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

User:Dimension10 and page moves

Dimension10 (talk · contribs) pretty much took it on themselves to re-arrange the pages that used to be Standard Model and Standard Model (mathematical formulation). I created a thread at WT:PHYS about this, and asked them to stop moving things left and right so I can fix the mess, and make sure the old links point to the intended articles, but they just won't stop. Take a look at their move history to see the damn mess they left behind. Could an admin please block them for the moment, until they agree to stop moving things left and right and let the discussion of WT:PHYS come to it's conclusion? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Headbomb There is no mess. The mess only started after you started making some of the redirects redirect to Introduction to the standard model, and some to The standard model. It's clear that you' are the one messing up everything here, using vulgarities randomly, making a big fuss about almost nothing, and wanting the article's nameing conventions to be against all the other articles', just because YOU can't comprehend technical, mathematical, details, and YOU don't want the technical articles to be the main article? . . . Dimension10 (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC) .

Could you please stop it with the personal attacks? I fully comprehend the technical details involved and the only purpose of the discussion on WT:PHYS is about the names of the articles, how to best deal with them, make sure we direct the readers where we actually mean to, and all that jazz. Your half a million moves makes it impossible to have this conversation about, you break a bunch of links in existing articles, and behave like a bull in a China shop. It's clear you won't be stopping anytime soon, and you need to be blocked so your disruption stops and so that people can have a discussion about things without pulling their own hair trying to figure out which article is which. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Look who'se talking (For others, please check the original version of this section.) . Dimension10 (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

You must be doing something wrong because even this page (WP:ANI) became one big mess when you edited it. Are you using some non-standard software when editing? Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 15:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Nothing happened to the standard model articles . Dimension10 (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• I've fixed the formatting issue on this page, the result of {{curly brackets}} rather than [[square brackets]]. When a move is opposed like this, the correct thing to do is to revert to the names before the move, and then come to a consensus about what the page names should be. Indeed, major name changes like this should optimally be discussed at WP:RM or the talk page or the project page first. I think an admin will need to help sort out the moves now, lots of redirects got re-edited. I'm afraid I can't help, I need to go offline in 5 minutes, and I don't want to leave it half done. I don't think any blocks are needed at this time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm uninvolved in this, but a few things strike me as problematic with Dimension10. The user page User:Dimension10 is using a protected template and adds, "If you edit it (the user page), the user will immediately die, and their ghost will appear in your house and kill you." On the talk page, the controversial moves of other pages have been brought up at User_talk:Dimension10#Controversial_moves. The Townsend string theory matter alone is a problem. Dimension10 has clear problems with this topic area and actually attacks editors when actions do not go their way, even if their claims are proven false. Even stating, "Stupid adminstrators who don't know string theory want to delete." in relation to the Townsend string theory page.[1] These moves were a bad idea and should not have been done without consensus. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Not to mention things like [2] Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Problems with this topic? HUH?! If you can't stand a joke (the kill you thing), I think your comment is pointless . And the move was because the admins refused to check the refs, and they were happy with the move . Dimension10 (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm also uninvolved, but most of the moves seem to be for the sake of personal preference, or "potential spelling mistakes". For example, it's really unlikely that someone will misspell "The Stranded Model" for "The standard model"...

I agree with everything Headbomb et al said. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 16:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The ""Stranded Model"" page was however, really due to a spelling mistake , believe it or not . And I don't think that "Stranded Model" can be a "personal preferecence" s . Dimension10 (talk) 15:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

There are lots of editors who feel that jokes about murdering editors who comment on a talk page are in bad taste. But YMMV. As for the moves... you may have a strong case for your version, you might not. But clearly the moves have been disputed here - so now they need to be reverted until a discussion can be had and consensus can form. I do find it troubling that your first response when someone questions your moves is not "Well, I moved Standard Model because of reasons, and then moved Standard Model (mathematical formulation) because of these reasons, and this is why I think it is better that way..." and so on - Your first response was to attack Headbomb instead. You need to dial it back a bit, Dimension10. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I think nobody realised it's about Pauli Villar ghosts and critical dimensions getting rid of them ? I.e. Editing my User page = Not accepting the current state of the User page "Dimension10" = Not accepting 10 dimensions = Being plagued/Haunted by Pauli-Villar ghost statesj. You need to know a bit of string theory to understand, but it's a funny joke, and it's very uentertaining . : ) Dimension10 (talk) 01:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Can we remove move permission from someone? That would deal with the situation rather effectively. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

And I still don't see what I've done ? Dimension10 (talk) 01:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

As an aside, @Dimension10: please can you advise how/why/what re:your typing? The formatting and spacing is...bizarre, to say the least. GiantSnowman 16:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Not to me . Dimension10 (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

And I suppose vulgarities in the titles, randomly character assassinating, causing edit wars, ignoring move reasons purposely, but instead calling me a vandal, isn't personal attacks, but moving pages as to agree with other pages is?

