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

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)

Hi Fram: As you can see from the very comprehensive discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Building and destroying the Beit Hamikdash you will see that it was proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that the terms "First Temple", "Second Temple", "Third Temple" are the more frequent terms based on hundreds of thousands of Google hits, so it is not just about choosing some marginal Jewish terms. In any case, this is a subject central to Judaism so there is no way really to "split hairs" and say that it should be kept out of WP:JUDAISM discussions where everything is up for discussion and very often editorial, naming and move decisions, actually nothing is excluded in the many years the Wikiproject has been in existence. In any case, anyone monitoring those pages could read the notices about the centralized discussion I placed on each one of them and was free to join the discussion so that no one was excluded on any grounds. The objections only started after the open-ended lengthy discussions, and after WP:CONSENSUS was clearly reached, and only after moves were made without any prior involvement in the discussions themselves by subsequent objectors. IZAK (talk) 23:03, 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)

For the record, no one was excluded from the discussions because all relevant talk pages were told about the centralized discussion. IZAK (talk) 00:41, 3 August 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)

Hi Fram: Everything was done in conformity with WP:NPOV -- you are dealing with highly experienced editors here and if you can show me where I have ever edited in violation of WP:NPOV I will eat my proverbial hat. PLEASE re-read every word at the very comprehensive discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Building and destroying the Beit Hamikdash where I WP:CITE beyond any shadow of a doubt that the terms "First Temple", "Second Temple", "Third Temple" are the more frequent terms based on hundreds of thousands of Google hits, so you need to WP:AGF. This is a subject central to Judaism so there is no way really to "split hairs" and say that it should be kept out of WP:JUDAISM discussions where everything relating to Jews and Judaism is up for discussion and very often editorial, naming and move decisions are made and this helps Wikipedia grow and move along. Many admins have belonged to and participated in WP:JUDAISM discussions and they are fully aware of WP policies. Nothing related to Jews or Judaism even marginally is excluded in the many years the Wikiproject has been in existence and it has only helped Wikipedia. In any case, as User Slrubenstein points out anyone monitoring those pages could read the notices about the centralized discussion I placed on each one of them and was free to join the discussion so that no one was excluded on any grounds. The objections only started after the open-ended lengthy discussions, and after WP:CONSENSUS was clearly reached, and only after moves were made without any prior involvement in the discussions themselves by subsequent objectors. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 23:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You posted the same text twice for some reason, I'll reply only once. Your POV ic very clear, when you state in that discussion: "But not according to Judaism to which it belongs. It's about the Jewish First Temple not about how or what it's called according to an English or non-Jewish or secular POV." You are totally wrong here, what it's called from an English language PoV is the only thing that matters, not what it is called in the Torah (like your other comment there: "With more articles like this from non-Torah sources each with their own POV of course."). You are also incorrect that "The objections only started after the open-ended lengthy discussions, and after WP:CONSENSUS was clearly reached,", as Debresser objected from the very start, and Chesdovi also said "(It's common name in Hebrew does not dictate its common name in English...?)" So you have shown a clear POV based reason for your moves, and have ignored Wikipedia policies and the oposition that was stated from the very start of the discussion. Whether that is standard practive at the Project, or only your standard practice, I don't know, but it has to change in either case. Subjects related to Jews or Judaism will not be named or treated in accordance with the Torah, but in acordance with reliable independent sources (and for the naming in accordance with English language reliable independent sources). The argument (not by you) that ""Solomon's Temple" is probably more used in academia, but it is certainly Bayis Rishon and Bayis Sheini for believing Jews." is irrelevant and if an independent editor had reviewed the move discussion, instead of you, he would have discounted said argument as being not policy based. Oh, and replying to an opposer with among other comments the utterly irrelevant "you do agree that the destruction of the two temples and the butchery and exile of the Jewish people by the Babylonians and then by the Romans was proportionally and quantitatively on a par with the Nazis or perhaps even worse don't you?" is a very poor tactic as well. The majority of your replies and arguments on that page are religion based, which is the completely wrong argument to defend or oppose any article name, even for a subject that is central to a religion. Fram (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Which is why we have WP:Article title. We don't use 'this group uses this name' as a reason to ignore our guidlines. NPOV is often a red herring in discussion of article titles. Dougweller (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

This was not a case of doing what one group does, this is a case of a name that's used universally as proven by Google hits, see below. IZAK (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Earlier, I said that the title should be "Snd Temple" because that is the convention among 1st century historians. Fram asks why. What can I say? I think that the title of an article should refelect two things: the contents of the title and the nomenclature most common in academe. The second Temple period is the subjust of a great deal of scholarly research. Four about five hundred years, it is the object of research of almost exclusively historians of Jews and Judaism. During some of this time Judea was Persian Occupied, the Greek Occupied, and then independent (Jewish) but under Hellenic influcence. For the last 120 years or so it continued unbder Roman Occupation. So there is lots of scholarship about it it is not just of interest to Jews. And those historians - of Persian and Greek and Hasmonean and Roman occupied Judea, 70 years of the Temple's history extending into the first century, the convention is to call it the Second Temple. Why not follow standard current academic practice? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I think this was just a simple misunderstanding. When you mentioend "1st century historians", I thought you meant people like Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian. I now realise that you probably meant 20th and 21st century historians specialized in the first century. If that is the case, my reply was obviously not correct, and I agree that we should follow the current name as used by the scientific literature in English. Fram (talk) 08:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• Hi Fram: The following is an inter-linear response to your above response, my responses start with "IZAK": "You posted the same text twice for some reason, I'll reply only once." IZAK: There were similarities but they were different (read them for yourself), so let's keep one thread here. "Your POV ic very clear, when you state in that discussion: "But not according to Judaism to which it belongs. It's about the Jewish First Temple not about how or what it's called according to an English or non-Jewish or secular POV." IZAK: Sorry, but the subject is about the Jewish First, Second and Third Temples and they are central notions to Judaism. That is not a "POV" it's a fact. So it is therefore logical to deal with the Temples as Jewish topics in a NPOV manner and then add on how other POVs and perspectives view them. "You are totally wrong here, what it's called from an English language PoV is the only thing that matters, not what it is called in the Torah (like your other comment there: "With more articles like this from non-Torah sources each with their own POV of course.")." IZAK: Where have I ever said what the Torah says is "NPOV" please do not bring in or attribute to me things I never said. NPOV is a WP policy that I have always followed. One can quote Torah or anything else as long as it's factual and NPOV because WP is not anti-Torah either. It is how the articles are written in NPOV style that is important for WP and not what we believe in our private lives that WP does not care about. An editor may be secular, etheist and anti-religious but WP does not care about privately-held views as long as editing and writing is done in a NPOV manner. "You are also incorrect that "The objections only started after the open-ended lengthy discussions, and after WP:CONSENSUS was clearly reached,", as Debresser objected from the very start, and Chesdovi also said "(It's common name in Hebrew does not dictate its common name in English...?)" So you have shown a clear POV based reason for your moves, and have ignored Wikipedia policies and the oposition that was stated from the very start of the discussion." IZAK: You are focusing on one lone objector who was outvoted. At the time of the discussions there was only one objector who was outvoted by 9 others (including me), how else to get consensus, that is more than sufficient for WP:CONSENSUS. The articles need help to become accurate. That's obvious to any reader who knows this subject. My suggestion was to strive for clarity and specificity, to clarify that these were temples related to Judaism. That is a fact that no one can deny. "Whether that is standard practive at the Project, or only your standard practice, I don't know, but it has to change in either case. Subjects related to Jews or Judaism will not be named or treated in accordance with the Torah, but in acordance with reliable independent sources (and for the naming in accordance with English language reliable independent sources)." IZAK: All editors work in accordance with WP policies. In fact it is time to call in some of the main editors some admins who can have their say, and we can hear what they have to say. "The argument (not by you) that ""Solomon's Temple" is probably more used in academia, but it is certainly Bayis Rishon and Bayis Sheini for believing Jews." is irrelevant and if an independent editor had reviewed the move discussion, instead of you, he would have discounted said argument as being not policy based." IZAK: Every single one of my arguments was based on neutral Google hits that prove beyond a doubt that the most common terms are First Temple, Second Temple and Third Temple that has nothing to do with any POV. That is why I had to clarify it to you in my second post above. I agree with you and I thank you again for making the corrections that reflect that. "Oh, and replying to an opposer with among other comments the utterly irrelevant "you do agree that the destruction of the two temples and the butchery and exile of the Jewish people by the Babylonians and then by the Romans was proportionally and quantitatively on a par with the Nazis or perhaps even worse don't you?" is a very poor tactic as well." IZAK: The destruction of the two temples is considered a tragedy on the par of the Nazi Holocaust among serious Jewish and secular scholars, historians and theologians, that's a matter of fact and it's legitimate to point that out in a discussion about that subject. There is absolutely no question about that. "The majority of your replies and arguments on that page are religion based, which is the completely wrong argument to defend or oppose any article name, even for a subject that is central to a religion." IZAK: It is illogical and irrational to claim that a subject related to and central to a religion cannot be presented from that religion's perspectives that are not "POV" since they are part and parcel of that religion that cannot be understood or described or explained with recourse to that religion first followed by other POVs and explanations. That does not mean that other views are excluded either. WP is not in the business of being anti-religion either it includes all POVs and that's not a red herring argument either, WP is after all NPOV. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 07:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I can only conclude from this reply taht you don't understand what POV and NPOV mean. Just one example: "The destruction of the two temples is considered a tragedy on the par of the Nazi Holocaust among serious Jewish and secular scholars, historians and theologians, that's a matter of fact and it's legitimate to point that out in a discussion about that subject. There is absolutely no question about that." The "subject" being the name of the temple articles, not the history of the temples or the tragedies of the Jewish people. Could you please clarify why you felt that this argument had any relevance whatsoever to the naming debate? How does the history of the temple and whether it is comparable to the Holocaust have any link to what this article should be called on the English Wikipedia? Fram (talk) 08:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
    • You took a quote out of context, I was trying to make a point to Debresser who has stated in past discussions that he is a Chabad rabbi and he would be quite familiar with what I was saying even though it may sound strange to you. IZAK (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Hi again Fram: In reference to your comment above i.e. "Whether that is standard practive [sic] at the Project, or only your standard practice, I don't know, but it has to change in either case. Subjects related to Jews or Judaism will not be named or treated in accordance with the Torah, but in acordance [sic] with reliable independent sources (and for the naming in accordance with English language reliable independent sources)" which I regard as a serious false allegation that clearly violates WP:AGF, and definitely borders on WP:NPA, I have asked 5 admins (Users Avraham (talk · contribs); Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs); Jfdwolff (talk · contribs); Jayjg (talk · contribs); TShilo12 (talk · contribs)), who also have had experience with WP:JUDAISM for their input, hopefully they will have time to respond, in addition to User:Slrubenstein who is both an admin and long-time participant in the Judaism WikiProject. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

IZAK asked me to comment here. When we discussed the question of page names at WT:JUDAISM, IZAK had posted notices on the Talk pages of the affected articles. I thought using WT:JUDAISM for a centralized discussion of the subject seemed appropriate. I felt, and still feel, disappointed that the discussion didn't attract many contributors who aren't WP:JUDAISM "regulars".

While a few contributors may have made their decisions based on the Hebrew terms used by "believing Jews", my impression is that most arguments were based on WP:COMMONNAME.

In short, I don't think there was anything inappropriate about using WT:JUDAISM as a forum for a centralized discussion concerning three articles within the WikiProject's purview. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I only noticed this while making an edit at Malik's page. I don't intend to get into the discussion, which I have only heard of now. But millions of Christians visit what they call the Holy Land, take the Old Testament as an article of faith, and customarily refer to Solomon's Temple. 'First Temple' as opposed to Second Temple, simply, as far as my ear goes from 6 decades of hearing religious Christians speak (I'm not a Christian), does not ring a bell, unless one is a specialist. I think from what I have read that a very simple mistake is being made here, that looks, as phrased by Izak, highly appropriative. It's as as Nazareth were soon to be shifted to Natzrat , the name privileged in Israel, much to the confusion of visiting Christian pilgrims. This kind of thing deserves very wide input and discussion on pages most editors visit.Nishidani (talk) 14:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

IZAK asked me to comment here. I'm not keen on seeing discussions like these take place on wikiprojects, because it excludes people who don't have the project pages on their watchlists. A link to the page-move discussion on the article's talk page can be added to the wikiproject to inform people, if done neutrally and if posted elsewhere too.

As for the title, we should use whichever is more common in English—not in Judaism, Christianity, or Islam, but in English—because this is the English Wikipedia. That's likely to be the name more common in one of the religions, but that should be a byproduct of our decision, not the reason for it. The article was at Solomon's Temple from its creation in 2002 until the recent move, so perhaps the thing to do is move it back temporarily, then hold a requested-move discussion on the article's talk page. I should add that I hope no one will support the old title just to make the point that it shouldn't have been moved. I also want to add that IZAK's motivation here is to produce a set of consistently titled articles that people can find easily and that are easy to cross-reference, and he should be applauded for that, so whether we agree or disagree with the page move, he's clearly acting in good faith. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to stress again and again that I supported my proposals at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Building and destroying the Beit Hamikdash on the English-language names of "First Temple", "Second Temple", Third Temple" on the fact that they receive more Google hits than any other names. In addition, I would also like to point out that in any case, the English Wikipedia does allow and even welcomes, the use of naming from other languages, cultures and nationalities in the way those languages, cultures and nationalities use terms and concepts and they are NEVER unjustly accused of being in "violation" of "POVs", see the scope of what goes on in Category:Words and phrases by language with 73 sub-categories, with Category:Hebrew words and phrases being one of the biggest that include thousands of names for articles using Hebrew words and phrases. Nevertheless, I had not proposed using Hebrew names at all in this case, just the commonly used English-language terms "First Temple", "Second Temple", Third Temple". Thank you, IZAK (talk) 18:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

IZAK. I checked 13 of the other wikis whose languages I can read with varying degrees of comprehension. The preferred title is the one each language recognizes most readily. Only the Russian wiki gives 'First Temple' (Первый Храм) glossed however by 'First Jerusalem temple' (Первый Иерусалимский храм), The Temple of Solomon (Храм Соломона) and lastly 'The Jerusalem Temple (Иерусали́мский Храм). The rest, Greek, Latin, Italian, French, Catalan, Dutch, Danish, Norwegian, Czech, Portuguese, Romanian and Chinese give their 'Solomon's Temple', and provide the 'First Temple' as a gloss as often as not, to explain Hebraic usage (Latin adds 'in religione Iudaica appellatione "Primum Templum") and the Chinese glosses 所羅門聖殿, where the first three characters spell out Solomon and the last two mean 'Temple', with the first temple 第一聖殿. There is no Japanese article but the Japanese usually refer to it as the 'Jerusalem Temple' (エルサレム神殿) Curious that German is lacking, but, as a recent German guide to it remarks, 'Salomons Tempel ist ein Zauberwort,' (Othmar Keel, Ernst Axel Knauf, Thomas Staubli, Salomons Tempel, Saint-Paul, 2004 p.6)i.e. 'Solomon's Temple is a magical word', which, I suggest 'First Temple' to most Western ears, and certainly anglophone ears, is not. I asked my wife, and my uncle, respectively in their mother tongues, Italian and French, what 'first temple' meant to them, and it meant nothing, until I rephrased it mentioning Solomon, which immediately woke their recognition. I don't think this is coincidental, and the reason why it is thus known is evidently due to Christianity, which has determined in most cases, the way each language thinks of the first temple. It is the historic bias of a culture inflecting standard speech, and in English the standard idiom is 'Solomon's temple'.Nishidani (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nishidani. Nice work but somewhat not to the point because they are behind the information curve. Let me re-iterate again, that it's about consistent naming. And it's not just about the outward names and labels "Solomon's Temple" versus "First Temple" alone because there are many connecting topics here that bolster the usage of "First Temple" over "Solomon's Temple". Let's look at Google. While there seems to be near parity between 336,000 hits for Solomons Temple (bolstered by the fact that many sites are using Wikipedia's article!) there are 283,000 hits for First Temple making them almost equal on this scale. Now, if you look at the subject in its proper context, not just as a "Solomonic production" but as the core and symbol of an entire era, then the name of "First Temple" is bolstered and backed up by the fact that the predominant term used is by far "First Temple" over anything else: 144,000 hits for First Temple Era (with only 5 hits for Solomon's Temple era I kid thee not!) and while there are 23,100 hits for First Temple period there are just 5 hits for Solomon's Temple period!; there are an astounding 453,000 hits for Destruction of the First Temple and more such as 44,800 hits for Destruction of the First Temple in Jerusalem, (while in comparison there are only 36,700 hits for Destruction of Solomon's Temple); and there are 144,000 hits for Building of the First Temple while there are 179,000 hits for Building King Solomon's Temple many that dwell on secular perspectives such as the Masons and whatnot and nothing to do with Judaism. Bottom line, these few example show that while on a few occasions there is parity, especially when talking about the structure itself, but when the focus is on the broader symbolic. religious and historical role then First Temple is the leading term not just in Judaism but has a broader acceptance. IZAK (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Just an interim query, IZAK. You are, if I understand your arguments for the change correctly, setting a precedent in Wikipedia. On the premises you have given, the Cave of the Patriarchs article should be retitled 'The cave of the double tombs' or 'the Cave of Machpelah', the term which is standard in Hebrew, with a redirect for the term that is standard in English. That site plays a larger role in the traditions of Judaism than it does in Christian thought, which however customarily refers to it as 'Cave of the Patriarchs'. Am I correct? Nishidani (talk) 12:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't be silly. I wasn't even suggesting Hebrew names, for that see Category:Hebrew words and phrases that are plentiful and even welcomed and that no one questions. Nobody uses the terms "cave of double tombs" which is raw literal translation. I did not suggest that the articles be called "First House", "Second House" from the Hebrew names for the temples "bayit rishon", "bayit sheini". You are wrong about the way Wikipedia functions as an encyclopedia because it does quite often convey terms as used in the culture or language it belongs to. Thus, the Jewish Sabbath is Shabbat, Jewish New Year is Rosh Hashanah and of so much more. The real way Wikipedia is inclusive of all terms is by the workings of WP:REDIRECTS, since only one name can be used at one time, that lead to the main name. The beautiful thing about Wikipedia is that it is forward looking and is enlightening and educating people as it reliably records information. So no, not only are you not correct but you are also dead wrong! IZAK (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

IZAK, I also looked up "First Temple" on Google with a view to posting the results here, but there are too many not about that first temple, so the results are meaningless. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Slim: It's actually a two-way street because then the larger number of hits for Solomon's Temple would also be discounted. But such is the nature of the beast when using Google, it's a general prognostication and a start, and it's definitely not "meaningless" when one considers the clear disparity between 144,000 hits for "First Temple Era" versus only 5 hits for "Solomon's Temple era" or 23,100 hits for "First Temple period" versus 5 hits for "Solomon's Temple period" as well as 47,000+ hits for "Destruction of the First Temple in Jerusalem" versus 33,000+ hits for "Destruction of Solomon's Temple" none of which can be dismissed off the cuff as "meaningless". IZAK (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Slim: In addition, add in the fact that the article about the Second Temple was originally called Second Temple of Jerusalem and not Ezra's Temple or "Zerubabel's Temple" as it's also referred to, and the Third Temple article was named just that and not Ezekiel's Temple as it's sometimes referred to. So the naming was not consistent. As you correctly noted above one of my chief objectives is to create uniformity in the naming that also fits with history and the best and most clear-cut way is to go by the First Temple, Second Temple, Third Temple names that just so happens to be the way that classical Jewish as well as many secular scholars and not just Christian POV theology also names them. IZAK (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting but, for ANI (ahem!), off-topic discussions like this are the exact reason why there should be a proper inclusive debate before deciding what the best names for the pages are. --FormerIP (talk) 22:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi FormerIP: It was because you had incorrectly claimed that there wasn't enough of a discussion that the discussions here have grown retroactively. But the fact of the matter remains that it was held at as good a place as any at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Building and destroying the Beit Hamikdash that anyone was welcome to join. You came along later and complained "#Pagemove consensus formed on Wikiproject page" about the location of the fair and square discussions that you admit reached consensus, but have not contributed to the substance of the topic or the discussions. So let's stop going around in circles. IZAK (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

We may be going round in circles, IZAK, but have you noticed that this is happening without me saying very much? --FormerIP (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That's because the Jewish Temples are a fascinating topic and everyone thinks they are "experts" when it comes to Judaism. This never happens when it comes to Christian or Islamic topics where users are much too cautious and afraid to pipe in, and Judaic editors would never do this to a topic central to Christianity or Islam such as the Vatican or Mecca even though Judaism is the mother-religion of those two religions and there is lots of scholarship from a Jewish perspective on those topics. Nothing to gloat about I would say. The bottom line from my end, is that (a) a proper, full and thorough discussion was held with an attendant vote to clarify. (b) Google hits support my position. (c) Nine users agreed that the pages should be moved, with one objection. (d) There was therefore adequate WP:CONSENSUS. (e) All effected pages were notified on their talk pages about the centralized discussion. (f) Admin Fram, albeit conditionally, actually moved the pages to acceptable streamlined and consistent neutral English-language titles of First Temple; Second Temple, Third Temple, minus their qualifying (Judaism) suffixes in their titles. This was a wise move and I agree with it. (g) Several users, including so far, admins Slrubenstein and Malik Shabaz have concurred with me in this discussion, they together with admin Avraham agreed with the logic and reasonableness for the proposed moves as well, and they are very knowledgeable Judaic editors with long experience who would not do anything against NPOV. (h) The names First Temple, Second Temple and Third Temple are fully NPOV because in any case two out of the three articles in question originally used this "naming by numbers" of "Second" and "Third", namely: Second Temple of Jerusalem and Third Temple the last requires no change and is not even in question and bolsters my case. (i) You were a jonny-come-lately who arrived after the discussions who did not even have his facts right at the beginning, falsely alleging that notification was not given, and claiming that WP:JUDAISM was not a suitable venue, even though this is about a major topic central to Judaism. (j) Nothing has been "proven" whether there is an absolute requirement of any kind that this sort of discussion "must" be held at only WP:RM. IZAK (talk) 05:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

IZAK asked me to comment here, but I'm sorry, I don't understand what the current issue is. There apparently was some discussion of the page moves prior to discussion, and there is no (and there never has been a) requirement that editors post all proposed page moves at WP:RM. Do people object to the current names, First Temple, Second Temple, and Third Temple, which apparently were not the names IZAK moved them to, but to which he has no objection? If so, wouldn't the correct place to discuss this be on the article Talk: pages, or perhaps at WP:RM? What is this issue still doing here? Jayjg ^(talk) 07:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The principle objection I have is that when questioned about it, the response has been to defend the moves rather than say, "OK, lets discuss it further". I have concerns with how the discussion was phrased and advertised but that has been discussed in much depth above already. Quantpole (talk) 08:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, how the pages should be named should be discussed through WP:RM, if anyone feels the need. This discussion is more about how the previous move discussion was handled. Everyone's actions and positions are quite clear by now, and while some people feel that some things were handled badly (and others disagree), nothing actionable has happened in the end, and this discussion has probably come to an end. Fram (talk) 08:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is clear whether or not there is anything actionable, and a consensus about that it what's needed to bring the dicussion to a close. AFAICT, there is a consensus (excepting the views of involved editors) that the page move was wrongly done. I think the next question is whether we say "ok, but no harm done" or whether it is appropriate to move the page back to where it was. --FormerIP (talk) 12:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You keep on ignoring that the page moves were done according to all procedural requirements and nothing "wrong" was done even though you falsely keep alleging the opposite when it's proven otherwise to you a few times already. IZAK (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Hi all. It seems like there is a mishmash of procedural and nomenclature issues being discussed here. I am not so familiar with Wiki procedures, so I will leave that to others. Regarding the nomenclature issue, I think the terms "First Temple" and "Second Temple" are perfectly acceptable as article titles, as these are the most common terms used both popularly and academically (just check any Jewish History text). Placement of a parenthetical clarifying term such as "Judaism" would also be helpful. Regarding "Third Temple", I am not as familiar with the sources that discuss it, but certainly the discussion exists, and I cannot think of a more neutral term than "Third Temple". Are there any competing suggestions? —Dfass (talk) 13:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not about 'Jewish history text' usage. It is about English usage, where it is almost certainly not 'the most common term popularly or academically'. Perhaps, the repetition of this confusion on this page, based on a false premise that the world of the OT is somehow peculiar to Judaism and not a foundational text also for Western civilization generally, is sufficient evidence that the whole question requires far wider discussion by wiki editors, including a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity, to begin with. As admins have said, nothing actionable here. But the move creates a strong precedent (see above) for changing names in a good many articles into forms quite familiar in Judaism, but unfamiliar, or less recognizable for hundreds of millions of English readers of wiki.Nishidani (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani, those so-called "questionable moves" already exist for a long time, see Category:Hebrew words and phrases, and Jewish scholarship connected as it is so often to academic scholarship cannot be belittled in this way. There is nothing against the English language that itself is a combination of Germanic Anglo-Saxon (itself an admixture) and Latin and many other layers of languages. It just so happens to be that the Hebrew language is the language of the Hebrew Bible. Not so long ago it was required that all serious scholars of the classics study Latin, Greek and Hebrew and it befits an encyclopedia of the stature of Wikipedia to honor Hebrew or in this case Hebraic and Judaic originating terms especially if they have majority circulation in English on modern day search engines like Google. The English language itself is not a closed book and constantly evolving, both shedding older terminology and adapting to and taking on newer terminology that is its great strength, and it is made up of many languages and accepts into itself many other words, like Mazel Tov and Bris and terms from any language that in turn become Anglicized and hence are English. In any case, "First Temple", "Second Temple", "Third Temple" are only English terms and have become the most widely used terms based on what Google hits indicate as proven above. IZAK (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you have ever addressed the nub of the question. You appear to think that everything to do with the Old Testament is exclusively Jewish. Christians in Europe generally refer to it as 'Solomon's Temple', which is the standard term in English endorsed by Western tradition. The proper thing to do was to notify the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity board and ask them for input. As it stands, you are engineering, unilaterally, a novelty and a precedent, in order to 'honour Hebrew'. You twice persist in the untruth, against all native intuitions about customary usage in English, that this is a case of a 'Hebrew and Judaic originating term' having 'majority circulation in English.' Not only myself, but others, have tested this, and found your google methodology lacunose and misleading. You then say it is a case of the English language 'constantly evolving and shedding older terminology and adapting to and taking on newer terminology' which sounds like an implicit admission that the 'old term' (i.e. i.e. what current users habitually use) should be buried in order to honour 'Hebrew' on the English wikipedia. All this is making native-speakers, who query this odd engineering of minority terms, appear to be people with some axe to grind, perhaps people who secretly work to impede the English wikipedia from 'honouring' Hebrew. That is, as people here often say, a strawman argument. You are simply asking that a minority term be promoted against the customary English word because, for you, Hebrew originating terms should replace the standard terms in Western languages, in order to show respect for Judaism. That principle, as I suggested, sets a precedent that will affect many other articles, such as the 'Cave of the Patriarchs', which in Hebrew is 'Cave of Machpelah'. If you want this, fine, but if you wish to use wikipedia for these ends, you'd better ask, on each occasion, people who are native speakers, or who are Christians and share much of your biblical heritage, for their views. There is absolutely no malice in raising these questions. It is simple a matter, to use your own semantic allusion, a matter of respect for native speakers of English, and for Christians (I belong only to the former category, and insist, as a linguist, that tradition determine usage, not partisan meddling).Nishidani (talk) 07:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Focusing on the listing at Wikiproject Judaism

After looking over things in this discussion and over at the vote at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Building and destroying the Beit Hamikdash, I personally feel that it was the wrong decision to list it there, because it certainly seems to have gotten voters that were focused more on the "what do believing Jews call it" angle, rather than "what do most English-speaking people call it", which is what all of the names on English Wikipedia should be based on. There is a distinct difference between the two.

