to speak Croatian (the Hr language userbox).

Additionally, isn't the problem supposed to be discussed on my talk page before it is moved here? All I got was a one line warning and no response from that person when I replied.

Respectfully, the other side was trying to create an edit war, repeatedly adding the same information after it had been reverted. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh what rot! :) Chipmunkdavis was not acting inappropriately in any way. Deleting references? The sources were quite plainly incorrectly cited, and the insertion of the text they supposedly "supported" was opposed by the community - so an attempt was made by them to push the edits via incessant uncompromising edit-war. Then the guy opposing "brute force methods" of POV editing gets reported for alleged "edit-warring". This is exactly the sort of stuff I deal with on virtually a daily basis.

As for the alleged "belittleing small nations", those accusations should probably not even be dignified with a response. I'm a Croat myself and nothing Chipmunkdavis did or said was insulting in any way vis-à-vis Croatia and/or its institutions. This is quite simply and obviously a nonsense attempt to bully Chipmunkdavis into withdrawing from the discussion. Don't fall for it Chip, its standard-issue Balkans wikiwarfare. :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No bias at all. Chipmunkdavis is not the one that can say that National Bureaus of Statistics are "POV spam". He's not the source we refer to.
Croatian census 2001 [124] shows 4,961 person declared their language as "Serbian-Croatian", while 2,054 declared their language as "Croatian-Serbian", obviously making difference. Chipmunkdavis say "it's one language". These persons don't think so.
Serbian census 2002 (old links [125] [126]) [127] shows no declared speakers of "Serbian-Croatian" nor "Croatian-Serbian". So, two war adversaries (if you want it: "Balkan" adversaries!), Croatia and Serbia are in accord here.
Chipmunkdavis' action is vandalism (removing of reference) and censorship (WP:CENSOR), sinced he removed the info that proved his attitude wrong. "Redundant information" is not the excuse for censorship.
Chipmunkdavis violated rule WP:3RR. If other side was blocked, he must also be blocked.
Chipmunkdavis said for the Croatian National Bureau of Statistics that it's "Croatian POV spam" [128] [129]. And if that was Israeli National Bureau of Statistics? Would he then use words like "Israeli" or "Jewish" instead of "Croatian" in the edit summary [130]? Do you see now how rude he was? Kubura (talk) 03:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

So what exactly is the difference between "Croatian", "Serbo-Croatian" & "Croato-Serbian"? If I remember correctly, the major differences are more political than lexical or grammatical; omitting the significance of this fact would violate NPOV, whether intentionally or inadvertently. The problem here is that while the Croatian government agency is undoubtedly interpreting the census returns accurately, more or less, the individuals filling out the reports are providing the problematic information. I believe the best solution in using this official source would be to say something along the lines of "while 4.265.081 citizens of Croatia are reported to speak Croatian, 7,015 report that they speak either Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian" & leave it to the reader to suss out the significance of these different labels. But back to the original disagreement, I believe neither party is providing a durable solution to this issue, & the only way to do would be to submit this to a binding mediation. -- llywrch (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

In modern Croatian, AFAIK, the term SC is only used for the defunct Yugoslav language standard. In fact, you can argue that there never was such a standard, that it was a 'bi-standard' (Serbian + Croatian) papered over with the term 'SC', a political fiction. Thus we hear the claim that SC does not exist and never has existed, and also that by using the term SC we're pushing Yugoslav ideology over Croatian nationalism. This is where Croq is coming from. BTW, Croq has been quite cooperative recently, so I have hopes that this can all be resolved civilly. (The two of us seem to agree completely on what I just said; the problem is that he doesn't yet seem to see my next point, which is how most English speakers see it.)

In English, the term SC has long been used for the language of the Croats, Serbs, Bosniaks, and Montenegrins, independent of, and even prior to, any connection with Yugoslavia. It's been used that way at least as far back as the 1870s. Post-Yugoslavia it has become somewhat deprecated, at least in some circles, AFAIK principally because of Croat objections; nonetheless, there is no good alternate term. The only viable alternative is "Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian/Montenegrin", which is rather awkward. "Central South Slavic diasystem" is occasionally seen, but has other problems. Anyway, the most common name in English is probably still SC.

Anyway, objections to the name should be handled by suggesting a better name with a RfM. Claims that the language is "controversial" or "disputed" are really problems with the name, not the language, and we devote a good section of text to naming and language politics; likewise, census figures of 'X speakers of SC' are numbers of Serbs & Croats who identify their language as SC, not speakers of a distinct language.

There are, of course, distinct Croatian and Serbian (and Bosnian) language standards, and so they are different languages by that criterion. This is similar to ESL students choosing to study British or American English. We cover that, and have distinct Croatian language, Bosnian language, and Serbian language articles. However, dialectologically, in terms of mutual intelligibility, they are a single language (a single dialect, even), and this is where the term SC comes in in English. Another objection to the term has been that Croatian and Serbian include different dialects even if their standards are the same dialect; while true, the term SC covers all BCSM dialects. — kwami (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz edit-warring across articles with several editors

Normally I would take this to the edit-warring board, but this is broader and speaks to larger behavioral issues-civility, 3RR, editwarring, and ignoring multiply-cited Wikipedia policies and other editors requests to talk.

The dozen articles have to do with Japanese adult video actresses. This is a subject many find touchy, but Wikipedia is not censored, and each image has a proper and comprehensive fair-use rationale. Japanese laws have particular requirements that private photos of celebrities are most-often out of bounds, so for AV actresses, separate rules apply, which have been pointed out to User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. On his userpage, he states "The last time I did what I could to follow policy. But I was regularly hounded by aggressive editors because they did not want to." The three editors he is warring with have kept fully within policy, it is he that is being aggressive. I hesitate to label it a crusade, but jihad is a little strong.

Users Testales, Dekkappai and I have repeatedly directed Hullaballoo Wolfowitz to please read WP:NFC#UULP and Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography#Acceptable sources of fair use photos before removing images.

Articles I am aware of include Junko Miyashita, Bunko Kanazawa, Madoka Ozawa, Haruki Mizuno, Manami Yoshii, Kei Mizutani, Kazuko Shirakawa...

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nao_Saejima&action=history example of one I was not involved in, just to see the course of things

--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 03:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I want to point out that existing copyrighted images can be made free by the copyright holder through a license or a complete release into the public domain. Whatever right of publicity an actress may enjoy in Japan does not override the fact that the copyright holder (normally the photographer or the company that paid for the shoot) controls how the picture is used according to US law, not the subject. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the issue here is over the images. We can discuss those and determine their appropriateness. The issue here is Hullaballoo Wolfowitz' continuous edit-warring. When reverted he, without fail, simply reverts. Whether he is right or wrong in individual cases is one thing. The issue here is that he nearly always gets his way through strong-arm editing tactics. I think he has made several good editors sick and tired of this behavior, and that is what this notice is about. Dekkappai (talk) 04:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what the etiquette is in terms of displaying disputed non-free images. I know that clear copyright violations should be removed immediately but don't know beyond that. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Hullaballoo's edit-warring goes far beyond the removal of Fair use images. Characterizing legal Fair use as "copyright violation" does not change this. Dekkappai (talk) 04:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking over the applicable policy, WP:NFCC, "Instead, the file should be removed from the articles for which it lacks a non-free-use rationale, or a suitable rationale added" and "Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created—see burden of proof" applies here. Saying that no new free content can be created because a person is too old or protects her privacy is not true and may not be a valid rationale. It would be nice for HW to explain why he thinks the rationale is not valid or suitable. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

For the last time: This is not a discussion of fair use images. This is a discussion of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz' editing behavior. Had HE instigated such a discussion in this case and in many, many other cases, he and the many editors he has instead offended or driven off Wikipedia could have come to an amicable agreement. Dekkappai (talk) 05:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The edit warring is over the images though. The burden of proof to show that something adheres to policy is on the editor who adds the item. Are there examples of the editors actually trying to initiate discussion with HW explaining how it does comply before adding the images back? Are there specific examples of HW responding or ignoring the discussion? These are diffs that admins will need to look at rather than try to dig through the article histories. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No, this is not a discussion of images. There is a long history behind Hullaballoo Wolfowitz' hyper-agressive editing. Please do not further attempt to derail the discussion to fair use image policy. I did not get involved in this after Hullaballoo first removed these images-- all my uploads. I was tired of this editor's non-stop battle tactics, and was in fact prepared to let him have these. I resent my time being used in this forum as well-- I am here at Wikipedia to contribute content, not to play these childish battle games which editors like Hullaballoo Wolfowitz create. The editing history of the pages below show that I did not get involved until other editors raised objections. It was the fact that Hullaballoo steam-rolled over them that got me involved. For just one example of the recent spate of edit-wars:

• Junko Miyashita
  1. HB removes image
  2. User:Testales restores image citing: WP:NFC#UULP and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography#Acceptable_sources_of_fair_use_photos.
  3. Rather than follow Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, Hullaballoo instigates an edit war by reverting
  4. I step in and revert Hullaballoo encouraging him to discuss
  5. He does not discuss, but reverts me

The exact same pattern can be seen at: Kazuko Shirakawa, Bunko Kanazawa, Kei Mizutani, Marina Matsushima, Nao Saejima, Haruki Mizuno, Madoka Ozawa, Manami Yoshii, and Kimiko Matsuzaka. Again, this is all just one instance of this editor's agressive editing technique, but to cite even a fraction would be far beyond the scope of this page. A full RfC is probably in order. Dekkappai (talk) 06:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I see that the discussion on both sides in the Miyashita example is inadequate since they are solely using the edit summaries to do this. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

And do you also see that it is one editor warring against several? That is the point of this ANI, and you have been asked to address this specific already. Please do so.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 11:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

A bunch of members of the wanking fraternity (sum of all human knowledge, you know) complaining that perhaps innapproprietly licensed images are being removed? I'm shocked.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, what a well founded and sophisticated formulated reply. Maybe you can write it a bit more insulting?! I am shocked even more. If you have problem with pornography, please keep it for yourself. If you see despite Wikipedia:Sexual_content a problem with pornography related topics beeing part of the Wikipedia main project, I would even agree with you. But in this case you should consider to put that up for discussion at a more suitable place. I will write more later on the actual subject, so please see this just as a reminder to keep this discussion at a certain level. Testales (talk) 13:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, let me be direct. No I don't have a "problem" with pornography -- an occasional consumer of it myself and I believe that there should be plenty of coverage of the subject in an encyclopedia -- from truly famous pornographic movies, to some discussion of genres, to sociological/political looks at it. What i have a problem with is a bunch of fanboys scrabbling around filing wikipedia with as much non-notable soft-porn as possible, and then complaining when someone takes notice and tries to clean up after them. I mean look at this articles created list: [131] which includes vital encyclopedia content like Sister-in-Law's Wet Thighs, Widow * Second Wife: Real Sucking Engulfing a Rare Utensil and Continuous Adultery 2: A Portrait of Incest between Sisters. The wanking community needs less input on content here, not more.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have anything of value to say? If you think any of those notable, award-winning erotic films are unworthy of articles, take them to AfD. In either case not one comment, not one personal attack, not one display of ignorance, bias and prudery that you have made here is of any relevance whatsoever. I'd suggest you apologize and leave this discussion unless you can say something constructive about the actual issue. Dekkappai (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well played sir. "Fourth place" at something called the "Pink Grand Prix" definitely justifies the loving treatment you've devoted to Sister-in-Law's Wet Thighs. Yes, I guess the wanking material must stay then. The stuff all fails the GNG, but there simply aren't enough hours in the day to keep up with your emissions. Someday, maybe, actual standards will be set and this stuff can be cleaned up wholesale. In the meantime, good on wolfowitz for trying to do the right thing.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Again, if you have issues here, this is WRONG place. If you are not happy with the current WP:GNG, WP:NF or WP:PORNBIO go to the related talk page and DISCUSS. Until this you have absolutely no right to disapprove the work of other editors. I am also very aware of the work that Dekkappai does and I was also critical to that and I am still regarding some aspects, see this and that for example. But if there should be additional and special restrictions for adding Pornography related information then this can surely not be solved within the scope of WP:P*. These "non-notable soft-porn" films (does soft increase or decrease the value btw.?!) have won notable prizes and it also seems that especially Pink films can not easily be compared with certain western low budget trash productions, they seem have a much higher cultural value as one may expect. But either way, calling hardworking (and truly!) contributing editors like Dekkappai "fanboys" is without any doubt a serious personal attack. Testales (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, you and I disagree. I think this is the RIGHT place to discuss problem editors. My ultimate hope is to draw attention and to convince people with power to eventually take action. I understand you're not happy that scrutiny has shifted onto you and the folks you made this complaint with. So it goes. The de-bodiced images placed on wikipedia to promote the films are soft-porn. My problem with them is that none of them approach, or could even begin to approach, proper encyclopedia articles (since there's no scholarly consideration of these individual films, no reviews outside the porn-industry marketing conspecifics, no consideration of their merit and importance set within a larger context, etc...) My objection to this content is much the same (philosophically) as my objection to a great deal of wikipedia content that has nothing to do with pornography. There is nothing remotely educational or enlightening about these "articles." In Dekkappai's case, it's basically just a video directory for people who like to masturbate to rape fantasies and the like. Since the subjects are frequently illustrated with pictures of purely prurient interest (that are generally not fair use), that the "actresses" frequently wish their past in porn forgotten when they leave the industry, since the articles are maintained and compiled by obsessives from within a walled garden, I suppose the porn is a bit worse in my eyes than, say, the obsessive science fiction and video game ghettos. Again: I understand why you'd like to make this about one editors conduct rather than content. I just happen to believe that the underlying content issues are the ones to focus on.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks to me like Hullabaloo is in the clear here: WP:3RR grants an exemption to "Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy", and the example above certainly seems to fall into that category. Wikiproject guidelines cannot create an exemption to WP:NFCC, and any Japanese laws concerning fair use have no impact on Wikipedia, making the images wholly replaceable.—Kww(talk) 14:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Then what did he have to lose by discussing rather than edit-warring? Dekkappai (talk) 14:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussing would have been better. Ultimately, though, all those images have to go. If he had notified me (or probably most admins) of the problem he was facing, he could have received assistance as well. This is one of those cases where the people reporting the problem are more at fault than the one being reported: removing NFCC violations is the obligation of all editors and admins, while chronically inserting them can result in blocks.—Kww(talk) 14:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Not discussing is what caused this issue to come to a head. I was long prepared to see all these images removed. They are not the issue. The edit-warring is the issue. Other editors brought up concerns which needed discussing-- and which, though it doesn't matter here, you ignore. Even had they eventually been thrown out, the place for that discussion was THEN, not here. The issue here is Hullaballoo Wolfowitz' constantly aggressive, edit-warring behavior. Here is another recent example. This one doesn't involve images:

1. Rather than tagging for sourcing, he simply removes a list of interviewees in a film
2. He is reverted noting that the film is the source (a WikiProject film guideline with which I happen to disagree)
3. Rather than discuss, Hullaballoo reverts, instigating an edit-war
4. After an editor takes up the task of sourcing each name, Hullaballoo Again deletes the list
5. a third editor reverts Hullaballoo
6. :::Hullaballoo again blindly reverts

Again, this has nothing to do with images-- I was long prepared to see those images removed anyway. This has to do with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz' CONSTANT edit-warring. Dekkappai (talk) 14:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh-- your reference to Japanese law was confusing at first, because no one has made such a reference. The references the other side made were to Wikipedia policy. Your use of this imaginary claim to join in Hullaballoo's edit-warring, just because you think he is in the right, confirms the faith expressed in you at your RfA, KWW. Dekkappai (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Let me explain what I see here: The issue-- HB's edit-warring and aggressive editing patters-- are OK as long as certain Admins agree with his position. So much for "consensus", and I am out of here. Dekkappai (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

As an admin, I am responsible for upholding WP:NFCC. Most people who voted in my RFA expressed faith that I understood policies and would enforce them fairly. I believe I have done so. As noted above, removing NFCC violations is an explicit exemption to 3RR. Doing so to the same article repetitively is no more of a problem than repeatedly removing vandalism. That's the issue you face: HW has not committed any offense against Wikipedia policies or guidelines by repeatedly removing these images.—Kww(talk) 14:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I have come across the user at issue in addressing a similar discussion, and I came away with a good impression of his understanding of Wikipedia's policies. We are dealing here with sticky issues of copyright and BLP issues (not arising in this particular case, but in other articles that this editor works on). He is, obviously, a stickler who does not always take the time to communicate his concerns in a way that makes others feel that they have been addressed civilly. However, he is largely on the right side of policy. I would suggest that he bring these issues here before reverting an alleged copyvio addition a second time. Other than that, I do not think administrative action is warranted at this time. bd2412 T 15:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Another recent instance of Hullaballoo's edit-warring and bullying can be seen in the history of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Seven_Minutes_(film)&action=history where he repeatedly removed sourced information eventually leading to the article's protecting, and then a ridiculous level of over-sourcing to quell his alleged concerns. (Russ Meyer known as "King of the nudies?" nine sources for that potential BLP violation...) But, as the ignoring of the above non-image-releated second example shows, the point of this discussion is being purposely avoided in line with ideological biases. Some openly stated, others hidden by unrelated policy discussion... Dekkappai (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Off-topic In regard to these pictures, I have one question that should Wikipedia use nude picture such as in the article Kaoru Kuroki? It should be a image with high commercial value which is described in point 2 of the WP:NFCC. And I also think that nude pictures like this one are the reason why Hullaballoo Wolfowitz act so aggressively.--AM ^(talk) 17:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Not really off-topic. The fair-use argument is predicated on the concept that Japanese law applies to Wikipedia, which is not true.—Kww(talk) 18:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

So now we're supposed to believe that the reason for Hullaballoo's edit-warring over content, images and sourcing is because of... one image he didn't remove? Makes as much sense as the "Japanese law" argument Kww is refuting, I suppose, which, again, no one ever mentioned during HB's Wiki-approved edit-wars. Why not join the edit-war and threaten blocking too? Might get you an Adminship here. Again: The images can go. And they would have without controversy if Hullaballoo had not instigated edit-warring. Hullaballoo's behavior in many, many articles is the issue here. The images are just the LAST instance of his violation. Dekkappai (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The reason for my assumption is come from this edit. I think that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz don't like to see a gallery of content which is both erotic and non-free. Nevertheless, noone answer my concern yet. Should we use copyrighted and erotic contents to illustrate these kind of articles (assuming that these uses are fair enough)?--AM ^(talk) 02:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm having trouble following this logic: If wolfowitz hadn't tried to remove the images they... would have been removed anyway? And appropriately trying to remove copyrighted images was the problem because it led to edit warring on the part of editors (including yourself) who wanted the images to remain? But you don't really care about the images anyways (i.e. "they can go.")? And compounding the problem was another editor joining in and helping to remove the problem images (the images you say you don't care about but are the "last instance of (wolfowitz') violation)? And the "Japanese law argument" that was brought up by the original complainer, right here on this page, was not in fact ever made? It's all so confusing.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm coming in late today on this, and find that I have very little to add to the analysis of Morbidthoughts and, in particular, the thoughtful comments of Kww. Where other editors have attempted to meet the burden required to meet NFCC requirements, I've participated in discussion, as at Talk:Nao_Saejima and given even fuller explanation at User_talk:Tabercil#HB_at_it_again and at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_July_27#File:Kimiko_Matsuzaka.jpg. Without any substantive defense of such dubious content (as Bali Ultimate and others pointed out last year in a BLP dispute we were both involved in), requiring editors removing that content to engage in extended discussions simply frustrates policy enforcement. The underlying issue is a well-settled policy question; as is demonstrated, for example, in the extended discussion over the use of a nonfree image in the Twiggy article, the exception suggested in WP:NFC#UULP is rarely allowed, and requires specific, well-referenced textual support. On the other hand, statements like one referring to the subject's "big bust," as is the case in one of the articles in dispute, hardly require visual aids to be properly understood.
Dekkappai and I have been engaged in a long-running series of content disputes over BLP sourcing, and from the beginning [132] [133] [134] [135] Dekkappai has engaged in uncivil personal attacks, a pattern which extends to his comments on other editors (note, for example, this edit summary from the current discussion [[136]]). I hope greater attention is paid to this behavior in the future; it is disruptive and deters participation by other editors. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

At this point, it is apparent that nothing relevant to the purpose of this noticeboard will come from further discussion of the topic. I suggest closure of this discussion. Policy disputes can be handled elsewhere. bd2412 T 20:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Refocusing on the behavioral complaint

Comment: This entire discussion has become pointless at the moment an administrator demonstrated that WP:BATTLE can very well lead to success. It might have been understandable to do such a mass-revert again while the discussion is still running if there were a reason of urgency but I can't see any. The very root of this is - I repeat it once again - that small policy note of WP:NFC#UULP which even has an own shortcut. As despite at lot of pointing to that it was continously completly and simply ignored, I will quote the deciding part again too.