Additionally, while the talk pages for the related articles, like Solomon's Temple, were indeed notified, they were just told that a discussion was taking place over on the Wikiproject page which, once again, is not the proper place to have such a discussion. I am quite perplexed why, conversely, this discussion was not had on the article talk page and the Wikiproject wasn't just being notified about it? This seems to have all been done rather backwards.

Going back to my initial point, while there should indeed be people involved who are able to vote and explain the Jewish viewpoint on the subject, it seems to me that no non-Wikiproject members were involved at all in the discussion. If we are going to be trying to figure out what the most common name is for English-speaking peoples, then, at least a few, of the voters involved should be un-involved (non-members of the Wikiproject) English-speaking users. With such users, the viewpoint of what they have heard as the most common term is given, so it is known, outside Jewish people, what the commonly recognized term is and whether this syncs with what the common name within Judaism is. It appears, in this case, the common name is not the same, wherein lies the problem.

And, thus, listing such a page move discussion at the Jewish wikiproject is, inevitably, going to focus only on one viewpoint and not consider outside viewpoints on the subject.

I feel that this discussion should be held once more and involve outside users as well. Silverseren^C 09:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for focussing back on the actual issue at hand. Silverseren hits the nail on the head. It is not the debate or reasoning that matters here (WP:ANI is not WP:RM), it is the decision to decide this move at a WikiProject that was mistaken. So please take that into account when discussing future moves. Fences&Windows 13:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

In agreement with F&W, but I'm unclear why administrator intervention is being called for. I will also say that Silver seren should probably refactor his comment to strike the word "(non-Jewish)" and insert "(non-members of that Wikiproject)" I am not a member of any WikiProject, but I rather doubt that membership in that WikiProject is limited to those of a certain religion, therefore term "Jewish Wikiproject" reads oddly and might be misinterpreted to indicate that it is entirely Jewish or limited to those who are Jewish. That should probably be refactored as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Intervention is being asked for because I am claiming that a number of pages were moved without propoer "full community" discussion, outside of normal WP processes. I'm asking that these pages be moved back to where they were (and the discussion re-run if editors wish to do that). --FormerIP (talk) 13:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Just remember that, if administrators do not take any action from this discussion, you yourself can always start a new discussion on the appropriate talk page and notify others users to make sure a discussion takes place that involves a more widespread Wiki population. Silverseren^C 15:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but that would put the onus the other way around, so that the old page names will not be able to re-establish themselves in the event of no consensus. --FormerIP (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Silverseren^C 15:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what's "done" could you elaborate please. Thanks. IZAK (talk) 01:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify: WP:JUDAISM has no criteria for membership and no one is questioned about their religion. Anyone can join. There is no requirement to be Jewish or anything for that matter to participate in discussions there. It is totally absurd to set up fake unenforceable "rules" here that will never work as to what members of any Wikiproject can or cannot discuss topics that are central to their project. Wikiprojects are often manned by experts based on their editing and comment history and they help Wikipedia grow as an enyclopedia while Admins per se are just Wiki-police-judges-executioners editors-at-large who enforce policies without doing much creative stuff the way Wikiprojects do, unless they roll up their sleeves and work on an equal basis with other grunt editors in the trenches. The complaints of FormerIP have been proven to be without merit and false. It is just his concern and he was welcome to join the discussion when it was ongoing yet he did not. He only complained here after moves were made based on WP:CONSENSUS. There are no rules of where to draw the line and how much input is needed to make changes as long as WP policies and procedures are followed and enough time is given for responses. If editors relating to atheism and Wikipedia:WikiProject Atheism wanted to debate that God does not exist and created articles and names and redirects for them about that topic they would not be obligated to inform every last Wikiproject and page relating to religions and faiths that presumably believe in some Deity, as long as they follow the basics of WP policies and procedures. That's just how Wikipedia works and FormerIP is just displaying a case of sour grapes. IZAK (talk) 01:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Question: Why is this discussion being started all over again when it has already gone through at least two incarnations above, not to mention the original discussion. Why are the goal posts being moved yet again??? IZAK (talk) 01:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is being "started over" as you put it, because the topic has drifted from the point of this ANI discussion. And your reply here is still not addressing the problem. The problem is that the vote for a name change should have never been held at the Wikiproject, but at the article page that was going to be renamed. The Wikiproject should have been notified, yes, but that is all. Holding the vote at Wikiproject Judaism means that it is much less likely for people outside of it to notice it going on, even if you notified other article pages.

Furthermore, my other point of contention is that almost all of the reasoning for the move votes were based around what the "most common name as according to Jewish people" would be, when this is not what the name of an article should be based on. As I stated above, the name should be the one that most English-speaking people recognize and know of. Since this is the English Wikipedia after all. I'm sure the Yiddish Wikipedia uses the name First Temple (Or it probably should if it doesn't) and it would be right to do so, since that Wikipedia is based around Judaism and Jewish people. But the English Wikipedia is not, so I believe that there should be a new page name discussion held on the article talk page and that outside viewpoints should be brought in to vote and discuss. Silverseren^C 05:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

3 mobile blocked

I am semi-retired, but have made a very few edits logged out. Today I tried to make an edit and got a blocked message. Today's IP (it changes every time I reconnect) had made no edits prior to this, and nothing appears in the block log for this. I have asked the blocking admin to reconsider, but she hasn't been active for about 12 hours. Her talk page is also semi-protected, so IPs and non-autoconfirmed editors cannot contact her. DuncanHill (talk) 12:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand. Will you explain more? AboundingHinata (talk) 12:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Why are you editing when logged out? Oh, I see: "to avoid being drawn into disputes with admins."[1] Sorry, no sympathy. You're socking using an IP to avoid scrutiny, and then complaining when you're not able to do so due to a checkuser rangeblock. If you want to retire your account and switch to IP editing, go right ahead, but being "semi-retired" and editing with IP addresses is not on. WP:BOOMERANG. Fences&Windows 13:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually it more or less is, since CU refuses to connect specific IPs to accounts now. Unless it is a duck block there is nothing the community can do about it.--Crossmr (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Erm, this is the third new thread on this. The others are here and here. Can we close this one down please in favour of one of the others?  Roger Davies ^talk 13:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Not until Fences and Windows withdraws his comment. This thread was started first. I'm not socking, just editing anonymously, and until this had done nothing more than to restore some redirects and try to add a single valid wikilink. As an IP I don't comment on other editors, or get involved on WP-space or talk pages. I am unable to follow Fences suggestion of only editing with IP addresses because of the block of several thousand IP addresses from my IP provider which is what I am complaining about. DuncanHill (talk) 13:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The answer I suppose to that is that most editors prefer to edit in an environment which is not being continually disrupted by vandalism. IP block ranges may be a blunt weapon but they're the only tool we've got for the moment against widespread vandalism from random IPs coming from the same network. It's a question of which is the lesser of the two evils.  Roger Davies ^talk 14:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You're (trying to) edit logged out to avoid scrutiny. If you want to retire that account fully then go ahead and do it, but a halfway house of sometimes editing via IPs and sometimes via an account is hardly acceptable. Fences&Windows 17:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to avoid scrutiny, I'm trying to avoid scrutinising the likes of you. I only want to edit by IP, and only in article space, and only correcting/adding wikilinks, but am prevented from doing so by this rangeblock. The instructions given to IPs caught in a rangeblock are to log in - you are attacking me for following the instructions. The only reason I logged in was to raise the problem of the crappy instructions in the template. I fully appreciate that you want the template to be obscure, confusing and unhelpful, but having a go at someone who follows the instructions in it is just idiotic. Sterling representative of the admin class you are. I can't remember and don't care what your grudge against me is, but try to express it in a more intelligent way please. I hate the inevitable kicking that admins like you dish out to anyone who raises a problem. Just fix the fucking notice IPs get when innocently caught in a checkuser block. That and exercise a bit more care when blocking the largest 3G network in the UK. DuncanHill (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep your hair on. "The likes of me", eh? I'm all upset now. I have no grudge against you, as far as I know I've never ever come across you before (which was my good fortune, it seems). Swearing won't make anyone listen to you. Where's this template then? Fences&Windows 20:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

"The likes of you" = "admins who berate editors for doing exactly as they were told". The template is whatever generates the incomprehensible instructions for IP editors caught in a checkuser rangeblock, as you will already know because you read this thread and those Roger linked to above, instead of commenting from utter ignorance, as I'm sure you would never do. If you bait someone enough, they'll start swearing at you. Nice sly dig with the "good fortune" comment - well done. DuncanHill (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Blockedtext. – iridescent 20:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Ta, I just found it too. I think the thread at Wikipedia:AN#Updating Checkuserblock template is where this is best continued. Fences&Windows 20:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Noticed this because I'm on the same network, and recently got caught by the same rangeblock. (Logging on to Wikipedia via a phone is fiddly; if it's just a case of correcting a noncontroversial typo, I don't generally bother.) With no comments on the merits of this case, how does this differ from User:Brucejenner, who is one of our most disruptive long-term vandals but in which the checkusers refuse to rangeblock his phone provider because of the collateral damage it would cause? Seems inconsistent. – iridescent 17:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'm a little concerned that the second sentence of this complaint reads "I have asked the blocking admin to reconsider, but she hasn't been active for about 12 hours." (emphasis mine) No editor, administrator, checkuser or other person in any role on Wikipedia is expected to be logged in and available for immediate response 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. A 12-hour absence is hardly outrageous, and shouldn't be the subject of an ANI discussion at the best of times.

  Alison's talk page has been pretty well permanently semi-protected due to massive, near constant inappropriate editing by a wide range of abusive accounts and IPs, including harassment, abuse, outing, and other private or non-public information about a large number of editors; trying to keep it free from such abuse when it is unprotected consumes the time and energy of multiple administrators, and the same thing has happened in the past on "IP editable" pages. Wikipedia is not a suicide pact, and the inconvenience for a legitimate IP editor to post on that specific page really doesn't balance out against the widespread abuse that has happened every time protection is lifted from the page.

  I think it is agreed that there can be some improvements made in the blocking notice. As well, the range block will be reviewed by other checkusers, as is standard when we receive such requests. I personally do not see a "socking" issue here, as there is no reason to think that DuncanHill has logged out to comment on talk pages or in project space. The desire for a registered user to edit without logging in while using his/her mobile phone does not constitute an emergency that requires immediate checkuser attention, however. One-week range blocks are unfortunate but sometimes necessary to try to reduce harm to the project as a whole; the problem user being addressed here has been harassing and disruptive on multiple projects throughout the WMF, and editors from multiple projects have been periodically caught in rangeblocks including global ones. Risker (talk) 06:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

  • I don't understand why you object to me coming here when the admin who made the block is unavailable. I never suggested that a 12 hour absence was outrageous or improper, just explaining why I had come here, as it was clear that she wasn't currently available to deal with the query. Kindly try to avoid misrepresenting what I have said and done. Also, I'm not editing from a mobile phone, my internet access for my computer is on 3 pay as you go - it is the only way I can afford to have internet access. I was unaware of the policy change that allowed admins to make themselves unavailable to IP/autoconfirmed editors. DuncanHill (talk) 08:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Facepalm The objection is that ANI isn't necessary for an issue like this. It's not an "incident" that needs immediate attention, and 12 hours is hardly unusual for a person to be offline. And Talk pages can be semi-protected after repeated harassment, whether the editor is an admin or not. See WP:SILVERLOCK. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I had forgotten that people caught in rangeblocks should be grateful and never complain. Maybe the template could include a message "Please do not try to communicate with anybody about this matter, as that will be regarded as troublemaking. The last thing we want to do is to help people like you. Please wait a few weeks at least, as nobody regards anything you have to say or may want to contribute as being nearly as important as protecting the Admin noticeboards from being sullied by matters which relate to admins". DuncanHill (talk) 13:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I'll add that next time you refer me to a page like SILVErLOCK, you would do well to read on first - "User pages

User pages and subpages are protected at the user's request if there is evidence of vandalism or disruption. User talk pages are rarely protected, and are semi-protected for short durations only in the most severe cases of vandalism from IP users.

Users whose talk page is semi-protected for lengthy or indefinite periods of time should have an unprotected user talk subpage linked conspicuously from their main talk page to allow good faith comments from non-autoconfirmed users." DuncanHill (talk) 13:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• • • • • Again, in practice that isn't always possible. Any alternate talk page for Alison would almost instantly be crammed with the same drek Risker describes above. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Carl Johnson)} 17:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
        • It would help if you dropped the snark. You're not exactly making me want to help you here.Your post to ANI is the equivalent of calling 911 to complain that you didn't get your fries at the drive-thru. It's understandable that you're frustrated you couldn't contact the blocking admin, but you could have posted an unblock request at the IP's page, or gone to another admin to request help. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I see your point on the talk page. But a rangeblock on a whole mobile phone provider seems inappropriate. Especially if there is no notice on those users talk pages to explain what is happening. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It would require 65,000 edits to place a notice on the talk pages, but even after that users on shared IPs don't normally see talk page notices. When they try to edit they are presented with the single block message which says that the network has been used abusively. The message has since been updated to provide a bit more instruction to unregistered users. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Administrator: Philip Baird Shearer

I have received a message on my talk page from the administrator Philip Baird Shearer, which is basically a "cease and desist" notice backed up a threat to block over the issue of the archiving of what was an on going discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Descriptive & segmented article titles. I do not believe this message to represent an appropriate use of admin powers, and I don't think gagging a discussion is any way appropriate. If Philip has an objection to the discussion, he is free to say so, and ideally spell out why he objects. Alternatively, he can drop out of the discussion at any time. What is not appropriate is to halt, impede or generally inhibit constructive and detailed discussions about complex issues just because he can. As an ordinary editor, I do not think low level bullying of this nature is acceptable anywhere, let alone on Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

As an involved editor in the debate in question, I was not only pleased that it was originally closed and archived, that the closure was supported by this ANI, but equally pleased in Philip's conscientious decision to keep it closed after Gavin reverted it. Gavin has a knack of finding a multitude of methods for Flogging a Dead Horse and this is just another example. Philip's actions and notice to Gavin on his talk page IMO are on the mark.--Mike Cline (talk) 08:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The collapsing and archiving of talk page discussions is not the subject of this discussion: that has been dealt with at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive89#Erachima. The issue being discussed here is whether or not admins have the power to halt, impede or generally inhibit talk page discussions. The is no policy or guideline that suggests to me that admins are a superior caste with the right to do so, nor threaten editors with whom they disagree. Philip's actions are not on the mark, they are Beyond the Pale. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm involved. Gavin Collins reverted an admin close of a stale debate - a debate that he had already reverted the close on once before. I think a warning from PBS over this is reasonable, as Gavin Collins is refusing to let the matter drop despite his proposal having clearly failed. This is a recurring problem with Gavin Collins during guideline and policy discussions. Fences&Windows 13:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Gavin as I said in my posting to your talk page "My revert was done as an administrators revert based on the ANI, Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive89#Erachima does not trump the ANI"

Gavin. If in future you start a new section on an editor on this page, please be so good as to inform them on their talk page that you have done so. -- PBS (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

As an involved administrator, I would not have closed the debate, however when it went to an ANI and User:Fences and windows as an uninvolved administrator endorsed the closure but reverted the collapse box, I support that decision (as I would have, one to keep it open). You Gavin should have accepted that compromise. I have mealy reverted you reverts to the status quo left by User:Fences and windows. The section in HUGE and will be auto archived in due course, in the meantime the 60 pages can sit on the talk page for anyone who wants to read them. (Gavin if you look at the talk page history you will see I reverted a change to archive them more quickly). As I said on your talk page "If the consensus among other administrators at another ANI is that my edit should be reversed then I will revert it, or not object if another administrator does so". As of yet I see no such consensus. -- PBS (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Gavin why have you placed a comment above the warning I placed on you talk page? The time stamp that appeared on the at the end of that posting is not the same as that in the edit history.[2] The time of the edit recorded in the history of your user page is "07:31, 1 August 2010" (11 minutes after my posting which was at 07:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC) and 16 minutes before your reply to my posting) but the date you have given the posting on your talk page is 11:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC).

I am concerned that this mistake by you means that, because the link you gave at the start of this ANI section, was to talk page and included the entry with the incorrect time stamp, it gives the impression that I was replying to a notification you have placed there, when in fact it was placed there after my posting of a WARNING and before the opening of this ANI. To the best of my knowledge you did not inform me on my talk page, or mention on your talk page, that you had made a revert of my revert until after I placed the WARNING on your talk page. (if I am mistaken please show me the entry in the edit history to prove it).

If it were not for the fact that we assume good faith, I would assume that this edit was an attempt to deceive with a false time stamp, but now that I have pointed this out to you, as I am sure that as you are acting in good faith, as it is clearly a mistake and not a forgery, you will of course amend the section by moving you posting down below mine and altering the time stamp to the correct one, or alternatively just removing your pre-dated post. If not them we can discuss it further. -- PBS (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

PBS, it seems to have been a straight copy of the note he placed on your talk page at that timestamp, as can be seen here[3]. While it would have been clearer if he had added a small text indicating that he copied this from your talk page, I don't believe any attempt to deceive you or anyone else was made with this edit. Fram (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That is indeed the case; keeping the discussion together makes sense. In fairness to me, I have tried to keep this matter to Wikiquette alerts to avoid exactly this scenario. I don't know why collapsing or archiving discussions should be allowed to be used in this way, for there must be fifty ways to end an ongoing discussion that don't fall foul of WP:RRULE. We all want the discussion to end, but that point can only be reached by consensus. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what your point is, Gavin. What action, exactly, are you seeking for admins to take here? If you want a general discussion on when discussions should be closed, WP:VPP is a more appropriate venue. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If it is not apparent from from what I have said from the start, I would like this threat rescinded. In addition, I would like the archive template to be removed once and for all from the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Descriptive & segmented article titles in accordance with Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive89#Erachima. I have asked Swarm who initially mediated to comment on this matter[4]. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I see no particular need for that discussion to be re-opened: it had gone completely off the rails, and was discussing so many things in so many ways that nothing could possibly have been decided in its current state. Hence, I think that PBS's actions to keep the thread closed were supportable, even if there wasn't any single policy I could point to to support that (short of WP:Disruptive editing, which I'm not exactly sure applies).--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I've gotta back up Sarek here. Discussions are archived when they become disruptive or circular in nature, and that's where this one was going. I also do not see a "threat" by PBS, but a warning that any further reverting of his close would result in a block. You were right to bring it here rather than reverting, but so far I don't see any reason to disagree with PBS' actions. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid I just can't agree with this perspective, and you have not responded to my point about WP:RRULE. Whether a discussion is "off the rails" or "discussed so many things in so many ways" is a matter of opinion, not fact. The issue of segmented and descriptive article titles is worthy of a thorough and detailed discussion; the act that many examples were worked through is a classic example of editors trying to reach a shared understanding, not disruptive editing. Editors have to be allowed to discuss complex issues on Wikipedia without the threat of blocks. Just because a discussion is deemed to be "long", that does not mean it cannot be summarised and conclusions drawn from it. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 05:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:RRULE says "The Reasonability Rule: if an action cannot be considered "reasonable" or "acceptable" by an objective third person, that action should not be performed." I told you that "If the consensus among other administrators at another ANI is that my edit should be reversed then I will revert it, or not object if another administrator does so." Which is a practical implementation of the "Reasonability Rule". You are not a third party, and to date no uninvolved administrator think that the actions of User:Fences and windows (an uninvolved administrator when F&W took the action), or my support for F&Ws actions, are unreasonable. -- PBS (talk) 06:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism from Hiberniantears

Resolved

 – Hiberniantears' edit was WP:BOLD, not WP:VANDALISM. This is a content dispute, please discuss it on the talk page of the article. Fences&Windows 13:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

There is one among you who is engaging in blatant vandalism. I posted the following complaint on their user page:

I am astounded that an administrator can stoop to this level of vandalism. You are removing large chunks of an article, amply referenced sections, because you happen to think they are nonsense. That is what IP users do who are completely unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works. And to top that off, you even remove the bio infobox with the utterly mindless edit summary "getting rid of the bio box as well. Doesn't serve a purpose in this case". Have you considered resigning from you administrator position? You should. You really should.

I leave it to this admin's community of peers to consider how to deal with this type of behaviour which clearly compromises the authority of the adminship. __meco (talk) 08:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• You are mistaken. The edit you link is NOT vandalism. Meaning that it is a well meaning edit with an informative edit summary which places the article in some normal state. You and Hiberniantears might disagree on whether or not that end state is best, but the edit itself is most definitely not vandalism. Protonk (talk) 08:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Removing the bio infobox? Come one! __meco (talk) 08:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

With no comment as to who's right (I've never heard of Richard Hoagland, nor do I care) I imagine the issue isn't the removal of the infobox, but the removal of about 75% of the article text with "getting rid of the bio box" as the edit summary. – iridescent 08:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That's only part of the edit summary. Look at the edit immediately preceding it for context. Protonk (talk) 08:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The first paragraph under "Blanking" should be carefully considered here. Many would see this as possible vandalism, naturally. Doc9871 (talk) 09:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Or appropriate action under WP:UNDUE. We need to be careful that we aren't promoting nonsense. I haven't looked at it in detail, but I do know that Hoagland's stuff fringe/not reliable - what hasn't been ignored by the mainstream has been rejected. Dougweller (talk) 09:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I've no knowledge of either editor (or this article). Totally neutral. I'm just agreeing that if 75% of an article is suddenly blanked, some people are going to think it's vandalism. Whether it is or isn't... it will all be worked out shortly, I'm sure. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 09:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

There are actually two edits, I just gave the link to the combined diff. This is the first edit removing everything but the infobox with this summary: "reducing the sections - No need to detail all of his views given that none of them withstand credible peer review". Obviously peer review is not our standard for inclusion, but reliable sources. In the second edit only the biography infobox is removed. __meco (talk) 09:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the edit summaries, it's clear that the intent wasn't vandalism, but improving the article. The two of you appear not to agree about how to improve the article, so the next step would normally be to discuss it like reasonable adults on the article talk page- you skipped that step, and went straight to accusing him of vandalism and demanding he be desysopped. That might make it harder to talk about it with him and others and work out how much detail this article needs- I can't quite picture any path to that which doesn't include you apologizing to him for the accusation and the demand, and reaching out to him for the discussion. But maybe I'm wrong, and you'll be able to think of a different way to talk about this. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Am I reading this? Meco was right. While yes, not technically "vandalism", but to remove half the article like that is definitely unbecoming of an administrator. Absolutely not. There's this thing called copyediting that we usually do to improve- not delete half the article. Tommy! [message] 12:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

But the message he left was entirely useless to the purpose that needs to be accomplished, which is working out how much detail really should be in the article. The ultimate consensus, once they start talking, will probably be something more than Hiberniantears's cuts, and less than the sumptuous buffet of misinformation that was there before. But they can't get to that consensus without discussion, and Meco's bringing it here, calling Hiberniantears a vandal, and demanding his desysopping doesn't get them to that discussion. Being 'right' doesn't do him any good if it doesn't make the article better. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You obviously have misapprehended the intent of my posting the complaint against Hiberniantears. I did not post here in order to have the article appear in one way or the other. If that was my intention you are right, this is not the place to start that process. I have made this motion for the sole purpose of drawing attention to an administrator who behaves in a manner which, if quietly or overtly accepted, would undermine the respect for the admin community. __meco (talk) 12:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why you keep saying 'administrator' - he doesn't seem to have acted in an admin capacity here, or used any admin buttons. What would you have done in this situation if you hadn't noticed he was an admin? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly what I did minus the report to WP:ANI; I would have censured the user for completely unacceptable editing practices. I'm a little puzzled at your apparent total disinterest in the matter I am complaining about. __meco (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Clearly you and Hiberniantears have very different views as to how large that article should be. However the first thing to do when you disagree with someone's edits is to discuss your concern with them. I would suggest that you detail your concerns on the article's talkpage, and replace your current note on user talk Hiberniantears with something more appropriate for an editorial disagreement. Hiberniantears hasn't edited since all this began, so may well ignore your current messages if you replace them with a more appropriate one. ϢereSpielChequers 16:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

As I have just pointed out above to FisherQueen the issue of content is not the issue I am bringing up here. The issue I am taking up here is what I perceive as gross editor misconduct aggravated by the editor being an administrator. Trusted editors aren't supposed to make blunders on this scale. __meco (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

My 'apparent disinterest' is the only response I can come up with. You seem to be requesting that this admin have his admin buttons taken away, because he made some drastic edits to an article that you disagreed with- even though he didn't use his admin buttons to make those edits, the edits appear to have been made in good faith, and we don't know yet how he would respond to reasonable discussion of the subject, because you haven't tried that yet. It would be absurd to desysop him in this situation, and you don't seem to be requesting any other admin action that I can see. The only reasonable thing to do is work for consensus on improving the article, but you seem oddly disinterested in doing that, and in any case, admin intervention isn't usually needed to work out consensus on improving an article. If I seem disinterested in doing anything, it's because I personally don't see anything for me to do. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If you are only interested in addressing a dimension of this which my complaint doesn't focus on, then perhaps you shouldn't involve yourself in this discussion, certainly not beyond what you have already? And no, I am not requesting the editor be desysoped. I have left any reaction completely up to this forum. You misread constantly what I have stated or requested. __meco (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If you've left any action up to this forum, then the consensus so far seems to be that it wasn't vandalism, it wasn't an admin action, it is a content dispute, and you should discuss it with the other editor. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. So far that seems to be the consensus opinion, although I believe several have clearly missed the essence of my complaint. __meco (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That would be me, I assume. Please feel free to clarify what action you're requesting, because you're right that I don't understand what you are asking us to do. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'd like to see other admins agree that these edits were made in extremely poor judgment. I just looked up the word vandalism in the Wiktionary, and as it implies willfull destruction, I must clearly back off from that position. So, I'd like to see a consensus for something like: "Hey Hiberniantears, those two edits (particularly that second one) were made in gross violation of how we're supposed to make changes to articles in order to improve them, and you being an administrator and thus considered a trusted and experienced editor makes this offence look worse still. So we have decided to reprimand you over this. Consider yourself reprimanded by your peers." Something like that would be fine! __meco (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Well as far as I'm concerned that isn't going to happen. His edits place the article in a state you prefer less. That's about it. Minds can differ as to whether or not cutting down an article like this one is the best way to go about editing it, but I can't imagine anyone is going to treat the edits as a gross violation of our expectations vis a vis collaborative editing. Protonk (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

For background, I've made two edits to the article in question, and both were made yesterday. The first one removed a laundry list of theories by the article subject under the premise of WP:UNDUE. The content that remains is still longer than most articles and presents the "is" of Hoagland, along with a description of why he is notable. I'm not adding unflattering material, or altering the article to present Hoagland in a different light. I then removed the info box because it just didn't seem to add much value to article... a matter of opinion, for sure, and not something I would necessarily be opposed to restoring. That's my ten cents, Meco. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it wasn't vandalism, although the edit summary didn't reflect the reasoning for the edits. However, I don't think the edits were constructive; per WP:BRD, they shouldn't be repeated until consensus in favor is found. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Neutralhomer - Block request for violating sanctions

Despite User:Neutralhomer's extremely inflammatory comment in this latest discussion, I didn't rise to the bait. This thread was archived by Neutralhomer, however, in direct violation of conditions he agreed to in what was termed a "final warning" in order to have an indef block lifted. I have no objection to this thread being closed, but I'm tired of Neutralhomer's attempts to disrupt any ANI discussion that I initiate and ask that the conditions of his unblock agreement be enforced. In an entirely unrelated matter, perhaps a checkuser with nothing better to do might look into the spate of SPA accounts that have recently been attempting to annoy me (such as User:Media parent above). Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

DC, what to do with you. This is exactly what I was talking about. Continous, never-ending, ANI threads on anyone and everyone who seems to piss you off. You dig into archives to get dirt and use that at your will. This isn't your playpen. Might I remind you why we are here. It isn't for MOAR DRAMAHZ! it is to build an encyclopedia constructively, not run off people who piss us off (another activity you think is part of this website). If you can't build that encyclopedia constructively and you think this is a bunch of MOAR DRAMAHZ, then please consult the "sign out" button at the top right of your screen.

Now, as to the reason I closed this thread. The first thread was "dead" and the result was "RBI the socks", the second was "dead" and the result was "PMDrive1061 didn't break NPA" and the third was drawing far too much heat (especially with your "who's sock are you?" comment) and the result was "DC's block has expired". This thread is over, done, finito. It is, in fact, pining for the Fjords (consult Dead Parrot sketch for more on that). There isn't more to talk about. Just endless digs at other users and constant DRAMAHZ! that just isn't necessary. Move on, Dude. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh and per my prior instructions (which I had intend forgotten about) I will leave this to other users and admins. I seriously need a list of prior instructions, my memory sucks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Yup, that was what Neutralhomer was precisely warned not to do. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Jehochman ^Talk 00:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Yup, and I ain't perfect. I per ask the community to please put a list of my prior restrictions in my userspace so I can remember what the hell they are. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

So, Jehochman, now that I've brought it to your attention and you concur that it is a violation of that agreement, do you plan to do anything about it? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

DC, let me ask you a question. What exactly have I done to you, besides disagree with you, that has pissed you off so bad, that you are currently, actively, looking and asking and admin to block me. What exactly have I done? Besides disagree with you, not accept your points and close your dicussion. What have I done? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Per previous statement: User:Neutralhomer/Sanctions. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I've moved this from a sub-topic of an earlier thread to separate this block request which is only tangentially related and so that the main topic can be closed (which seems to be generally desired). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Ahem. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
• If such prohibitions extend to requests for enforcement of sanctions, I apologize for breaking them and I am willing to accept whatever consequences are deemed necessary. Please note that the extent of my violating my ban has so far been this request, which followed the second overt infringement of Neutralhomer's sanctions, and a courtesy notification to Neutralhomer about the thread. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me quote for the clickably challaged: "User User:Delicious carbuncle is not to discuss, either explicitly nor by allusion, the actions, behaviours, editing, or existence of the users PCHS-NJROTC and NeutralHomer, either together or separately. This means: You are not to interact with them, discuss them, raise issues about them, comment upon issues they raise, or follow them around." [bolding from original post].

DC, you discussed me and my actions, probably my exsistence, seperately. You interacted with me, raised issues about me and followed me around (to another talk page). So this isn't a slight infraction, you, as we Navy brats say, "screwed the pooch" on this one.

Now, on the other hand, I screwed up, closed something you started, forgot my restriction, but was called immediately on it. I didn't call you on yours for over a day. I gave you that courtesy. I recommend this be closed, we both walk in seperate directions at a swift rate of speed and find something else to do. Mine will be going to bed, yours...I really don't care. Deal? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I have also made all my restrictions available for all to see as well, something I haven't seen anyone else do...ever (unless they are involved with ArbCom). That is my Good Faith showing. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

While you're busy trying to butcher the messenger. Did you or did you not violate your sanctions? DC's actions are a separate incident and can be handled independently.--Crossmr (talk) 13:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

proposed amended sanction for both

I'm sure I'm not the only one bored with all this back and forth between Delicious Carbuncle and Neutralhomer and I think we need a clear unambiguous sanction to completely halt this never ending time-sink. I therefore propose that

Neutralhomer and Delicious Carbuncle are prohibited from interacting on Wikipedia in any form. This means that neither may mention the other nor may they comment on their posts. To be clear, if they are both involved in a particular page or discussion they may not revert or alter any of the other's edits. Nor may they comment on, or respond to, any point raised by the other. In particular they may not raise complaints against the other and are advised to use off-wiki forms of communication to inform an admin that they trust to investigate any breeches of this restriction. Failure to abide by this restriction will result in escalating blocks.

Not my best drafting ever but I think the sense is there. Comments? Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - We are both under separate sanctions which, as far as I am concerned, constitute a complete interaction ban. I have no objection to formalizing it. Please note that my only involvement with Neutralhomer is to request that their sanctions actually be enforced. I have not responded to their provocative comments and do not intend to. The reason I chose to bring this up on ANI rather than privately communicate with an admin was that Neutralhomer's blocks don't seem to stick, despite their history and virtually constant involvement in content disputes. I would prefer that the matter of their violation of sanctions was dealt with as openly and formally as possible. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Skomorokh forgot to or inadvertantly missed logging the community sanction that is already in force from this discussion. It happens from time to time; I'm going to add that to the log of restrictions so admins know what it is they are enforcing in the future. I'd suggest NH drop any further requests to enforce "violations" of this community sanction that occurred earlier than this timestamp. I'd suggest that DC drop any further requests to enforce "violations" with respect to Gladys' unblock conditions of NH. If either want to continue bickering or for any reason mentioning one another, then I'd support an admin blocking them both.
• In the meantime, perhaps the sanction should be amended to restrict both formally. To Spartaz, I'd suggest stealing the wording that was enacted by the community in relation to Mk5384/OberRanks seeing "technically" the email requirement may be gamed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Why don't you just suggest an amendment and we will work from that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Making a suggestion in the section below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Ncmvocalist, I'm not sure why you are suggesting that I drop my request for Neutralhomer's restriction to be enforced. The admin who placed those restrictions has agreed that they were violated. Do you think that Neutralhomer should not be held to the terms that he agreed to in order for an indef block to be lifted? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Rather, I think you would be blocked for violating community sanctions - although you requested the unblock agreement be enforced, you clearly violated your own restrictions with remarks like: "but I'm tired of Neutralhomer's attempts to disrupt any ANI discussion that I initiate", "I have not responded to their provocative comments", "Neutralhomer's blocks don't seem to stick, despite their history and virtually constant involvement in content disputes", etc. I think you're refusing to drop the stick, which is part of the reason you engaged in conduct that got you blocked a few days ago. This is also consistent with the same sorts of concerns at least one other person raised about your conduct, shortly prior to the original community sanction being imposed on you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
          • You have made it clear in the past that my participation at ANI irritates you, I have the impression from our past interactions here that my participation at ANI irritates you, but you seem to be evading the question. Why would you object to Neutralhomer's restrictions being enforced? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
            • Please substantiate that claim about your ANI participation with evidence. To respond to the other part of your comment, I'm not evading the question at all; either you both will remain unblocked, or you both will be blocked - if you don't understand what that means, nobody can help you. I appreciate that this is not the first time you want to disrupt Wikipedia to try and prove a point, but if you don't start paying attention to the concerns about your behavior, more sanctions are likely to become necessary. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
              • I don't need evidence to have an opinion and it really isn't worth our time to discuss it unless you think it is inaccurate. Since there is no disagreement that Neutralhomer violated the his restrictions, your position seems to be that asking for enforcement here constitutes a violation of my restriction. What I'm not clear on is why that necessarily means that either we are both blocked or neither one of us is blocked - surely there is room for us to discuss intent and degree? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
                • You appear more than ready to wikilawyer in the same fashion that Mythdon did prior to his site ban, and I'm not going to feed that sort of behavior anymore. You can presume that the accuracy of your statement is disputed - again, please substantiate it (or strike it). As for the rest, you clearly were not pleased that Neutralhomer's unblock agreement was not being given the level of force you wanted it to be given. While you were reporting the violation (which is legitimate), you went out of your way to violate your own sanctions (which is not legitimate); the same pointy type of editing that got you blocked a few days ago. Had you not made those remarks which clearly went into the territory of the sanction that Gladys proposed and Skomorkh enacted, I would not see a reason for you to be blocked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
                  • Carbuncle has refused to retract her allegations and has refused to substantiate her allegations, and has refused to let anyone else do so. Are administrators going to do anything about this? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
                    • I have refactored my comment to make it clear that this is my impression and opinion, as already stated. Was this really necessary? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed amendment

I don't want to remove the effect of restrictions between DC, NH and PCHS, which are in some respects, vague. So here's a proposed amendment - 4 restrictions, with a boilerplate (BP) accompanying each of the restrictions so as to clarify the restrictions and give clear guidance as to how they can be enforced:

1) Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from, indirectly or directly, interacting with (or making comments in relation to) Neutralhomer (talk · contribs), except to participate in any future discussion that reviews this restriction.

2) Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from, indirectly or directly, interacting with (or making comments in relation to) PCHS-NJROTC (talk · contribs), except to participate in any future discussion that reviews this restriction.

3 Neutralhomer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from, indirectly or directly, interacting with (or making comments in relation to) Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs), except to participate in any future discussion that reviews this restriction.

4 PCHS-NJROTC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from, indirectly or directly, interacting with (or making comments in relation to) Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs), except to participate in any future discussion that reviews this restriction.

BP) This editing restriction shall include a complete prohibition from comments on the respective user talk pages, filing reports on admin noticeboards, reverting edits on articles, commenting in other venues about the other party or their edits, or directly responding to each other's comments on article talk pages. This restriction by itself does not prohibit mutual participation on articles, as long as the editors stay away from each other. The restriction is to be interpreted broadly. If either of the parties feel that the other party has violated this ban or other Wikipedia policy, and no uninvolved administrator responds to the violation within a reasonable amount of time, they may notify 1 uninvolved administrator of the incident on that administrators' talk page 12 hours after the original perceived infraction, and if that first administrator does not respond by at least acknowledging seeing the report within 24 hours they may notify a second uninvolved administrator in the same manner (but in no case more than 2 notifications on-wiki). Repeated spurious reports to administrators using this mechanism shall be grounds for blocking for disruption. Violations of the interaction restrictions may result in a block for any time limit up to a week. After three upheld blocks due to violation of this restriction, or other issues, the violating editor will be indefinitely blocked.

Thoughts? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support, as drafter, clarifying the procedure by which requests for enforcement may be made. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
• Why Bother? Neutral Homer was already sanctioned, he violated it, the only result has been some stern language about making it really sure. He was aware of his sanctions, he violated them. if there is no recourse for that, why bother making more?--Crossmr (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Can you please link me to the text of the community sanction? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Neutral Homer linked above to the restrictions he felt he was under and he violated them. He admits he was under them and there is no concern whether or not he felt they applied since he has freely listed them. He was under the restriction not to archive threads started by DC, he did it, nothing happened. If no one is going to do anything there is no point in making more sanctions that won't be enforced. We don't need new sanctions we need someone to enforce the ones that already exist.--Crossmr (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
      • That seems to be true to some extent. All three admins below apparently knew about the restrictions, wheras a lot of people didn't know because it wasn't logged at here until after this incident. The question that needs to be asked now is whether: (1) those admins can be counted on for enforcement of further violations and (2) if history says no, how can the parties request enforcement from someone else? This proposal tries to answer (2). Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Logged or unlogged, he was still made aware of it at the time. It is rankly irrelevant if it was logged or not. What's relevant is that he was aware of it, he violated it, and is now engaging in what appears to be misdirection to distract people from the fact that he should be indef blocked as a result. This proposal does little more than enable that behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 07:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
          • Restrictions are logged so that people cannot forget the exact terms of particular restrictions which end up lost in the archives with time (how many months since he was made aware?). My understanding was that where an editor violates the restrictions, an admin enforces them...but it doesn't make sense for an admin who forgot or doesn't know about a restriction to find out unless they're psychic, or unless they (like everyone else) can see it at the central log of active restrictions. This is coupled with the fact that DC also violated her own restriction under the existing terms - this proposal enables her behavior in the same manner because her restriction was not logged either. Accordingly, admins did not enforce either violation in this case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
            • DCs actions were to make a relevant report on an issue that was directly targeted at them. I would have recommended that they instead emailed a relevant admin or get someone else to do it, but regardless, DCs violation is separate from Neutral Homer's and can be dealt with separately as I already indicated above. It isn't anyone's job to poke someone and constantly remind them of their restrictions. They can either abide by them or not. Even if they were logged, he would have just as much likelihood of forgetting them as he isn't likely to visit the sanctions page today. I also have a very hard time believing someone forgets being on the verge of an indefinite block and what they have to do to avoid that.--Crossmr (talk) 12:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support (with changes noted below) - I do not support the proposal as it stands, but have no issue with it in principle. If the previous restrictions are not enforced, however, I do not hold much hope for this one, especially without the changes to blocks and block lengths that I have suggested. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - (1) There is no reason to include an unrelated editor in the proposal (2) I would prefer an explicit series of escalating blocks (eg one week, two weeks, one month, indef) (3) In fairness to Neutralhomer, blocks for issues unrelated to this interaction ban should not result in an indef block. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
  • This is not an unrelated editor - you were banned from interacting with him at the same time as you were banned from interacting with NH; this simply sets out the formal procedure in which you or he can request the restriction to be enforced. I've copied the wording used from recent interaction bans of this sort, but I have struck the part about "other issues" now as there were multiple restrictions on different issues in those cases; not a series of interaction bans. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Please read the main ANI thread which spawned the interaction ban discussion. It actually had nothing to do with PCHS-NJROTC. I would like to see explicitly noted escalating blocks with an additional proviso that the user may not be unblocked without a discussion of said block on AN or ANI. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
      • You were banned from interacting with NH and PCHS; we don't sanction people unnecessarily, and Gladys clearly found it necessary to restrict you from interacting with PCHS too - the rest of the community agreed. I won't support any such additional proviso, and I don't think the community would either. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Let's try discussion. I'm suggesting that the lengths of the escalating blocks are made explicit. I suggest 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month, indef - does anyone have an issue with that as a start? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
          • I do - this is to end the issues, not let them continue forever. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• No. Excessively complex proposal and unnecessary. Either editors learn to either get along or avoid each other, or we ban them. The fact that Neutralhomer needs a subpage to keep track of all their editing restrictions is an ominous sign. "Treat other editors decently" is all one needs to know. Neutralhomer, could you please stop acting like a pest. Whether you mean to, or not, that's the appearance. Delicious Carbuncle, you're a good content editor; could you please focus on that, and stop taking the bait. Ncvmocalist, could you please stop involving yourself excecessively in matters that don't involve you directly. When you post to a thread, many editor run the other direction because they don't want to get into an endless debate with you. Your joining conflicts in progress often makes things worse rather than better. Thank you, all. I am going to pretend this thread didn't happen, and you ought to go off and behave more cluefully. Jehochman ^Talk 00:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Concur. Another great example of experience over enthusiasm. My motto is "avoid ANI except where unavodable", and Jehochman could not have put it better, in my view. Rodhullandemu 00:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• Also concur with the above two sentiments. Existing restrictions would be adequate and clear if they were enforced. Its quite clear. NH and DC should be blocked if they interact or comment on each other. Period. End of discussion. Full stop. Fin. Additional verbage is only obfuscatory. --Jayron32 02:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I shouldn't have responded to Spartaz's suggestion? Maybe, but my conscience is clean, and that doesn't change the obvious fact: it's a shame that the three of your views could not be registered when pretty identical proposals were enacted from this discussion and this discussion. In those cases, both parties knew how to request enforcement and did not consider it "obfuscatory", and the sanctions were appropriately logged so people knew what to enforce and how it is enforced. There's no evidence of violations since the time of them being enacted due to the clarity in those terms, which is far more than I can say for those that exist in this case. The substance of what I said stands for itself and the stats are in support of it; but if the vengeful want to start piling on just because of the person who added the proposal, then that's a shame for the project, and a shame for the admins who failed to live up to their promises - the alternative cause for things being made worse here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• I support whatever will stop this from happening again. Neutralhomer has started keeping track of their restrictions, Ncmvocalist and I are friends again, and a couple of admins have made statements that will make them my first stop if this ever needs enforcing. Wrap it up? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

  It would help if you walked away and let others handle the matter. Jehochman ^Talk 17:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement from Neutralhomer

Been asleep (night owl and insomnia) so I am just seeing all this. I had forgotten about my restriction, that is my mistake. As such, to prevent further mistakes, I have created User:Neutralhomer/Sanctions and put it in userspace for all to see as a matter of full disclosure and a show of good faith. Being that, I have moved on, which I think is best for the whole project, not just ANI. Let's all just move on, per Jehochman, pretend this doesn't exsist and didn't happen, and edit something...I know I am. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

"I forgot" isn't an acceptable excuse. You were on your super duper extra overtime last chance from the sounds of it and trying to buy another with "I forgot" doesn't even approach good faith.--Crossmr (talk) 07:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, what's your favorite, recent contribution to Wikipedia? I am not giving you another chance; I am thinking about overlooking your error if you can demonstrate that you've been doing valuable work here. Jehochman ^Talk 11:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Not an edit I made, but something I worked toward. I brought the Stephens City, Virginia article up to GA Class. It is undergoing an FAC to bring it to FA Class. If that works, I plan on taken it to WP:TFA and seeing about getting it on the Front Page. There is plenty I am doing and am planning to do. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Ddd1600

Resolved

 – blocked for 5 days by NW Tommy! [message]

This guy is i believe going to be nought but trouble. He created this page [5] (deleted as vandalism) which was basicly a screw you wikipedia page. Personal attack on User:Carolmooredc [6] another PA on the same editor [7] and also one on me [8] he has also said if he is blocked he will sock [9], so dunno what can be done about that. mark nutley (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 5 days. I was debating making it an indef block, but I decided to keep it time-limited in hopes that he will shape up. I would have no problem with anyone overturning my block to one of a longer length. NW (Talk) 14:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• What a nice fellow. Why do I suddenly wonder what he'd look like on fire? HalfShadow 18:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Note - Two (at least) oddly uninvolved editors have recently expressed concern over HalfShadow's above comment: 68.28.104.246 and "Rainbow Striped Toe Sock". Hmmm... Doc9871 (talk) 03:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Tagged. Bag at your leisure. HalfShadow 15:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Andrew c (admin) - personal attacks

I'm sick of this.

Historicity of Jesus

Good thing the Wikipedia world does not revolve around Noloop's bigotry. We have no policies that say Christians are evil and cannot perform scholarship, or be cited by us. We have no valid policy based reason to exclude such information or sources. Please take your bigotry elsewhere. [10]

I don't want to continue discussing such matters with people who hold such vile religious prejudice. [11]

Noloop didn't consider the journal secular enough because it didn't ban authors based on their religion or some other bigotry. [12]

I'm not sure if your prejudice goes against Jewish individuals as well. And then I don't know if you'll just move the goal posts again and again. I don't want to play any more part in supporting your prejudice, and I'm not convinced that anything will convince you. You have no evidence, outside of your despicable personal prejudices, [13]

Let's see how long it takes for the bigots to come up with their own sourcing rules which exclude people based on where they went to school, or where they worship in their personal lives, etc [14]

Jesus

This is nothing short of bigotry. It's like saying we can't cite Cornel West on topics of African American studies due to racial bias. If you have valid criticisms and specifics, please get into them, but please stop trying to discount sources based on your personal prejudices [15] (edit comment: “more bigotry”)

User_talk:Andrew_c#Personal_attacks

I'm sorry if you find calling it like I see if problematic. I find your continued efforts to discount sources above and beyond WP:RS based solely on a religious litmus test highly offensive. I won't shy away from this: it angers me to see such repeating ignorance and bigotry spouted over and over on Wikipedia. [16]

He also says: "I'd be entirely open to independent review of any of my comments. In fact, I'd encourage it, because I have a very strong and clean record here on Wikipedia, and pride myself on integrity, and am always open to review and constructive criticism." I went to the RFCU page, but the case doesn't meet the requirement of two editors commenting on his Talk page. I'm as sick as everyone else of seeing my name in this forum. I don't know what else to do. If I were acting like this, I would be blocked and people would be howling for a topic-ban. I'd like to see admins held to an equal standard. Or (gasp) a higher standard. Noloop (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm also a little concerned about Andrew C. Noloop and I filed reports for edit warring yesterday against an editor at Christ myth theory. This wasn't an isolated case of edit-warring. The editor in question has been a serial reverter at Christian-related articles (editing from a conservative Christian position) for a long time, and has been blocked several times this year for 3RR violations. The reverts I posted showed him reverting against multiple editors, yet Andrew's response was that I should be blocked too. [17] It was a response that showed he hadn't looked at the article's history, and hadn't made himself familiar with the reverter's history and blocklog; or else he was familiar with it and was ignoring it. When I looked at his user page, I found he's involved in developing Christian-related content himself. I don't know what Andrew's POV is, but it's worrying if strong personal views are spilling over into not only editing, but also into the positions he takes as an admin.