"However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable.".

Several of the models in question have retired and/or have visually changed a lot. Furthermore the notability of a model is inherently connected with his or her visual appearance. Porn stars are usually models too, some even get shoot for erotic art and by notable photographers and notable magazines. It should also be obvious that a very ugly actor can not become notable in that business. At least I have never seen or heard that say a distorted or handicapped actor has been given a regular and notable award even though there are handicapped and distorted actors doing pornography. Very old people who start in pornography are not awarded or notable either here although there is apparently some demand for grandmas having sex on camera. So it should be absolutly obvious that [[WP:NFC#UULP] can be applied here without any doubt and this was also the reason why this time some editors rebelled against Hullaboos agressive and massive deleting/reverting every day. It should be obvious but no... As it is impossible for some people to admit mistakes but also hard to just override what a policy page clearly explains (and only having WP:NFCC would leave A LOT of room for interpreation), some ridiculous justification is improvised. I seriously doubt that there would be consensus in the claim that the visual appearance is not important for a model's success. I also get the STRONG impression that there is actually a proxy war behind the scenes, waged by some people who are very unhappy of having pornographic topics on Wikipedia. I think Bali ultimate was very direct here, even going to personal attacks which makes wonder whether Wikipedia:CIV is accepted to be ignored for some topics. I also read several statements regarding that which clearly prove no deeper knowlegde, just the impression one may get at a quick glance and biased with the base attitude that there is no way pornography can be notable or were notabilitly can be reduced to "their willingness to have sex in a studio with bright lights and cameras." as Kww puts it "thoughtfully".

Regarding Hullaboo, no he nas not broken clearly any policy rules. He is also super active but I doubt that he in his many 1000s of edits has added a single byte of new information. He also completly seems to ignore any constructive ideas behind WP:RV, including the very basic advice "reword rather than revert". At least I have never seen him actually improving something or trying to find a better source. There is always only reverting and deletion. (Feel free to prove me wrong.) That may be against the idea that was originally behind Wikipedia but it is not against the current "rules".

Furthermore it is plain wrong (to say it nicely!), that there was no substantive defense. In fact it took several reverts by other editors to make Hullaboo even start to discuss and even then he "left" [the middle]. Instead of that, he created a IfD. While it may bascially be a good idea to have a representative case that was firstly quite late and secondly he didn't even leave a note on the already ongoing discussion. I furthermore see no clue for "the exception suggested in WP:NFC#UULP is rarely allowed, and requires specific, well-referenced textual support". I also doubt that this is only suggested as policies are "binding" and not mere guidelines. There is also no indication for rare aside the point that non-free material should generally be used rarely. He never brought up this argument anyway.

So this is the situation here: An admin says the visual appearance of models doesn't matter and therefore the rule doesn't apply and an editor claiming that this rule is rare exception that is only suggested and needs also well-referenced textual support (whatever this would mean in this conext). I am always suprised how even for very simple and clear rules there are always people who are still able to interpret them in a different way.

I initially planned to add some links here which may enlight a bit the typical behaviour of Hullaboo usually beeing not very communicative (nicely said again) and always in clear contrast to WP:RV but the unopposed harsh statements of User:Bali ultimate) and the quick and symbolic actions of an administrator make that rather pointless. That also shows there are is apparently a problem with at least pornography related topics that must be discussed in wider scope - on a different place.

Testales (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's time rather to re-focus on the root problem brought to this forum: HW's repeated incivility and hostility toward editors with whom he disagrees, as this IS the place to deal with repeated edit warring and repeated violations of WP:CIV when other means of resolution have proved ineffective. As Wikipedia encourages discussion as a means to solve differences of opinion and/or to clarify one's comments, to instead choose to NOT begin or involve himself in such discussions acts against policy and guideline... making Wilipedia an unpleasent place to even dare offer an opinion... and THAT's why this ANI was opened... to gain input about repeated edit-warring and repeated violations of WP:CIV. While HW can indeed be a productive editor, and has contributed to the cleaning of many articles, he is not the final arbiter, and he does not WP:OWN any of the articles he chooses to edit. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Then bring forth examples of bad behaviour. This complaint was framed in terms of his removal of images that are clear NFCC violations. Since that behaviour is clearly exempt from our edit-warring policies, there wasn't much to be done (and I'm sorry, Testales ... the violation is clear and unambiguous, as the arguments you apply are equally applicable to thousands of mainstream performers where NFCC has been held to prohibit the image use). I'm perfectly happy to examine misbehavior on HW's part if someone brings forth examples of it.

As for my opposition being to pornographic pictures, I think an quick examination of my deletion log and speedy nominations show that most copyright violations I delete or nominate for deletion are of mainstream celebrities.—Kww(talk) 23:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

And I have myself repeatedly stated that I do not think pornography belongs on an open Wikipedia. However, here's a recent example of incivity and lack of discussion and skirting 3RR as if he WP:OWNed the article: 9to5 – Days in Porn: Repeatedly reverting editors[137] until literally forced into discussion,[138] when a simple removal of mis-linked names would have easily sufficed. And then there are examples of his taking other's comments of of context, twisting their words, impuning their integrity, while at the same time insulting the editor. There was absolutely no cause for his rudeness at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raven Riley (2nd nomination), or his calling another's comments "ranting" as he did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lena Li (2nd nomination), or his attacking the editor and not the edits at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Rogers (singer) (3rd nomination), or his wikilawyering at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claudia Costa (2nd nomination). Please... do I need to find and offer all such examples of negativity toward others? What is ironic here is that in his own words, HW states "One of the least civil aspects of Wikipedia is the way some combatants in AFD and other areas engage in content-free needling of editors they disagree with rather than engaging in civil, policy-based discussions,"[139] when yet he is so often guilty of that very same behavior. Again, he does some fine work, even though he rarely contibutes content or searches for sources, and he is far more likely to scold others for not doing the searches or content contributions he himself does not do. But what I think what is needed here is simply his being urged/asked/instructed to be more civil and not assume the worst in other editors. Or is my opinion here just "whining"? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm on my way out the door. I'll look at this in 4 or 5 hours.—Kww(talk) 00:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've looked. I can see your point It's obvious that he has formed a low opinion of several editors, and it shows. It doesn't rise to block level in my mind, but it would be quite adequate fodder for an RFC. I don't think ANI is the appropriate venue for it.—Kww(talk) 03:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

And sadly, he and these others (myself included) do not always disagree... often finding common ground for deletes or keeps at various AFDs... and contrary to some of his far-too-often repeated accusation that I try to keep "virtually anything that's ever been mentioned online", I am quite willing opine delete at AFD and have done so in agreement with him many times. It's just that when he decides that he and he alone is right, it's a bad time to have a differing opinion. Perhaps incivility toward only certain editors and only at certain times may not in and of itself be blockable, but it is his willingness to escalate to insult and create a devisive atmosphere that is of concern. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there's cause for concern. I just think RFC/U is the more appropriate venue.—Kww(talk) 13:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Quick comment, if a number of editors disagree with an action, even a NFCC action, and they have a valid policy argument, there should be actual discussion, not repeated direct action. Yes, removing non-free material can be exempt from 3RR, but when a real issue is raised, and of a certainly the claim that this is a situation where "retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance" has come into play means this should go for a proper discussion (at FfD in this case). This might well meet our guidelines and policies for inclusion. Ignoring for a moment if HW was abusing the tools or not I think restoring and listing at FfD for cases where reasonable policy arguments exist would be the best action at this point. Hobit (talk) 03:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

If the images managed to survive FFD, then putting them back in the article would be justified. Removing them from the article is not deletion.—Kww(talk) 03:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Correct, my mistake in understanding what's going on. That said, if they are removed from the article and thus aren't in any article, aren't they eligible for speedy deletion as orphaned non-free images? Did that sentence even parse? I'm off to bed...Hobit (talk) 04:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

That's part of the reason for the 7-day interval requirement for orphaned images: it gives time for FFD to run its course.—Kww(talk) 13:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe Hobit has hit on the important point in this matter: the need for discussion, even when it concerns applying policy. There has been a common misunderstanding that Wikipedia policy is somehow the equivalent of rules or laws, & therefore needs to be enforced. Policy is nothing more than the consensus opinion about a number of issues, & the way that consensus is applied is through discussion. That means not only does one need a plausible & reasonable argument for invoking Wikipedia:ignore all rules, but also one for getting other Wikipedians to follow policy; saying that something "violates policy" or "violates consensus" is an acceptable explanation only for the most obvious instances. (This approach has been more or less described at WP:BRD.) Sanctions only come into play when an individual refuses to participate or accept plausible arguments, because this is disruptive & harms Wikipedia. The original complaint -- that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was repeatedly unlinking images against the wishes of others without discussion -- thus is valid. But if HW understands that she/he was mistaken in how she/he was applying policy & is willing instead to use discussion in the future, any form of sanctions here would be inappropriate. -- llywrch (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

But he was not mistaken. Once he challenged the material, it needed to be removed until there was consensus to readd, especially since it's a blatantly obvious NFCC#1 violation. His removal makes it clear that there was not a consensus to restore the material. Anyone could have taken the material to FFD. If somehow a consensus was achieved that this was one of the vanishingly rare exceptions to the general agreement that copyrighted pictures cannot be used to illustrate BLPs, it could be restored. Until that agreement is reached, the image can't be in the article. It was the restoration that was disruptive, not the removal.—Kww(talk) 17:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Given that this is _exactly_ the case spelled out as an exception to the general rule, I think it's reasonable to say that edit warring to keep it out isn't the right way to go. BRD applies when a good faith objection is made and execpt in the case of vandalism or other bad faith actions, discussing is always the right thing to do. Further, you are saying that those wanting the image in the article take it to FfD and need to do so immediately when someone removes a non-free image from an article? How the heck are they suppose to know that? My understanding for AfD is that you are only supposed to do that when you want it deleted; people have been told they are violating WP:POINT for bringing things to AfD they want kept. Is FfD different? Hobit (talk) 01:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the exception case at all. No one has demonstrated the existence of any source whatsoever that indicates that the appearance of these particular women is in any way unique or relevant to their notability. I know it creates a Catch-22 for people that get caught by someone that is anal about "don't nominate for deletion unless you yourself want the deletion", but there was no consensus to include the images: the very fact that WH removed them a second time proves the lack of consensus. Whenever there is a controversy, policy favors removal of the controversial material, not the inclusion.—Kww(talk) 03:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Kww could you please prove this strange point? What about WP:STATUSQUO?! Not to mention that ideas behind Wikipedia:RV have one again completly been ignored by HW. Testales (talk) 07:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No more than they were ignored by people that inserted it, and somewhat less since he accurately pointed at a policy. WP:BURDEN is overarching: people that want to include material have to prove their case, people that want to remove it do not. And, responding to your comment below, this isn't an "extreme" interpretation of WP:NFCC. This is run-of-the-mill. There are tens of thousands of biography articles without pictures because there aren't free images available, and there is no particular reason that Japanese porn stars form an exceptional group.—Kww(talk) 15:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Hobbit either you are one of apparently few editors left who seem not have to forgotten the original spirit or your comment is just funny. Just open your eyes, it's not even that policies are treated word-by-word as ultimate law but they same applies even to guidelines. If you want to deleted something, just point to a guideline that may in extreme way POSSIBLY be interpreted as supporting the delete and you are done. Not discussion needed, because you "improved" Wikipedia by enforcing its "law". (Can give an example where even a very experienced editor obviously even confuses policiy and guideline). Furthermore, I mean we are talking here about some icon-sized images who show even less than the cover of a typical TV guide. Images that have been on Wikipedia for years and which existence is even still CLEARY allowed (there was still no argument real against it!) by the currenty policies. So even if there are such apparently idiot-proof explanations on a policy page there are still people who simply nullify that, just read that section here. So because there is one guy deletes ONLY who wanted to have a set of fairly uncritical images deleted and (at least) 4 people don't agree with him. Still he enforces that with edit war and gets even support here by an admin. Sorry, but this is just ridiculous. As if that would be not enough, the involved editors even get called "gang of pornhounds" and "fan boys". At least half of the editors that were against the removing do not even work regulary in that area but still, they are just "wanking community". Wikipedia has become quite an unfriendly place as it seems. Now I really need to go to a policy discussion to clear up a point which is actually not missunderstandable, only because somebody want to deleted some harmless images for a questionable motivation. No, I am unable to assume good faith here, not seeing the edit warring to enforce this deletion. Testales (talk) 07:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The full story

Ok, let's focus on the actual case, I tried to keep out the policy question from start anyway, see my replies to User:Bali ultimate. So here is the full story, sorry if this now gets a bit lengthy but it should allow to judge the situation. I hope it's ok that I created another sub-section because of the length, if not feel free to merge it with the other one. Let me also say that the behaviour on both sides was not perfect and if very well meaning seen it possibly could even be seen as bad timing combined with missunderstanding. But unfortunately this seems to be more a typical pattern of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz practices.

It all starts here:

Extended content

Hullaboo: 05:51, 19 July 2010: Junko Miyashita (nonfree image in BLP infobox) 05:52, 19 July 2010: Kazuko Shirakawa (nonfree image in BLP infobox) 05:55, 19 July 2010: Bunko Kanazawa (nonfree image in BLP infobox) 05:57, 19 July 2010: Kei Mizutani (nonfree image in BLP infobox) 05:59, 19 July 2010: Marina Matsushima (nonfree image in BLP infobox) 06:01, 19 July 2010: Kimiko Matsuzaka (nonfree image in BLP infobox) 06:03, 19 July 2010: Nao Saejima (nonfree image in BLP infobox) 06:04, 19 July 2010: Haruki Mizuno (nonfree image in BLP infobox) 06:06, 19 July 2010: Madoka Ozawa (nonfree image in BLP infobox) 06:08, 19 July 2010: Manami Yoshii (nonfree image in BLP infobox) Note the quick timing, I left out no other edits here. What may have HW searched here and with what intention? Anyway, some days later when I was reading policies again, I stumbled over WP:NFC#UULP. I verified this by checking the corresponding point at WP:P* again, which states: Fair Use - see Wikipedia:Image description page for rationale for fair use. Publicity photos are often useful for this, but be careful - non-free (fair use) images are only allowed if a free image could not reasonably be created. If the person is dead, is a recluse, or currently looks significantly different than during their career, then the image is not replaceable. But for most active stars, a non-free image would be deemed "replaceable" and would be deleted. So I was convinced (and I still am) that this is enough to justify reverts while pointing to these rules in the summary. Testales: 18:23, 25 July 2010: Nao Saejima (Readded image, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz please read WP:NFC#UULP again and possibly also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography#Acceptable_sources_of_fair_use_photos before removing images.) 18:27, 25 July 2010: Junko Miyashita (Reverted, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz please read WP:NFC#UULP again and possibly also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography#Acceptable_sources_of_fair_use_photos before removing images.) 18:36, 25 July 2010: Kimiko Matsuzaka (Reverted. A non-free promotional image is acceptabled here due to WP:NFC#UULP : subject has retired and her earlier visual appearance is of importance.) I had only reverted the 3 most obvious cases, that means either the subject has retired or looks significantly different which one can expect if an actress is now over 60 and got known while she was say arround 24. I was not sure about the other cases, that may have to be discussed I thought, and wanted to see what happens next. Now another editor appears who picks up "the ball". Kintetsubuffalo, reverting more "contributions" of HW: 10:08, 26 July 2010: Bunko Kanazawa (Readded image, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz please read WP:NFC#UULP again and possibly also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography#Acceptable_sources_of_fair_use_photos before removing images.) 10:09, 26 July 2010: File:Bunko Kanazawa.jpg (Readded image, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz please read WP:NFC#UULP again and possibly also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography#Acceptable_sources_of_fair_use_photos before removing images.) (...) 10:16, 26 July 2010: Kei Mizutani (Readded image, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz please read WP:NFC#UULP again and possibly also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography#Acceptable_sources_of_fair_use_photos before removing images.) 10:17, 26 July 2010: File:Kazuko Shirakawa.jpg (Readded image, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz please read WP:NFC#UULP again and possibly also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography#Acceptable_sources_of_fair_use_photos before removing images.) I actually expected at least some REASON from Hullaboo either seeking discussion or only not accepting questionables cases. But no... Hullaboo: 17:20, 26 July 2010: Kazuko Shirakawa (rv, nonfree image in blp infobox, no legit claim for NFCC use; Undid revision 375513204 by Kintetsubuffalo (talk)) 17:21, 26 July 2010: Kei Mizutani (rv, nonfree image in blp infobox, no legit claim for NFCC use; Undid revision 375513127 by Kintetsubuffalo (talk)) 17:22, 26 July 2010: Marina Matsushima (rv, nonfree image in blp infobox, no legit claim for NFCC use; Undid revision 375512866 by Kintetsubuffalo (talk)) 17:24, 26 July 2010: Marina Matsushima (Life and career: promotional/spam) 17:24, 26 July 2010: Marina Matsushima (unsourced/OR) 17:26, 26 July 2010: Manami Yoshii (rv, nonfree image in blp infobox, no legit claim for NFCC use; Undid revision 375512687 by Kintetsubuffalo (talk)) 17:27, 26 July 2010: Haruki Mizuno (rv, nonfree image in blp infobox, no legit claim for NFCC use; Undid revision 375512558 by Kintetsubuffalo (talk)) 17:28, 26 July 2010: Madoka Ozawa (rv, nonfree image in blp infobox, no legit claim for NFCC use; Undid revision 375512327 by Kintetsubuffalo (talk)) 17:29, 26 July 2010: Bunko Kanazawa (rv, nonfree image in blp infobox, no legit claim for NFCC use; Undid revision 375512172 by Kintetsubuffalo (talk)) 17:31, 26 July 2010: Lisa Marie Presley (unreferenced; Undid revision 375511182 by 58.160.65.93 (talk)) 17:32, 26 July 2010: Lisa Marie Presley (External links: remove category not supported by reliably sourced article text) (top) [rollback] [vandalism] 17:34, 26 July 2010: Clint Catalyst (phony claim supported only by subject's own promo bio and publicity based on it; see extensive earlier discussions) 17:37, 26 July 2010: Clint Catalyst (Film and television: clarify, show never went beyond earliest stages of development) 17:40, 26 July 2010: Kimiko Matsuzaka (rv, nonfree image in blp infobox, no legit claim for NFCC use;Undid revision 375392644 by Testales (talk)) 17:41, 26 July 2010: Junko Miyashita (rv, nonfree image in blp infobox, no legit claim for NFCC use; Undid revision 375391492 by Testales (talk)) 17:42, 26 July 2010: Nao Saejima (rv, nonfree image in blp infobox, no legit claim for NFCC use; Undid revision 375390917 by Testales (talk)) Seeing an upcoming possible edit war, I did the first step by seeking discussion now myself and expecting that HW would at least WATCH the articles he simply mass-reverts. Testales: 20:00, 26 July 2010: Talk:Nao Saejima (Non-Free Image File:Nao_Saejima.jpg: new section) Dekkapai, also seeing edit war starting but refering to a basic priniciple of Wikipedia editing: 22:19, 26 July 2010: Marina Matsushima (rv - ANOTHER edit-war started by Hullaballoo Wolfowitiz - read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and STOP this disruptive practice of yours!!!) 22:44, 26 July 2010: Nao Saejima (rv per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle DISCUSS, and stop trying to get your way through edit-warring) 22:45, 26 July 2010: Junko Miyashita (rv per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, you DISCUSS now) 22:46, 26 July 2010: Kimiko Matsuzaka (rv per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, you edited, you were reverted, now YOU discuss) 22:47, 26 July 2010: Bunko Kanazawa (rv per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, you DISCUSS now, you don't edit-war) 22:48, 26 July 2010: Haruki Mizuno (rv - you were reverted, now you discuss, per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle) 22:48, 26 July 2010: Madoka Ozawa (Undid revision 375562959 by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle) 22:49, 26 July 2010: Manami Yoshii (rv per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle) 22:50, 26 July 2010: Kazuko Shirakawa (rv per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle) 22:50, 26 July 2010: Kei Mizutani (rv per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle you discuss now) Which does of course not impress our Hullaboo even a little and at this point it has definitly turned into edit-war: Hullaboo: 23:08, 26 July 2010: Marina Matsushima (reinserted spam by uncivil user; Undid revision 375609626 by Dekkappai (talk)) 23:10, 26 July 2010: Kazuko Shirakawa (NFCC violation, reinserted without explanation; Undid revision 375614607 by Dekkappai (talk)) 23:11, 26 July 2010: Haruki Mizuno (NFCC violation, reinserted without explanation; Undid revision 375614263 by Dekkappai (talk)) 23:11, 26 July 2010: Kei Mizutani (NFCC violation, reinserted without explanation; Undid revision 375614515 by Dekkappai (talk)) 23:11, 26 July 2010: Manami Yoshii (NFCC violation, reinserted without explanation; Undid revision 375614413 by Dekkappai (talk)) 23:12, 26 July 2010: Bunko Kanazawa (NFCC violation, reinserted without explanation; Undid revision 375613989 by Dekkappai (talk)) 23:12, 26 July 2010: Kimiko Matsuzaka (NFCC violation, reinserted without explanation; Undid revision 375613755 by Dekkappai (talk)) 23:12, 26 July 2010: Madoka Ozawa (NFCC violation, reinserted without explanation; Undid revision 375614145 by Dekkappai (talk)) 23:13, 26 July 2010: Junko Miyashita (NFCC violation, reinserted without explanation; Undid revision 375613680 by Dekkappai (talk)) 23:13, 26 July 2010: Nao Saejima (NFCC violation, reinserted without explanation; Undid revision 375613496 by Dekkappai (talk)) Dekappai, now only 1 representative revert and also notifying Tabercil who is an active admin and member of WP:P* 23:12, 26 July 2010: Marina Matsushima (rv - What part of "DISCUSS" do you not understand?) 23:21, 26 July 2010: User talk:Tabercil (HB at it again: new section) 23:23, 26 July 2010: User talk:Tabercil (HB at it again: correction & bit more) Testales, as it's obviously only possible to draw HW's attention to a discussion by reverting, so 1 revert here too to "trigger" him: 23:18, 26 July 2010: Nao Saejima (RV, HB, you are the guy who doesn't even look at the talk page!) Hullaboo, still reverting: 23:21, 26 July 2010: File:Kei Mizutani.jpg (ffd notice) 23:22, 26 July 2010: File:Manami Yoshii.jpg (ffd notice) 23:23, 26 July 2010: File:Haruki Mizuno.jpg (ffd notice) 23:24, 26 July 2010: File:Madoka Ozawa.jpg (ffd notice) 23:26, 26 July 2010: File:Bunko Kanazawa.jpg (ffd notice) 23:27, 26 July 2010: File:Kimiko Matsuzaka.jpg (ffd notice) 23:30, 26 July 2010: File:Junko Miyashita.jpg (ffd notice) 23:45, 26 July 2010: File:Nao Saejima.jpg (ffd notice) (top) [rollback] [vandalism] Hullaboo, finally the first reply in a DISCUSSION: 23:51, 26 July 2010: Talk:Nao Saejima (Non-Free Image File:Nao_Saejima.jpg: r to miscitation of policy) 00:05, 27 July 2010: User talk:Tabercil (HB at it again: r) 00:59, 27 July 2010: User talk:Tabercil (HB at it again: r) Testales, replying, HW has still completely ignored WP:NFC#UULP, he was only refering to the a template which is not policy: 00:56, 27 July 2010: Talk:Nao Saejima (Non-Free Image File:Nao_Saejima.jpg: r) Cherryblossom1982 jumping in, confirming our position: 02:02, 27 July 2010 Cherryblossom1982 (talk | contribs) (5,476 bytes) (Non-Free Image File:Nao_Saejima.jpg) (undo) Followed by Dekkappai: 02:11, 27 July 2010 Dekkappai (talk | contribs) (6,680 bytes) (Non-Free Image File:Nao_Saejima.jpg: c) (undo) Tabercil on his talk page, knowing both editors and beeing neutral while having computer problems which prevent him from having a closer look: 14:42, 27 July 2010: User talk:Tabercil (HB at it again: reply) Hullaboo, not replying at the discussion anymore but instead creating an FfD: 16:58, 27 July 2010: File:Kimiko Matsuzaka.jpg (ffd nomination) (top) [rollback] [vandalism] Kintetsubuffalo, also now doing some reverts and preparing the ANI entry: 05:21, 28 July 2010: Kazuko Shirakawa (Readded image, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz please read WP:NFC#UULP again and possibly also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography#Acceptable_sources_of_fair_use_photos before removing images.) 05:22, 28 July 2010: Kei Mizutani (Readded image, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz you've had multiple explanations and reverts by several authors, shall we take it to ANI?) (top) [rollback] [vandalism] 05:23, 28 July 2010: Manami Yoshii (Readded image, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz you've had multiple explanations and reverts by several authors, shall we take it to ANI?) 05:24, 28 July 2010: Haruki Mizuno (Readded image, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz you've had multiple explanations and reverts by several authors, shall we take it to ANI?) 05:24, 28 July 2010: Madoka Ozawa (Readded image, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz you've had multiple explanations and reverts by several authors, shall we take it to ANI?) 05:28, 28 July 2010: Bunko Kanazawa (Readded image, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz you've had multiple explanations and reverts by several authors, shall we take it to ANI?) 05:28, 28 July 2010: Junko Miyashita (Readded image, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz you've had multiple explanations and reverts by several authors, shall we take it to ANI?) 05:45, 28 July 2010: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (Hullaballoo Wolfowitz edit-warring across articles with several editors: new section) 05:46, 28 July 2010: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (Hullaballoo Wolfowitz edit-warring across articles with several editors) 05:47, 28 July 2010: User talk:Testales (AV: new section) (top) [rollback] [vandalism] 05:48, 28 July 2010: User talk:Dekkappai (AV: new section) 05:49, 28 July 2010: User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (July 2010: new section) 05:51, 28 July 2010: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (Hullaballoo Wolfowitz edit-warring across articles with several editors)

(ANI discussion starting)

Hullaboo's ANI reply, now even claiming there was no "substantive defense" (sic) and improvising an argument by simply declaring the policy rule in question "is rare exception that is only suggested and needs also well-referenced textual support":

• 23:26, 28 July 2010: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (Hullaballoo Wolfowitz edit-warring across articles with several editors)

I hope I have not forgotten an important part. I intentionally left out the discussion which Morbidthoughts has started after the the ANI discussion started. He bascially stated there that the fair use photos of WP:P* may be outdated as beeing written in 2007.

I also considered starting a discussion about this point before my first reverts but then I thought the wording is rather clear and consistent with WP:NFC#UULP. This and that WP:NFCC alone leaves a lot of room for interpreation was later confirmed by Epbr123 who is administrator and listed active member of WP:P*.

So after all I still think that at least my initial reverts are very justified and that there was no point for HW to start and/or focus on a little edit war to enforce his point of view - as usually, I would say.

I hope this helps a bit to enlighten the reason for this ANI discussion.

Testales (talk) 11:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The major takeaway for me was that Wolfowitz has been more than patient in dealing with a gang of pornhounds dedicated to confounding the enforcement of basic standards. We should give wolfowitz a parade, or a chocolate chip cookie, or something.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

We need to stop with the insulting language from both sides of this. Porn isn't any more trivial than the Disney Channel, and we certainly have enough of that on Wikipedia. "Pornhound" and "wanker" don't add anything to the discussion. There's a walled garden problem here, but the insults aren't necessary.—Kww(talk) 15:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok. How about a "group of people who appear to be gaming the system to keep non-free images in a host of articles with titles such as Immoral First Love: Loving from the Nipples, Housekeeper with Beautiful Skin: Made Wet with Finger Torture and Female Prisoner Ayaka: Tormenting and Breaking in a Bitch?"Bali ultimate (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Focus on the behaviour and NFCC implications, not the underlying material. This is no different than people trying to get copyrighted pictures of Miley Cyrus and Selena Gomez into their biography articles.—Kww(talk) 17:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

My ability to tolerate your continued incivility rapidly vanishes, Bali. If you continue to act that way you may become the main subject of a similiar discussion too. Although that doesn't seem to impress you very much as you seem to be regular customer here [140][141][142][143][144][145][146] anyway. So in front of this background and as you also have nothing constructive contributed to this discussion other than clearly stating your WP:BADFAITH regarding the work of several editors, I think you opinion can completley be ignored. You can also keep your prejudices regarding certain topics for yourself because I seriously doubt that you had any closer look to the topics you criticized. Testales (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Knock yourself out champ. Good luck with the "retain copyrighted soft-porn images campaign."Bali ultimate (talk) 18:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Its not just about images

We seem to have two different threads going on here. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) began this report by stating "Normally I would take this to the edit-warring board, but this is broader and speaks to larger behavioral issues-civility, 3RR, editwarring, and ignoring multiply-cited Wikipedia policies and other editors requests to talk", after which discussions semed to deal primarily with images. But as dealing only with image issues does not adress the original concerns toward the "larger behavioral issues-civility, 3RR, editwarring, and ignoring multiply-cited Wikipedia policies and other editors requests to talk", shall we start a different discussion as KWW suggests by taking behavior concerns to an RFC/U? Or since it has been brought up here, might it be discussed here without repeated returns to images? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

119.93.197.34

119.93.197.34 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Has violated 3RR. This IP continuously edits Filipino Premier League with the same thing over and over when those edits have nothing to do with the article. They have done it just recently and I haven't bothered reverting it yet. These two IP's; 124.105.37.144 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) & 124.105.37.198 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) have done the same, must be the same person. Banana Fingers (talk) 10:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I see where you were pointed to this page by User:Shadowjams. However, in looking at the talk pages for all three IPs, I see exactly two messages from you regarding the edits in question. One is a demand, and the second is little more than a blocking threat. How is a user supposed to understand how things work around here without being shown? Sure, we can just block all three IPs, but...would that really solve anything? I'm not saying the edits are good (or bad), but I don't see any attempt to help the situation. Also, you don't seem to have notified the IPs of this discussion (which I've done).  Frank  |  talk  11:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright. That's my bad then. I guess I got a bit a frustrated and didn't even bother saying anything to that IP. However, it seems like notifying that person of anything doesn't to do anything anyway. They have made another edit to that article and they haven't shown up here or even replied on their own talk page. Banana Fingers (talk) 10:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but look at it this way: The person in question may not really know the expectations of the community, and with our current policy that largely really does allow anyone to edit almost anything around here, they can't be expected to jump in automatically knowing what is right. Sure, some amount of common sense is hoped for, but...that doesn't mean it exists in sufficient quantities to make place 100% sane. Having said all that, the reality is this: if you want an IP address blocked, it must be flagrantly vandalizing (3RR counts) and there must usually be warnings to the user to stop the behavior. That's not always the case, but it's a good rule of thumb. Furthermore, given that you're accusing three different IPs of abuse of an article here, a more appropriate step might be WP:RFPP, although I'd probably decline over there too as this really looks like a minor annoyance. Finally, it's not clear to me that only vandalizing is going on here; look at these two most recent edits to Filipino Premier League. You may not think they are perfect edits, but they do seem to be good faith edits to the page.  Frank  |  talk  19:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Surely this is more than just a "minor annoyance"? A fourth IP has now edited the page with the same thing of "league aftermatch". Those diffs you showed are just good faith edits to his own edits of adding that new section. That entire section of "league aftermath" has nothing to do with that article. They also don't respond to their talk page and they haven't even dropped by here either. Banana Fingers (talk) 11:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see any attempt to engage with any of these IPs on the matter. Are you suggesting that somebody watchlist Filipino Premier League and revert and block any IP who adds something about its aftermath?  Frank  |  talk  12:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Aspartame articles

The articles Aspartame and Aspartame controversy are being controlled by a group of editors who will not allow in any data or studies that show any problem with the chemical. I tried again and again to insert studies that showed potential problems, and all were removed, by users with names like "Yobol" (lobbY spelled backwards, roughly). I contend that there are a number of editors who are working here to protect the interests of the major corporations selling this billion-dollar a year chemical: Ajinomoto, The NutraSweet Company, PepsiCo and other soft drink makers. Eventually I was driven from the page and had to create an alternate page at another wiki called SourceWatch. Now any link from the Talk pages to this new page is being deleted on the grounds of "spam", eg diff. I want some uninvolved admins to note that the aspartame pages on wikipedia are effectively controlled by industry stooges who abuse the policies here, such as deliberately misinterpreting wp:MEDRS, to remove anything and everything that puts their product in a less-than-perfect light. I invite admins to study the talk pages concerned, as well as the constant harrassment leveled at me via my user talk page, as well as numerous deletions of my comments from the article Talk pages. These people are making a mockery of this encyclopedia. The editors displaying these behaviours are:
Yobol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Novangelis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Keepcalmandcarryon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Verbal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) inter alia TickleMeister (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried any methods of dispute resolution to try and solve this content dispute, before taking these users here? Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 15:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Blindly referring to people who disagree with you as "industry stooges" is about the worst way to get anyone to take you seriously. The response that you are getting from other editors is probably a reflection of this attitude you are displaying. -- Ed (Edgar181)

I suggest TickleMeister provide diffs for each and every accusation he makes, if he wants to be taken seriously.

Other than the rather questionable removal of talk page comments by Yobol and Keepcalmandcarryon, I see more problems in TickleMeister's accusations above than in any problems with the articles.

I was preparing to revert Yobol's edit myself when TickleMeister made an edit [147] that from the edit summary appeared to be such a revert. However, TickleMeister took the opportunity to add new comments instead, ones that are far less appropriate for the article's talk page. --Ronz (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Question: if an editor is unable to get consensus on Wikipedia for material they want to add and subsequently edits another wiki to his/her own satisfaction, and invites others to use that wiki's page to edit Wikipedia's article, it appears to me they are doing so merely to get their preferred version of the page advertised (and not to contribute to the discussion of improving the actual article in Wikipedia). Now, that seems disruptive to me and is why I deleted it, but I was wondering if placing links to other wikis like this is actually accepted practice; if so I would want to make sure not to make the same mistake in the future of removing links to other wikis. Of note, TickleMeister appears to be edit warring and replacing both [148] [149] comments that have been removed. Yobol (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed what TickleMeister was doing on Talk:Aspartame at the same time, and no one pointed it out. Given this context, Yobol's and Keepcalmandcarryon's edits make more sense. --Ronz (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

After a cursory look over this situation, I have several comments:

• First, let's skip any discussion on a particular user's choice of name. Your assertion that "Yobol" refers to "Lobby" is...well, let me put it this way: if you suspect a particular user has a WP:COI, you'll have to do better than that.
• I looked at Talk:Aspartame controversy and in particular the section Aspartame and premature birth, in which you appeared to be championing the notion that it is connected because a study found a connection to "artificial sweeteners". Further, you made the giant leap that because methanol is a known toxin, and it's a constituent component of aspartame, and aspartame is the most common artificial sweetener, that means aspartame is responsible. That is wholly unsupported by the actual quotes from the source material that are reproduced in that discussion. To me that seems equivalent to claiming that salt is poisonous because it is 50% comprised of chlorine, or that it is explosive because it is 50% comprised of sodium, a metal that is unstable at room temperature.
• Have you alerted any of the parties above to this discussion, as required (and noted in the edit box at the top of the page)?
• Comments which start out sarcastically and conclude with "So clearly I am right and you are wrong.", with the edit summary "wrong again, ybbol" (sic) are not going to win friends and influence people around here (or anywhere, really).  Frank  |  talk  15:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) WP:BOOMERANG. That's all I should say. However, let me try providing some advice, though I suspect it might be regarded along the lines of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.Advice is: Make an edit on safety in a neutral point of view and using reliable sources. You may find this is accepted more positively by the community. You might also try asking the editors in question for help. A browse through WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, along with reading the directions on this page (particularly on providing diffs and notifying all editors mentioned) would help your overall success on talk pages. N419BH 15:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I should also be listed among those who reverted his talk page comments because, after long consideration, I felt their purpose was not an effort at collaboration, but rather, an effort to draw attention to his version at another site. This is an editor with ongoing civility problems. After issuing an ultimatum to take it elsewhere with "a less NPOV tone", he copied text to another wiki with less than ideal attribution. Linking seems to be intended as a soapbox—an effort to circumvent collaboration. After several other editors concurred, he claimed it was for the sources. He has placed a copy of the BLP-containing text at User:TickleMeister/Aspartame sources. Rather than discuss the issues of keeping an article on his user pages, he wanted to take it to the notice boards. He did not extend the courtesy of notifying me despite his insistence that I notify him.

I should also note that I have no conflicts of interest to declare.Novangelis (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You mention BLP-containing text. I'm wondering if the sub-page should be taken to MfD. Dougweller (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If I had brought it to notice any administrative boards, that might well have been the one. I was looking at the numerous involved policies trying to figure out which ones were significant and which were secondary, and where it should be discussed, when I was notified about the case. Novangelis (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought I'd cleared up my differences with TM, who claims to be an alternate/new account of another editor. I haven't edited those pages in ages. Verbal chat 18:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - TM, study the pillars, and be sure all your edits are neutral, verifiable, and not original. If you source your statements, and word them from a neutral point of view, they will be less likely to be removed. — GabeMc (talk) 22:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment, for what it's worth. I responded a while back to an RfC at Aspartame, where there were similar issues, and from what I saw in that brief time, TM had advocated a position that was rather strongly opposite to consensus, and the other editors there were largely acting very much within the bounds of normal and appropriate discussion, nothing lobby-like. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - Ticklemeister appears to be the only one acting strangely, arguing with everyone, and getting emotional. He also seems to know a whole lot about aspartame and all of the fringe studies that have been done on it. If I would suspect anyone of a conflict of interest, it would be Ticklemeister. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 23:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry for not notifying other users, but it was late, I was tired, and I had to run. I see nobody has studied or commented on how all, and I mean ALL, material that casts suspicion or doubt upon the safety of aspartame has been refused entry to article space on grounds of UNDUE and similar hard-to-argue concepts, where if you're outnumbered, you've lost before you begin. Once again, I ask someone who is interested in how wikipedia can be abused to read the Talk page archives, from the beginning, to see how not only I but other editors before me have been similarly abused by what I contend are vested interests. There is a distinct lack of impartiality in the arguments presented. The articles have a palpable pro-industry POV. I see the forces are gathering against me above. If anyone cares about this project, do the research I'm suggesting. I can do no more than make the suggestion. Billions of dollars are at stake, so it's not surprising I have met such stern resistance, but it's sad to see WP subject to this sort of thing. TickleMeister (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

  If it was late, you were tired, and you had to run...you most definitely should not have improperly started an AN/I thread. Regarding the material, I did a review of the current contents of the talk page (see above) and drew the conclusion that you are eliciting responses that are in line with the way you are editing, at least in that particular thread. It is not feasible to ask people here to go back through some long history; your best bet is to take the advice given above (both by me and by others). If you come up with sourced statements - one at a time, if necessary - you'll stand a much better chance of being heard. The sarcasm, shortcuts, and general combativeness will not help your cause. I have no opinion on the merits of the factual material here...I have no axe to grind here. Indeed, truth be told, I scrupulously avoid the stuff and always have. But that's not the point. The point is that Wikipedia works by WP:CONSENSUS. If the consensus is that the material is inappropriate for the article, rather than requesting admin action, you should probably try to figure out why such a consensus exists. It's a pretty sure bet that it has nothing whatsoever to do with an industry conspiracy. (Which is not at all the same as saying there isn't such a conspiracy; I'm just saying a collection of Wikipedia editors would be exceedingly unlikely to be involved in such.)  Frank  |  talk  04:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I started out editing wikipedia via the Aspartame articles, I can concur that it is not a wholly pleasant environment to work in. While I do not support the allegations of editing for monetary reward (and I think that TM should stop forwarding them), I can certainly empathize with how he may have come to that conclusion. If you look at the earliest contributions TM made to the aspartame articles, they seem to have had some merit and changes were detailed in ES'. They were all rolled back with the talk page response when the revert was challenged: I have not had time to review all your edits. Please justify them here. The removal of sources and text goes against the consensus that was hammered out previously. I have objected to these changes, now please show consensus has changed if you wish to remove this information. I will add back the migrane data once I have reviewed the sources. This included brief, neutrally worded edits such as this which carries 5 journal sources, as well as - after tensions increased: mass reverts of a series of atomic edits such as: [150], [151], [152], [153] any many more edits which either added sources or clarified language. That some edits might have been seen as questionable; I know that many of the editors opposed to TM's edits are opposed to minimizing language regarding the mid 1990's 'Hoax Letter' and any mention of funding, that is not a valid reason to revert arguably 'good edits' en masse. I no longer attend the Aspartame articles very often, personally I find the I/P articles much more peaceful. Unomi (talk) 01:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

SPI

Since he has acknowledged the second account, it is probably best to address it here. In his response at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TickleMeister, part of his defense is that I had a conflict of interest in finding him using a second account to refactor archived pages. Since this is the venue he chose to formally accuse me, I am looking forward to his ability to demonstrate my conflict of interest and, even more, his demonstration of psychic powers since he claims he knows what I was thinking.Novangelis (talk) 00:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

user:Tarage edit warring and vandalism

Resolved

 – Ancient Astronaut blocked by GeorgeWilliamHerbert for being a disruptive item of hosiery.FOOTBALLPLAYERTHATSHALLNOTBENAMED applies. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The user Tarage seems to have watchlisted the September 11 Attacks discussion, as every time a user leaves a comment which contests this user's opinion he promptly deletes it without leaving a proper reason. The article in question is actually very biased and maintained by what seems to be only a few including Tarage himself. The POV of the article is contested, but users are refusing to add the NPOV tag to the article, which is plagued by weasle words and biased rhetoric. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ancient Astronaut (talk • contribs) 19:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM might be the justification. The content I saw him remove in the edit which is summarised under something like "I'm not letting you soap box" was a justified removal of wild-card theorising which was treating the page like a fringe forum. I don't they entertain the "Wikipedia censorship conspiracy" line very long over there. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Quite. That talk page is not there for people to sound off on. Fences&Windows 20:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It's usually the regular users who begin to use personal attacks, and delete constructive comments. The page is biased and nobody wants to fix the POV problem.

Tarage in particular deletes comments which are hardly soapboxing like he claims. It seems like users are forbidden from calling that article biased, and any similar comments are promptly deleted despite the content. In no way was I trying to make that page a forum (though I may have by accident), but these users are clearly in violation of WP:OWN and the page itself violates WP:NPOV. The point of that topic was to get the authors of the article to use less biased rhetoric.

That discussion was on topic - an attempt to point out NPOV violations. At no point was that page treated like a forum except by users who felt a need to add insults and off-topic comments. Much of that content actually had to be restored. I was going to clean up that subject but if I do so certain users might just delete the rest. ISAIAH 13:5 ANCIENT ASTRONAUTS !! 20:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ancient Astronaut (talk • contribs)

"I can't understand why people so enthusiastically defend the government of the United States as she descends into fascist control.... up to 50% of US citizens do not believe the official, mainstream story behind 9/11... In time, you will all come to see what really happened on 9/11. The truth can't be kept hidden forever. The number of people who doubt the official story grows every day, so this isn't a topic which will just disappear as you hope" - sorry, that's the postulating of a WP:FRINGE theory. Wikipedia is not the place to propose new theories, and if you think "that people in caves are [not] able to breach US security and undermine NORAD" then you are quite mistaken. Algeria brought down France, didn't it (sorry, couldn't resist stirring). But on a serious note, the user was correct to remove the comments. If you want to discuss alternative theories, do it elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a place in induce POV in the name of 'neutrality'. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Nor is the removal of such soapboxing vandalism or edit-warring. Acroterion _(talk) 20:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is biased towards the 9/11 Commission and NIST reports though. The term "conspiracy theorist" is insulting. That should really be changed to reflect a more neutral tone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ancient Astronaut (talk • contribs) 21:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Please take this to the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Fences&Windows 00:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality does not mean accepting of every single viewpoint, it means neutrally reflecting the majority consensus. There is an article for 'alternative' theories somewhere though, I thought. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 06:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

And please start signing your posts. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 06:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Glad to see he was indef-blocked. Thanks guys. --Tarage (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

User: Noloop - votestacking

User:Noloop started another topic at the reliable sources noticeboard regarding the historical Jesus article.

He posted the link at the talk page of atheism, which I believe is an attempt to votestack. [154] Atheism is just about unrelated to the historical Jesus.

He also posted at an editor's talk page. [155]

I notified the editor if votestacking, but he dismissed it as silliness. [156] Flash 06:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

My experience with him has me concluding that he is on a jihad to introduce original research and deny reliable sources. He has stated that Christian scholars as well as theologians are not reliable sources and edits with that notion in mind. He even tried opening an ArbCom case in an effort to impose his bizarre objectives—see especially the section he calls "Desired outcomes:" Also, the section he calls "Conduct issues" contains hints of paranoia. The fact that he's been recently unblocked should also be considered in determining what to do about this behavior. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 08:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I have also had issues with nollop oin the past, prety much similar to this. Using OR interpritations of Wiki rules (such as consensus). An obsestion (or perhaps just mis-application) with (percived) Anglo bias.Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that the editor's behaviour raises concerns, it is also evidently in good faith and has helped enlightening issues about the sourcing of several articles, as the RS/N thread he opened shows. About the votestacking, well, it is not good behaviour but nothing obviously concerning. It is instead concerning that users like Flash try to use ANI to silence him and that users like Bill the Cat use straw man arguments in dealing with the issue, like "stated that Christian scholars as well as theologians are not reliable sources", which is not the point (the point is that they are potentially biased, a different issue). It would be also much less confusing if all of us (especially but not only Noloop) stop polluting every possible venue trying to forum shop and discuss the issue in a single place. --Cyclopia^talk 11:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Fully agree with Cyclopia. Noloop is not a very easy editor to work with, but is acting in good faith and honestly tries to provide good support for his claimsArnoutf (talk) 11:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Make no mistake, Noloop behaviour should change, or he will face another block soon, probably. But I am very worried by the stubborn contempt with which editors guarding the Jesus articles treat Noloop. He is, after all, asking for something extremly reasonable (non biased sources about a statement documented so far in the articles only by clearly biased sources) and instead of being provided these sources, he is attacked. No surprise he is becoming frustrated and obsessive. All this discussion would have been dead long time ago, if only non-biased sources were provided. --Cyclopia^talk 11:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I also woould point out that he is forever threataning top leave (and avoided a block a while back for that reason). Also how doi you define non-biased sources, any source on the subject will be biased (and if its so improtant why did nollop not do it) this represents typical tactic. Demand others provide sources whilst he just objects. I would be more convinced of his genuisness if he actualy showed he was doing more then obstructingSlatersteven (talk) 11:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the behavioural issues. On the specific point of sources, well, a lot of people in the Jesus articles claim to be scholars of the subject, so it is only fair that they should provide sources. --Cyclopia^talk 13:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe the article is sourced. If this were an isolated incident you might have a point, its not. I have had this issue with nollop before. Objecting to material and then never himself either doing any work to find sources (even when asked to do so to back up his claims) or suggesting compromise text. Its ‘I know this should be removed (or included) and I want it removed, and it’s down to you to prove me wrong’ attitude.Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it too much to ask for a bit of proper spelling? Please. My eyes hurt, and I'm not even a native English speaker. --Cyclopia^talk 13:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Cyclopia; what is getting to me is his moving of the goal posts. Originally it was only Christian bias that was argued (a possibility) but now we need secular peer reviewed sources.... *facepalm*. I'm coming to the conclusion that while yourself and even I are making an important point about using a cross section of sources Noloop is just here to push a POV (one that I think is to undermine religion, specifically Christianity). this is, IMO, a clear recent example. He seems to now suffer from WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - instead he just keeps suggesting we are biased too (in various ways)... I just don't think he is being constructive any more --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 12:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Which is another of Noloops regular tactics (such as on antiamericanism. He his objection is dealt with he just come up with a new objection. He seems to decide to object to a passage or page and will then dig on refuse any compromise and accept nothing but what he wants.12:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)

Errant: Maybe I am naive and assuming too much good faith, but needing secular peer reviewed sources seems a fair request -it is what we need for all factual claims in academic subjects, after all. That Noloop is pushing POV is not in question; but in doing that he is raising genuine issues. The edit he did to God has been reverted in being completely unsourced, but it is (to my knowledge) factually correct and it would be neat addition to that article lead, if better articulated. --Cyclopia^talk 13:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

His edit to god might be factualy accurate, but it neetly sums up many of the objections above. The insertion of what is ijn effect a personal opinion that is unsourced. When all he had to do was source it 9he must have known it would be objected to.Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be also much less confusing if all of us (especially but not only Noloop) stop polluting every possible venue trying to forum shop and discuss the issue in a single place. Here, here.Griswaldo (talk) 12:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Ho-hum. I read the first few comments and skipped the rest. Not mentioned is that I also notified four Jesus-related Talk pages and a secular history discussion page. If it can be assumed that atheists hang out in at Atheist Talk, it can be presumed that Believers hang out at Jesus, Historical Jesus, Historicity of Jesus and Christ myth theory. So, I aimed for a shred of balance. Also, not mentioned is that nobody cares about canvassing. We saw that when Ari89 canvassed at Jesus, which promptly brought the numbers to Historical Jesus needed to tag-team edit war one paragraph of dissent out of existence. Actual editing is like voting, so that's a clear case of votestacking. Which brings me to the final point, how can there be votestacking when there is no voting? The discussion of reliable sources is a just that: a discussion. You are declaring Christian doctrine to be fact, and in support citing only Christian sources. You are declaring dissent from Christian doctrine to be a fringe theory and using that to exclude dissent, and in support citing only Christian sources. You are getting away with it because of cultural bias, and I'm censured and blocked because I'm challenging the most fervent bias in our culture. Noloop (talk) 14:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No, Noloop. You're being opposed for two things (as best I gather); bringing in undue information from a fringe theory (which, even as a diehard atheist, I'd view as fringe!) into related articles. And secondly for demanding non-Christian sources to qualify the statement that the existence of Jesus is a scholarly consensus. The first argument I'm not really involved with - but the latter is.... an odd problem. You've turned a fairly legitimate discussion about the lead into a wider denigration of Christian sources as unequivocally biased on the topic of a historical Jesus..... In the past I took an interest in Biblical history/Theology via and (atheist) girlfriend who studied the subject - the unavoidable thing is that there is a general consensus and, within the field, Jesus Myth is very much a fringe theory. There are huge issues with that article, most notably a definite Christian bent, but requiring secular sources for the lead sentence is untenable. At best we should be picking at the specific issues in the article and presenting counter-theories where they are available. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 15:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the Christ myth theory is fringe. However Noloop is completely correct in demanding non-biased sources to back it up. And yes, Christian sources are unequivocally biased on the topic of a historical Jesus: Christian scholars admit it very freely (see [157] : "For Christian theology to do otherwise would be in effect to allow itself to be determined by a possibility [that of Jesus non existing] , which, if it proved an actuality, would entail a revolution in the nature of Christian faith, if not its destruction. It would thus already be the abdication of what is most distinctly Christian in the Christian confession, so to speak, before the battle had begun or the enemy come into view. Were theology to provide for this possibility it would thereby call in question its Christian character." ). You can't ask a Christian to ever consider the hypothesis that Jesus didn't exist, because otherwise he/she wouldn't be Christian any more. For this reason the request of secular sources is only fair, and that we're dancing around the issue by attacking Noloop only, instead of providing such sources is only making the problem worse. Look in history/archeology journals, find secular scholars claiming consensus on the issue (which should be doable) and put the issue at rest, please. --Cyclopia^talk 15:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This is another typical (almost sterotypical) tactic of Noloop, to use general objections about a page in regards to specific passages.Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Topic Ban for User:Noloop

Noloop should be topic-banned, or perhaps banned entirely. I do not agree that he is editing in good faith. He has a simple point of view: anyone who claims Jesus existed is a Christian. He refuses to respond to ANY evidence to the contrary. The demand for "secular" peer-reviewed journal evidence that historians believe it is likely Jesus existed is a red-herring, because any article that makes that claim is instantly dismissed as not being secular. At one noticeboard, Andrew c pointed out that an article that Noloop used as evience that those who claim Jesus existed are pushing a Christian point of view actually is arguing that an event described in the Gospels did not occur. How is that pushing a Christian point of view?

There are two BIG problems in the example I provide above, and you see both problems in any discussion in which Noloop participates. First, Noloop does not do any research to back up his claims. He uses snippets from Google Scholar - this is simply not acceptable as research since our polies make it clear that one has to look at the context in which arguments are made in order to identify their point of view accurately. Since he uses snippets from Google cholar, he always misrepresents the views he presents. This is not editing in good faith. Second, when another editor takes the time to read the entire article and provides the needed context, Noloop simply ignores the other editor. Noloop never assumes good faith on the part of any editor who does not agree with him. This means that not only is he a lousy researcher, he is also incapable of collaborative editing, another fundamental element of our project. I have yet to see any discussion in which Noloop has participated in which these two problems ae not evident from the start.