On the issues of secular sourcing, it's often going to be preferable to try to find that wherever possible. This isn't bigotry, it's an effort to find sources who won't necessarily all agree with one another about fundamental issues. I would never rule out a source in Christian-related articles simply because Christian, but it's also worrying when the only sources used are from theological seminaries, and this seems to happen a lot in these articles. Indeed, at Christ myth theory, there has been an insistence that the sources be specialist biblical scholars, which of course almost guarantees a certain POV. A good mix of sources is always important. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you think it's appropraite to repeatedly tell another editor they are bigoted and prejudiced? We must use secular sources to write about Christian subjects, and Christian sources to write about secular subjects? Freakshownerd (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Andrew should not have accused Noloop of bigotry just for requesting secular sources. And yes, we must include secular sources when writing anout religious issues, if they exist. We should include all perspectives from all reliable sources, and should not be defining "reliable" so as to exclude secular POVs, obviously. And when there is a specifically Christian POV about a non-Christian issue, that would be included too, if there are reliable sources for it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this issue is entirely one sided. Also would we not also have to 'label' athiest sources?Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If a source has made a point of being an atheist activist, I see no harm in pointing that out in the text. But it's less problematic that someone having been educated at a religious school, having gone to a theological seminary, teaching at a theological seminary, and then being used as a reliable source—when at no point in their lives have they been exposed to a non-religious education. Ideally, we should be looking for good sources with no dog in the fight. The problem with these articles (and not only these) that as soon as you find a good academic source with no dog in the fight, editors start crying that it's not an RS because not specialized enough. Hence the importance of sticking rigidly to the sourcing policy, including when it's not producing the desired POV. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the way Andrew sees it is that nobody accuses atheists of bias in science sources where Noloop does criticize Christians of bias on religious sources. To him it would be comparable to saying that all white sources are acceptable on white articles but that blacks are bias on black articles, which would be bigotry. Just a little clarification of where I think he's coming from. Maybe he should be warned, but I don't think further admin action is necessary.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I would also say there was an element of provocation, as you can see there was (not without some justification) an accusation that Noloop moved goal posts when his objections are met. That does rather engender the kind of temper losing that Andrew c is undoubtedly guilty of (and I agree with Noloop that an admin should know better).Slatersteven (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

What a terrible analogy, it seems almost deliberately provocative. I think a more apt analogy would be accusing members of The Two Plus Two Equals Six Society of bias in the Two plus two article - that is, the primary criticism of Christian sources in the Historicity of Jesus article is that they, by their very upbringing, approach the topic with the conclusion already set in mind. Their research is, overall, better described as "Jesus existed, how can we prove it", as opposed to the more valid "was there a man known as Jesus Christ". That's not to say that they're necessarily aware of their own bias, or even that their conclusions are automatically wrong - just that their conclusions are rightfully suspect. We don't use Moonie "research" for the Sun Myung Moon article, perhaps dwelling on that will help enlighten some as to why Christian sources for this article are so contested. Badger Drink (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

We're allowed to use Scientologists in articles about Scientology and members of the Unification Church in articles about their beliefs, but we should never allow articles to be framed entirely by any group, no matter how respectable. That's the essence of NPOV, and it's the point of the sourcing policy, which takes a non-restrictive view of sourcing. If it's deemed reliable by reasonable people, and if it's clearly on-topic without involving original research to squeeze it in, you can use it. We don't adhere to biblical scholar point of view. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

My current concern is that Noloops uncompromising demands for secular peer reviewed sourcing has, possibly irreparably, damaged the case for including a broader range of sources in these articles. I think it is also becoming confusing in that there are two issues; the issue of "did jesus exist historically" and "what is the consensus view of scholars" - it's a mealy mess for sure. There is also the inherent issue of a slight lack of secular sourcing (simply by virtue of the topic) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 21:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

This sems to be rehashing the debate that casued this ani, rather then adressing the ani.Slatersteven (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Noloop, a lot of the comments by editors in this discussion has been concerning; including general accusations of yourself about an ingrained religious bias and so forth (which I felt at the time was not at all justified for most of the editors it was directed at). Not that that excuses Andrew c's direct responses; but I can see the rationale behind finding some of the comments about the validity of Christian sources (more in the wording than the meaning/intent) disturbing - that is the sort of double standard not required on other articles. I think the issue is you are a lone voice on this, even those of us agreeing with you on some matters widely disagree with the more extreme stuff; you've taken it to every noticeboard, mediation, arbitration, got the article protected and so on and so forth. Honestly; perhaps it is best just to withdraw from this one. I honestly believe that you're starting to damage the more "conservative" case being made by other editors and which is gaining traction. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 21:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

No, he's not a lone voice, Errant. I agree with him, and I'm guessing most of Wikipedia agrees with him (though I've not followed the way he's pursued it and maybe I would disagree with the approach, I don't know). But I do find the attitude at the Jesus articles disturbing. We need secular sources. No one should be accused of bigotry for requesting that, because it's perfectly reasonable. No one is necessarily being anti-Scientology because we don't want to base entire articles on their views. The same applies to articles related to Christianity, animal rights, Michael Jackson, and to everything else. Sources with no dog in the fight are important. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that no one should use the word "bigot" anymore on these Jesus pages. That would be a good start. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

A better start would be for noloop to stop behaving in a manner that could be described as such. Because if the shoe fits.... Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Its not the fact he asks, he demands and when presented with sources just changes what he has asked for. Moreover as far as I am aware no one has said we cannot use secualr sources, just not being secuular does not preclude a sources use. (though I have not followed the Jesus page), which is effectivly what Noloop seems to be saying. That or we should identify christain source becasue they might be bias (but then so would any source, do we identify American sources on the AWI page?), odd that he seems to ignore that Muslims also belive in Jesus the man (thus its not only chrisitans that bleive in him).

Noloop's behavior should raise serious concerns among everyone. Consider this recent arbitration request, where he betrays his approach to editing anything relating to Jesus. You can also check out this thread if that is not enough to convince you. Ironically, the only person (as far as I can tell) who is insisting on using a limited range of sources is Noloop.

Not that he's against using Christian scholars—but if any scholar, no matter how well-respected in the field, happens also to be a Christian, then Noloop insists on specifically spelling that out. For example, "The Christian scholar Joe Blow says such an such about the historicity of Jesus". That would be like saying, "The Jewish historian Joe Blow says such and such about antisemitism". That sounds bigoted to me, but even if it's not, then I seriously doubt that such an approach is part of Wiki core policies. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Noloop feels that the predisposition of the sources cited to believe the thing they are cited for should be made clearer. That seems reasonable. It's not clear why your antisemitism example is comparable, because it is not contextualised. --FormerIP (talk) 00:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

LOL, does that "predisposition of the sources" apply to atheists too? Should we say, for example, "The atheist biologist Richard Dawkins says such and such about biology?" If that attitude is not bigoted, then at the very least it is POV, which violates a core wiki policy. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, the context is missing (ie the crucial part is what the "such and such" is and whether Dawkins is predisposed to a POV in noteworthy way because he is an "atheist biologist"). if the statement is "God does not exist and I like Charles Darwin", then noting than the source is an atheist biologist is likely to be appropriate. It is abslutely in conformance with WP:NPOV to acknowledge the potential bias of a source. --FormerIP (talk) 01:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The context (i.e., "such and such") is their respective fields. So for an historian, the context is their specialty in history. For a biologist, the context is their specialty in biology. The example you gave above ("God does not exist and I like Charles Darwin") would be valid and appropriate only when scholars are speaking outside their field of expertise. For example, when Dawkins says "there is no god...", he is making a metaphysical claim, and such claims are outside the realm of biology (metaphysical claims belong to the field of philosophy)—so, to note his atheism is indeed appropriate. But when a scholar is using mainstream methodology, to include "Christian" and "atheist" labels (or any other label for that matter) strongly implies a POV by the wiki editor, as if their opinions (i.e., the scholars in question) don't follow the standard methodology of their respective fields and are letting their personal opinions taint their work. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The topic is personal attacks by admins. I'd like to keep the dispute about content off this page. He's not entitled to accuse me of "vile prejudice" and bigotry, even if he's right about the content.

I only documented Andrew's remarks directed at me. Admin Slrubenstein has slung the same arrows: "Calling a bigot a bigot is not antagonisic, it is honest....Your bigotry blinds to to any realistic knowledge of the current state of NT scholarship. ... All you are doing is making a mistake that only a bigot is capable of making: " [18] "I think we can now say he is not only a bigot, but a fanatical bigot. This is not name-calling."[19].

Admins have been strict with me. I was blocked twice for 6 days, without a 3RR violation. Admins should make judgement calls based on the spirit of the rule; I don't contest the principle. The judgement calls against me were just very strict. I wonder if admins are held to the same standard. Strict standards, applied to these admins, would result in a block for personal attacks.

Another sign that things are out of control is that last night I dreamed of diffs. I am taking a 24 hour break. (After just a few more edits, I mean....)Noloop (talk) 00:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Noloop has problems with his approach, but he is far and away a net benefit to the project with the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart in everything he does. And as Slim says, he's not a lone voice. If anything, he may very well be a majority voice of editors even if his execution leaves something to be desired. I've been around for two knee-jerk attempts to topic ban Noloop, spearheaded by 2 editors. In one attempt it failed with only those two editors supporting. In the other, there were those two editors plus one more. It failed too. The correct course of action at this point for those who view him as disruptive is to acknowledge the community doesn't see it that way, and try to look past the admittedly clumsy presentation Noloop has and dive in to the substance of his objections, which clearly are considered reasonable by the community writ large. -- ۩ Mask 02:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

According to him, [my talk] page documents my own righteous and pure behavior. Let’s just call it “immaculate conduct." Yes, of course he's a net benefit. I mean, I even feel honored to be in his presence. Let's all hold hands and pray that he will guide us on our way in the journey of wiki-life. LOL. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I see the history of this and related articles as two sides each trying to claim that the other side is in some degree less intellectually responsible than the other. We should not be engaging in such debates here; we simply present all position. There's been I think an effort to portray the idea of non-historicity of Jesus as a fringe position; I think this is wrong--it's been a respectable position argued for millennia; it is not currently fashionable in academic circles, but in the historical sciences such is very far from fringe (and of course saying that there is an historical basis is perfectly compatible with saying that essentially everything in the N.T. accounts is imaginary--which is not in the least a fringe position.) There's also been an effort to say that religious sources on jesus are not as reliable as non-religious sources; I think this is also wrong. Religious scholars have argued for a surprisingly wide number of views on the subject--religious in not = contemporary Christian fundamentalist. Even so, I would not reject such sources--I see no reason on a topic like this why anyone is more likely to be right than anybody else--though I certainly know what position I personally believe to be right, which is another matter entirely. I fid it almost unimaginable that anyone interested in such a topic actually is truly totally neutral, though people of all views have different degrees of freedom from their preconceptions, as well as different degrees of intellectual rigor. One evaluates work on subjects like this with consideration of the author and the publisher, but not by rejecting or downgrading views a priori--this is the very opposite of NPOV.

But agreed, the above is to some extent a digression. To call someone a bigot is a personal attack. It may conceivably be a valid personal attack, but it remains a personal attack. We can only work together by being careful to avoid such wording--even when one thinks it justified. We can only make progress in Wikipedia by keeping such views about each other to ourselves. It's time we took action against people who do this after a warning. DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware there has been no warning, besides Noloop would actually be valuable if he did some research and found sources that he thought was appropriate, but instead all he does is demand others find sources which isn't helpful.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 03:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that some action should be taken. Obviously name-calling, i.e. calling someone a bigot, is not appropriate. It is also not accurate, in the case of Noloop. His stated position is repeatedly misrepresented by his critics and their grotesque caricature of his argument is held up as a straw man to be burned in effigy with a "BIGOT" sign pinned to its back. Noloop has been very good about focusing on the issue of inadequate sourcing for the statements that are made in the Jesus articles. See the talk pages for the arguments. Suffice it to say that the behavior of those who oppose the view of Noloop, SlimVirgin, and others who are looking for some secular peer-reviewed sources has been extremely inappropriate at times, and has not been helpful to the project. Noloop has just provided some examples. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Andrew could apologize for name calling, Noloop could apologize for impugning Christian scholars honesty about what other scholars think, and then have a big hug :) Roy Brumback (talk) 05:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It is interesting to see that rather than focus on the issue raised, this has been diverted by trying to make it about the behaviour of editor who posted this, the content of the article, and the discussion on the talk page. This illustrates the problem here - people will not focus on the issues, and the discussion gets nowhere. This method of discussion is never going to be productive (statements intended to illustrate the lines of argument - not actual quotes): We need secular scholarly sources... OK... Here is Bertrand Russell... He is not an expert on the topic... We need secular scholarly sources... OK, but unless they are a professor at a theological college who is an expert in this field, you cannot use them... But there aren't any... So all scholars agree on this, there is no need to qualify that are mostly people holding a particular religious affiliation... and so on, round and round it goes. Pointing out the inherent problem here is not bigotry, and people need to focus on the persistent accusations of bigotry against this editor, as well as the repeated attempts to get him banned, off-article comments warning him to stop editing these articles, and what could be construed as 'bullying' of a single editor who challenges a dominant POV. This really should not be going on here, although I am experienced enough to know this happens in quite a few places here, it would be nice to see people starting to do something about this. - MishMich - Talk - 08:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The debate was obviously heated, and as far as I can see did include an implication that scholars of Christian education were unreliable. Andrew could certainly have phrased his comments better, I could think of several ways of phrasing it so as to convey the same content while not using the word "bigotry" and being above reproach for AN/I purposes. I do not think anything should be done. If both editors haven't gotten the message they need to play it cool in debate from here on in, they never will. I suggest we send this back to the appropriate talk page. This discussion itself constitutes any necessary warning. Obviously, admins need to observe high standards of civility, which I personally try to do myself, but that's not a club to beat the admin with either. Nothing to see here, please disperse.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

So it's only a club to beat non-administrators with, I see. Malleus Fatuorum 11:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Good call. --FormerIP (talk) 12:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that's twice now I've found myself agreeing with Malleus. Worrying :) Wehwalt, Noloop did not say that christian scholars were unreliable. What he said repeadedly was that they were biased. Not the same thing. This is an area where pretty much all sources come at it from a POV of some kind, and SlimVirgin has noted elsewhere that for scholars coming out of the mainly US christian academic field, who seem to be dominant in the current zeitgeist, the POV is notably that the historical Jesus existed pretty much as you see him. This large group has claimed that all scholars agree with them, and Noloop has been seeking evidence from scholars outside the group. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I've asked both Andrew C and Slrubenstein not to make any further personal attacks. Slinging around insults like "bigot" is not acceptable behaviour. If any editors do persist in making personal attacks along these lines, they should be blocked. Fences&Windows 13:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

When I said "unreliable", I did not mean "wrong" or "biased" or anything specific. I simply meant that they couldn't be taken as if they came down from Sinai on stone—aw darn, that's a bad analogy. Running for cover, see you later.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I have not made any personal attacks, at least not in this case. A few examples have come up: Christ myth theory, Jesus, and Historicity of Jesus. I want to make plain that I have not paid any attention to the Jesus myth theory for quite some time and NONE of my comments address any conflict there. But with regard to Noloop's arguments, and those of some other, e.g. Cyclopia, I have to say, I consider bigotry at WP to be a danger any concerned Wikipedian should take very seriously, and oppose. By bigotry I mean an intolerance for the views of others based on their race, creed, or color (in this case, creed seems to be the parameter in play). It is not calling someone a bigot that is the offence, it is the bigotry that is the offence.

Andrew C's comments directed at Noloop have to be put in context. Noloop has been arguing at the Jesus article against a host of sources from scholars trained at or employed by seminaries or divinity schools. Noloop is making an assumption: that since the authors of these books and articles are Christians, they books and articles forward a Christian point of view. This is prejudiced, because Noloop is deciding what the point of view in the book or article is based on the religion of the author. He is not deciding this based on the contents of the book or article. It is bigoted, because he rejects without evidence the possibility that someone who happens to be a Christian might not have other identities, other social statuses, and as a result may have views that are not "Christian."

I wish to be very clear about the issue here. No one is claiming that the Christian point of view is not biased. No one is claiming that an article should promote a Christian point of view. No one is claiming that Christian views shoud not be identified as such. Andrew C certainly has not suggested anything like this, nor have I.

The issue here appears to be whether a particular point of view is Christian or not. The real issue here is, how do we determine what view is being presented? I think that one first has to start with the view itself, look at the contents of the claim, and secondly to look at how the claim itself is being presented, and to whom it is being addressed. Once one has done these things - and I consider this to be basic research, one might then find it useful to provide biographical information about the person presenting the view, it can provide additional context that helps clarify the view. This is all I and Andrew c have ever called for, to my knwoledge.

But Noloop is skipping the first two steps. For him, once you know what religion a person is, youknow his or her views. I admit that people are often divided, divided by gender, for example, but when Kinsey wrote about male and female sexuality, I do not think he was expressing a "man's" point of view. People are also divided by race, creed, and color, and people certainly can express one's views as a person of a particular race, creed or color. Wut we at wikipedia cannot assume that just because someone is a Catholic, they are always expressing a papist point of view.

An analogy: Henry Louis Gates is a literary critic and author of a book on an important African-American narrative device The Signifying Monkey. The late John Hope Franklin was a historian and wrote one of the seminal books on African American history, From Slavery to Freedom. William Julius Williams is a sociologist who wrote The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, The Underclass And Public Policy, one of the most important sociological works on African Americans. Now, each of these men is an African American. And each of these books is on an African Americans or some aspect of African Americans culture. I think it would be a profound insult if someone were to add to one of our articles on Blacks "The Black view is expressed in The Signifying Monkey," or "Many African Americans believe (reference to From Slavery to Freedom)," of "A notable black view is found in Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, The Underclass And Public Policy. This would be an insult to Henry Louis Gates, John Hope Franklin, and William Julius Wilson, because it is suggesting that they can only express a "black view" and not "a literary critic's view," or "a historian's view" or "a sociologist's view." But it is also an insult to the academic fields of literary criticism, history, and sociology, because you are saying either one of two things: either these are white disciplines, and can never claim any objectivity but only perpetuate the views of one race ... or you are saying that these fields have no theoretical or methodological standards that provide a basis for declaring something to be scholarly.

Now as to Biblical scholarship - there are some people who have talked about an atheist or secular view in opposition to a Christian point of view. There might be times when this is an appropriate way to sort out the major views (certainly, if the topic is belief in God). But when it comes to Biblical Scholarship, it is not always appropriate. Sure, I understand that this is how the debate may play out when people are debating in high school or at a bar, but it doesn't really reflect the debates among actual scholars. For example, I have heard atheists say the most ludicrous things about Jesus or the Bible. The fact that they do not believe in God doesn't speak at all to their knowledge of Aramaic and Koine Greek, their knowledge of the historical documents that trace back to first or second century Roman-occupied Judea, or of the archeology, or of Second Temple Judaism (the religion in which Jesus grew up). Conversely, Julius Welhausen, the father of the documentary hypothesis, was trained as a theologian and his first teaching position was as a professor of theology. And yet, his theories are among the most radical in Biblical scholarship and played a critical role in the development of "history" as a modern academic discipline. It is true that as his theories of multiple Biblical authorship developed, he felt he could no longer train pastors and left his post. But his mext post was at the Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, the name of which tells you something about how Christian education and critical scholarship (what outsiders might call "secular") were entwined in the 19th century. The fact is this: by the end of the 19th century, Christians were quite divided over the value of the Gospels as historical documents. Now, Noloop and others have pointed out that a number of historians presented by Andrew c (and I would ad by me) were either trained in seminaries, divinity schools or religious or Biblical studies programmes, or teach in seminaries, divinity schools or religious or Biblical studies programs. What they neglect to say is that many of these institutions or programs actually wish their students to learn history, and thus hire historians. The history they wish their students to learn is what is most conveniently called "Biblical history" but if any of you out there think this means using the Bible as a history textbook then you are simply ignorant. Only religious fundamentalists would do that. And yes, there are many out there. But not all Jews and Christians are fundamentalists. There are in fact vigorous debates among factions of Jews and Christians as to who authored Biblical books and when. And there are many major seminaries, as well as Biblical Studies programmes in a wide range of universities, for whom "Biblical history" begins with asking when a book, or even a part of a book, was authored; what cultural, political, and economic factors influenced the authors; and how to interpret passages in the Bible accordingly. Among people who studied in or teach in such programs there is a wide range of views, including the view that Jesus may have existed or probably but not certainly existed; that Jesus was born of a biological mother and father; that he did not claim to be the messiah. These are scholars who may be Christians but who certainly are historians. They use the same methods as historians who study Pericles or Caeser.

By the way, those of you who have not spent a lot of time at a major university might wonder why it is that there is a separate biblical Studies program; you might think that that is a program just for people who "believe in the Bible." You are making a real mistake. perhaps you haven't noticed that in many universities, you won't find Pericles or Caeser being taught in the History Department either. And if you do not understand why you might end up making the bigoted kinds of comments Noloop has made. Here is the deal: history is the study of written sources (archeology looks at non-written sources, but for practical reasons when one goes way back in time there is overlap); the mark of a serious historian is that one is fluent in the language of the sources used. In the 19th century when the modern university was still taking shape, most History departments focused on the history of whatever country the university was in, and because of the nature of 19th century European history, the history of neighboring countries. This meant you might find people who spoke foreign languages, but they were "living" languages. If you have lived in an English-speaking country, you only need a modicum of extra training to be able to use sources from Tudor times. If you want to study the principle sources on Pericles or Caeser, however, you have to learn ancient greek and latin, "dead languages." Most universities created "Classics Departments" which specialized in the study of these languages and written documents in these languages, which meant that the best historians of ancient Greece and Rome did not train in History departments but in Classics departments. This does not mean they were inferior historians; on the contrary, the average history department did not have the resources to train them well. Biblical history requires different language - Aramaic as well as Koine Greek for the New Testament, and for the Hebrew Bible, Biblical Hebrew, Ugarritic, Akkadian, Ancient Egyptian, aven Sumerian. As with Classics, separate departments trained people in these languages and in the study of historical texts in those languages. These can be called Biblical Studies Departments (although they can also be called Ancient Near Eastern Studies Departments). Also, while the best universities had enough students who wanted to study this stuff that they might be able to support a good department, most universities simply do not have enough students to support a good department. If you want to teach in a good department i.e. have several coleagues who also read Aramaic fluently or have done original researchon Ancient Egyptian or Babylonian religion .... your best bet is to go to a liberal seminary; those are the institutions that hire good historians trained in these languages. And that means if you want to get a PhD. in the history of this time and place, your best bet is to study at one of these seminaries. Not because you want to be a priest or minister, but because here is where the leading critical scholars are.

People who are bigoted against anything religious might consider this bizarre, but anyone who is really familiar with how universities are organized, as well as the economics of higher education, will not find anything I wrote surprising. In the US in the 1970s this started to change - there were enough PhDs in Biblical Studies, and enough students and money in higher ed., that many "secular" universities would hire good Biblical historians. Interest in the Classics waned in some universities and Classics Departments fell apart and clacissists were often absorbed into History Departments. So in the 1980s you can find some good universities with history departments with people teaching biblical history or Roman history. But if you think that is how it always was well, you just do not know the history! Now Universities are going through budget crises again, and you better believe that if you are a top scholar in koine Greek and have read original 4th or 3rd century codixes of the Bible and want a job teaching history, you probably wil have to teach at a seminary; most other universities just do not have enough student demand to hire someone with this specialization. The good news is, liberal seminaries do not want theologians to teach Biblical history, they want historians - meaning, people trainined in critical historical methods - to teach them Biblical history.

Now I hope those of you who did not know much about this now understand why you cannot know the point of view of the scholar based on where she got her degree or teaches. You have to read the book or article, determine who the intended audience is, and see what actual arguments the author is making. Some of these Bible scholars may very well be espousing a "Christian" view. But many of them are not.