Ho-hum. Noloop has no interest in improving Wikipedia articles, he dmonstrates only a fanatical insistence on using talk pages to forward his own point of view. The history of Wikipedia is filled with editors just like Noloop who have been banned. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I took the liberty to make this a subsection and to put the parameters of a topic ban in my response. Please feel free to change my edits as needed.Griswaldo (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support per above Slrubenstein | Talk 16:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support topic banning Noloop from articles related to Christianity broadly construed.Griswaldo (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose topic banning. While Noloop behaviour is not always constructive, it doesn't require a topic ban. Some kind of restriction may be OK, but this is beginning to become mere silencing-by-force of opposing views. It is really worrying. His request of a secular source is entirely correct, and the way Slrubenstein is representing the editor is in most points a straw man -it is not true that "any article that makes that claim is instantly dismissed as not being secular", it simply still hasn't been found an article actually being secular making the claim. --Cyclopia^talk 15:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that you agree with Noloop that anyone who says Jesus likely existed is therefore a Christian? Or not secular? What do you even mean by "secular?" Slrubenstein | Talk 16:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No, and again yours is a loaded question. Noloop, AFAIK, never say that "anyone who says Jesus likely existed is therefore a Christian" (if I'm wrong, let me know). I agree with Noloop that all sources in the article on the issue are sources that come from scholars who are unquestionably of a Christian background (I remember one Jewish as a possible exception). I agree with Noloop that, at the very minimum, this attribution should be explicit in the article and that finding secular sources (i.e. sources published by people who do not have a public religious affiliation) would be much helpful in settling the question. --Cyclopia^talk 16:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you are being bigoted. At WP, we do not ask editors if they are Christian or Muslim or Atheist. We judge them by their edits. Historians work the same way. The racial or religious background of a historian does not signifcy bias or point of view, we identify the point of view based on what the person writes. Many of the historians who say are of "Christian background" are using the same methods of modern historians, and make the same assumptions, and bring to historical documents the same doubts and concerns other modern historians do. Is this a Christian POV? Please be careful what you say. Anti-Semites called psychoanalysis a "jewish" science. You point out that one (at least one, we haven't asked people to drop their pants you know) source is Jewish - does that mean that historian is expressing a "Jewish" point of view? Please be very careful about what you are suggesting. As far as I can tell the only issue is this: Is the scholar making an argument to forward a Christian POV, that is to say, engaging in a debate with non-Christians? Is the scholar forwarding a particular point of view within Christianity, that is, engaging in debates with other Christian theologicans or scholarss? Does the scholar believe that the Bible is literally a reliable account of the past? Or is the scholar engaging in debates with other historians? Is the scholar using the same methods and assumptions as historians working in other places/other periods? These are the questions, and one can answer them based on the contents of the book and article, not the background of the author. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Since you are calling me "bigoted" and go as far as making comparisons with anti-semitism (you should really re-read WP:NPA), I think you won't be offended if I call you naive at best and willingly turning a blind eye at worst. The religious background does mean bias if the subject at stake is essentially intertwined to such background. Nobody questions the religious background of Christian authors is totally irrelevant on 99.9% of topics, but on the question of the existence of Jesus, well, Christian authors themselves explicitly acknowledge a bias: they simply cannot even consider the possibility that Jesus didn't exist, because even putting this in the real of possibilities (no matter how remote) would crumble their faith to nothing. Don't take my words for it; see what Christian scholars say about it (pp.143-144): "For Christian theology to do otherwise [consider the possibility of Jesus non existing] would be in effect to allow itself to be determined by a possibility, which, if it proved an actuality, would entail a revolution in the nature of Christian faith, if not its destruction. It would thus already be the abdication of what is most distinctly Christian in the Christian confession, so to speak, before the battle had begun or the enemy come into view. Were theology to provide for this possibility it would thereby call in question its Christian character." --Cyclopia^talk 16:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This source is explicitly talking about Christian theology. It is not referring to the books and articles we are using in the Jesus article to represnt a critical historical point of view. If you were to try to use this in a WP article it would be deleted for violating NOR and with good reason, you are making a poor inference. A claim about how Christian faith influences christian theology is not addressing how a priest who goes on to get a PhD in history, or to publish in history journals, articles that claim that passages of the Gospels did not actually occur, is stuck engaging Christian theologians, rather than the historians who reviews the article and who read the journal? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It was you who brought up the fact that one of the historians cited is Jewish. Why does that matter? You are saying that someone with a Christian background has a Christian bias, do you really think it is unfair for me to wonder whether you are saying that a Jewish historian has a Jewish bias? Okay, if I am wrong, what was your point? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am saying that a Jewish historian has a Jewish bias when dealing with issues directly related to Jewish religion or history (by the way, I was presenting that as a positive exception to the monolith of Christian sources). Is this anti-Semitism in your book? If yes, you should really reconsider your notions. --Cyclopia^talk 16:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like you are being disingenuous, but maybe you misunderstand me. One of the major issues Jews worldwide, have had to contend with - and THE biggest isues European Jews have had to deal with for the last two thousand years, is their dissent from the Christian view that Jesus was the Jewish messiah. Jews who believe Jesus was the messiah are considered apostates and in effect excommunicated. A considerable portion of Jewish philosophy includes arguments against Jesus being the messiah. Does this bias a Jewish historian? If you think Christian historians are biased to argue that Jesus was real, why would you not claim that Jewish historians are biased to claim that he was not, or that the Gospels are largely false? If you think a Jewish historian can bracket these views and adhere to the professional standards of historians, then why couldn't a Christian historian? Slrubenstein | Talk 05:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You know, there are Christians who are evolutionary biologists. I am not talking about Creationists, or "Intellient Design" advocates, but real researchers in mainstream evolutionary biology. Yet they are church-going Christians. Would you label their articles. "Christian" science? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Christians (key part emphasized) believe in Christ or Jesus as their KEY core beleif of the religion. His existence, works and ultimately through him salvation, is the key tenets of Christianity. There is a BIG difference between a Christian believing in parts of evolution (they obviously don't believe in abiogenesis or for the most part a single common ancestor) and the non-existence of Jesus or Christ. Parts of evolution can be interwoven with parts of the Christianity's belief in creation, but you could not be a Christian without Christ. — raekyT 16:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, if we can truly proceed in the spirit of dialogue, let me give you an analogy. Jews are brought up to believe that the Bible was revealed to Moses at Sinai, and is literally true. A Jew who is exposed to the theory of evolution has a choice: to reject the theory of evolution, or to reject Judaism entirely, or to find a way to reject the belief that the bible is accurate, and come up with a new way to be Jewish. A Jew who is exposed to Higher Criticism has a similar choice: reject higher Criticism (i.e. modern historiography) or to reject Judaism entirely, or to radically revise his/her understanding of Judaism. You seem to think that only the first two choices exist, and that there is no third choice. But in fact, the third choice exists and there are liberal Jews who accept what modern science and history tell them, and change their form of Judaism. My point was that the same has occured in Christianity. There are some people Noloop rejects, or says we need to mark as having a Christian background, but if you read their biographies you discover that after they learned modern historical methods, they abandoned Christianity altogether - their Christian background does not mean they hold to a Christian POV. And other historians Noloop identifies as having a Christian background have changed their views of Christianity, hold to a more liberal view in which Jesus was just a man but not one with God or resurrected. Is this apostasy? Some Christians think so! But others argue that Christianity must change to accomodate modern thinking. Noloop disregards any discussion of this latter phenomenon. But this last example does not illustrate historians who have a Christian bias. If you ant, you could say they are Christians who have been biased by modern history!! But Noloop rejects any discussion of this. Slrubenstein | Talk 05:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't really know what that has to do with what I said, I was responding to your evolution comment about Christians. Obviously theres Christians that take a more literal interpretation of the Bible in which they emphatically oppose evolution and others which try to incorporate current science in some ways with their beliefs. This has nothing to do with Judaism, I stated that to be a Christian you have to believe in Christ. I'm not talking about the people who are "Sunday Christians" or whatever the term is for people who pretend to be Christians or go through the paces to appear that way to friends/family, I'm talking about the real Christians, the ones that actually, 100%, with all their hearts, believe Jesus is their personal savior. If you self-identify as one of those, are one of those, then you are 100% without a doubt biased in any kind of research on the historical validity of Jesus being real or not. This can swing both ways, you like to bring up Jews, I'm not familiar with Judaism since I was raised Christian but you couldn't take books/papers written by a Orthodox Jew on the validity of a global flood as unbiased. Religious researchers and biased view points go hand-in-hand when your talking about proving or disproving key components of said religion. I think your just trying to confuse the issue and steer the topic away from the simple fact is a religious person is going to be biased about research of their religion. — raekyT 06:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You seem to think that if a person teaches at a seminary, or publishes in a journal on Biblical studies, they must therefore be advocating a Christian point of view. This reflects a misunderstanding both about history and about Christianity. There are many Christian seminaries that do not accept the Bible as a reliable historical account. They wish their students to learn ist cenury history of Roman occupied Palestine, but using the same methods and assumptions as one would use to study 19th century Italy or 17th century France. It surprises no professional historian, that these seminaries are a major source of employment. Does this influence the scholar? Well, if the seminary won't give that person a raise unless they have a good track record of publication in peer-reviewed journals, you bet it does!! You need to learn more about how academia works. Harvard, Cambridge and Oxford were originally Christian institutions, and are still heavily Christin. Does that mean that scholars working there are Christian influenced? Slrubenstein | Talk

I don't understand what you mean. We're not talking of literal interpretation of the Bible, we are talking of a single, definite issue which is crucial to Christianity in itself. I know how academia works - since you cited it, I work at the University of Cambridge, thank you. And no, they are not "heavily Christian", I can guarantee. --Cyclopia^talk 16:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You miss the point of my analogy. Are you denying that Cambridge's first college was founded by the Bishop of Ely? Are you denying that the university was in effect accredited as a university through papal bulls by Gregory IX and Nicolas IV? Well, then this means that Cambridge is a Christian institution and we need to identify you as a Christian scholar. I am making an analogy - I am not claiming that Noloop has said this, but I am giving you an example of his reasoning. When someone says that the institution does not just teach Christian theology, and that many of its professors and students are not religious, Noloop simply repeats points equivalent to the Bishop of Ely and Pope Gregory IX. You cannot deny these facts, after all, cany you, Cyclopia? Well, you might argue they are not relevant to this specific case. You might bring up biographical information about the author in question, or about the contents of the article, or the journal in which it was publihsed. Noloop continues to insist that he represents a Christian POV because the University is Christian. This is an analogy, Cyclopia, but meant to give you an idea of what editors trying to reason with noloop have to contend with. Slrubenstein | Talk 05:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Finally, as others have pointed out, the Jesus article includes multiple points of view including Christian points of view. Of course in these instances we turn to avowed Christian scholars, but Noloop objects to this. What is wrong with using Christian scholars to express a non-critical historicla view? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I agree with Cyclopia. There may be problems with Noloop's approach and I don't believe his take on things is entitely correct, but editors he is interacting with appear blind to the possibility that his concerns might be worth listening to and are failing to engage with him constructively, which is as much the root cause of the problem as anything else. --FormerIP (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Then I suggest either of you (Cyclopia or FormerIP) make another more constructive proposal. Mentorship? Editing restrictions on certain pages? What's going to end this? I get that you think a topic ban is too much but lets see better proposals. I'm happy to support or oppose those too. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• What about 1RR restriction + requirement that edits are proposed on talk page before being deployed? --Cyclopia^talk 15:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'd support a 1rr and a mentorship, if Noloop accepts. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 15:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I declare an interest, because I have tried to edit this article in the past and found it to have a WP:OWN problem. But it does have that problem, and I think any way of dealing with this incident should recognise that.--FormerIP (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Plus, if this isn't a proposal to canvass, I don't know what is: [158] --FormerIP (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

But people are pointing out that he is most disruptive on talk pages, so I'm not sure that confining him more to the talk pages is really going to help much.Griswaldo (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

@ FormerIP: How do you respond to the fact that there have been extensive and detailed responses to Noloop's claims, and that the Jesus Myth theory has ben discussed extensively on the Jesus talk page? Can you provide any evidence to support your claim that "editors he is interacting with appear blind to the possibility that his concerns might be worth listening to and are failing to engage with him constructively?" Are these not examples of very constructive engagement?[159] [160]? These are from another noticeboard but sum up weeks of discussion at the Jesus article.Slrubenstein | Talk 16:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, are you really trying to sell this mix of straw man arguments and attacks as "very constructive engagement"? --Cyclopia^talk 16:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand how is Noloop disruptive in talk pages. Is he violating WP:CIVIL, WP:TALKO or what? All I see is an editor discussing on the article, which is what talk pages are for. He perhaps came vaguely close to canvassing, but not less than the editors that want to ban him. --Cyclopia^talk 16:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree. He is hightly confrontational, and combative. He never provide sources or seem open tpo compromise. He is clearly POV pushing muuch of the time. Having said that I am not sure that is the answer. I would like to give him another chance but really do not think he will take it (in the long term. I would support the 1RR restriction, but with the proviso that if his attitude and actions do not change he would be topic banned.Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

@Cyclopia: Fair questions, but I would refer you to WP:DE. You seem to think there was a very short discussion and Noloop is being closed down. In fact, he has been making the same comment at the Jesus talk page for several weeks, and in fact there has ben a good deal of discussion. The problem is, talk pages are explicitly for discussion to improve the article, not for soapboxing - sopaboxing is an abuse of talk pages. Yet that is what Noloop is doing. Why do I think this? Because when he asks a question and someone answers it, he just keeps asking the question as if it was not answered. When someone asks him a question, he doesn't answer it. He just repeats himself. This is not discussion, it is not collaborative editing, it is disruption and soapoxing. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, and I don't condone it, but a topic ban is not a proportionate response to a bit of soapboxing. --FormerIP (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

How would you feel about a topic ban for a fixed period, to give this person a chance to learn how to collaborate by working on other articles? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

A Bit? he has been doing this (on just one subject) for what a week? Elsewhere he has been doing this same sort of thin for nearly a year.Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose (again) pretty much per Cyclopia. I don't think Noloop's behaviour warrants a topic ban. I think all involved parties should look for a way to solve this content dispute without having the opposing faction topic banned. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 15:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Salvio there are many people who share similar views to Noloop and these people are not being discussed here repeatedly. Why? Because this isn't about content disagreements. It is about Noloop's behavior. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose but it would be better if he would concentrate on writing biographies of theologians of Radical Criticism. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - People who come here with an agenda in mind and a plan to shape Wikipedia articles to support that agenda are not worth the time to enact piecemeal restrictions and give to hand-holding mentors. Kick to the curb, save us all some drama. Tarc (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
• I'm unsure that a topic ban is the way to go. There's a good chance that it would just move the same issues to the next subject area where Noloop finds the article unsatisfactory. Deal with it here. Either he can moderate his behavior when dealing with a contentious issue, or he cant.-Cube lurker (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

what you seem to be saying is that he has a patern of behavure and if we do not block him (or convince him to change, and thats failed already) he will just be disruptive elseewhere?Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It's the impression I get from comparing this example with the notes in his block log. Not that be definately needs to be blocked, but that it would be best to have behavior brought into community norms nad not just moved.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Noloop notified Atheism:Talk regarding the RS/N discussion: Historical Jesus: 90% of sources are Christian theologians and/or Christian Presses. Feel free to contribute - This seems to have been his only edit to the Atheism talkpage and there was no ongoing discussion pertaining to the subject. Unomi (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure that your point is.Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Question Why is it so important for Noloop not to be topic banned? If he is making any sensible contributions couldn't those be made by people who are capable of doing so in a manner that isn't disruptive?Griswaldo (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

AGFSlatersteven (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Noted and changed my comment because of it.Griswaldo (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Suggest Temporary topic ban (length TBA) -- I have never been involved with the articles in question (haven't even read them) but I know from other areas I tried to contribute to how tedious it can be when someone apparently doesn't listen. On the other hand, topic banning someone for eternity can easily lead to grudges and will have the next person with similar views pick up where the banned editor left, and the cycle will just continue. Maybe a temporary ban will have Noloop observe for a while (or so one would hope...) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You haven't READ them? Thanks for the informed vote. Gee. Noloop (talk) 16:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

a) This isn't a vote, it's discussion. b) This is not about the topic, it's about you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, you shoul read the articles if possible, because the behaviour of Noloop is inextricably related to the status of these articles sourcing. --Cyclopia^talk 16:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I might. I understood this snide as inferring that I am not allowed to comment here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