Now, I realize I am talking about people who may be Christians, who are writing about a portion of Christian history. But remember John Hope Franklin, the black man writing about black history? To reject John Hope Franklin as a source on American history, or to insist that his books are pushinb a "black" point of view, is an insult to him and to all of the historians who have benefitted from his research. It is 'bigoted. Anyone who brackets the man's color and actually reads his work will say "this is the work of a historian." Now, to google the author of a book and see that he teaches at a seminary, or that he was trained in a Biblical Studies Program or a Divinity School, and therefore decide that you are free of the obligation actually to read the books and articles he wrote, or to learn more about the presses or journals in which he is published, and who reads them and you can simply say "Christian point of view" is just as bigoted. When you take this position you are not just insulting the black man who, you are saying, can never study black history as a professional historian, or the Christian who, you are saying, can never study Christian history as a professional historian, you are attacking the whole idea of history as a modern, academic discipline that anyone can study and learn how to do.

As for Andrew c .... well, I have mostly just been trying to explain to you the stuff you ought to know before you attack him. People hav mentioned a few articles here and as I said I cannot comment on his behavior at the Jesus Myth Article. But I have watche dhim edit the Jesus article for years and I have not seen him push any particular POV except to insist that editors use reliable sources and use them appropriately. He is one of a number of editors who consistently insists that scholarly views (and I am refering to critical scholars) be represented adequately and accurately, and that the Jesus article not turn into an article on Christianity. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with the comparison between race and the holding of a set of beliefs. We don't want articles about a belief system, particularly a contentious one, to be framed entirely by people within that system. Asking for sources that clearly fall outside it is legitimate.

What has worried me (and I speak now only of Christ myth theory, as I catch only glimpses of what's been happening elsewhere) is that humanities sources are being rejected only because the writers are attached to the "wrong" university departments. A paper from the lowliest biblical scholar from the worst of the theological seminaries is fine, while respected academics from mainstream universities are deemed not specialist enough. Alvar Ellegård, a professor of English at the University of Gothenburg, has been questioned as a source on the failure of the academic community to be sufficiently rigorous about the existence of Jesus, even though he's known for his work on science and religion. (Not a specialist, we're told, and not really notable.) The philosopher, Michael Martin, was also rejected, though he wrote a book called The Case Against Christianity, and said a strong case could be made for the Christ myth theory. (Not a specialist, they said, and anyway he's retired.) G.A. Wells, who's written extensively about this, is apparently not allowed as a general source, only as a source for his own beliefs in the article about those beliefs. (A professor of German, how dare he!)

There must be more of an effort to include the wider academic community, so we offer a three-dimensional, cross-faculty view of how the existence of Jesus is approached. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, you are wrong that all of the sources presented (at least at the Jesus article - I repeat I cannot address the Christ Myth theory) are "within the system" if by that you mean "the belief system" and if by that you mean "the Christian belief system." Noloop and others have been representing the views of historians as the views of Christians. In many cases these historians are also Christian, but that does not mean that their views are therefore Christian. If you read the books and articles, and pay attention to how they are framed, and conclude that the views presented are Christian, that is good research. If you do not read the books and articles, and examine how they are framed, and judge the views to be Christian before you even know what the views are, that is prejudice. If you insist that, simply because a historian is Christian, his or her work is not "history" but rather "Christianity," that is bigotry. I have yet to see any evidence that anyone wants only the views of Christians (views from "within" the belief system) to be presented in an article.

But the difference between EP Sanders and GA Wells is not that one is Christian and the other secular. EP Sanders is a professional historian using modern historical methods; Wells is not. If you do not like the word diletantte, just say "indepednednt researcher" or something like that. GA Well's writings on Jesus bear no relation to his academic career and it is a real distortion of academia to suggest that it is. Wells's work is notable in relation to the Christ Myth theory and should (in my view) be included in that article, but they should not be presented as the views of an expert on 1st century Roman occupied Judean history. I see two issues here concerning sources: the first as that both inside and outside of academia there are people who write to forward a particular ideological agenda, which may be Christianity or atheism or some other ism. And second, there are the views of professional historians and Bible scholars who have devoted their lives to careful scholarly research, learning original languages as well as reading everything by Wellhausen and Gunkel and by whomever the major critical historians on Christianity and the NT - and then there are lay or amateur (non-scholarly) views. Now, our notability guidelines may lead us to include all these views in an article. But my main point is that we are dealing with at least four different kinds of views and when someone tries to reduce one pair to the other, as if there are just two views, they really are misrepresenting the research and really the world of scholarship. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The comments of Slrubenstein present a straw man. Nobody is saying Christian scholars be excluded. Simply highlighting that the opposite that is happening. It is more like saying that a white person cannot comment on black history - to stretch that inappropriate analogy. - MishMich - Talk - 21:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You are making a simple error in logic. Just because I think blacks are quite capable of writing scholarly works on black history does not mean I do not think whites cannot. Nowhere have I suggested that non-Christians cannot contribute. But aside from your own bad logic, please do not misrepresent me. Did you read what I wrote? I never said the problem is Noloop wanting to exclude Christian views. My problem is that Noloop seems to label any view he does not like as "Christian." Consequently, he misrepresents many important scholarly views. This is POV-warring and it is wrong. The bottom line is it is bigoted to have a religion-litmus-test for contributors. You do not find out what kind of views an author is forwarding in her book by asking whether she is Jewish or Presbyterian or Buddhist. You look at the book and its contents to see what view it is promoting.

It amazes me that there are so many editors here who cannot grasp the simplest point: one can identify one's self as Christian, even belong to a Church, and also be a medical doctor, biologist, or historian. There are Christians who think abortion is a sin but there are also Christian MDs who perform abortions. There are Christians who think the theory of evolution is bunk but there are Christian biologists who conduct research on evolution (evolution, not creationism or ID). There are Christians who take the Bible literally, but there are also Christian historians who see it in its historical context, as the work of people living in different historical contexts, and who analyze it in its historical context, as a document that reveals at least as much about its authors as it does about its characters. The simplest point is that one can be a Christian and also be a fine professional historian, who uses the same methods and reaches the same conclusions as any non-Christian historian. In such cases, it obviously does not matter that ther person is Christian; what does matter is that she is an historian. I keep thinking about it, and reading people's comments, but I always reach the same conclusion: to disregard what a person actually wrote, what methods they use and how they use diferent kinds of evidence and diferent kinds of methods to reach their conclusions, and instead simply decide that since the person is a Christian they can only be pushing a Christian POV, is bigoted.

I am flummoxed by the number of people who do not get this. I can make an edit to any article and based on the edit you can decide whether my edit hopelessly violates NPOV, or violates NPOV but can be fixed, or is NPOV compliant. You do this by looking at my edit, not by asking what my religion is. To take this approach to researching and writing an encyclopedia is just shameful. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with just about everything you say, but can I ask you this? In an article about Scientology, if you were to discover the article was based almost entirely on the work of historians and professors of religion who were also committed Scientologists, to what extent would you factor that in when reading their material and using them as sources? Because at some point we have to take sources on trust. We can't judge the quality of everything every source writes: if we could do that we would be the experts ourselves. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Since this thread was supposed to be about me, I'll show up and wave hello. Is there anything anyone wants me to respond to regarding my conduct? I'd be happy to discuss anything further, either here or on my talk page. Regarding the main complaint, I'll acknowledge that at the time I did not feel I was personally attacking Noloop, and felt I was simply characterizing the nature of their arguments; but I can see now that my comments crossed a line; I acknowledge some editors felt they negatively affected them personally; I acknowledge that they were not productive to the discussion at hand; and I apologize for that; and I can agree to shy away from the b-word in the future, and use this as a reminder to keep focusing on arguments, not individuals. I believe I have a very strong and clean record here on Wikipedia, pride myself on integrity, and don't want to jeopardize that by loosing tempers in a petty online debate, and I hope we all can forgive and look past this and continuing working on these issues on their respective article talk pages. I'm sorry to have been a catalysts in taking up this much space in the ever busy ANI. Also, thanks for the history lesson Slrubenstein, (and I did read it all, despite my TL;DR inclination.) Again, I'd be glad to respond to specifics directed at me personally here, or on my talk page. P.S. I hope this is not in bad form, but I was wondering if an uninvolved admin would consider "reminding" Noloop of WP:TALK and specifically not editing or deleting others' comments.[20][21][22][23]. I feel like any warning from me would be throwing fuel on a fire. -Andrew c ^[talk] 20:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the acknowledgement and apology. I have warned Noloop for the latest comment removal, this is not OK. Fences&Windows 23:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Slrubenstein

Personal attacks are indefensible. It’s astonishing that an admin is actively arguing for a right to insult me. His response to being asked to stop is that he intends to continue: “I cannot believe you tolerate bigots at Wikipedia....Sorry, bigots are a threat to the integrity of WP as a whole. I won't stand for them.” [24] “Noloop is a POV-pushing troll.” [25] “Bigotry, like racism, describes a particular kind of personal attack. Why is labeling someone's edit " a form of bigotry" a personal attack,...” [26]. Is an essay about why he’s right in a content dispute a defense of calling an editor a “fanatical bigot”?

His analogy to African-American topics, which isn’t very convincing, proves the point. If an editor did write “"The Black view is expressed in...” (his example), would Wikipedia policy support saying to that editor: “You’re a racist fanatical bigot” ?

Should I respond to his points about content? It only legitimizes his defense of personal attacks, as if I have to prove I’m right in order to deserve civility. Responding to him assumes he’s interested in listening to me, has an open mind. Should I have faith that someone who thinks I’m fanatical POV-pushing bigotted troll cares about my view? Others have already noted that the Christian:Jesus relation isn’t the same as the African-American:Civil-rights relation. African-Americans are not predisposed by a doctrine of “Blackness” to take faith-based positions on civil rights. Being African-American is not a religion. He objects to a religious “litmus test.” I proposed no “litmus test.” More of my opinion on the sourcing dispute is in my most recent comments to Andrew [27] and [28]. A summary of my examination of the sourcing is here [29]. I won't continue to discuss content here.

An ‘’admin’’ is defiantly announcing an intention to call me a bigot and a “POV-pushing troll”. Not only is he attacking me, he’s announcing a right to do so. I would have been blocked immediately if I had said half what he said. When I accused him of personal attacks, I backed every single case with a diff. In all his mudslinging, he has supported nothing. He proposed: “Noloop should be topic-banned, or perhaps banned entirely," previously, and offered not a single diff in support. [30] Nobody who comes here deserves to be attacked and intimidated by admins. Double-standards are offensive. Why no sanctions? Noloop (talk) 03:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Persistent removal of a sourced section of criticism on German Wikipedia

Resolved

 – There is no admin action needed here; this is a content dispute. Try WP:RSN. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I have a problem with two German wikipedians who keep reverting (just erasing) the whole section of criticism on that wikipedia. My preferred version would be this. Another version a user seemed to prefer some days ago was this (much shorter, but in my opinion inferior due to lack of details). The section is sourced by a number of articles (yes: not one, but 3 in number) of a German newspaper called Junge Freiheit. It is quite customary to summarize more important criticisms on supposed bias, e.g. we have a whole article Criticism of Wikipedia.

The newspaper JF is a perfectly valid source here on Wikipedia, just like in the article I referred to a section is based on lecturer Tim Anderson's opinions and another relies on The Christian Post and National Review. The Matthiasb and Pjacobi duo is acting blatantly unconstructively: they never engaged in discussion until I basically enforced it on them (commenting in detail at the article talk page).

Up to that time, they were - quite in line to the criticized manner of editing the dominating clique in German Wikipediadoes - just reverting with general comments in the edit summary. What is more, all of their reverts are blind reverts with non-controversially removed material re-introduced with each careless mechanic revert).

I'll copy recent edit history:

1. (cur | prev) 14:38, 1 August 2010 Pjacobi (talk | contribs) (42,329 bytes) (rv -- see talk page) (rollback | undo)
2. (cur | prev) 13:06, 1 August 2010 Miacek (talk | contribs) (43,959 bytes) (→Discussion on left-wing bias) (undo)
3. (cur | prev) 12:54, 1 August 2010 Miacek (talk | contribs) m (43,200 bytes) (Reverted edits by Pjacobi (talk) to last version by Miacek) (undo)
4. (cur | prev) 12:37, 1 August 2010 Pjacobi (talk | contribs) (42,329 bytes) (And another number of commentators have critized dewiki for it's right wing bias (because of neolib in economics, many burschenschaften articles, etc). This only tells about the commentators.) (undo)
5. (cur | prev) 12:30, 1 August 2010 Miacek (talk | contribs) m (43,200 bytes) (Reverted edits by Matthiasb (talk) to last version by Miacek) (undo)
6. (cur | prev) 12:26, 1 August 2010 Matthiasb (talk | contribs) (42,329 bytes) (Undid revision 376581359 by Miacek (talk): Please read WP:Reliable sources and WP:News sources. Thank you.) (undo)
7. (cur | prev) 12:19, 1 August 2010 Miacek (talk | contribs) (43,200 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Matthiasb; Rv 1) it generally does 2) for criticism on wikipedias, read Criticism of Wikipedia and discard your totalitarian mindset!. (TW)) (undo)
8. (cur | prev) 12:13, 1 August 2010 Matthiasb (talk | contribs) (42,329 bytes) (Reverted: Junge Freiheit does not meed the criteriain WP:Reliable sources) (undo)
9. (cur | prev) 08:33, 1 August 2010 PaterMcFly (talk | contribs) (43,200 bytes) (→Characteristics: No notability (very rarely frequented page)) (undo)

Now, this is just my personal reflection, but having edited German wikipedia a bit I can confirm that a certain attitude of censorship and political POV pushing prevails there and these two De-Wiki users behave exactly the same way here. As for me, I am here on English Wikipedia just as I was on German Wikipedia just interested in neutral coverage, and do not push any political POV whatsoever here on Wikipedias. Neither do I profess censorship, or incidentally - self-censorship.

The arguments Matthias raised in his edit summaries are invalid. Junge Freheit can be used as a source here. They have published a number of articles on Wikipedia - their initial impressions were more positive, but they later got more critical, lastly covering a student who used Wikipedia for promoting his own conceptions related to discrimination, classism etc. The argument User:Pjacobi raised in his edit summary (“And another number of commentators have critized dewiki for it's right wing bias (because of neolib in economics, many burschenschaften articles, etc). This only tells about the commentators.)” is not convincing at all: if there are other notable criticisms, these can be summarized, too, but this mere fact of their presence is not a reason to censor anything from the version I wrote.

I see this whole affair just as an attempt to censor unpleasant sides of their project. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 17:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

This is an issue which can and should be resolved on the article talk page, and if necessary by other measures to address content disputes.

Only to put it into perspective, not the whole section German_Wikipedia#Legal_issues_and_controversies is "removed". The focus of the content dispute is the subsection Discussion_on_left-wing_bias, which in Miacek's version only tells the opinion of Junge Freiheit (total circulation 25 000 at best).

--Pjacobi (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The issue of the reliability of Junge Freiheit could be raised at WP:RSN. Once it is established that the source is reliable, it will strengthen your case. On the other hand, should the source be deemed non-reliable, then your case is weakened somewhat. Mjroots (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything for administrative attention here; the only thing that could possibly come of this would be blocks for edit warring (and the original poster would probably be the most likely to draw one due to more reverting). So I don't think there's really anything to do here, though like Mjroots said, try RSN. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Junge Freiheit is not a reliable source-it is a right wing publication.

http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2000-1/germany.htm

Nolte is supported mainly by publications such as Junge Freiheit, which describes itself as a newspaper in Germany for “patriotic right-wingers.” In tones reminiscent of the NSDAP, Junge Freiheit has criticized German politicians as “decadent windbags” who “no longer possess an iota of honor,” and calls for “an end to the self-hatred of Germans”

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think reliability is the issue here, Junge Freiheit is a reliable source for its own opinion. It is more a question of due weight and WP:YESPOV. Whether it is permissible to mention that a certain element in the German political landscape is critical of German Wikipedia, as evident in the published sources. --Martin (talk) 23:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

No, Junge Freiheit is not one of the accepted WP:Reliable sources at it is considered a extrem right publication by the Verfassungsschutz and it is mentioned as a such in the Verfassungsschutzbericht. --Matthiasb (talk) 08:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Cease with falsifications, Matthias, will you? You have provided no sources whatsoever for your claims of a 'far-right' Junge Freiheit. We do not reject sources based on personal distaste. Even the corresponding article from German wiki explains, that it was formerly labelled as extremist by Verfassungsschutz of two German states: North Rhine Westphalia and Baden-Württemberg, but the Junge Freiheit won a law suit agains the former and eventually both of those dropped the 'extreme right' qualifications of JF from their reports.
The all-German Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz has found rare articles of far-right orientation, but the newspaper itself is not a subject of their monitoring („selbst nicht Gegenstand der nachrichtendienstlichen Beobachtung durch das BfV“).
So, from time to time people of far-right orientation have been interviewed by that newspaper, such articles have been published but this has not been enough to qualify the whole newspaper as right-wing extremist. Similarly, other newspapers from time to time publish pieces written by people of far-left orientation, this not making the newspapers extreme left (German Verfassungsschutz monitors all kinds of extremist tendencies, but the public is more concerned of possible far-right trends, for obvious reasons).
In my opinion, if Matthias still relied on now obsolete reports of Baden-Würtemberg and North Rhine Westphalia, let us also quote the opinions of Bayern VF:

„considering the fact, that the interviewees and authors are almost exclusively people from the democratic spectrum, the Junge Freiheit should be classified as a right-wing conservative newspaper on the right-wing edge of the democratic spectrum.“

(http://www.florian-ritter.de/dokumente/PM_Anfragen_Initiativen/Anfrage_Junge_Freiheit_2005.pdf) According to them, JF can be said to be the most right-wing newspaper within the democratic spectrum. So far there is no reason to assume the authors of those 3 articles I cited are far-right. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 10:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Some descriptions of Junge Freiheit

http://tomgpalmer.com/2005/07/03/yet-more-german-libertarian-voices-condemn-junge-freiheit-and-hoppes-connection/ German-nationalist publication that serves as a forum for the worst fringe elements of German politics, here are a few remarks from Germany. See the thread to an earlier posting for some context (such as the remarks by Hoppe’s defender “Clement,” who insists that the German government is infiltrated with Stasi agents who have conspired to undermine Junge Freiheit). http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,549709,00.html right-wing weekly Junge Freiheit http://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/28/weekinreview/the-world-germany-s-new-right-wears-a-3-piece-suit.html?pagewanted=1 The face of Germany's new right is young. Most of the editors of Junge Freiheit, the movement's unofficial journal, which circulates 35,000 copies a week, are in their twenties and thirties. Junge Freiheit says it is dedicated to fighting "ignorance about our nation, shame, fear of power, anti-authoritarian thought, pacifism, feminism, anti-militarism and obsession with the past."

I have no doubt that a German far right newspaper that fights against "anti-militarism" "anti-authoritarian thought" "fear of power" "obsession with the past" is an unreliable one.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh and another piece of information:according toThe Beast Reawakens: Fascism's Resurgence from Hitler's Spymasters to Today's Neo-Nazi Groups and Right-Wing Extremists by Martin A. Lee, Dieter Stein the founder of JF has called for Germany of 1937 borderes;this means wide ranging territorial demands against Poland.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

So you think that someone's blog is a more reliable instrument than German court rulings or the Verfassungsschutz for qualifying a notable newspaper? Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 15:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Federal Ministry of the Interior of the Federal Republic of Germany(2004) states the weekly newspaper Junge Freiheit (JF, Young freedom) continues to offer a forum for right-wing extremists

[31] --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you read? I've already treated that question. I've offered the summary (see above). The VS of the state NRW years ago (until 2005) considered the publication far-right, based on “suspicons about right-wing extremism” of the JF. They ceased to do so after a court ruling (the JF basically won the law suit). Since that time, they even haven't mentioned the newspaper in their yearly reports (though it is being monitored in Baden-Württemberg). Of course, since German Verfassungsschutz monitors such things closely, there have been many passages of criticism on that newspaper (like many others, e.g. Junge Welt is currently qualified as extremist), since there is no censorship of articles in Germany. Nevertheless, the All-German Verfassungsschutz has never considered the newspaper in general as extremist and the newspaper Junge Freiheit is no longer even mentioned in the reports of the Verfassungsschutz (you can download the latest report at http://www.verfassungsschutz.de/. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 15:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Using an edit on German wiki as proof ? Anyway you are confirming that this newspaper is being monitored.

National Socialism of course also exists today as a current in Germany. It does not serve as a model for the NPD, but we try to integrate the national-socialist current, along with the national-liberals and national-conservatives, as insisting on divisions between them only aids our political opponents.”(Junge Freiheit, 24 September 2004, p. 2)

If you believe that this newspaper which makes such statements as above is reliable take it to WP:RS. Obviously the majority of contributors here do not see this publication as such. As to other newspapers-they are not the subject of debate here.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Good ol' Molobo! When rational arguments have been proven wrong (VS controversies), then every WP:OR can go. Where did you cut 'n' paste this passage? Sorry to say, but this is patent falsification. You can check the articles really published on September 24, 2004 p. 2 in that newspaper. Nowhere is such nonsense written there. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 16:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

LGBT adoption and LGBT parenting

For those familiar with him, user Destinero is once again engaging in edit wars on the LGBT adoption and LGBT parenting page. He is not only refusing to allow other users to make any edits but also using profanity and name calling. User Destinero has a very long history of abuses and has been sanctioned many times in the past, although it has never done any good.Tobit2 (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia policies to push up religious right propaganda bring out by Tobit2. Everybody can see and check this. What is more, Tobit2 is incapable to discuss thing just because he do not want to read other user comments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:LGBT_parenting#Tobit2.2C_please_stop_doing_vandalism_immediately.21 --Destinero (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You're being (at least a bit) over the top here. I cannot see any "religious right propaganda" or, as you put it boldly in the talk page's section header, "vandalism". You might not agree with those edits, but you need to talk about it. Simply listing the removed snippets and saying "important information" won't help much. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Tobit2 cannot just came up and totally change of articles on which there is broad editorial consensus developed over several years and remove sources info. Somebody should explain him Wikipedia policies if he is unable to do it himself. --Destinero (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Destinero, this is not a page for slander (besides I am not of the religious right but of a more scientific ilk). Whatever the biases of editors, we must still work together. This page is to report that you are refusing to work with others and instead are reverting their edits without conversation. Moreover, the LGBT parenting article is not one of broad consensus. Most editors, like myself dropped out long ago, because they were simply too tried to work with Destinero. The Talk page reflects this.Tobit2 (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

[32] religious right propaganda? Please don't be silly.--Ancient Anomaly (talk) 22:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Pointing to the fact that Tobit2 is a Catholic editor (see his user page) repeatedly removing important facts about research and rephrasing summaries of research reviews to weak them is definitely not silly, it is needed to be aware of issues. We have deal with editor with catholic agenda here and he can not just came and delete what credible sources says just because he do not like it. --Destinero (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

My goodness; you can't be serious? My user page indicates information about me so that other editors will have a sense of my background. I was raised Catholic, so, yes, my early experiences in life color my world view, and I firmly believe all editors should be upfront about their backgrounds. But to twist my explanation of my background into "a catholic agenda," is just just being silly. I am only involved in these pages because they impinge on the adoption series of articles, of which I have a keen interest.Tobit2 (talk) 05:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

User Destinero has a very long history of abuses and has been sanctioned many times in the past, although it has never done any good. You mean these two blocks?--Ancient Anomaly (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Tobit2, we'll need to see WP:DIFFs on the alleged violations and concerns before being able to act. Once you supply them then we'll have more info to work with. Basket of Puppies 22:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles (Unconstructive Reverting Other Editors Work)

1) First revert of LGBT parenting of good faith edit [33]

2)Second revert of an edit of LGBT parenting, an edit that had incorporated Destinero's specific criticism. [34]

3)First revert of edit on LGBT adoption; revert claimed POV but edit had only repeated info straight from an article Destinero had added [35]

4)Second revert of good faith edit on LGBT adoption, this one with profanity in the explanation [36]

5) Last edit by Tobit2 on LGBT adoption. It removes little of what Destinero had originally and focuses on adding info directly from sourced article. [37]

Talk Pages (Slander)

1) Refer to last paragraph for first instance of slander [38]

2)Refusal to cooperate, instead tarring other editors with unfounded labels [39]

3) Not sure what to call this? Perhaps an admission from being banned in his native Czech Wikipedia> [40]

4)Another instance of name calling, this time another editor is called "incompetent" for note having read 30 pages of an attached document. [41]

If you are so lazy to read the document, then do not write lies about failing to cite any studies where there are dozens of studies cited on several pages that nobody who open the document could overlook them: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LGBT_adoption&diff=prev&oldid=376622258 Collaboration on Wikipedia really requires some fundamental abilities and I actually suspect you got them. --Destinero (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Constructive editing means working with others and not expecting them to read your mind. I skimmed the 30+ page attachment you cited and found nothing related to adoption. Did I miss an article? Maybe. But it is incumbent on you to tell people which articles you are referring to rather than making them guess. Your anger is out of bounds, unhelpful, and damaging.Tobit2 (talk) 05:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

suggestions

1. Destinero should back off and calm down and voluntarily refrain from editing for some time. Just because he was treated badly on cswiki is not a reason to point his anger to enwiki.
2. Yes, I know he is theme banned on cswiki. However, his ban is still subject to debates after more than six months and is considered unfair by many editors.
3. It's not a good idea to assume bad faith based on the czech wikipedia. The situation there is rather bad - administrators are unwiling to ban/block trolls and clearly disruptive editors, but very willing to block others who lose patience with them and call them trolls. Even obvious bad faith acts are ignored, like inviting others to discuss articles prepared in the user's sandbox and then posting harassment complaints with a very sarcastic tone on the administrators' noticeboard that the contents of his sandbox are being discussed by others.--Ancient Anomaly (talk) 02:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Ancient, each of your suggestions references Destinero's cswiki banning, but the current incident is not on cswiki, and I only mentioned it once to provide context that this is not a language problem only. Destinero's edit warring, unconstructive behavior, and incivility are well documented on enwiki and I have provided fresh examples above in the DIFFs. Should anyone be confident that Destinero will change voluntarily if he has not done so in more than 1 year on enwiki? How does tolerating poor behavior help the Wikipedia project?Tobit2 (talk) 04:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

While I may not agree with Tobit on some things, I tend to agree with him on this. I gave up trying to edit some of these articles because the approach to editing on the part of the editor in question was so frustrating. - MishMich - Talk - 08:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe Destinero's recent activity, including his posts above, indicate, he has not taken Ancient's suggestion to back off. Will the admins act to maintain the community's standards of civility and constructive editing?Tobit2 (talk)

User:DCEvoCE

User:DCEvoCE claims I spam his User_talk:DCEvoCE page when I try to talk to him, he claims my edits were a direct reason for the delisting of the Mega Drive article from GA status, and he claims I should not revert his edits when he removes sourced statements from the article, or when he changes certain words. I did accuse him of vandalism for removing sourced statements from the article multiple times, and DCEvoCE claimed he tried to work with me here however, DCEvoCE never explained to me why he was removing sourced statements from the article. Here is a comparison of the edit he mainly complains about you can see the unsourced statement "Neither console could maintain a definitive lead in market share for several years." To which I expanded and provided two sources to back up.