So I have gone through some of the "dialogues" on the talk pages. Lemme revise my suggestion. Suggest Public Trouting and Noloop's being laughed at for 2 minutes. That should do. :) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Both a cooling of period (for all concearned) as well as (hopefully) acting as an engourgement for Noloop to re-examine his attitudes. At the saem time he will be able to come back and contribute with a new co-operative attitude.Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Slrubenstein is canvassing votes to ban me for canvassing votes. [161] Noloop (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Everywhere I go, now, I see canvassing to ban me for canvassing. [162] Noloop (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you quite get the point. The alleged canvassing is a minor issue compared to your overall conduct of being not very cooperative. If you indeed become topic-banned, don't walk away from it with the idea "I got banned for canvassing". If you do that, you will really not have understood. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with the point, which is different from not getting it. Are you going to provide any evidence for your view, or just assert it? My activity in the last few days has been restricted entirely to expressing my concerns with sourcing on the reliable sources noticeboard, expressing my concern with the fringe theory designation on the fringe theory noticeboard, and expressing my concerns with various articles in their Talk pages. My only edit to any of the actual articles in question was was to add a POV template to the articles. So this looks very much like censorship of ideas. When Wikipedia articles state as fact anything like "Christianity is right," the sources should not be 90% Christian. When Wikipedia adopts the position that skepticism of a Christian belief is a fringe theory to be excluded from articles, the basis for that should not be 90% Christian theologians. Advocating that view is all I've done in the last three days, so that is what you are calling "not being very cooperative." Noloop (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This is my main concearn, I don't think Nollop does 'get it'.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This sub-thread is not about canvassing specifically, and I would not call his behavior that anyway. Those are the very venues you are disrupting presently with your nonsense. It's like notifying editors on an article talk page that there is a discussion at RS/N or NPOV/N. Completely legitimate and even helpful.Griswaldo (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The idea of banning Noloop is utterly ridiculous. He has not engaged in any rude, uncivil, or inappropriate behaviors, unlike his critics who have resorted to attacks like this one. Noloop has raised a legitimate concern. The issue is this: Does the faith in which one has been indoctrinated impact one's ability to objectively assess data that threatens the truth claims of that faith? It is a legitimate concern. Noloop has never said "anyone who claims Jesus existed is a Christian." This is a serious misrepresentation of his argument, and in fact is one of several straw man misrepresentations that his critics have used in their attempts to shut him down. There are a number of statements made in the Historicity of Jesus and Christ Myth Theory articles that say there is a mainstream scholarly consensus when in fact the sources cited are all sectarian. Noloop has been using the talk page appropriately to address the issue, but instead of responding on the issues, his critics have resorted to name-calling and other forms of abuse. Both of these articles have long-standing WP:OWN and WP:NPOV problems caused by editors who strongly push an evangelical Christian POV. The failure of Noloop's critics to address his concerns has caused him to continue to seek improvement of the Wikipedia articles by demanding better sourcing. His critics call his work "disruptive editing" and "soapboxing", but the failure is theirs, not his. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeaceLoveHarmony (talk • contribs) 17:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Absolutely oppose I read the RSN board the other day. Noloop has taken on a issue vigorously. His task may be impossible: to find sourced academic commentary about the historicity of Jesus that doesn't come from a Christian POV. I don't see any evidence of him behaving poorly, edit warring, name calling, or any other issues which would justify any kind of ban. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I'm vaguely tempted to propose a topic ban for Slrubenstein, for harassment, name-calling, intolerance and censorship. He continually makes comments like: “I think we can now say he is not only a bigot, but a fanatical bigot. This is not name-calling.” [163] He's repeatedly canvassed people to vote here, in a thread that began as a complaint against canvassing [164] and elsewhere. He is attempting to ban me for nothing but expressing an idea, the idea that any statement of the general type “Christianity is right” should not be sourced primarily to Christians. He is attempting censorship. I haven’t even edited any of these articles in several days. I've done nothing but attempt to persuade. Noloop (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• This is silly. We don't topic ban people just because we don't find all their edit constructive. You have to do something really bad to get banned, and I haven't seen Noloop do anything bad. He just talks about sources in good faith. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think topic banning is the right way to go, but neither is it accurate to say he's done nothing wrong. Hence the multiple blocks for edit warring as well as the warning for the inappropriate God edit.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with Peregrine Fisher, we no longer burn heretics (or topic ban them). Noloop challenges quality of Christian sources on Christianity - try replacing this with reliable sources by Scientologists on Scientlogy articles. If you want a place where Christianity will always be unexposed I would suggest changing to conservapedia. PS the God edit is back WITH sources by another editor, so the "warning" is probably an overreaction. Arnoutf (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Regarding the God edit, you are not correct Arnoutf. Noloop's edit was nonsensical and unsourced. The scientific method does not support belief in anything. Cyclopia's edit was, on the other hand, both correct and reliably sourced. The question of God's existence, as God is described by most theists anyway, is not falsifiable and hence outside of what can be determined through the scientific method. Given this fact anyone should also be able to see how POV Noloop's nonsensical edit was.Griswaldo (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

flattered to see Griswaldo endorsing one of my edits! Well, actually the scientific methods supports belief in theory of relativity as a good approximation to spacetime description, for example. It supports belief in lots of things. One of the things it does not support is God, and in that Noloop edit was perfectly accurate. I just happened to make it more precise and sourced. Notice, by the way, that I used two believing theologians as sources. This is a parallel with what we're discussing here. Using atheist sources to support that science does not support God would easily be considered seriously biased. If however parties who would have all to gain from a scientific support of God explicitly deny this is possible, the sources build a much more solid case. Do you get the pattern? --Cyclopia^talk 20:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This is semantic, but I'm not sure you understood what I meant by that. The scientific method is a tool, and it doesn't "support" anything. The theory of relativity is supported by some of the known results of applying the scientific method to various phenomena. Historical methods of research, likewise, do not support the existence of Jesus or the non-existence of Jesus. The known results of various applications of historical methods may support one or the other. This is why Noloop's statement was nonsensical. The reason it is not NPOV, is because the scientific method is not a useful tool in determining the existence or non-existence of God, so making the one sided claim is not even neutral, ontop of being nonsensical.Griswaldo (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: The quest for non-Christian scholars that acknowledge the historicity of Jesus is a reasonable one, and the idea that Christian scholars can be objective on the topic is somewhat amusing. This strikes me as being one of the unfortunate situations where an editor has lapsed into bad behaviour because of an apparently unyielding wall of opposition to an objectively reasonable position. There's really not that much difference between this and the kind of difficulties we have with various pseudoscience articles.—Kww(talk) 18:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Too drastic a "remedy" at this time. Other steps can be taken, and the concerted opposition to Noloop also shows signs of being as intemperate (at times) as Noloop is. Everyone needs to cool their jets and ratchet things back a bit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: I first encountered User:NoLoop when he was against one of my edits - I am not sure how I came to edit the Historical Jesus article, but it may have been because I picked up on his name coming up in one of the noticeboards I monitored, and it sparked my interest in seeing what was happening there. I actually agree with some of his proposed edits there, although I would question where he wants to locate these within the article, and the exact nature of the edits & sources he use. NoLoop did inform me of the notifications, and I am grateful, as I was involved in the discussions (including on his talk page) that gave rise to these. I see no impropriety in that. I am not sure why his edits should give rise to a call for a ban, although I think that edit-warring has been problematic in these articles, but he is only one party in that, and he has been punished for that. This seems more to do with people wanting somebody banned because they do not like him contradicting what they believe. I am not interested in what people believe, as I do not believe anything is true - and this encyclopedia is not interested in the truth either; it is interested in accuracy and reliability. Obviously sources that cleave to a set of dogmas will treat the subject as if it were true - whether that is acceptable, to the exclusion of sources that contradict this truth, I find problematic. Editors trying to apply a standard of editing that only permits a strictly scientifically rigorous approach to phenomena that is not capable of anything that would be accepted as falsification would be laughable, if it were not so pathetically sad. And I am a Christian (just). - MishMich - Talk - 19:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment Some of these comments are simply astonishing. There are many, many people who share some or all of Noloop's beliefs but are capable of discussing them in ways that are not tendentious -- not forum shopping all over the Wiki and constantly practicing WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. No one is suggesting to ban any of these people, or Noloop for that matter, for their beliefs. The idea that this is about banning him because people hold different beliefs is ridiculous. The idea that this is about "beliefs" is actually even more ridiculous. I'm agnostic and I couldn't care less if Jesus existed, but I happen to know that most historians do believe he existed. And yes I mean historians, not "theologians" or "Christian scholars". One's qualifications as a religious historian have nothing to do with religious affiliation, just as one's qualifications as a national historian have nothing to do with national affiliations, or one's qualifications as a political scientist have nothing do with with party affiliation. Take a deep breath and consider that last example. Would you claim that having a personal political affiliation as a voter and a citizen makes a political scientist biased? Should we add this information to the entry of every political scientist? Of course we shouldn't. Should we mention it if other scholars have made such an affiliation notable? Yes, in that case the political affiliation has been made meaningful by the reliable sources as opposed to Wikipedians (see WP:NOR). There is a huge difference between religious polemics and religious scholarship that few people commenting here recently seem to understand ... and yes Arnautf this is not a perfect world and everyone is biased ... Besides that fact that we are all biased to some degree, there is a huge difference between polemics and scholarship. Christian theologians should not be trusted as reliable sources on this question because they are not concerned with the accuracy of history for its own sake, but with the Christian faith and its internal logic. These writers, on this topic, should be considered polemicists. However Christian historians should absolutely be trusted as reliable sources because they are concerned with historical accuracy and not the internal logic of their faith. They are also held in check by the entire community of historians, as opposed to the their religious communities. Keeping their reputations require them to be respected as historians by other historians ... of all manner of religious affiliation and disaffiliation. We here at Wikipedia trust this community to keep itself in line, because all of our policies require that we trust the reliable sources that it creates to guide our writing. If there is some systemic bias in this community we can't do anything about it, nor should we -- see pretty much every policy we have. It pains me to see these arguments made over and over because they show 1) a complete lack of understanding of how the study of religion is conducted in the academy and 2) a complete lack of understanding of how we are meant to deal with such scholarship here vis-a-vis our various policies -- WP:V, WP:NPOV, etc.Griswaldo (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Would you claim that having a personal political affiliation as a voter and a citizen makes a political scientist biased? : Obviously. If a political scientist has an explicit and known political affiliation, it is self-explanatory that there is a bias. Bias that becomes important if the subject involved is at the core of the political affiliation. What would you think of sourcing the article on Communism with 90% Communist sources? Would you be happy having the article on Nazism relying completely on Nazist sources? Your blindess to this platitude is the really astonishing thing.
• However Christian historians should absolutely be trusted as reliable sources because they are concerned with historical accuracy and not the internal logic of their faith. - As a though experiment, imagine that there is substantial evidence that Jesus didn't exist (or substantial lack of evidence that he did). Now build a convincing case that a Christian historian would happily acknowledge that. You continue to think that scholars shut down their self when entering their departments and writing their papers. It is not so, in any discipline (and much more when concerning religion). I cited above a source of a Christian scholar who made clear that the even contemplating "Jesus does not exist" as in the realm of possibilities is totally incompatible with the Christian worldview.
• They are also held in check by the entire community of historians, as opposed to the their religious communities - That's what we're asking: this check. --Cyclopia^talk 20:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

If you held the belief of a Christian afterlife and the key component of getting into that afterlife is the existence of Jesus (which it is for Christians) then how could you ever admit or believe that he didn't exist? To assume a writer from a Christian background would not be biased on the existence of their Savior and the key figure of their religion is utterly insane. — raekyT 20:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Your thought experiment is a great example of how conspiratorial thinking functions. Congratulations. Imagine if things weren't as we've been told they are, don't you think such and such people wouldn't want us to know!!! You're not asking for "this check". It has been provided over and over. Those of us who are not simply flying by this message board have seen the numerous quotes from scholars of all ilks calling this fringe cruft. What more do you need?Griswaldo (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• So your saying you honestly think a Christian could be objective about the existence of Jesus? — raekyT 20:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Why are you constructing the argument backwards? If there is little doubt that someone existed, like lets say Abraham Lincoln it makes no sense to ask whether or not someone else who is emotionally invested in the legacy of that person could be objective about their existence. These people assume that the person existed, along with all the other people who are not so emotionally invested, and wondering about how their feelings effect their judgement about whether or not is true should never even be a question unless there is doubt about this truth in the first place.Griswaldo (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• People don't tie their salvation of their soul and hopes of eternal afterlife on Abraham Lincoln, whereas if Jesus was proved to not be a real person, that would shatter the entire belief system of Christianity. To assume someone deeply committed to the idealism of Christianity to whole heartily belief in Jesus and his message would ever even remotely consider that he didn't exist is foolhardy. Your comment sums up your beliefs quite well, that Jesus was real so anyone who doubts that is fringe. Jesus lived nearly 2000 years ago, there is no direct evidence of his existence like there is of Abraham Lincoln who we have photographs of and other direct physical proof of his existence. To assume beyond a shadow of a doubt that the biblical man Jesus and the biblical accounts of his life are accurate without a doubt, is a stretch imho. — raekyT 21:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Talk about circular reasoning. "If there is little doubt that someone existed". This very assumption is what we're trying to prove. This is a summary of this gigabytes-long week of discussion: "Is there little doubt that Jesus existed?" "Yes." "How do we know that?" "Mostly from people that believe from faith that Jesus existed, and also happen to study about Jesus" "But they will be surely biased, won't they be?" "Oh no, this is a non-issue, because -remember?- there is little doubt that Jesus existed!" --Cyclopia^talk 21:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I may have missed them. Probably there was some in the FAQ that another user (Bill the Cat?) compiled? If so, let's just add them to the articles, and all this is going to disappear. It's really that simple. --Cyclopia^talk 20:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Nazism and communism ... what a joke!!! You chose party affiliations that are completely outside of the mainstream political spectrum. You wonder why I don't want to have a conversation with you? Maybe you could for a second imagine that an American political scientist measuring public opinion of Barack Obama is a registered Democrat and try to reformulate your response. If you are unwilling to meet me squarely on the field of discussion and actually engage the arguments I set forth without grotesquely distorting them for your own purposes I do not, as I stated before, care to converse with you my friend. Feel free to try again. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You mean a political scientist who happens to be a democrat may have a different opinion on the quality of the Obama presidency compared to a political scientist being a republican? Yup, seems to be the case. (and indeed there is evidence of a poll about legalising Hashish at about the same moment in the same region, both representative, but the one sample by supporters of legalisation showed a 60% support while the opponents found a 70% opposition. So indeed polling is open to bias by its researchers.)

PS glad to be back to Godwins law ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

So you think that a registered Democrat would be incapable of looking at polling data, or interview data that they have collected in order to present a relatively unbiased view of the public perception of the president they helped to elect? And you think that this person can publish their biased results in mainstream peer-reviewed publications without a problem? So political scientists who are Democrats and those who are Republicans are inherently biased. there is no such thing as good scientific political analysis is there? Good to know. Same must be true for political anthropologists and sociologists who vote in elections. I wish you had told me about this lack of neutrality in scholarship sooner Arnautf, I would have changed my profession.Griswaldo (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Given your naive belief in the independence of researchers, perhaps you should really change your profession. I don't know how old are you, Griswaldo, but from your comments it seems that you're still a bit too young and idealistic to fully understand how these things work. --Cyclopia^talk 21:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Cyclopia I'm well aware of how things work, and I have articulated my beliefs about bias much more fully in the past, which you and Arnoutf are both aware of. I also happen to know that we can't build an encyclopedia on the notion that everyone is biased. Bias might be an inherent part of the human condition but it is also relative. Everyone is not as biased about everything they think about as everyone else is. If we are to construct a general reference work we need to do the best we can with what we have. This means trusting academic communities to lead the way (and indeed our policies reflect this see WP:V and WP:NPOV). One cannot construct a general reference work that is reliable if we go about trying to identify every imaginable bias that our sources may have. If we do so we destroy the authority of the knowledge we are presenting completely. X scholars says Y about the history of the Netherlands but ... he's Dutch ... so make of that what you will ... and so on. That's not the way you write an encyclopedia. Both you and Arnautf know this. Why do you keep on asking us to deviate from trusting this academic community? Do we need to start identifying the various affiliations and personal characteristics of all scholars in every entry? Maybe I have all of this wrong, maybe you guys worship at the Temple of Postmodernism. Maybe this is just an example of the relativism you wish to instill? Yeah? I doubt it. I think this particular example is one you care about personally, both of you. I don't think you want us to start qualifying information all of the encyclopedia based on the possible biases of the sources. I think you just want us to do it in this case. The problem is that you keep on making the general argument about bias every-time I say that we need to trust the relevant scholarly communities to sort this out for us, but in reality you don't want the general argument to shape what we do in the entire encyclopedia, just here. If either of you are an atheist, btw, don't I as an agnostic have a better position to consider this situation than you and your Christian sparring partners? Wouldn't your own arguments about bias presuppose this since I can't care less about whether God exists or whether Jesus existed? No? Well its time to consider the rhetoric you've been pushing more thoroughly then.Griswaldo (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I trust the relevant scientific community, not the individual scientists (as I repeatedly stated). Noloop here, however does implicitly more than question individual scientists, but argues that the theological community is not relevant for a historical/archaeological article.

PS postmodernism is in my view a lazy way out of discussion in science. We should all be aware of our biases and deal (and compensate) with those ourselves, postmodernists tend to say "yet we are biased, that is part of being human, so we don't do anything to compensate for that". Arnoutf (talk) 21:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This is where I think there is a misunderstanding. I agree that theologians are not the community we should trust to answer this question if we're looking for as unbiased of a historical view as possible. BUT Noloop is not simply questioning theologians, he is questioning historians who affiliate with Christianity. Please bare in mind that some scholars are both academic theologians and historians, by the way. Regarding the place of theology in scholarship on this question, Cyclopia him/herself brought to the discussion several sources that stated emphatically that current scholarship on the historicity of Jesus is no longer influenced by theology. At the turn of the century, these sources pointed out, it was heavily influenced by theology, but no longer. So I think you're confused about Noloop's position. It is also relevant to poitn out that in several other discussions Noloop shows no ability to distinguish "theology" from the study of religion, at least not when the scholar has a religious affiliation. It is all "theology" to him. I hope that clarifies things a bit.Griswaldo (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

"incapable of looking at polling data, or interview data". No they may not be incapable, but they are likely to interpret towards their own ideas (as are indeed supporters of superstring theories regarding physical data). Yes, these biased results are published, all the time. If there were no biases in publication the whole "rational actor" idea would have been dead and buried in all publications for at least 20 yrs by now, because the economist would have gladly taken up the findings of psychology.

Interviewing is a particularly tough job to do in a neutral and unbiased way; and constructing a poll may introduce all kinds of biases (framing effect, order effects, learning effects, fatique effects) that easily influence the data. Interpretation of interviews is again an inherently subjective task which is very hard to do completely unbiased (ok intercoder reliabilities get some of that). And so far I have only been talking about biases that are introduced by the researcher unconsciously. I do not even mention the class of researchers who actually set out to find evidence for their pet-theory and develop their methods to ignore all else, i.e. those who consciously bias the results.