Today DCEvoCE has been fighting with me and User:Alphathon at the Mega Drive Talk page over what to call the Asian/JP Mega Drive logo. DCEvoCE has pictures of certain Asian games that do not show the logo, while I posted pictures of Asian games that have the logo, which say not for sale in Japan or Korea (to mean they're asian, but not of Japan origin)

This was preluded with me reverting his edits,(with the edit summary "If you have proof of a different logo on an Asian Mega Drive, please show us on the talk page. The Korean MD box has the JP MD logo on it. I have seen no other Asian logo") asking him to post his proof that logo was Japan only in the talk page. He seemed to be very angry I had reverted his edit, saying "@SexyKick, it would be VERY nice if you were to stop the editing war and I highly recommend that YOU provide sources for your claims. Or to put it bluntly: STOP REVERTING MY EDITS! Thank you" in the very post where he finally provided some evidence towards his edit. (sorry if I kind of wrote this paragraph backwards)

Even when presented with proof against his edits, DCEvoCE kept insisting that he was right, and that I had posted no proof.

I suggested to him that he learn more about editing Wikipedia, I meant no offense.

DCEvoCE then reported me to User_talk:J_Milburn for "reverting valid edits," J_Milburn had applied a "non-free" template to the Mega Drive article regarding it having three logos. I had at one point, under the advice of another editor, removed the template. J_Milburn reverted that edit, and said it ill advised at best, to which I took to heart. I think this is why DCE chose J_Milburn to report me to.

DCEvoCE claims I have insulted him, I was unaware I had, and promptly apologized.

DCEvoCE finds it unacceptable that I suggested talking with me, or at an articles talk page if I revert one of his changes. DCEvoCE claims I need to provide sources when sources already exist for information I add to article. I do not understand him, and trying to talk with him to clear things up has only complicated the matter.

I appreciate any help in dealing with this matter.--SexyKick 02:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick glance at the edit history of Mega Drive, looks like Alphathon and SexyKick are in an edit war and both violated WP:3RR, WP:BOOMARANG? — raekyT 02:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, me and User:Alphathon aren't in an edit war (at least not IMHO) we're just building on top of each others edits (as well as updating per talk page changes.) We work pretty well together IMHO.--SexyKick 02:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

He changes, and you revert, you make some changes and he reverts then you revert his revert (and a change after that) without a reason given, then he reverts you again. You change a caption, and he reverts. Seems like something's going on here. — raekyT 02:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I posted my side of the story here:

Hello there, I would like to report User:SexyKick for continuously reverting valid edits made to the Mega Drive article. Details can be read here on the article's talk page. My attempt to contact this person via his/her talk page remained fruitless. He kept reverting edits (even yours, removing the non-free tag). Prior to that, this person contacted me accusing me of vandalism when I tried to reword a few sentences of a section of the article ("Console Wars") with the goal to eventually clean the entire article of bias, speculation and weasel words to focus on facts alone. Here's the edit in question. Since then, practically every single edit made to the article was reverted by this person - and definitely every single one of mine. Now he/she proposed at the article's talk page that I should get approval by him for any edits I do by talking things through with him - prior to editing. I think that this is unacceptable. It took me (and others) several days trying to explain to this person that certain variants of the console itself were released under a different name - without result as of yet. And that was something that would have been easy to look up if he/she were genuinely interested. I hope you can help, or at least redirect me to someone who can. I really don't know what to do with this guy. DCEvoCE (talk) 00:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

DCEvoCE (talk) 02:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I don't remember you trying to explain to me about there being a Korean Mega Drive, or how it goes under a different name (an edit I made to the article myself, here, before you started talking about it) I do remember you trying to explain to me that it did not have the JP Mega Drive logo on it, which I disagreed with because of the Korean Mega Drive 2 box.

There's also the Korean Sonic & Knuckles box here.

I really think this is just us being victims of miscommunication, but it's still not spam to talk to you on your user page, and it's good manners to talk about removing information, before actually removing it, not necessarily with me specifically of course. Alphathon has told you this too now as well.--SexyKick 03:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This is was what I was trying to explain to you when I guess it seemed like I was telling you to talk about reverted edits with the revert-er. I always try to explain a revert in the edit summary, and I am always open to talking either on our personal talk pages (preferably) or on the article in questions talk page. I know you may think it's annoying at best, but it's kind of required if you want to change established information. I myself have had to discuss certain things with certain editors for months before being able to make even a small change that we wouldn't fight over. But it helps everyone have a better understanding, and respect in the end, since there was no real edit war. I hope we're starting to see more eye to eye now.--SexyKick 03:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

We were talking about whether or not the Japanese logo should be called Asian logo. This was discussed in detail on the article's talk page and on my talk page. And I explained why this wouldn't make much sense in my opinion:

And the Samsung Super Gam*boy / Super Aladdin Boy logos are basically the console's name(s) in Korean letters from what I can tell: Example 1. Example 2. The photos you were referring to several times in the past seem to be a late 90s version distributed by Sega itself: "They were released much later in the consoles life as a cheap games system for those on a budget."

The issue we are talking about here is of a different nature altogether though. DCEvoCE (talk) 05:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You just posted that in the Mega Drive talk page about two hours ago, a tiny bit after you posted your first message here. So I don't think the time line makes sense, no worries though. Coincidentally, if Sega published that Mega Drive into Korea itself with the JP logo on it, that means the JP logo is actually the asian logo. Right?--SexyKick 05:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• This page is not here for you two to continue a content dispute! Stop trying to get each other in trouble and follow dispute resolution, or you'll probably both end up blocked for edit warring. Fences&Windows 13:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to continue discussing content issues. I'd like to discuss SexyKick´s continuous reverting of edits of the Mega Drive article. I don't think it's acceptable that this person keeps reverting any edits made to the article - by both users and admins.

The issue is not related to any specific content at all but the general approach of SexyKick's methods, effectively claiming ownership of the article in question by denying others the right to edit (see raeky's posts in response to the OP). I would expect that if anyone wants to revert a valid edit made by another user you will need the same kind of agreement, approval or explanation as any major potentially controversial edit might require. DCEvoCE (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't claim ownership of the article. I'm sorry if it comes off that way to you. I also don't just revert everyone's edits. Me and Alphathon are always talking, changing, and improving upon both of our edits, so he's not a good example of me reverting someones edits, however he is a good example of how editors can communicate and make edits better. I'm sorry if it seems wrong to you that I suggested we (or other editors) talk before you make a controversial edit, this angered you. I apologize for angering you, but I felt I should suggest that to you because of the strong ways you respond to having an edit reverted, and what seems to be you ignoring the reasons they were reverted, only to make the edit again with no talk or understanding.

An example, I can't go to the Mortal Kombat article, and keep removing the bio of Liu Kang, while simply leaving it at the fact Liu Kang was in the game (btw I completely made up that example.) Editors would of course constantly revert my Liu Kang bio edits, maybe even just one editor.

I have tried to apologize a couple times for what may seem like wrong doing to you. Again, I apologize. I do not feel I own the article, I do not simply revert everyone's edits. The idea is to make the article as good as possible, and I believe collaborating with other editors is a good way to do that.

AL has even said these things to you in the Mega Drive talk page in my defense.

@DCEvoCE This is just silly. The rest of us were having a discussion here. Do you really think that coming along and imposing your will (and claiming that it is a "solution" without even discussing it) will work? All it is likely to achieve is either an edit war or a shouting match and may even constitute vandalism (it is certainly unconstructive since the issue is being discussed and no decision has been reached). Also, I can confirm at least that SexyKick is accurate in saying that (s)he did not remove the logo from the page (at least not when you are saying so). It was cropped down to just the left portion since it had been challenged as being too high-res (hence the smaller, lower quality version that you replaced). It was cropped simply to lower the resolution, but since it did not represent the full logo and marginalised the JP logo, a smaller version of the full logo was uploaded. -- AlphathonTM (talk) 12:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC) ___ I think I see two sides here which both have a point. SexyKick, there is no reason whatsoever to talk about such things on a personal level when it affects a public project such as wikipedia. This is not about who wins or looses, but about what is wrong or right. DCEvoCE, you seem a little too ready to remove content, sourced or otherwise, which may or may not improve the article. If your edit is only a removal (which it often has been) and the content is sourced don't be surprised if someone such as SexyKick reverts it and asks for an explanation. -- AlphathonTM (talk) 00:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope you can accept my sincere apology, and understand I only want to make the article better. I hope you can also understand that when other editors (including myself) try to communicate with you through your talk page, they are not spamming you.--SexyKick 19:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, to be clear, I'm not trying to get him in trouble, I simply want this dispute to end and be resolved. I don't either of us need to be blocked from editing or anything like that. I think this is a misunderstanding that stems from my inability to talk to DCE in a way which he interprets as positive. I could maybe use a translator.--SexyKick 20:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Jayjg

Resolved

 – Does not belong here

User Jayjg continuously removes the content I have added from Kohen without stating why. I have warned him several times. Please remove his account. Ventura488 (talk) 03:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

[42] Jayjg has been notified, moved into new section by Weaponbb7 out of the Off2riorob thread

Jayjg has opened a discussion of this issue on the article talkpage, which is the proper procedure. This issue should be discussed there in an attempt to reach consensus. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Marked as resolved. Does not belong here.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Given the OP's misleading comments, this might not be the last you hear from him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• Ventura488 exceeded the 3 revert limit at Kohen and has had xyr editing privileges revoked by User:Malik Shabazz for 24 hours. This without a single edit by xem to Talk:Kohen. Uncle G (talk) 11:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Misconduct by TK-CP - misusing Twinkle, attacking, not applying good faith

Hello - I would like to bring up a recent issue that other editors and I have had regarding the conduct of TK-CP. Over the last few months, several users have been having issues trying to communicate with TK-CP, as he is often unapproachable (for example, see this edit, or this one, or this one). However, these issues were more easily solved with a forget-and-move-on approach. Most recently, however, the problems have escalated and TK-CP has reverted constructive, good-faith and non-vandalism edits on his talk page as vandalism when he has been warned not to do so, and has attacked and falsely accused me of making comments that I have never made via my talk page.

On July 31, a user by the name of Nuttish posted a message on TK-CP's talk page, requesting that he cease making inflammatory personal remarks towards himself and other editors based on their association with another wiki. Just for the sake of having information, the wiki in question is RationalWiki, a wiki that, in part, is focused on refuting and criticizing Conservapedia, a site that TK-CP is a sysop at. Back to the story: In response to Nuttish's request, TK-CP reverted his clearly non-vandalism edit as vandalism, regardless of the fact that he has been notified in the past that falsely marking edits as vandalism is both not allowed and can be considered a personal attack (see this and this). Nuttish then proceeded to contact TK-CP again, this time asking him to not label his edits as vandalism. I myself, upon seeing this incident, did the same, along with notifying TK-CP to assume good faith and to read WP:VAND for what is and what is not vandalism. TK-CP, regardless of being warned and/or requested to stop labeling non-vandalism edits as vandalism four times to date now, reverted my edit as vandalism, then proceeded to leave me a message on my talk page in the form of a level-one warning template, saying that the reason he reverted my edit was that it involved me talking about things unrelated to Wikipedia and trying to promote RationalWiki, which I have never done anywhere on Wikipedia. I pointed this out, and requested to see what exactly he was talking about (along with telling him about Wikipedia's guidelines regarding user talk pages), but he then proceeded to attack me, telling me to shut up and that I was part of a "public gang-rape", and he accused me yet again of posting unrelated comments to his talk page, this time also saying that I should stop harassing him. I replied again, once again pointing out that his accusations have no base, and he has not replied since.

I was considering taking this to WP:WQA or WP:RfC/U; however, I feel that this is the most relevant spot for this, as I think the intervention of an administrator may be the best solution to the problem, considering that I myself, along with others, have tried to approach him regarding the issue, but he remains uncompliant. TK-CP has been misusing Twinkle to falsely label edits as vandalism and to leave, by my reasoning, an inappropriate warning on my talk page, among other things (which include attacks and not assuming good faith). I'm hoping to see what other's think of this situation and what the appropriate course of action would be from here. I believe that it may be appropriate to remove his ability to use the tool (which must be done by an administrator), among other possible actions (such as a temporary block, etc.). Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Users may remove messages from their usertalk page for any reason they wish. Please pay this no mind. He's allowed to remove notices from his talk page if he chooses, even if they aren't vandalism and are good-faith comments from other users. Ignore it when he does this, and move on. --Jayron32 04:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of that, however, he is labeling the edits as vandalism at the same time (which I would think to be disruptive, and on a personal level, I consider it to be a personal attack), and as a result of approaching him regarding the issue, has performed personal attacks. Even with that in mind, do you still think it is appropriate to move on? ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I misread the situation a bit because the bulk of post above deals with the talk page comment removal rather than the personal attacks. It would be helpful to have diffs of his personal attacks (beyond the mislabeling as vandalism issue, which in my mind is minor). Diffs of comments like the gang-rape one would be helpful in seeing a pattern of behavior that needs addressing. --Jayron32 04:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I actually linked to the section on my talk page where he attacks me - it's located here (apologies for not making it stand out more). I could provide diffs, but I don't think it's necessary, since the whole discussion is right there. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I didn't make myself clear. I read that section on your talk page. I was looking for other diffs which show that such comments are widespread, and that his outburst was not a one-off event. I am looking for evidence of a pattern of behavior rather than a single outburst. --Jayron32 05:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. The attacks you see on my talk page are basically the only example of strong, personal attacks. There are other light instances where he performs undesirable reversions to his talk page, but they are not totally-out-of-line edits, at least when compared to the ones on my talk page. For example, he has labeled edits as trolling and has used the irrelevant basis that a user is a member of RationalWiki (a site that I described in my original post) as reasoning for reverting one's edit to his talk page (for example, see this, this, this, this, this, and this, where in the last one, Nuttish was actually correcting a formatting error). Again, these may be undesirable but are rather minor (especially since a user can remove posts from their own talk page), and are probably especially minor to you since you find mislabeling edits as vandalism to be minor, but I still find the edit summaries of those reverts, among possibly others, to be unnecessary and rather harsh and unhelpful. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Users are free to remove comments from their talk page. I'm very skeptical about most ANI reports about someone crying wolf about "vandalism" and using a technocratic reading of that guideline to do it. I don't think the OP is doing that, and I think TK-CP needs to be less aggressive in these discussions and actually discuss more. Are there any of these issues that occur outside of talk space? Shadowjams (talk) 04:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Basically, the only other talk page that TK-CP has edited is the talk page of Conservapedia itself (that, and his talk page make up the bulk of his edits). While he has been constructively communicative there, I know that he has, on at least one basis, removed another user's comment, labeling it as trolling. I'll see if I can find that example, and anymore if there are any. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I may have misunderstood your question: when you say, "Are there any of these issues that occur outside of talk space?" are you referring to a page outside his user talk space, or out of the talk space in general, into actual articles? ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I meant outside of his talk space, but the other's useful too. I worry that people are taking the "vandalism" term a little too literally and others are using it without knowing or meaning what the people receiving it are hearing. Maybe we need to rephrase that part because it's been a reoccuring issue. As for this issue, I agree, TK-CP has been brusque in these conversations. I don't know if that rises to an appropriate level of disruption though, so, wherever it happens on wiki, are there examples of disruption? Shadowjams (talk) 04:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I worry about it, too, which is why I think it is understandable to let the first few instances go. However, TK-CP's been notified about mis-labeling edits as vandalism several times now, which is why I think the issue is a bit more serious than someone who just doesn't know what vandalism on Wikipedia means. The only thing that is really questionable on Talk:Conservapedia is this edit, in which he removes another user's comment to give it a rest as "trolling". A mini edit war comes after that, where an editor undoes TK-CP's removal, then TK-CP re-undoes it, then finally, another user undoes TK-CP's edit again. TK-CP only has 17 article edits, most of which are to Conservapedia itself (you can probably view them yourself quite easily by just looking at the history and using your browser's search function). There are a few instances where his edits are reverted, mostly based on the fact that he is new at editing Wikipedia and isn't aware of article structure, etc. (most notably how reliable sourcing works), but that's about it - nothing really questionable or disruptive, especially since he's a new editor here. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, and I'd also note that TK-CP was advised about using the middle and not the red button for TW edits back in April. While the distinction's largely irrelevant, I understand your concern, and I too would find being templated insulting given your obvious experience. I don't think anything that's been done is serious enough to warrant a block or other restriction. As a courtesy, if I were in TK-CP's shoes, I would be more diplomatic: it might get a more positive response. Shadowjams (talk) 05:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense - a friendly message from an uninvolved administrator that asks for a more diplomatic approach to messages may be all that's required for a more positive attitude. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I have to be going now, so I won't be available for any more queries or anything like that. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The users in question have been asked both on and off wiki to refrain from posting to my talk page, and if you bother to examine the page's history, it was mostly to do with administrative questions involving a site other than Wikipedia, about which I am most adamant, and I think I am being more than fair to insist users refrain from bringing their disputes with Conservapedia to my personal talk page. Does anyone disagree with my oft-repeated request? This whole complaint involves "gaming the system" and attempting to bring my character into disrepute and make me seem intemperate. Surely if one of the Wikipedia administrators were constantly called-out on another site they belong to, for actions they took here, it might tend to make them slightly churlish, as it sometimes does me. I think if administrators of Rational Wiki, which the complaining party is, merely adopted a mature attitude and honor my request to not post to my talk page about things that happen elsewhere, we can all get along famously......but to continue arguments to my own page here, over a simple disagreement as to if their site is indeed a vandal site is silly since they all have my direct email, have contacted me directly before. Why does Wikipedia need to be dragged into this? I have no answer. As to abuse of the rollback, I have told those involved, and others, I would consider it vandalism if they continued to bring such matters to my WP page. If the preponderance of Admins here don't think continued argument after being warned repeatedly isn't vandalism and/or harassment, I of course will bow to their opinion and simply roll-back without prejudice. But I cannot assume someone who continues to post after being asked not to, is making a "good faith" post. --TK-CP (talk) 10:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I just have to say that I have an extremely low opinion of "Conservapedia," but as others have said, he may treat his talk page as however he wants, as long as he avoids WP:NPA. Although TK-CP doesn't need to use the condescending "mature" attitude; those posts were fine on his talk, but if he wants to remove them, fine. But he shouldn't label them as vandalism, as it is not WP:VANDALISM. Tommy! [message]

"I have told those involved, and others, I would consider it vandalism if they continued to bring such matters to my WP page." - I'm sorry but you don't get to enforce your own personal definition of vandalism just because it's your talkpage - we narrowly define vandalism for a reason. If you wish to delete and ignore messages on your talkpage that is your prerogative, but please note that deleting a message is the same as "read the message" as far as talkpage messages go (and you cannot subsequently claim you are unaware of the content of any deleted messages) and you should not label these edits as vandalism under any circumstances. Exxolon (talk) 12:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, changed my comments above. Tommy! [message] 12:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with TK-CP that there are plenty of times where users have brought up issues on TK-CP's talk page that have nothing to do with Wikipedia, and there is nothing wrong with requesting users to not do such a thing. However, those are not the edits in question, against what TK-CP states. The edits in question are the ones in which TK-CP reverted non-vandalism edits to his talk page, that were indeed related to Wikipedia, as vandalism (and in one instance, calling a valid warning of the 3RR a threat). They did not have anything "to do with administrative questions involving a site other than Wikipedia". Nuttish's first edit that got reverted as vandalism was asking TK-CP to refrain from reverting edits on Wikipedia for merely the author having an association with RationalWiki, particularly pointing to an edit in which they constructively corrected, in an obvious good-faith attempt, a formatting problem caused by another editor on TK-CP's talk page, which was later reverted by TK-CP. While Nuttish's message did have something to do with RationalWiki, it was ultimately related to Wikipedia, as it is asking for TK-CP to refrain from using being a member of RationalWiki, or "vandal site", as reasoning to revert ones edit on Wikipedia (which, even though TK-CP doesn't want others to bring Conservapedia and RationalWiki into Wikipedia, he uses being a member of RationalWiki as rational for reverting one's edit). Nuttish, after their edit got reverted, re-posted, this time asking for TK-CP not to label his edits as vandalism. I did the same, this time notifying him of policy, though he then proceeded to label my edit as vandalism, even though my comment was 100% related to Wikipedia, as it was doing nothing more than notifying him of Wikipedia policies and guidelines regarding labeling edits as vandalism. I'd also like to point out that I was never explicitly asked to not post on TK-CP's talk page; the closest instance was when he told me to "Go someplace else to argue" when we were discussing, back-and-forth, about archiving messages and changing them. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 15:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're already in conflict with TK-CP, it's not a bright idea to post warnings on his talk page. Alert an admin and let them handle it. He should not have called them "vandalism" but, given the history of harassment in the past, I'd be hard-pressed to find this reaction worth more than a slap on the wrist. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I would point out that any need to remove posts from my page involve fellow members of another website with a perhaps unhealthy preoccupation with chiding or lecturing me, or a dispute that arose elsewhere, not on Wikipedia, who couldn't be bothered to use my contact information, and wanted to air their disputes publicly here. Now the complaining editor introduces another fleeting "charge" to say we discussed my archiving messages and changing them? I have yet to have any "discussion" with that editor or any of his fellow Admins from Rational Wiki, and of course the matter here doesn't concern Conservapedia or if editors or Admins of WP find it odious or not, and to introduce such comments here is inappropriate.

The bottom line here is there isn't anything to this matter that the complainant couldn't have resolved with a friendlier attitude, sans "wiki-lawyering" just by hitting the "email this user" link. Has the Internet world devolved to the point that tribunals/forums such as this one has replaced normal, civil emails? I think yes, because anyone who is ever "offended" or dislikes the answers they get from another, now seem to have some need for public vindication of trivial matters, or worse still, a need to be punitive simply because they "dislike" someone for their political views or ideas. That is anti-intellectual. --TK-CP (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

TK-CP, we did indeed have a short discussion regarding you archiving messages and changing them. A quick use of your browser's search function on your talk page's history would have revealed that.

In addition, I hate to spark any argument here, and I don't mean to be offensive, but I'm getting kind of tired of this. You state that these things could have been solved using a friendlier attitude. My message to you on your talk page was just about as friendly one could get, especially after being warned for the same thing numerous times before in a just-as-kindly and constructive manner. I would have loved to discuss this out further, but after labeling my attempt to contact you as vandalism and attacking me on my talk page, I don't see how we could've discussed this any further. If you want a friendlier conversation, you should at least let one post on your talk page, without having to be worried that they will be told to shut up. There's a limit to how many times one can tell a user to abide by Wikipedia policy and guidelines before it must be brought up elsewhere for further input. In addition, my comment didn't involve any "wiki-lawyering"; where did I do this? I was relaying common policy to you, in which other users both here and elsewhere have clearly agreed is correct, which is that you should not be labeling the comments on your talk page as vandalism when they are not.

In another addition, what do you mean by "who couldn't be bothered to use my contact information"? You're talk page is your contact information. Is something wrong with discussing things through talk pages? Is something wrong with discussing things publicly? That's what talk pages are here for; when there's an issue involving someone's actions on Wikipedia, one brings it up on their talk page. Look at my talk page, look at anyone else's talk page: they all involve users pointing out problems pertaining to Wikipedia. Yes, an alternative is to email, but why should one use email? Wikipedia is a community that should be transparent, and discussing issues related to Wikipedia on one's talk page is the most efficient and convenient way of doing it, and it allows for the input for others; often times, especially in tense scenarios such as this, emailing won't solve any problems, as it's just a one-and-one conversation between two users who disagree with each other. What good would come out of that? How would privately emailing you help solve the situation when your reply to me on my public talk page was to tell me to shut up? A private email conversation, I would think, wouldn't turn out to be any more civil than that. That is why I brought this here; because you and I couldn't sort this thing out by ourselves in a civil manner, I came here to request the input and possible action of others.