Yes, science is a mess of biased people arguing against other biased people. The emerging consensus from all these biased views (and indeed publications) is usually an improvement. That is the beauty of the scientific method. Arnoutf (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

What bearing has being in the "mainstream political spectrum" for the argument? Why is it a joke? Why is it a "grotesque distortion"? Here in Europe, communist parties still exist, and neo-Nazis parties as well (unfortunately), so it didn't strike me as a strange comparison. And I could have invented hypothetical parties as well, the argument does not change. Let's restate it this way: For every value of X, if you're a political scientist affiliated to party X, and you write about X, it is safe to assume you have a pro-X bias. No problem with your request, therefore: If we were to source something like "Barack Obama is considered unanimously a very capable president", I would not accept having only sources of known, registered Democrats for it. Are you happy now? --Cyclopia^talk 20:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Would you be happy if we added a few Dutch left wing sources ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment If you are going to demand punishment of a fellow editor, the least you could do is provide some concrete, objective, examples of the behaviors you think are violations. Noloop violated the 3RR rule a couple of times a week and a half ago, and was briefly blocked for it. Other than that, all he has done is advocate for his position on some talk pages. He has not insulted anyone or been uncivil; his critics have. There are quite a few editors who agree with the idea that the religion in which one has been indoctrinated can have an impact on one's ability to objectively assess data that challenges that religion's truth claims. Those of us who believe this are being insulted as "bigots". Noloop is just asking for some sourcing from secular sources to back up some of the more extreme NPOV statements on some of these Jesus articles. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Relevant comment by Betrand Russell, one of the best known philosophers of the 20th Century - excluded. Priceless. No POV there then... - MishMich - Talk - 22:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Definite oppose Noloop could do with slowing down sometimes, hence the 3RR - not acceptable. But there is a fundamental problem here. The only groups who study the historical Jesus are either coming from a "what was the person who founded Christianity really like" perspective, or a "was there even a historical Jesus" perspective. The first camp consider it axiomatic that there was this guy called Jesus, and scholars seeking to understand the historical Jesus therefore, while some do make an effort to examine the evidence that he existed, and a few even call attention to the fact that there is virtually no evidence that he did(he didn't rule any kingdom, conquer another nation or build any notable edifice for example, three things that Alexander the Great did that left plenty of evidence in the archaeological record. Thought I'd get that in before the next person mentions that his biography was written centuries after he died), all eventually conclude that the simplest/easiest solution is that not only did he exist, but the philosophical/spiritual content of the Gospels are largely based on things he actually said. Noloop is not even arguing that this logic is unsatisfactory, he is asking for evidence that a Chinese archaeologist or Hindu philosopher would advance the same arguments, and he is having problems because the only people who are accepted as reliable sources are the ones whose interest is 'what was the founder of Christianity really like". Anyone who starts from a "was there even a historical Jesus" position is automatically excluded as WP:FRINGE, because the other group do not entertain the possibility. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Feel like it is using a hammer to crack a nut I have to agree with the rational of Cyclopia above. Articles like this always seem to have it's "protectors" for want of a better word and certain questions on certain articles lead to editors being labeled as pushing a fringe or conspiracy theory. Mo ainm~Talk 22:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
• Definite Support: Noloop should be topic-banned. If Wikipedia is to work, we must get past bigotry and prejudice. Whether a person is a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jew or Atheist is not important. We judge them by their edits. We try to be fair and balanced following the references where they lead us. Noloop cannot do this therefore he is damaging Wikipedia - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose This is absurd. It is not bigoted to ask that we do not adopt a Christian perspective but rather a secular perspective on Wikipedia. There should be some reversal of scrutiny here on Slrubenstein and the other editors who are refusing to comply with WP:NPOV in the articles. I have recently tried to give some neutral advice in the disputed article Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#Demonstrating_academic_consensus_and_Graham_Stanton.27s_assessment, but it needs more attention. II | (t - c) 00:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It took a moment to get past the word "absurd", but I pocketed the insult to try and hear what you were saying. Why can't Wikipedia reflect both Christian and secular perspectives? Is taking an inclusive approach so very wrong? - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban, Support 3 month block Wikipedia is a liberal, secular website with some tolerance for minor deviation from this. Noloop deviates too much from the agenda. RIPGC (talk) 03:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Evidence of Disruption by User:Noloop

Per User:PeaceLoveHarmony's request please use this section to present evidence (including diffs) of disruptions, with very concise explanations as needed. Please do not comment on this evidence here -- create a discussion section after this if needed for that. This is a very fair suggestion and will help sort out the behavioral issues from everything else.Griswaldo (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This is ANI and not WP:RFCU Off2riorob (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. So use this space as you will, but people should be encouraged to present this kind of information if they believe, as I do, that he's being disruptive. Every-time this is discussed the discussion just derails into what you see above, which is clearly off topic at AN/I. That's all I'm suggesting.Griswaldo (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Start an RfC. I believe this has been suggested before. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Wrong Forum Yet again. Will you all please take this to an RfC? Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Request arbitration. Noloop (talk) 01:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• People who do not understand that accusations without diffs or other supporting evidence are personal attacks (see Wikipedia:GOODFAITH#Accusing_others_of_bad_faith) should be barred from ANI (I'm looking at Off2riorob above). There's a breathtaking lack of evidence of misconduct in this "proposal". I would open up a ban proposal on Slrubenstein, but I'm sure it would be called pointy (regardless of reality) and I would be overcome by complaints from people who refuse to accept that accusations require evidence. II | (t - c) 00:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

@II - ban me on what grounds? The supporting evidence for a pattern of disruptive behavior is not a single edit dif, bu the entire section of the talk page at the Jesus article. If you do not consider the persistent pushing of a bigoted and misinformed POV on the talk page, the refusal to answer any question and the complete lack of interest in the views of othe editors, or their answers to his questions, is not an abuse of talk pages, well, what can I say? Talk pages are meant not for soapboxing but for discussion improvements to articles. Can you tell me how an editor who simply repeats the same demands week after week, even following considerable discussion among other editors (as he does not participate in any discussion, he ignores them and just repeats his demands) (and the evidence is talk:Jesus) is helping to improve the article? Slrubenstein | Talk 09:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You did not point to the talk page or make the same argument in your proposal to topic ban him. In fact there was/is no reference to Talk:Jesus in your proposal. In fact, there is only one topic as of now where Noloop is commenting (permalink), and an archive search brings up only Talk:Jesus/Archive_109 as another place of discussion (see search). Neither of these demonstrates any misconduct, and in the current section he actually appears to have some support. I do think some restraint from Noloop would be nice. What's even worse about your proposal is that you include very damaging unsupported accusations such as the argument that Noloop uses only Google Scholar snippets, without support. How would you like it if I just casually said you routinely misrepresent sources you do not read? II | (t - c) 17:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

@II: I'm not understanding your comment regarding Off2riorob - I see nothing here to justify it whatsoever. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob just basically panned the idea that we should be working with evidence here in our ANI proposals because this is ANI and not a RfC/User. That's what it looks like he said to me - is that a strawman? Anyway, it's a terrible conception of how things should be. The meme needs to be shut down before it spreads. Barring people who have this idea, regardless of whether their intentions are good, is a start. Obviously making grand accusations and bad faith assumptions without evidence in an attempt to WP:GAME people out the door is a worse offense and those people should be barred as well... II | (t - c) 04:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

All he said was that this issue would be better dealt with at an RfC/U, which is better constructed (although stil far from ideal) to deal with complex issue of behaviorial problems which fall short of blockable activity (admin territory), rather then at AN/I, where admin-centric triage is performed. That seems far from incorrect, and your specific imputation of misbehavior on his part is totally unwarranted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Err, that is not what he said, and if he had said that I wouldn't have mentioned him. When someone made a spot for actual evidence/diffs, he denigrated that move as a matter of venue. It would have been reasonable for him to say "at this point it's pointless to bring evidence since the proposal is dead", but expressing the idea that ANI is not the place for evidence really ticked me off considering how lightly this place takes evidence. I'll admit it was short-tempered and I was maybe too harsh but I think my mention of him is still at least somewhat justified. II | (t - c) 17:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I would susgest we concentrate on Noloop and his activites, not his views. This is about him, not content. After all if I were to say that Hitler killed 11 million (fill in your own offensive and racist anti-semitic comment) I would be right, but also breaching the rules.Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

From Godwins law we learn that this has gone on too long here. Arnoutf (talk) 13:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought that was comparisons with the Nazis, I was asking if some one worded a statemnt in a way that containt hightly offensive language would that be acceptable even if right? I did not compare any one to a nazi, nor thnier views. I just gave Nazi's as an example of the kind of language (I could have just as ealiy put Slavery was wrong becasue it kept N****'s in servitude. Argue about actions not content.Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Any comparisons to/analogy with Nazi topics will do, not the comparison of one of the editors (as that would be a personal attack). And yes we have been seeing Nazis, Holocaust and Hitler sprinkled throughout this discussion. Arnoutf (talk) 13:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

So is it acceptable for some one to engage if poor actions whilst being right? does a persons 'correctness' (at best a matter of perspective) outwiegh bad Behaviour?Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to close this down now

I propose this topic, as it was just a few days ago, be closed, archived, collapsed and all the complainants be directed to pursue Dispute Resolution, and either file an RfC or else take this to arbitration where it belongs. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Here here! It's not going anywhere. No actionable results can come from this. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 03:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Shut it down. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - close and archive asap Arnoutf (talk) 08:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
• support Wrong venue. ANI cannot deal with this as has been amply demonstrated by the multiple listings of this complaint, which have all petered out in a similar way.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support. This is not going anywhere; please, start an WP:RFC. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 11:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment This general issue was taken to arbitration by User:Noloop where it was rejected by all arbitrators. One of those arbitrators supported the unpopular topic ban proposal on this page above (just to point out that there is clearly not agreement between AN/I admins and arbitrators on how to deal with this). So is a RFC/U the only place for this then? I'm assuming that these tangential arguments about the historicity of Jesus would not be appropriate at the RFC/U, in which case I guess that really is the best venue to weed the behavioral issues out from this other nonsense.Griswaldo (talk) 13:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Much of the defnece (and some of the attack) is based on content not behaviour. I am not sure that is the right approach and would like that cleared up. So is it corrext to say that the value of someone views (oe edits) outweighs rules on good behaviour? Or are we saying the Noloops actions are acceptabel behaviour?Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support However much content discussion there has been, there is still an overwhelming majority against a ban, so the subject is done with. --FormerIP (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose the key is to focus on behavior, and an editor who never answers qustions and ignores answers to his own questions, and keeps pushing the same point of view even after weeks of discussion and a clear consensus among other editors, is abusing talk pages - this pattern of stridently insisting on the same demand after discussion is simple disruptive editing. I accept that there is no consensus for a ban, but that does not mean that we cannot discuss alternate approaches. Some people - I do not know whether they are actually administrators or no - have proposed alternate solutions and we should consider them here and now. Minimally, is there anyone (someone who is not committed to his POV, and someone who also cares about our NPOV policy) who would be willing to mentor him? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
• Is he agreeable to a mentor? Off2riorob (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
• Agree with closing discussion. It's clearly not going to achieve consensus and seems to be only increasing the temperature. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support – Take this to WP:DR; too much drama here. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 18:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

User:119.155.2.167 posted personal information on Wikileaks

Personal information and cell phone numbers. I've warned the user but given the fact that it's an IP and that the edit was inherently vandalistic I'm unsure about the outcome. Reporting here so that the user can be reprimanded by a sysop and potentially blocked if noncompliant. Sheesh, and I was just getting to bed. elektrikSHOOS 08:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I should clarify: it wasn't my info, but it was somebody's, and this is not acceptable. elektrikSHOOS 08:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Go to bed. ;-)

I've WP:REVDELed the edit, as it contained "non-public identifying or personal information" (a cell-phone number, beside a name). I'll keep an eye on the IP.

TFOWR 08:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Stuff like that requires Oversight, not RevDel. That has more serious real-world ramifications than anything 4chan can do. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Carl Johnson)} 20:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The IP traces back to Karachi, Pakistan. My "That-Ain't-Good-o-Meter" is acting up. I think a block might be in order, just to go on the safe side. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure, WHOIS suggests that it's a shared IP. Perhaps a soft block? elektrikSHOOS 09:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Suppressed now, per non-public, personal information - Alison ^❤ 10:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on the IP, but I suspect they've made their post and moved on. Meantime, I have semi-protected Wikileaks - the past three IP edits were all reverted, Wikileaks is topical right now, and the most recent IP edit suggests that Wikileaks' current topicality may be resulting in confusion between our article and Wikileaks itself. PC1 might be more appropriate here, but I leave that to other admins to consider (no objection if anyone changes/lifts protection). TFOWR 09:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Breitbart

Resolved

Thank you! Bearian (talk) 23:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This stub article is a freaking mess. Edit wars, BLP violations, unsourced comments, you name it, it's here. It is a very visible article about a subject who has been in the news all week. I have tried to fix it, to no avail. It needs semi-protection, it needs serious fixing, it needs to be presentable. Please, dear fellow sysops, do something!!! Bearian (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• I've exercised some of my tools. I've blocked a BLP vandalism-only account and am scrutinizing some others. I've decided not to exercise my tools to semi-protect the article.

  There are a fair number of established accounts vandalising it (example edit from someone who has been here since 2006), and in contrast vandalism is being reverted by editors without accounts. (Example edit). Semi-protection in this case seems to be counter-productive, as it would prevent people who are trying to help from helping whilst not stopping some of the people who are not here to help. Blocks of the people who are here to damage and nothing else are far more in order, and I am taking a serious look at histories such as Special:Contributions/Pitonpro right now. You already have several experienced editors, such as Tony Sidaway and Hoary already paying attention to the article, notice. Also, the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, where you'll notice that some of the helpful regulars are not administrators, is down the hall. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Looking further through the edit history, especially at the edits during the period in which the article was semi-protected before, it is apparent that semi-protection didn't stop battles over content at all. But it did stop editors without accounts from removing editorializations and correcting spelling errors. So I've exercised my tools again. It seems that what is best here is to allow editors without accounts and long-standing editors that are not administrators to continue to edit in good faith without restriction as current events continue, but to enable pending changes that hold back visibility of any changes to the point when a reviewer or administrator accepts them. And there are at least two editors with reviewer/administrator privileges actively editing the article. So I've enabled pending changes, set to expire in 1 month, which seems a reasonable period for the dust to settle here. Uncle G (talk) 21:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Jon Wefald

User:Spacini is attempting (multiple times, in fact) to reinsert very controversial, and quite poorly-cited, information into this biography. This violates the biography policies, I'm sure (I can't find the link right now), and he won't stop. He even claims I'm "whitewashing" it. Lithistman (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

As a reviewer, I was concerned that an entire section of the article was being blanked without discussion. The first blanking by User:Lithistman was made on 25 June 2010 with the note: "there may be a place for the results of this investigation. this isn't it." I restored the blanked portion on 25 June 2010 with the note: "revert blanking; as the case is still ongoing, it is important that this information be retained in the article". User:Lithistman once again blanked the section on 29 June 2010 with the note: "please note, this is NOT "blanking." This is a biography, and the case is taking up way over half of the article, giving it too much weight. do NOT readd it." Additionally, the user left this message on my talk page: "The material you readded to Jon Wefald is both poorly cited (at least one of the "references" was to a dead link), and gives WAY too much play to the case (over half his bio after you readded it). Please do not readd that material to his biography. It belongs more in either the K-State main article or the K-State sports article. But it should not be replaced into the Wefald article. Please don't readd it again. Lithistman (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)" I restored the blanked section one more time with the note: "revert; someone is attempting to whitewash a critical issue that occurred during the Wefald administration-- the case is ongoing and he is still employed at K-State; suggest rewrite". I was in the process of suggesting on my talk page that the section be rewritten to bring it up to date and replace dead URLs when User:Lithistman left this message for me: "I am now taking this to the next level. You will stop readding poorly-cited, tangentiall-related information to Jon Wefald or I will report you for these actions. Most likely you will be blocked if you continue. Lithistman (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)". This is the response I was working on: "Feel free to re-write the section, but do not blank it again; that will be reported as vandalism. If the references are dead links, then find current sources. The depositions provided by former AD Bob Krause and former coach Ron Prince were recently made available online by the Topeka Capital Journal. Perhaps those should be cited as well. Although the Audit section of the Wefald article is currently half of the content, that only demonstrates that the article has very little content. Blanking this section has the egregious appearance of whitewashing for the sake of someone's reputation. Additionally, I agree that the audit content should be added to the main K-State article and the K-State athletics article. Good suggestions! Spacini (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)" Rather than continue the revert war that ensued, I was going to ask for an administrator review the situation and open a discussion on the article's talk page. But User:Lithistman has been rather uncivil and reported this disagreement over content. I strongly suspect that User:Lithistman has a personal connection to the Jon Wefald article, hence my use of the term "whitewash". In retrospect, I regret using that term, but the content that was deleted from the article does give the impression that pertinent information was being deliberately deleted. I look forward to working out this disagreement amicably and will gladly respond to any questions or comments about my review of the aforementioned edits. Spacini (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This is about this content? In that case, I congratulate Lithistman for his work to remove content which violates WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. This issue is not really appropriate for ANI at this point though. You might try asking for a third opinion or raising the matter at WP:BLPN. NW (Talk) 20:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• It is not a disagreement over content, it's a biography issue. It can not be readded without violating policy. Lithistman (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree. Still a matter for BLPN. NW (Talk) 21:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, Lithistman, please try the WP:BLPN board. The folks there specialize in this stuff. --Tom (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Would it not be more appropriate to include it in the University artilce? Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• That was my point as well. As for the above recommendations regarding BLPN board, I appreciate them, and will take such issues there in the future. Thanks, Lithistman (talk) 04:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

User:85.197.19.228

The above IP addressing is inserting conspiracy theory material into several articles, most recently at Peter Power and 7 July 2005 London_bombings. I've asked them per WP:BRD to use the talk page, and left a welcome page and then a warning on their talk page. However this looks like an IP on a mission, more a disruptive editor than a 3rr. Would someone take a look? --Snowded ^TALK 19:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Addition - while I was writing this the IP did make a comment on one talk page here. If anything it increases my concern. --Snowded ^TALK 19:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

In no way did I support any conspiracy theory. To revert my edits with this (unsubstantiated!) allegation as rationale is violation of a fundamental Wikimedia principle NPOV. Would someone take a neutral look? 85.197.19.228 (talk) 14:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with them. Hope that helps. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned this one is resolved. A warning was placed on the IP's site here] by an admin and the edit warring stopped. Per WP:BRD if anyone wants to make a case for inclusion of the material fine, but the talk page is the place. As to conspiracy theory, well this is the only published material. The matter was not taken up by any mainstream media. --Snowded ^TALK 15:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

JHUGHES8989

Resolved

JHUGHES8989 (talk · contribs) has evaded a two week block for abusing multiple accounts, using 81.109.201.108 (talk · contribs). MRSC (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked ip, extended block on user, left note, ate tasty chicken and rice for dinner. With peach iced tea. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Eugeneacurry requests unblock

Not sure what to do, what with that official looking box saying "don't edit this", but the original block was a travesty of justice. It was done by an involved admin. I personally don't think Eugene brings anything good to the WP table, but that block was totally wrong. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I now remember how this whole thing went down. Eugene shouldn't have made that page about Slim's real life identity. That's a given, and maybe Eugene deserved some sort of block for that. But, the admin who blocked him was like "I haven't dealt with him in six months, so I'm not involved". Difs were provided that in my mind meant that admin could never be uninvolved with Eugene. But, the whole thing was done quickly, and Eugene put a "retired" sign on his userpage, and it went away. So, Eugene may deserve some kind of block, but it should be meted out by a totally uninvolved admin, and he should receive credit for his time served so far. No opinion on that, but we should not let involved admins block their enemies. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Support unblock per Iridescent and Pergrine Fisher. T. Canens conclusion is wrong. Suggest trial unblock of 1 week. RIPGC (talk) 03:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Tim Song's conclusion is wrong