I'm not being punitive simply because I dislike you for your political views. You've repeatedly gone against the spirit of WP:VAND and WP:AGF, along with lobbing personal attacks against me. Please stop accusing me of placing this notice here because I have something against you; I have stated before and I'll state it again, your behavior has been brought up here because it has been in violation of several Wikipedia policies and guidelines after being repeatedly warned, not because I, or other users, are trying to "publically gang-rape" you, which I take offense to. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:TLW --TK-CP (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support removal of TK-CP's access to Twinkle per evidence provided. --Smashville^talk 21:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support revocation Long, good reply... so obviously it is last wordism. Please. Tommy! [message] 21:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

JahnTeller07 on Obama-related pages

Resolved

 – user indefinitely blocked Toddst1 (talk) 08:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Could we please have some administrator help to restore order on Talk:Barack Obama?

JahnTeller07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a 6-week-old account fresh off a block from edit warring[43] on Fox News Channel, is now camping out on the Obama pages promoting a series of unhelpful non-consensus additions admittedly intended to fix Obama's "whitewash" and "liberal bias" in favor of Obama. When his POV / OR proposals[44][45][46] are rejected he resorts to edit warring,[47][48][49][50][51] accusations and name-calling, [52][53][54][55][56] templating the regulars with POV warnings[57][58][59][60] soapboxing,[61] and simple wikistalking[62][63] and abuse.[64] (followed me to two unrelated articles to mindlessly revert my latest edits).

The editor has said they are here to "counteract [liberal] bias"[65] and "censorship",[66] and angrily rejected a "final warning"[67] and other warnings[68][69][70] on his talk page, and other cautions and advice from various editors elsewhere. They've been warned about article probation.

There's a precedent for blocking and topic banning banned editors for very similar behavior in these articles - this editor is using some of the very same language and tactics. Of course you're welcome to try to talk sense into them, but it doesn't look very likely that they're interested in productive editing: the message they seemed to get from their last block is that Wikipedia admins are biased liberals. Also, we've had extensive socking from a number of editors, so we do have to be careful. There's an IP editor there now, also causing trouble.

Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 05:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 2 weeks for edit warring. Not sure of the precedent for topic banning, but if there is one, it would be appropriate on US politics and coverage. Toddst1 (talk) 05:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Topic banning is a fairly extreme and rare remedy, as compared with a block. I'm thinking of Grundle2600 (an editor I actually didn't mind - discussion here) but there may be others. Grundle posted the same few proposals perhaps a dozen times over the course of a few months. Alas, he is now banned and comes back as a sock... - Wikidemon (talk) 05:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This is also possibly Gaydenver (talk · contribs).--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You should realize though that these people are produced from the near unrestricted left-wing bias here. If you at least tried to maintain a semblance of fairness when covering left and right wing topics then there wouldn't be people like this popping up. But an admin should do something because this does conflict with wikipolicy and won't produce anything constructive. Still though, a topic ban might be a little harsh. Maybe just a 2-week block and a warning? Wikiposter0123 (talk) 06:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You picked up that analysis in the 14 days or so you've been registered on wikipedia? Shadowjams (talk) 06:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the block to indef as the editor appears to be a sock who is here only to struggle against admins. Toddst1 (talk) 08:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It only says 2 weeks still? Tommy! [message]

Fixed. Toddst1 (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Placing runtshit targets on review?

Many admins may be aware of User:runtshit's long history of vandalism and of stalking a particular Wikipedian. Would people agree that it might be worth compiling a list of the stalker's favourite target pages and placing them on permanent preview so that his abuse is never seen by ordinary Wikipedia readers?--Peter cohen (talk) 11:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you could just add them to that LTA page above. Thanks, Tommy! [message] 12:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If you mean WP:Pending changes, agree, good idea. Also can someone tell me where to report them for revdel or whatever it is. A few of them happen to be on my watch-list & I noticed they're now being revdeled or similar. Misarxist (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If they're going to be revdel'd there's zero point in PC'ing the page as all that does is shunt the edits off into the history. One cannot revdel the top revision of a page, reviewed or not; just revert and alert an admin whenever he shows up. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Carl Johnson)} 02:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism at iGot a Hot Room

Resolved

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

At the article, iGot a Hot Room, an IP user has repeatedly vandalized the article, replacing the character names with fictitious cast members, and adds useless information to the plot summary of the episode. I gave the user the Template:uw-vandalism4 template on the talk page, but the use still continues to vandalize the page. I would appreciate if the user would be blocked. I am getting very tired of undoing all of the edits and vandalism. Thank you. WereWolf (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done; 2-week block. (Note: the appropriate venue for reporting vandalism is WP:AIV).  Frank  |  talk  15:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry. This was my first time reporting vandalism, but I appreciate your help! WereWolf (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries. This is a big place.  Frank  |  talk  15:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Triton_Rocker

Triton Rocker has been making a number of fairly insulting edits today at the British Isles Special Examples page. In this diff [71] for example, in a new section entitled "Updated list of Combatants" he accuses a lengthy list of editors of "grooming administrators", sockpuppetry, edit warring and various other insults. Subsequent edits to this list, attempting to remove the insulting bits were reverted and re-inserted by Triton. This has been a controversial subject which we have tried to calm down and have been approaching systematically and it is very disruptive to be trolled like this and forced to spend time repeatedly correcting. I would like to request he be dealt with firmly as it's very frustrating trying to work seriously on the topics in that article without being distracted by this foolishness.

Triton Rocker was blocked recently for 48 hours by TFOWR for violating the British Isles Sanctions and given a final warning today [72] by Skomorokh on Triton's talk page for having a bash at Dave Snowden, who as User:Snowded is another participant in the WP:BISE article. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Tritons actions are clearly designed to be as disruptive as possible, it is certainly beyond the point of someone simply not following the rules correctly. Permanent ban until he accepts never to add British Isles to an article again or harass other editors. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• Note - Recent discussion on this noticeboard may be relevant: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive629#Breech_of_General_Sanction_by_User:Triton_Rocker.  Frank  |  talk  16:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

See also that he created trivial and pointy templates against User:Snowded such as Category:People from Ongar, Category:People from Ongar (district), Category:Ongar, and Template:Too-many-snitches. --HighKing (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Triton Rocker is clearly being absurdly disruptive here. I've had no previous involvement here and would probably have happily indef blocked him at this point - but as always with these disputes, it's probably best that someone who's not visibly British or Irish takes any required action, just for the sake of appearances. ~ mazca ^talk 17:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I think anyone looking at this has to apply a filter adding just a little suspicion at the motivations of any of the major proponents, such as User:HighKing. and User:Snowded.

What happened here is that I walk in on some nationalistic dispute which has been going on for years when a couple of the editors started to perform total revision of my work. If you look at my work in generally, you will see that I do a lot of editing adding references.

Strangely, but conveniently for them all, I have been made an example of and become the scapegoat within the British Isles naming dispute. For the record, I do not take a nationalist point of view and support the use of the geographic term as the non-political solution and on non-political topics. This is clearly documented. --Triton Rocker (talk) 23:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

As a "hardened Irish nationalist" (by Triton Rocker's definition) I really thing that TR should go back to editing what he knows best....and that is British bikes. TR has kind of lost the plot when it comes to BI, Sd and HK. We really don't want to loss good editors but if his behaviour continues as is that is what will happen. Bjmullan (talk) 23:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I could understand your actions at first Triton, it is hard for editors when they first arrive at the British Isles dispute, but you have had plenty of warnings about the rules, you just do not seem to follow them. Any inclusion or removal of British isles to articles by "involved editors" of which you are now certainly one, should be cleared on the BISE page. It is not difficult, some of the proposed places you wanted to use it would have won support for inclusion, but you have to raise it there first. And when you are subject to general sanctions you have no choice but to obey the rules or get a block. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Triton, you say that anyone looking at this should apply a filter adding a little suspicion at the motivation of the likes of HK and Snowded. Do you also think there is anything suspicious in the motivations of Jamesinderbyshire (who opened this ANI thread) and BritishWatcher? Jack 1314 (talk) 00:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Triton has had three blocks for inserting "British Isles" into articles without discussing the change first. He is the only editor who has defied the general sanction and the only one named there. My sin in his/her eyes has been to report the breech in the sanction and reverse edits with a request to discuss them first as per policy. As one of the monitoring admins (TFOWR currently on holiday) has told him, I am one of the few editors to take each case on its merits and I have never proposed a removal or deletion, just put the effort in over the years to try and create some order in this mess so I do rather resent the name-calling. What we have here is a good content editor who lacks the maturity to follow community rules. The lashing out at anyone who prevents him doing what he feels he has a right to is a clear sign of that. If anyone can think of a way that this can be rectified without further disruption to the community I for one would appreciate it. It would be a pity if painted himself into a corner in which the only option was an escalating series of blocks. --Snowded ^TALK 02:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

@ BritishWatcher. This persecution or scapegoating is all little bit one sided.

• The problem first is when people 'talk' by 'not talking'. That is to say, they refuse to engage in a discussion they might lose ... and then claim the issue "was not agreed" and use it as a "gotcha".

This is what is happening over non-political issues like the flora and fauna of the British Isles, tenants farmers, arts etc ... where my interest lies and more than often, I am the only contributor. I have no interest or involvement in "The Troubles". 99.99% of the time, flora and fauna and historical culture etc cannot be fixed into a political box like Britain and Ireland. The term British Isles is the only universal, respectful, non-political one we have for ... the British Isles.

• Second problem is one of intent. Is their intention really content creation or is it to bog down developments that goes against their POV?

Time and time again I am having, by the likes of Snowded (talk · contribs) not the term removed but long sections of well referenced content & citations. Often with cutting and false summaries. That is malicious and authoritarian. It is designed to hurt and provoke and damages the goodwill of others to contribute. The truth is, I don't recognise User:Snowded as having any authority.

In my opinion, he being an Essex (English) born Welsh nationalist (by his own page), this whole issue is psychologically motivated for him. That kind of motivation should not belong here therefore I am happy to take censorship from others ... but not him.

In most case, even he agrees, so I don't see why I just don't carry on editing and if they want to pull specific ones out, please do so. --Triton Rocker (talk) 04:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Triton - no one refuses to engage - check out WT:BISE and see how many sections are marked resolved. The reason you can't just carry on editing as you want is (i) you are under a community imposed sanction, (ii) you are constantly breaking WP:AGF and WP:NPA (both in the above post), (iii) you have to work with other editors which means using WT:BISE, something which ALL other editors involved are doing. No one is censoring you, several people (from both sides of the debate and neutrals) are all asking you to behave in a civil way and follow the rules. TFOWR suggested that you contact her after your last block, it was good advise I suggest you take it. --Snowded ^TALK 05:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

IP evading restrictions on article creation

174.49.188.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This IP has been attempting to evade the article creation restriction on anonymous users by placing article content on the talk pages of the proposed article. The first one was Talk:The Real World (Ally McBeal episode) on 23 July ([73]), which was moved to the article space shortly after. User was warned about this on 24 July ([74]), was blocked 31 hours on 28 July for other disruptive activity, and today created Talk:Detachment (film) and Talk:They Eat Horses, Don't They? ([75], [76]). I moved both to the article space, prodded one and redirected the other. I think a longer block is necessary here. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Another one after I posted this report and after I turned one of the pages into a redirect: [77]. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours. If they continue after that, a longer block. Dougweller (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Am I missing something here, the restriction was originally put in place (as I remember) to help limit the potentially libelous crap being generated in mainspace. It wasn't because we wanted to force people into creating accounts. If the creations are not unreasonable (as opposed to being reasonable) what's the issue? It takes someone else who presumably reads it first to move it to mainspace. Blocking someone for trying to contribute content seems madness. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a mechanism for creating articles, Wikipedia:Articles for creation, that can be used by IPs. I've used it myself. Perhaps IP 174 might be pointed in that direction? 81.145.247.186 (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You could have done that. I've done it. Did you look at the IP's talk page and the long list of warnings and the block just a few days ago? And the complete lack of response to the warnings? A bit of communication goes a long way to show good faith. Let's see how they respond to my offer to unblock. Dougweller (talk) 20:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that I would not have brought this matter here had this user not been warned, kindly pointed towards AfC, and blocked before for the same reasons. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see there is a technical limit on IPs creating pages, but no policy restriction on them being the originator of a page (if there were AFC would be out as well). AFC maybe the better mechanism since it's more or less chance that someone sees the talk page and then understands it's meant to be the start of the article. I still can't see what disruption, what threat to wikipedia or the community is being addressed by such a block and therefore how it meets the blocking policy. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Page move dispute

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

---

An editor, Josh Gorand (talk · contribs), appears to have tried to gain the upper hand with a tricky edit at Ministers-President of Lower Saxony. Can someone have a look at the situation, possibly deleting the edit. More information at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany#Ministerpräsident.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Cs32en has attempted to have the article moved against all the sources cited on the talk page, failing to obtain consensus. Some of those who agree with him have resorted to making POV forks that have been deleted, then they have frivolously nominated the article for deletion (it was speedily kept), and now they have unilaterally moved the page without consensus. Pages are not supposed to be subject of move wars, I have therefore made an edit to prevent further move wars. If someone thinks the article ought to be moved, they have to discuss and obtain consensus for the move on the talk page, not starting move wars. This comment by User:Cs32en was made in bad faith, by a user who is following me around after a disagreement over an unrelated article. Also, the title of the article is part of a wider discussion that has not been solved and it should not have been unilaterally moved. The real problem here was the bad faith unilateral move that ignored the discussion on the article's talk, not me fixing it. (see the wider discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Germany#Ministerpr.C3.A4sident, the two terms are supported by an equal number of people). Josh Gorand (talk) 18:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

"Some" is actually 7 people supporting a move, with 5 people supporting your position. We do not vote on Wikipedia, but you should probably not claim to have obtained consensus for your viewpoint in that situation.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Er, I have not said there is any consensus. Last time I checked 6 people supported Prime Minister and 6 people supported Minister-President. I.e. there is no consensus, and the unilateral move (that took place after the same group of users had created a POV fork that was deleted and then frivolously nominated the article for deletion, an attempt that also failed) was extremely inappropriate. As you correctly point out, we do not vote on Wikipedia. Josh Gorand (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Trouts all round. For waging a WP:LAME war, for move-warring, for redirect scorching (which is a mean trick) rather than requesting move protection as you should, for making chaotic substitute moves to third and forth titles, leaving double redirects all over the place, and for being a general nuisance. Anybody who continues move-warring over this (or edit-warring over the use of the term elsewhere) will be banished to Aurich. There, that'll show them. Page now moved back to status quo ante and move-protected there. Will have a look whether there is some expression of consensus to move somewhere, but I rather doubt it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

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

User:MiMaeLi uploading of copyright images despite final warnings

Resolved

 – Contributor indef blocked by User:Tnxman307; I've cleaned up the images per Wikipedia:Copyright violations. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• MiMaeLi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) despite final warnings [78] [79], the user has continued spree of uploading copyright images claiming to be the copyright owner.

The request was removed from ANI:Vandal due to "stale" reporting - no edits in 12 hours. Can someone look into this? Most of the recent upload of images are clearly watermarked with copyrights by others despite claim of public domain. I did not tag a few of the recent uploads that are likely copyright vios that did not have the watermaks. Active Banana (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Uploading of clearly copyrighted images and tagging them as public domain could expose the foundation to legal action - block them until they understand they can't do this. Exxolon (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Their talkpage is full of warnings - looks like only a block will get through to them. Exxolon (talk) 19:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Misconduct and Biased attitude of Shahid in Playback singer

Resolved

 – Sock of Dr. Mukesh blocked. --RegentsPark (talk) 02:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to report a serious issue which me and other editors has faced due to the biased and misconduct of Shahid • ^Talk2me in Playback singer wikipedia. The editor Shahid • ^Talk2me is involved in an edit war for the last three months and by taking a hard and biased line against Pakistani Playback singers. Names of famous Pakistani singers remained on the page for good about one year and then suddenly removed by Shahid • ^Talk2me by declaring those names not properly sourced.

By chance I took notice of that and ask him about the issue. Intelligent enough, he allowed me to include those names on talk page of Playback singer because I contacted other editors like   Will Beback  talk  . Once I added the names of Akhlaq Ahmed, Saleem Raza, Mujeeb Aalam etc, he reverted the edit again by saying not properly sourced though I include some references upto best of my knowledge. As its prety obvious that being an Indian, Shahid has shown a biased aproach towards Pakistani playback singers, I want your help in this regard and request to include these names as the editor Shahid is not maintaining a neutral point of view and he is including evey name of Indian singer (famous or not) but adopting a different approach toward Pakistan. Looking forward for a neutral decision. Thanks. Wings spread (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You should really work this out on the article talk page. There are problems with the sources you used. I'll post a comment on the talk page explaining it.   Will Beback  talk  21:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Meantime, please assume good faith regarding other editors.   Will Beback  talk  21:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This issue is not as simple as you are projecting.. You are talking about good faith but sir, how could its possible for me once I have experienced something which is opposite to "good faith". You have to understand that there is a direct involvement of a powerful administrator who is manuplating arround with in the boundaries of rules. I strongly protest against this misuse of the power and want a neutral decision in this regard. He did not remove the names of Pakistani singers for good about a year and when he involved in the edit war, he suddenly reverted the names. Dont you think its a complete biased approach and now I am receiving the message that I am a sock of some Dr Mukesh, what do you call it now?? A powerful admin has started playing arround. He has friends but I insist on a neutral decision again. Thanks Wings spread (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Now that I look at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dr.Mukesh111, it's obvious that Wings spread is another sock. I'll block the account.   Will Beback  talk  23:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

User:212.242.173.165

Resolved

 – Engaged editor, probably no further action needed.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

User has repeatedly added information to Norman Granz and Jazz at the Philharmonic without a reliable citation. Information is most likely OR. [80] Gareth E Kegg (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I've asked the IP for more detail about his sourcing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Great Gareth E Kegg (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack by Ludwigs2

Resolved

 – It is hereby decreed that Mathsci isn't the unabomber, and Ludwigs2 isn't very good at making jokes, and should stop re-litigating false "outing" complaints. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

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

---

• Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ludwigs2 has already been blocked for personal attacks / harassment of me recently by BozMo. On the ArbCom pages, he made an unprovoked personal attack on me comparing me with the unabomber, which I take to mean that I am sort of psychopath and should be imprisoned. This must an all time low in wikipedia insults directed at a hard-working and active editor of long standing. [81] Mathsci (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Dude, it was ironic humor - read the context. lol - please... --Ludwigs2 21:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Repeated copyright violations by User:Дунгане

On 8 July 2010, the above user was warned by bot of a copyright problem on Chen Tianhua, an article started by Дунгане. The user was warned again on 22 July 2010. Today (2 August 2010) I found that Дунгане inserted information from a non-public domani source into at least three separate articles.

• In Military of ancient Rome, Дунгане added "Sex by the Roman male was sadistic. The military man would select a female to have sex, and could overpower her by force and rape her. The prize to the soldiers was a young girl, preferebly virgin. They were free of venereal diseases, a soldier acquiring virign rape by demonstrating vaginal blood was praised by other soldiers". This is very close to the source, which says "The prize to the young soldier was the very young girl, preferably virgin who had no experience of sex. They were usually free of venereal diseases. A soldier acquiring a virgin rape by demonstrating her vaginal blood was highly praised by the other soldiers. ... Sex was often sadistic by the Roman male."

• In Homosexuality in ancient Greece, Дунгане added "In the near east, homosexual acts were performed on vanquished foes. In Greece it became part of "basic training". Sparta, the most militaristic of the Greek city states, propagated the idea that homosexual conduct would yield military prowess and was expected during training." The source says "As mentioned in our discussion of homosexual conduct in the ancient Near East, homosexual acts were frequently performed on vanquished foes. However, in Greece it became part of "basic training." Sparta, the most militaristic of the Greek city-states, propagated the idea that homosexual conduct would yield military prowess, and thence was expected during training."

• In Homosexuality in ancient Rome, Дунгане added "However, the test of Lex Scantina has not survived, and little is known about its contents. Men were prosecuted under it in later centuries, for political reasons, its uncertian the charges had anything to do with homosexuality and penalties were not serious. A trial was reported in which a man gained aquittal on adultery charges after testifying he was there for an assignment with a male slave, casting doubt the the illegality of homosexuality". The source says "However, the text of the law [Lex Scantina] has not survived, and little is known about its provisions . Men were prosecuted under the Lex Scantina in later centuries, often for political reasons, but it is uncertain that the charges had anything to do with homosexuality, and the penalties do not appear to have been serious. ... Moreover, a trial is reported in which a man found in the bedroom of a married woman gained aquittal on adultery charges after testifying that he was there for an assignment with a male slave. This casts grave doubt on the illegality of homosexuality."

Old copyright violations the user has been notified of still stand, for example "In early 1904 Chen, together with his fellow Hunanese Huang Hsing and Song Jiaoren, founded the underground revolutionary society Huaxinghui (China Arise Society) in Changsha. He worked with other members of the society to incite armed uprisings among the Qing troops and secret societies" appears in Wikipedia's article on Chen Tianhua and here. Even after warnings, Дунгане still isn't getting it. Nev1 (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't comment on the copyright problem itself, but Дунгане's deeper motivation for introducing these denigrating claims into articles on Greek and Roman history appears to me to stem from a false Chinese ethnic pride and a deep-rooted anti-Western bias. I have been targeted by Дунгане several times when he tried to draw contents dispute into an ethic flame-bait by directing ad hominem attacks on me:

• Talk:Military history of China (pre-1911)#pray tell gun powder ma
• Talk:Military history of China (pre-1911)#RE: THis whole mess Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyright concerns seems serious. For instance, in a recent series of edits to Zou Rong, we have "Zou regretted the absence of a strong racial conciousness (zhongxing) in China capable of uniting the people against the oppressors." This is copied from [82]. Then we have "Zou Rong greeted the 'peasants with weatherbeatn faces and mudcaked hands and feet' as his genuine countrymen, the proud descendents of the Yellow Emperor.' Race was a catalyst of group homogeneity, it created clear boundaries...." This (and more) was copied from [83]. I'm going to look at a few more article contributions to see how widespread this is. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that a WP:CCI may be of benefit here and am about to open one. (The backlog at CCI being what it is, assistance with it would be very welcome!) Cleanup of this is going to be difficult, as he seems to have liberally copied from other Wikipedia articles without requisite attribution, which can be easily handled, but has also copied from external sources, such as content in Zhang Huaizhi that duplicates The Power of the Gun and Chinese Muslim Youth League that is copied extensively from [84]. Since many of his sources are print and inaccessible, it may be necessary to presumptively remove some content he has added in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The CCI can be found here. For those who have never participated in one, the instructions are located near the top. Any contributor in good standing who has no history of copyright issues is welcome to help with these, and there is great need for you to do so. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and other issues during RFC/U by User:Teeninvestor

In the recent days, Teeninvestor (talk · contribs) has engaged in multiple edit-wars over many articles against a number of editors, despite an ongoing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor opened by User:Nev1 (17 July 2010) and an ANI complaint about his removal of tags by User:Gun Powder Ma (15 July 2010).

All the issues which are addressed in the RFC/U have even aggravated since, in particular revert-warring, WP:Peacock, WP:POV, WP:Own, rude language, tendentious editing and misinformative edit summaries. Since I find it impossible to give a complete account of the dimension of the problem with the editor's behaviour, I refer to the Outside view by User:Athenean instead. This summary, which has been endorsed by no less than seven users since, tries to identify the numerous incidences on half a dozen articles after the RFC/U has begun.

Disruptive editing and removal of tags without prior discussion

Here I will concentrate on Military history of China (pre-1911)). Since the opening of the RFC/U, Teeinvestor's revert-warring has become even more intense:

• Revert (removal of tag) by Teeninvestor: 1 (18:44, 20 July 2010)

• Edit by User:Athenean: 04:55, 24 July 2010

• Revert by Teeninvestor: 2 (02:31, 25 July 2010)

• Self-revert 2 (02:44, 25 July 2010)

• Revert by Teeninvestor: 3 (17:08, 25 July 2010)

• Revert by User:Arnoutf: 17:18, 25 July 2010

• Revert by Teeninvestor: 4 (17:23, 25 July 2010)

• Revert by User:Arnoutf: 17:37, 25 July 2010

All these these reverts were done, although a clear consensus of 6 to 1 to remove the quote had already long formed on talk page (the discussion had started as early as 21 July 2010).

• Reintroduction of practically same claim through a quote in a very similar vein by Teeninvestor: 5 (20:11, 29 July 2010)

• Revert by User:Athenean: 20:19, 29 July 2010

• Revert by Teeninvestor: 6 (20:40, 29 July 2010)

• Revert by User:Arnoutf: 20:55, 29 July 2010

• Massive expansion of article on the basis of Robert K. G. Temple, the author of the contentious quote who has already been considered close to fringe in the discussion (and later is discounted as a reliable source altogether): 29 July 2010

• As a reaction, tags restored by User:Gun Powder Ma: 00:08, 30 July 2010

• Removal of tag by Teeninvestor: 7 (00:33, 30 July 2010)

• Revert by User:Gun Powder Ma on tag plus expansion of article: 30 July 2010. Simultaneously I gave my rationale on talk page and warned of a case of edit-warring if the tag is removed again without prior discussion.

• Removal of tag and partial revert of my additions by Teeninvestor 8 (16:52, 30 July 2010)

• Partial revert by User:Gun Powder Ma (solely of tag) per clear consensus that the references from Temple should be substituted by the source he claims to cite, Joseph Needham: 17:20, 30 July 2010

Although the contentious Temple references can be found throughout most of the article, Teeninvestor now moves the tag from the top consecutively to second and then third order sections, thus trying to minimize its impact and visibility:

• Partial revert by Teeninvestor 9a (18:49, 30 July 2010)
• Partial revert by Teeninvestor 9b (01:56, 31 July 2010)

• Talk page warning by User:Gun Powder Ma

• Partial self-revert by Teeninvestor 9b (18:52, 31 July 2010)

• Edit by User:Arnoutf: 20:53, 2 August 2010

• Revert by Teeinvestor (reintroduction of quotes by Temple): 10 (22:29, 2 August 2010)

• Partial revert by User:Athenean: 00:42, 3 August 2010

• Notification of this ANI by User:Gun Powder Ma: 00:45, 3 August 2010

• Revert by Teeinvestor after having been notified: 11 (00:55, 3 August 2010)

Accusations of personal attacks

Here, User:Nev1 shows that Teeninvestor's personal attacks amount to a "pattern of behaviour". While some of the material collected by User:Nev1 refers to the period prior to the RFC/U, the edit summaries alone after the RFC/U has begun, speak a different language:

• "Improper abuse"
• "One-sided POV addition of tags"
• "POV-pushing"
• "This user is also a known POV-pusher"
• "intrusive move"
• "bombastic edit..editor's POV"

Altough Teeinvestor and me have just agreed to settle our personal differences (while those regarding contents and his adherence to WP guidelines remain as strong as ever), he went on to blame me today for:

• "Hypocrisy"

In this context, Teeninvestor displays a strong tendency of WP:Own and Wikipedia:IDIDNTHEARTHAT; the following edits fairly sums up his attitude as arbiter who believes he has the final say on every edit:

• "If not, not"
• "I don't like it"

As several editors have pointed out, this attitude makes it difficult, if not impossible, to collaborate with the user.

POV issues

Here, User:Kanguole, too, protests against Teeninvestor construing any criticism as a personal attack, while he demonstrates that it is actually Teeninvestor who habitually misrepresents sources and misconstrues criticism directed at this practice: Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor#Handling of sources. Notably, the issues also arose after the RFC/U has begun.

Since the numerous venues of solving the differences outside of ANI have all failed so far, I feel admin action is needed. I have invited the involved users to share their views here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

GPM is completely wrong on this issue. Temple is not a "fringe author" (he is an academic at multiple universities). He is an academic who is professor at several universities and his book was prepared with assistance and materials from Joseph Needham, the leading sinologist of the 20th century. Temple's work is being used on several FA's, such as List of Chinese inventions. In addition, non-temple sources also give largely the same description of weaponry at GA's Technology of the Song Dynasty and Science and technology of the Han Dynasty (Temple's book is used there as well). Attempts by this editor to decry Temple as a fringe source has been rejected by multiple editors, who have stated clearly Temple's relevance to mainstream sinology, for example here and here. I also note the book has won several awards 3. If Temple's source, summarizing mainstream sinology, winning multiple awards for its accuracy, and written by a renowned academic, is interpeted as "Fringe", I don't know what work is reliable. And contra GPM, who blatantly lied above, I am citing Temple, not Needham (though the former is his summarizer).

GPM's statement that a "consensus" was reached to discredit Temple is also spurious. Several other users (see above diffs) have indicated Temple should be used 1 and 2, and the discussion at WP:Verifiability referred to by the user wanted the user to go to WP:RSN, as that was not the approrpiate forum 3. His accusations of edit warring are also spurious. Most of his examples are from weeks ago, with discussion on the talk page changing resulting in many of his "reverts". Several of my reverts were of blatant POV and wrong info (such as the example below and edits to remove quotes from the Official Chinese dynastic histories under the impression they were from another source). This user has repeatedly tried to use ANI and other forums to get around discussion on the talk page, claiming that an edit warring situation exists when none does. I don't think this content dispute belongs at ANI.

Indeed, I will note that this user has edit warred against the consensus and common sense, instead introducing very wrong claims such as that Europe invented the cannon my revert here. Attempts to discuss the relevant issues with the user have been made 1 and 2, but said user refused to discuss the issues in an appropriate manner.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

My only input here is that Needham and (by extension his summarizer) Temple are reliable sources which contain some outdated conclusions that have since been discounted in modern science and sinology. Temple and Needham may be cited as reliable sources, but one should be cautious about each of their claims, cautious enough to cross-check them with more recent academic sources. Here is a good example of why that is the case. Teeninvestor's use of Temple is not a radical approach, but Teen, please do heed the suggestions made by others that quotes from Temple are unnecessary. At maximum, one or two quotes from Needham—the original source— would be sufficient. I am glad that, on the talk page for Chinese armies (pre-1911), GunPowderMa is now trying to demonstrate why some of the claims in the article may be false or outdated. He should apply this method to each and every case instead of dismissing Temple's book as a whole (irregardless of some strong, flowery, and opinionated language used by Temple).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

(Postscript) The disputed quotes in question are from the Official dynastic histories of China. I think there was confusion in that respect.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah! I see. I was merely referring to an earlier case, then, when Temple was quoted (I see only one Temple quote in the article now, and it is harmless).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

RSN comments by Cla68 and Objections by ChrisO

Feel free to dig yourselves into a deeper hole, but please leave the collapse box in place because most reasonable people are not interested

Cla68 (talk · contribs) is attempting to stop me from commenting on the reliable sources noticeboard. At 01:16, 3 August 2010, Cla68 posted a request for input on the RSN concerning a Dutch book review.[85] I have not at any time expressed any view about this source, discussed it anywhere or commented on it in any venue. At 01:24, 3 August 2010, I posted a comment noting the similarity of the issue to that of Amazon.com editorial reviews and asking what the current opinion was of those reviews as a source.[86] Cla68 then began a sequence of edits clearly aimed at driving me off the page. After he had told me to go away [87], I said that I was not interested in continuing an unproductive digression that was not related to the sourcing issue and hatted that section of the discussion, leaving alone his question and my follow-up question.[88] He then twice moved my follow-up question into the hatted section, hiding it from other editors.[89][90]. He has now un-hatted my follow-up question and the off-topic digression that I had said I did not want to continue.[91] This is a completely malicious series of edits - assuming bad faith with no cause or provocation whatsoever, sabotaging my comments and hiding them from other editors. There is no excuse whatsoever for this. Right now I feel that I can't contribute to the RSN without being accused of bad faith or being told to go away. I can't even ask a completely neutral, on-point question without my motives being questioned or my comments being hidden by an editor who doesn't want me to contribute to the discussion. It's an absolutely textbook display of bad faith and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I've never been treated like this in 7 years of editing, and I have to say it's a shitty way to be treated. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Here is what is actually occurring. ChrisO and me are involved in a content dispute in the article The Hockey Stick Illusion. ChrisO has been very active in removing content from the article [92] [93] [94] [95]. I believe that ChrisO is trying to discredit the book from being used as a source in Wikipedia. ChrisO, in fact, requested that someone villify a person in their blog who had given the book a good review [96]. I opened a thread at the RSN on a source dispute, in which I believe I did an adequate job giving both sides, and asked the participants at the page to not argue the same thing on the RSN, because AGW debates in the past have turned into free-for-alls on the noticeboards, which I believe has inhibited participation from uninvolved editors. All the involved editors, except for ChrisO, appeared to honor the request. Unfortunately, ChrisO tried to influence the discussion. Me and another editor then reminded Chris that he was heavily involved and to let the uninvolved editors at the board take it from there. ChrisO then tried to hat our comments while leaving his original comment [97] and edit warred to try to keep it that way. ChrisO is not being very helpful here. He appears to be trying very hard to win a content dispute instead of letting it play out naturally. Cla68 (talk) 01:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Let's put this very simply for Cla68. I have never expressed any opinion whatsoever on the suitability of the source he mentions. I'm not involved in any content dispute about this source. I have not participated in the talk page discussion about this source. I wasn't even aware of the discussion until I saw Cla68's post on the RSN. All of the above verbiage posted by Cla68 is therefore irrelevant, and it includes a blatant and malicious lie - I have never asked anyone to vilify anyone else anywhere. My only contribution to the discussion on this particular source has been one completely neutral question posted here on the RSN. Cla68 has not explained why he saw fit to hide my question from the other RSN users, nor what gives him the right to do so, nor why he thinks my question - which doesn't express any opinion whatsoever about the reliability of the source - is an attempt to "win a content dispute" that I've not even participated in. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC) As everyone in the universe knows by now, Arbcom is in the final stages of negotiating the Climate Change omnibus case. Perhaps not coincidentally Cla68 has recently been stirring the pot with unfounded accusations such as this and tendentious editing of the type that is likely to provoke emotional reactions in his esteemed fellow editors. I suggest all concerned just back off, have a beer (or other beverage of choice), crank some tunes, and cool it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC) I'm not the aggressor here, Boris - right now I don't feel that I can do anything or post anywhere without being stalked and attacked by Cla68. He's stalked me to other users' talk pages, he's posted aggressive questions to my talk page and now he seems to be intent on driving me off the RSN and posting malicious lies about me here. It's not me who needs to back off. I'm not the one going around pissing in other people's cornflakes. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC) We used to have this problem with Israel-Palestine sources at the RSN noticeboard, where the same editors tended to like or dislike the same sources, and it became difficult for uninvolved editors to make a point—though it's the views of uninvolved people that are particularly welcome at the noticeboard. On the other hand, involved editors might have a good point to make too. A suggestion for the future might be for the editor who opens the request to post the query, and to explicitly invite comment from editors who are entirely uninvolved in any broader dispute that involves the source. That editor could then create a subsection == Comments from involved editors== so that involved editors can have their say in that section. People would be expected to interpret the reach of "involved" broadly. The uninvolved could then read both sides before replying. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Except that I am not and never have been involved in the dispute over this source, and I had not expressed any opinion on RSN or anywhere else about its reliability, so that would solve nothing. And it still doesn't explain why Cla68 felt the need to hide my comments. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Whether you've ever commented on this source is a little beside the point, because you're involved in the broader dispute and it makes your response (rightly or wrongly) feel predictable. The point is that when people go to the RSN it's because they want fresh input, and it can be frustrating not to get that, because where else do they go for it? So just as a matter of courtesy, where the conflict is a very contentious one, it would be helpful for the broadly involved to step back a little and make their points in a separate section. They'd still get read but it would give the editor who opened the request a sense of some breathing space. I'm not suggesting it for all RSN requests, just as an option for when the opening editor has specifically gone there to request fresh eyes. It would apply to Cla68 too if you were the one opening the request (if you wanted it to). SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC) We're not talking about an editor moving my question to a separate section. We're talking about an editor hiding my question so that nobody else can see it. This is what the section looked like when I posted. This is what it looked like when Cla68 finished with it, twice. Note also what he says about his action in the summaries - "fixed hatting", "fix hat". The dishonesty of that is obvious - he was not "fixing" it in any way, he was moving it so that my question would be hidden from view. Can you please address that? -- ChrisO (talk) 02:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC) It would have been better if Cla68 hadn't closed it, but Chris, when he did the discussion was not as you linked to above; there had been some more back-and-forth, including from you, so it was turning into another CC-conflict exchange. I think Cla was just trying to restart the discussion. It would have been better if he had done that with the use of a new sub-section. Perhaps that could be done now, if the issue is still open. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Clarification time again: I closed the bickering so that it would not turn into another CC-conflict exchange. Cla68 then hid my earlier question by moving it into the closed section so that other editors would not see it. I sought to cool the temperature. Cla68 has consistently sought to raise it, including posting a very serious personal attack above. He was not in any sense trying to "restart" the discussion - he was trying to cut me out of it. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Note: ChrisO has been a long time disruptive editor in the CC topic area, and edits consistently to promote one POV. Cla68 arrived in this topic area earlier this year and has been trying to clean things up, which naturally agitates ChrisO who doesn't like to see his POV work undone. This appears to be little more than retaliation on ChrisO's part. ATren (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC) There's certainly no rule to bar ChrisO from commenting. I saw nothing in ChrisO's fairly innocent question that seemed worthy of the mini-drama that ensued from there. Hell, he simply asked if anyone knew the current consensus in such matters. Certainly didn't warrant anyone jumping down his throat. I've removed the unproductive comments from the RSN section; I wasn't aware of this ANI at the time (or the apparent back-and-forth manipulation of the comments that seems to have occurred earlier). Feel free to revert my edit, if necessary. BigK HeX (talk) 02:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Thank you for that; I hope that the remainder of the discussion on the RSN will be more productive. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC) And predictably, Cla68 has just restored the bickering. He doesn't want a productive discussion. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Per SV's helpful suggestion, I have divided the thread into "involved" and "uninvolved" and placed Chris' comments in the "involved" section and did not restore the comments where two of us pointed out that he was involved. Hopefully, this will resolve the matter. Cla68 (talk) 03:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC) You have restored those comments. Do you think nobody's going to notice when you're not telling the truth? -- ChrisO (talk) 03:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC) What a tempest in a teapot. Dlabtot (talk) 03:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC) I think we can safely say this particular weather anomaly is human-induced.Griswaldo (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

KMTDCfan89 repeated removing deletion tags

Moved from WP:AN

KMTDCfan89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See his talk page warnings by Eeekster and the page histories of Killa-mo 187 and End Of Time Entertainment. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I will note that this same editor has been recreating articles deleted after an AfD; as well as uploading scans of album covers with the assertion that it is okay because the album cover is "entirely my own work" (apparently unable to distinguish between an actual artist and somebody running a copying machine). --Orange Mike | Talk 20:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

And even replacing existing album-cover scans used in articles with others of same name by different group. That's over the line into vandalism given his history. DMacks (talk)

"This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally - announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of general administrator interest. If your post is about a specific problem you have (a dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator), you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.247.186 (talk) 22:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

... and who's WP:SOCK are you? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of who it is, the IP is right; this belongs at WP:ANI. Nyttend (talk) 02:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Afterwriting for Personal Attack for no valid reason.

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

Afterwriting (talk · contribs) Afterwriting pu this:-

Thank you. It looks probable, however, that he has already started a new account with the user name of Sainterman for editing St Kilda Football Club-related articles - such as List of St Kilda Football Club coaches. Apart from this account being brand new and only editing some of the same articles, BrianBeahr's user name on an official St Kilda FC supporter site was BrianSainterman ( from which he was also eventually blocked for disruptive behaviour ). Over to you! Afterwriting (talk) 10:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not permitted to be stalked on wikipedia by someone who thinks I am someone from another webiste that was run by the St Kilda Football club. St Kilda Football Club supporter sites are not relevent to wikipedia. Afterwriting is openly stating that he/she is attempting to stalk someone called Brian who appears to edit St Kilda football Club Pages without establihing someones identity? I have never been blocked from a St Kilda football Club website in my life - the Saints Central website was recently shut down by the club and elements of it added to the St Kilda football club offifical website. I have made no disruptive edits and have only added factual non-biased information. Afterwriting is openly claiming that you think I am a person you are stalking on wikipaedia and have assumed authority to do the stalking. There was nothing wrong with any of the edits. You cant block me from wikipedia because you think i am someone who put posts on the Saints Central website stalker vermin. You dont have permission to be a stalker vermin person who stalks pelple who you think add things to St Kilda Football Club websites that arent wikipedia.

This person has continuosly tried to block for every edit i make - including updating statistical information that is changhing weekly for no reason - sometimes because they dont like the facts in it or the statistics in it because of the page involved and for no other valid reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sainterman (talk • contribs) 03:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact that I honestly identify myself as a gay man who describes himselsf as a Bear may have something to do with the constant harassment and blocks for nothing on the site. I want something done about this person asap. Sainterman (talk) 02:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• While discussing other editors and asking for more input on a dispute is fine, calling someone a "stalker vermin" is offensive and is not allowed due to the no personal attacks policy. Please refrain from doing so in the future. Also, there's no need to report something to every possible place, including the conflict of interest noticeboard and long-term abuse. I'll take a look at this from the conflict of interest noticeboard. Netalarm^talk 03:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• So you complain that people are continuously trying to block you, you put the same message across two noticeboards, you edit User:Afterwriting just like the other accounts did, and you create Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Afterwriting, all within your first twenty-three edits. But despite all these, you still want us to believe that you're nothing to do with the prior accounts, and that this continuous persecution that you're suffering, this "blocking" for "every edit you make", is really because of your sexual preferences, which of course everyone telepathically knew about even though you didn't create User:Sainterman until after you made all these noticeboard complaints and LTA report.

  Afterwriting isn't an administrator and cannot block you. But EdJohnston and I are, as are many of the other people reading this. EdJohnston's note to you predates your more recent edits. I suspect that xyr reaction now is the same as mine, which is: Pull the other one. It has bells on.

  I've blocked Sainterman (talk · contribs) for fairly clear evasion of an indefinite block. Interested passers-by might want to read User talk:BrianBeahr. I'm sure that we're about to see the same at User talk:Sainterman. Uncle G (talk) 04:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Eugeneacurry talk page

I'd appreciate some assistance with this. Eugeneacurry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was indefblocked in June for creating an attack page about me. He requested an unblock a few days ago, and it was opposed. The latest AN/I discussion about the unblock is here.

Since then he has been posting his views on his talk page about what should and shouldn't be in the Christ myth theory, the article he has largely focused on. His most recent posts are here, and they have the appearance of requesting proxy edits. There are editors at that article who in the past have reverted depending on what they think Eugene wants; the history of the article is one of serial reverting as a result, which has hindered article development considerably. To avoid that starting up again, would an admin mind asking him to stop using his talk page in this way? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

If he is not using his talk page in a way that's constructive, why not just remove his ability to edit it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks like SV is asking for assistance since she has a past history with this editor which seems pretty reasonable, her request that is.--Threeafterthree (talk) 05:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my remark was badly phrased: I wasn't suggesting that she, as an involved admin, should remove his talk page access, but rather amending her request to suggest that an uninvolved admin dealing with the problem might want to do so. Eugeneacurry's previous actions have been such that it seems best to move to that option rather than deal with unnecessary intermediate steps. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

He does seem to be asking people to edit on his behalf. At 02:36 on July 30, with the edit summary "Christ myth theory mistake," Eugene complained on his talk page that an editor had removed from the lead that most classical historians accept Jesus's existence. [98] At 03:15, Ari89, one of the editors who often reverts alongside Eugene, restored it. [99] Ari hadn't edited for a couple of hours before this series of edits, and didn't edit for three hours after it. At 03:56, Eugene removed the request from his talk page with the edit summary "mistake resolved." [100] My concern is that this has been a very troubled article because of almost constant reverting, so the running commentary on his talk page doesn't exactly help. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Ari is a professional historian and is his own man. He doesn't shill for anyone. But if you think he does, then you really ought to ask him what the deal is before accusing him of anything. You'll have to ask him on his talk page, however, since he has recently been blocked—coincidentally, after getting into a conflict with SV over the Christ myth theory article (I suspect either me and/or Akhilleus are next, but I could be wrong). Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 06:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a point of information, Ari is not a professional historian, Bill. I don't know how much he has made known about himself, so it's best not to go into detail, but it's also important not to post material like that. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, according to his user page, he claims to be an historian. I'll ask him on his talk page to see if I misunderstood. Thanks for the clarification. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 07:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Noloop was allowed to edit his own talk page and me and several others had profitably (IMO) continued our discussion there, so I don't see the problem with allowing the same for Eugene. By the way, how does a person ask to be unblocked if he can't edit his own talk page? And if Eugene has any trained minions here (and I assume she means me), blocking his editing of his own talk page won't resolve that, since there is always standard email or a phone call. At any rate, it really seems to me that SV is acting in a heavy-handed manner which is unbecoming of an admin. @SlimVirgin, how much time must pass, and what kind of "restitution" must be paid (payed?), in order for you to agree that Eugene has had enough punishment and should be allowed to return from exile? Just curious if there is even such a thing. Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 06:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Your jibe at Slim Virgin is inappropriate, as it was the community that resoundingly denied Eugeneacurry the unblock he requested, not Slim Virgin alone. As for the current situation, editing by proxy is not allowed, and if he is using his talk page to encourage that, his access to it should be curtailed. He can make future unblock requests via e-mail. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, it was coincidental. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 07:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

On a procedural note, there is always the ban-appeals sub-committee of ARBCOM, which takes appeals by e-mail. Courcelles (talk) 06:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Since the indef block was primarily for his attack article against SV, not primarily for any disruptive influence on the disputed article, I don't see much of a problem letting him talk about the disputed article on his own talk page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Really? The block notice says ...for creating an article on another user in the pursuit of an edit-war Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin, how much time must pass, and what kind of "restitution" must be paid (payed?), in order for you to agree that Eugene has had enough punishment and should be allowed to return from exile? Just curious if there is even such a thing. (Note that I asked this above but you probably missed it.) Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 07:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec; reply to Future Perfect) It's not a problem so long as no one edits on his behalf, but Eugene was a problematic editor, editing very aggressively from a conservative Christian POV, reverting possibly more than I'd seen any editor do before, and insulting other editors and sources. Ari89 and Bill the Cat 7 supported his every move. For the first time in years after his block, that article had settled into a collaborative atmosphere. Reverting was significantly reduced, and people were building on each other's edits and discussing constructively on talk. Since Eugene started posting on his talk page on July 29, Ari89 began the serial reverting again, in accordance with the opinions Eugene was posting, and ended up blocked. I wouldn't want to see that situation continue. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

User talk:BassandAle is making threats of outing on his talk page

The user is already blocked, but is continuing to make outing and veiled legal threats on its talk page. Active Banana (talk) 06:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the block settings.   Will Beback  talk  06:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Can someone have a word with a tendentious editor?

Can someone please take a look at the behaviour of Gd8man (talk · contribs)? He/she got stroppy over a singe edit I made to Dock jumping, which invovled unlinking some country names - common practice under WP:OVERLINK. If that wasn't bad enough the editor then reverted a whole series of perfectly valid edits that I made to Golden Retriever, accusing me on my talk page of being distruptive. If you look at those edits you'll see that they included using the {{convert}} template, adding a cited fact to present a worldwide perspective, and requesting citations for some claims. In short they were perfectly valid. For some reason this editor has taken against me and is now engaged in tendentious editing. A perspective from a third party would be useful. --Simple Bob (talk) 06:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This user has now also reverted a large sequence of perfectly valid changes that I made to Dock jumping. --Simple Bob (talk) 06:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You should have notified the editor - I've done that. Also, not a good idea to call his edits vandalism. Having said all that, I'm not happy with his telling you to go elsewhere or the edits I've looked at so far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 06:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Your advice is noticed - I shouldn't have used the vandalism function in twinkle - which he/she has now also done. As you can see I have attempted to engage on my talk page to no avail. --Simple Bob (talk) 06:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I've also noted on his talk page that he needs to read WP:OWN - I see he created one of those articles, so he's clearly got a problem there. We'll see how he responds, I don't think there's anything else to do at the moment. He has made only 296 edits overall, he's clearly inexperienced. We don't want to drive him away but he needs to rein back. Dougweller (talk) 07:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Going back I realized that I changed his edits on Golden Retriever by mistake.. But on Dock jumping he made 12 edits..changing picture placement,size,links....now doesn't that need discussion?...gd8man (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

"By mistake"? You mean you looked through his contributions, clicked on a page completely unrelated to the original source of the edit war, then proceeded to (ab)use an editing tool to revert the edits he had worked on that page without looking at them (complete with a scathing edit summary)? I have no comment on the heart of the problem, but "by mistake" was such a ridiculous excuse that I couldn't let go. Therequiembellishere (talk) 07:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Please explain why any of my changes need discussion? The manual of style for images states that a lead image should be large - up to 300 pixels - and that other images should be left without pixel sizes unless there is good reason (such as detail in the picture). WP:OVERLINK is clear about not linking country names. Quoting distance in feet and inches is not useful to people in other English speaking countries that use metric measurements, so converting the units is good practice. MOS:UNLINKDATES is clear that dates should not be linked - not that the dates in the article were properly linked as the month names were incorrectly shortened. --Simple Bob (talk) 07:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes by mistake,Golden Retriever is one of many pages I watch. I have a slow connection, so I open many tabs to save loading time.If you can't accept that I am sorry. Now as far as a lead picture there wasn't one,the image that was moved is discribing the chase method.The other images need more detail (such as detail in the picture). gd8man (talk) 07:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)