• Support Tim Song/T. Canens has wrongly declared the consensus as "strongly". — Preceding unsigned comment added by RIPGC (talk • contribs)
• Bullshit Don't know what you're smoking, but please don't bogart it. Consensus was abundantly clear. N.B.: Sign your posts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• I suspect the above is RIPGC, since the reasons are virtually identical. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Carl Johnson)} 07:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose People who make pointy bogus articles about other editors whould never be unblocked! How can anyone even consider this? Kindzmarauli (talk) 07:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'd like to hear some uninvolved comments on whether the blocking admin was truly uninvolved. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Community seems to support that he should remain blocked, so I guess you could say it's really the community that has blocked him and the admin in question just happened to pull the trigger. Kindzmarauli (talk) 07:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: Tim Song's conclusion appears spot on: much too soon, I see no indication that he understands just why his behaviour was so unacceptable, Not just no, but hell no. Stalkers and harassers must be shown the door, Too soon, Far too soon....His actions are, point blank, unjustifiable, creates an article to attack someone, out of spite and malice? Don't we have enough of that crap going on anyway? So, hell no!, I am a fan of second chances, but the fact that he's still trying to carry on the editing dispute, even while he appeals the block, makes me feel all yucky, definitely not now and not soon, either, Absolutely not....The project is better off without him and he is probably better off without it, asking for someone to help him edit while he's blocked just seems to indicate an unwillingness to work within WP ways. Describing the community's reaction to the unblock proposal as anything other than strong opposition would have been quite wrong, and I commend Tim Song for their closing statement, with which I strongly concur. TFOWR 08:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock While this could have been left open longer than under two days consensus was achieved. Besides in addition to what has been pointed out Eugene flat out called another editor a liar [166], was comparing the Christ Myth theory to Holocaust denial Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive609#Slanderous_Accusations_of_Anti-Semitism, User:^^James^^ pointed out that Eugene had filed five ANIs in just two months [167] indicating a possible WP:GAMING issues, never mind his endless harping on the phrase "Christ Myth Theory" when even administrator User:Akhilleus pointed to WP:NOT#DICDEF (Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Archive_35#WP:POV_issues_and_WP:OWN_problems), and had been pushing for a chart in the Christ Myth Theory that was totally OR.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock I was the original blocking admin, acting after Eugenecurry had blanked the ANI report made by SV, and after consideration of the comments. I was uninvolved with the editor, as far as I am aware, until this instance. My block was overturned, without reference to me, on the basis of a "technical mistake" in blanking the content, and it was only after further evidence that Eugenecurry was incapable of complying with WP policies in respect of an editor they were in conflict with that an indefinite block was reimposed; therefore the original block was made by an uninvolved admin, on the basis of serious violations of WP policy and practice. That said, I also believe that 1 month is not a sufficient deterrence against gaming the project in following a content dispute - and especially one that involves seeking to out another editor. I am getting rather reluctant in allowing access to the encyclopedia for people who appear incapable of "getting it" that the project and its community have priority over personal opinions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose unblock - his talk page speaks for itself. Agenda driven, and essentially unapologetic...Modernist (talk) 13:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. His screed on his talkpage is rather unbecoming and shows that he still hasn't internalized why the community has no faith in him at the moment. Syrthiss (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose – Hell no, we are not unblocking this user. We do not need him on our project. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 18:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

---

We've already had an unblock discussion, and I think the consensus is clear that the consensus is clear. Let's move on, and leave Mr. Curry be. Skomorokh 16:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Brianwazere

Resolved

 – Left stern warning for user. If a similar situation arises, please report again. --Chris (talk) 06:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

User seems to be a nuisance. Just created a page Tony Pritchard and said that he was a gay actor. User also has a history of using personal attacks against others. Just wanted to see if anyone else had noticed it. User has been blocked previously twice according to his user page. May want to keep an eye on this one. Me personally I think he needs a longer block period to get the point across. 161.165.196.84 (talk) 03:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Unicos rename

Resolved

 – Moved by Uncle G. --Chris (talk) 06:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Per discussion here: Talk:Unicos, can someone renamed the article to "UNICOS"? --MarsRover (talk) 03:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Reporting User:LAUGH90

I am reporting the above user for continuous vandalism of Madonna albums discography. The user is continuously deflating the sales of the album Confessions on a dance floor from 12 million to 8.5 million, citing a back dated source. Even after reversal by myself and other users, and requesting him/her to explain this edit, or discuss in talk page, all has gone to deaf ears. I have thus come to ask for administrative intervention in this case, so that an ultimatum is reached. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Paulord

I'm slightly concerned about this user's edits, which seem to consist entirely of adding information to articles garnered from www.pinkfloydfan.net, a Pink Floyd fan site. Maybe he's just innocently adding information he feels would be of use, or maybe he's "spreading the word" about his website. Thoughts? Parrot of Doom 10:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I think User talk:Paulord is the better place for this discussion, at least as a starting point.  Frank  |  talk  12:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Ackees using Congo Free State as a soapbox, again, after 3O

This article was brought to 3O after huge WP:POV pushing followed by a series of racist personal attacks in April, see Talk:Congo Free State#Leopold 'civilized' - right!..... User:HelloAnnyong jumped in and tried to help, and User:Rlevse stopped him from further vandalizing my talkpage. The nonsense stopped for a while, but User:Ackees is determined to belittle and attack all others on this article, and it needs to stop. Now. Please.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 13:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Notifed User:Ackees about this post - please remember you must notify any user you discuss here. Exxolon (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

So did I, I was in the process simultaneously.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Understood, apologies for edit conflict. Exxolon (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

We will fight them on the beaches. We will never surrender.Ackees (talk) 16:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground. I'm also confused by your edit to my user (not talk) page here [168] with the edit summary "(ha ha ha whatever)" - care to explain? Exxolon (talk) 16:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Note - "16:45, 30 July 2010 SarekOfVulcan (talk | contribs) blocked Ackees (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Edit warring)" so Ackees is unable to respond here. Exxolon (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

According to Sarek, he blocked for edit warring on a different article to the one above, so this issue may still need looking at. Exxolon (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Before editing again, (if again), someone needs to give him a primer on NPOV and writing in a netural tone, I had a look at a few of his article edits and they were all problematical. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, somebody apparently had in fact defaced the article with racist references to Europeans as the "civilized world" in contrast with the Africans, which is of course patently unacceptable, so Ackees seems to have had some kind of a legitimate complaint. Looking further into this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Mathsci attempting to out User:David.Kane

Resolved

 – There is no outing here. Also, both editors are already parties to the open arbcom case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Mathsci is attempting to out me. He claims that I have some connection to the David Kane who writes at "Gene Expression," www.gnxp.com.

I "do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information." I have never mentioned this website, or any theoretical involvement there by me, at Wikipedia.

I request that User:Mathsci remove this claim from Wikipedia. If he refuses to (as his past behavior suggests is likely), I request that an admin sanction him. WP:OUTTING notes that "attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block." A block would provide MathSci with time to consider how best to work with other editors. David.Kane (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, both you here and the David Kane at gnxp.com write under your full names, and you both have the same interest in race-related issues. But what clinches it is, the David Kane at gnxp.com explicitly claims he is you on Wikipedia [169]. If he isn't, maybe you'd better protest against identity theft. Unless that posting is a fake (and it doesn't look like one), I don't think you have grounds for an outing complaint. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Shouldn't you have raised this issue by contacting an Admin via email? A large fraction of the Wiki community monitors AN/I, only a small fraction would have seen the comments made by Matsci. That Admin could have intervened by removing the comment by Matsci and then a thread could have been started here to discuss measures against Mathsci; the evidence for the outing attempt would only be visible to Admins. Count Iblis (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I was going to add similar thoughts but got edit conflict. I am also of the view that this is not a case of outting. It is not unusual for evidence to be submitted to arbcom regarding off-wiki comments about wikipedia. To use the username David Kane and then claim that you are being outted as being "David Kane" is a mistake. If you used an anonymous username that would be different as you would have a case that evidence should have been submitted to arbcom privately. I don't think there has been any violation of wikipedia policy. If you have an imposter at gnpx.com, then you need to contact gnpx.com. If you really are David Kane and you posted publicly on a blog that you are David Kane at Wikipedia, then you David Kane outted yourself, not MathSci.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Dear poor David.Kane, these points and these links have been under discussion for about a month and a half at ArbCom. His edits here simply seem to be a diversion as a kind of attention seeking exercise or a method of creating more disruption. He identified himself off-wiki with this edit [170], a link ArbCom is already familiar with. His edits at the moment seem to be extremely disruptive. Since he doen't seem to be particularly interested in improving content on wikipedia outside race-related articles and even there he is pushing a POV to breaking point with recent edits to Race (classification of humans), already described on ArbCom pages, there seems little point in making any further comment. Presumably this report was made to interrupt my edits to Clavier-Übung III. Perhaps it hasn't dawned on David,Kane yet that some people spend there time on wikipedia doing things other than trying to push their personal points of view on the bioligical inferiority of certain races. Not a very bright stunt really. But a stunt neverthless. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Moreover, D.K. at gnxp.com not only identified himself as D.K. on Wikipedia, he overtly used gnxp.com to campaign and solicit external help for his POV dispute on Wikipedia. While I don't think his external activity necessarily crossed the line into attempted forbidden meatpuppeting, it clearly is fair game for talking about on Wikipedia. I'd say User:David.Kane is in for a warning for raising frivolous complaints in bad faith. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

As other users have mentioned in the ArbCom case and on article talk pages, he is simply gaming the system. A kind of chidlish exercise in annoying other users. Mathsci (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment from dumb bystander. How can you claim outing when you use a handle with your name in it? If you are David Kane, great. If not, why use that handle? Or are you saying you are a different David Kane? Anyways, I'll go back to eat bon bons. Cheers, --Tom (talk) 16:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I have posted on David's user talk a warning template for trying to gain ownership of article content or article POV by off-wikipedia canvassing as there were no denials from David that this is what he was doing and it is quite obvious this was the case in my view. I have also warned david about not assuming good faith. I guess the admins here can decide whether any further action is needed; if not then perhaps this latest drama on race and intelligence can be marked as resolved and closed.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Obviously not outing, what a frivolous post. Fences&Windows 16:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, folks, to be fair, I am not even sure this is "outing," technically, in any event. Isn't outing naming someone's real-world identity? Al we know is that there is a WP user with the registered name David Kane, and at this blog another registered user using the same name. For all we know, David Kane here is a 15 year old girl named Sally living in Portland Oregon, and the David Kane at the Gene Blogi s a 60 year old man named Hans living in Munich. Does that gene Blog provide RW info? I couldn't find it. MathSci might be mistaken in associting two internet personas that coincidentally use the same fake name. That is not outing, even if it is a mistkake. That said, Future Perfect's comment sort of nails it.

This would be amusing but for one thing: it is one more example of the kind of tactic David and his comrade-in-arms (or ArbCom) routinely use: to try to bring the disciplinary machinary of WP down on MathSci as a way of distracting him from the current ArbCom case. Frankly I find this abusive. Forget about it being unfair to MthSci (unfair though it is), it is abusive of our time and good faith. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Not quite, as the David on the genetic website acknowledges being the same David on wikipedia and tries to invite editors to join in a content dispute. I do not understand what you are saying, when you say "the kind of tactic David and his comrade-in-arms (or ArbCom) routinely use"; are you alledging that ArbCom is in cahoots with David? That is a rather strange claim.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat at Talk:Gabriel Cousens

It appears I have been the recipient of a legal threat. Please take whatever action is required. - MrOllie (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you file something at WP:SPI after someone deals with the threat. All of those new accounts are likely socks. AniMate 16:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's a legal threat; the claim of libel is against the author of the reference we are following. Certainly "banishment" is a threat but not a legal one. I'll address further over there.  Frank  |  talk  16:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. They're saying the secondary source is likely headed for a defamation lawsuit, not you as far as I can see. AniMate 16:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Bigsby, Mugsy, and Horns? Please. Any Checkusers around? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

(EC for like the 3rd time.) Anyway, I've already created an SPI case, which may be found here. Netalarm^talk 16:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

"Do you really want to ride that train" sounds like a legal threat to me, personally. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it is starting to look like a different train is about to arrive at the station, quite apart from any legal threats, perceived or real.  Frank  |  talk  17:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Alas, a word to the wise was not sufficient; the train has pulled into the station. 3-hour blocks for 3RR for User:Death and the Maiden, User:Seven Pointed Star, and User:Joe Galaxy.  Frank  |  talk  17:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Bigsby, Mugsy, and Horns sounds more like an oddly named law firm. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Not to me. While it smells like a sock, it reads like a weak attempt to hint at legal action, while actually implying that insisting on including a dicey source could lead to a ban[ishment]. Pursue the SPI, but the purported legal threat is too weak for action.--SPhilbrickT 17:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Disruption by User KD Tries Again

Discussion can take place at talk page of WP:V
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
KD Tries Again (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) At the article Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant -- KD Tries Again (talk · contribs) has repeatedly added information to the article page that fails the policy Wikipedia:Verifiability, despite comments on his talk page and at the article's talk page specifically informing him of this problem. Respectfully requesting another administrator to deal with the violations of Wikipedia:Verifiability by KD Tries Again (talk · contribs), and also to get the information removed from the article that was added by the user, that fails WP:V. Chronology 17:11, 30 July 2010 - KD Tries Again adds completely unsourced info to the article. 17:20, 30 July 2010 - KD Tries Again adds a link to the restaurant's website, which does not confirm the info added in the same edit, the website refers to a "Chef Chuck", and KD Tries Again adds a claim not backed up by that reference, By summer 2010, Charles Howlett was chef de cuisine... 17:33, 30 July 2010 - KD Tries Again adds the info a 3rd time, this time quoting the website about "Chef Chuck", while still failing WP:V regarding his claims about a "Charles Howlett". 17:43, 30 July 2010 - KD Tries Again removes the link to the restaurant's own website from a reference, instead pointing the link to the restaurant's Facebook page (not sure if this is acceptable). Will defer to review of a previously-uninvolved administrator. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Note that the information I added is pertinent to [AfD] where I had raised some queries about an article created by Cirt which he is defending from deletion (I actually did not vote delete). The lively discussion there explains the sequence of events I think: I made two corrections at 17.10 and 17.11 and added further information and a reference at 17.20 (revision history). At 17.13, two minutes after I had started work on the article, Cirt sent a message to my [Page] warning me against adding unsourced material to articles. I agree that the first source I provided was insufficiently clear, as it used a nickname rather than an individual's real name. However, the source was the webpage maintained by the restaurant under discussion, which clearly indicated that the existing information in the Wikipedia article was wrong. While Cirt has been starting this AN/I complaint and posting further warnings to my Talk Page, I went and found a good reference for the information. I am sorry it took me until 17.43.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again What we see here is a persistent pattern by KD Tries Again (talk · contribs) to violate WP:V at the article page. However, with regard to the most recent addition, if indeed social-networking-websites are deemed appropriate for use as references on Wikipedia, then nothing further need be done at this point in time. -- Cirt (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC) I do take exception to the description of my editing as disruptive and a "persistent pattern" (one edit to the body of the article, with consistent changes in the intro and info box). It took me two attempts and twenty minutes to find a reference which Cirt can't really complain about, and I have been civil throughout. In the light of the last comment, I would request an uninvolved administrator to consider whether Cirt has acted appropriately in posting here about an easily resolved content issue.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again The question is why KD Tries Again (talk · contribs) felt the need to first add completely unsourced info to the page, and then info that failed WP:V, and then info sourced only to a social-networking-website, instead of starting by finding an appropriate reference, and/or discussing on the article's talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Running to ANI at the first sign of a garden variety content dispute is rarely productive, and I see no call for it here. The charge of "disruption" has a ring of hyperbole. You are both experienced editors, more than familiar with our norms of verifiability and discussion. All parties might do well to relax, research, converse and then agree on how to structure the information in question. Skomorokh 18:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Agreed, and on that note, posted a question at the talk page for WP:V. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Started discussion regarding use of Facebook and other social-networking-websites as WP:SELFPUB, at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Question_about_SELFPUB. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it appropriate for the Administrator who started a discussion here and asked for independent review to then close the discussion, perhaps not liking the response, and shop the topic off to another forum?KD Tries Again (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

The post to WP:V's talk page is not about KD Tries Again (talk · contribs), it is specifically about use of Facebook as a source (or not) under WP:SELFPUB. -- Cirt (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree - it's a separate topic, which is why I think the accusations about me made here needn't have been removed (I know they still appear in the history).KD Tries Again (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Discussion is ongoing between the two parties at the talk page of WP:V, though it would be better to get some comments from previously-uninvolved contributors. -- Cirt (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Threats to go to the press

Is any administrative action necessary if a user threatens to report an issue to the press if they don't get their way? I am aware of WP:NLT, which doesn't specifically mention situations like this, but the consequences to our collaborative environment seem to be roughly the same to me whether the threat is take legal action or to take it to the press. (I'd rather not be specific yet, because if no admin action is needed, avoiding the drama of ANI would be best.) Gnome de plume (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess it depends on the issue at hand. If a Wikipedia or WMF policy is being violated, I think it should be brought to the attention of someone who can do something about it, despite the threat. If the threat is being made solely to get a different result in a discussion, I'd ignore it. It's a free internet. (Besides, if we change decisions just to avoid press scrutiny, that will generate press scrutiny in and of itself.)  Frank  |  talk  18:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring and personal attacks made by and User:Karthi1522, User:Kannadakumara and persistent vandalism by User:Karthi1522

Relevant page histories

1. Puneet Rajkumar
2. Rajkumar
3. Ravi Belagere

Relevant user talk page diffs

1. First attack on User talk:Karti1551
2. Response to the above with vulgar language
3. Second attack after warning on User talk:Karti1551

User:Kannadakumara claims that the text in diff #3 also contains obscenities in Kannada language at my talk page. I have removed the text of the third diff, but left the first and the second personal attck and warned both parties.--Forty two^{Thanks for all the fish!} 18:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Abuse of administrative tools by User:Deb

Hi. Earlier today, Deb (talk · contribs) moved, without consensus, the article Russell T Davies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to Russell T. Davies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), citing "naming conventions". After moving the page, she then protected it, with the justification that she was preventing move-warring. However, the last time the page was moved was June 2009, and thus is not move warring under any definition of the term. The move also breaks the vast majority of links, and is not compliant with ENGVAR (no periods after initialisms in British English), RETAIN (as the style has been the same for donkey's years), V (one biography, two editions of his book, and countless numbers of Doctor Who episodes are all agreed on the T not being followed by the period, as it doesn't stand for anything), and two discussions four years apart, here, which affirmed what the sources say. Even the guys at RFPP agree that the justification for protection was extremely flimsy. But the thing that really takes the cake is the fact she did the same thing two years ago. Hence, it is clear that the tools were used to gain an advantage in a dispute, which contravenes the administrator's policy. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)