On fixing the mess

In parallel to the above stuff, any admin that wants to clean up the mess (aka restore to the pre-move status quo) would have to

• Move Introduction to the Standard Model → Standard Model
• Move The standard model → Standard Model (mathematical formulation)

Make sure the following redirects point to Standard Model (or will, after bots deal with double redirects)

• Particle physics standard model
• Standard model (basic details)
• Standard Model of particle physics
• Standard Model of Particle Physics
• Standard model of the universe
• The Standard model
• The Standard Model
• The Standard Model of Particle Physics

Make sure the following redirects point to Standard Model (mathematical formulation) (or will, after bots deal with double redirects)

• Mathematical formulation of the Standard Model
• SU(3) × SU(2) × U(1)
• SU(3)XSU(2)XU(1)
• Standard model (details)
• Standard model (technical details)

Then delete the following redirect

• Mathematical formulation of the Standard Model)
• Standard+Model
• The Stranded Model

Then WP:PHYS can have its discussion about what titles to settle on. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, I think I got it all. Anything else I need to do? NW (Talk) 17:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

As far as i'm aware, that covers everything that needs to be done concerning article moves at this point. Things may change after the discussion at WT:PHYS, but that can be handled through the usual channels of {{move request}} and similar. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Other Articles, like the intro to m-theory, and the intro to GR, and a few other articles, have the technical pages as main, and the non-technical as the "Introduction to the ... " . Dimension10 (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

That's nice, but irrelevant. You broke a fair number of pages and redirects with your actions, which clearly did not have consensus. For such an action in the future, please attempt to gather it ahead of time. There's a reason things were as they were before your actions, and while it may not be accepted by all, there was no need to change it without discussion. And could you please indent your replies properly? NW (Talk) 02:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Please block Dimension10 (again)

The SPI has some additional examples of trolling from his old account [3]. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

If you think Dimension10 is somehow an expert, rest assured he is not. Read the conversation here and see that his understanding of math is that of someone who probably hasn't finished undergraduate college yet. (Also see [4].) Between his move mess with "mistakes" and the more obviously trolling templates he created 1 (permalink) 2, I don't see why this user—who was evading an indefinite block for vandalism and trolling while make all these new silly edits—was allowed to continue wasting productive editors' time. In his retirement message [5] Dimension10 has copied some material from the user page of User:Sławomir Biały, whom he had trolled previously; the material is certainly ironic considering who the WP:RANDY was in that case. Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Yup, that conversation was a long time ago, when I was quite new to Physics . And it wasn;t trolling' . Neither were the templates . I have not used the first template anywhere but on my own user page, and the second one is perfectly valid . Any way, I don't want to continue this discsussvion . You may block me, no problems . Dimension10 (talk) 12:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• I strongly object to you using "dead" in the retirement heading. It's misleading, and it's in very, very poor taste. Also, you are very clearly not retired anyway. I'm supporting a block, as trolling is evident. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, changed it to "Bye.". I don't know what you mean by I;m not' dead . I clearly a,m . As I said, I have no issues if I'm blocked . Dimension10 (talk) 14:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• And now it says "Killed by admins"... why has this user not been blocked for trolling, and continuing the disruption of their previous indefinitely-blocked account? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• It can be seen as a smart tactical move. Most of our admin corps are - rightfully so - sensitive about the potential blowback from sanctioning an editor because they criticize admins in general (as opposed to personal attacks on a specific admin), so perhaps D10 thinks that "Killed by admins" provides some amount of protection from being blocked for their behavior? Or perhaps they're just blowing off steam. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

This is plain speciulation, and is wrong . I ' m not trying to "not get blocked" . Dimension10 (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC) ~

• I suppose one can be so clueless, both in terms of content and social interactions, that his behavior is in good faith but indistinguishable from trolling. Sill, a WP:CIR block would be justified in that case. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• What content? Dimension10 (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC) """"""

In addition to what the SPI archive page says and his incredible drama of storming away from WP with his "I've been killed by admins blah blah", his overall contributions seem to show a pushing bias for string theory (which he doesn't seem to understand very well himself), against other theories such as against LQG and CDT, as well as his rather dismissive and offensive subpage on crackpottery. (Crackpot theories or not, that subpage of his is still rather rude against living or dead persons). Despite all the talk about about crackpottery, Dimension10 apparently uses non-standard notations/conventions/definitions, labels WP/others as "biased" [6], and anyone against his edits apparently "know nothing of physics" [7] (which again is rather false and dismissive but can be ignored). Hint, hint...

That exterior algebra thing is old, when I was very new to physics, as I've said before . It's meaningless tp bring that up . And yes, I am dismissive of LQG/CDT,/etc., but I have good reasons to do so . Dimension10 (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Originally I thought a block on Dimension10 would actually be a bit too harsh, but considering his contributions with a stuck-up attitude, a block seems justified. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 08:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I have tagged his "nonsense" essay for CSD as a WP:BLP attack page. He makes derogatory statements like "<name removed> is an theoretical crackpot and adventure crackpot enthusiast." Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• And they're also dumping their comments right in the middle of other user's comments. Not good. I ask again: why haven't they been blocked yet? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

In the middle of which comment? Could you please point otoo it? I'd have no problem fixing it . Dimension10 (talk) 11:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• You've done it several times... otherwise I would've sorted it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Indef block for WP:CIR and/or trolling. Since this thread has started, what has Dimension10 done? Let's see:

1. Regularly edits with formatting that makes no sense (just see any contribution). This has been pointed out repeatedly to the editor, who seems not to see the problem).
2. Makes a ridiculous claim that his template that contains "If you edit it, the user will immediately die, and their ghost will appear in your house and kill you." is some type of physics joke as his basis to argue for a "strong keep" !vote to stop the template from being deleted.
3. Creates at attack page in his user space that has to be deleted.
4. Continues to push his view that Wikipedia is not technical enough by adding that view to Wikipedia-space pages: [8].
5. Makes strange edits to important essays: [9]
6. Makes null-edits with inappropriate edit summaries: [10]
7. Tries to unilaterally change a Wikipedia policy to an essay: [11]
8. Repeatedly creats null-edits or one-minute self-reverts on articles and Wikipedia space: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]
9. Makes these types of ridiculous templates: [19]
10. And to top it all off... Makes not one single useful contribution anywhere on Wikipedia during this entire time.

So can we wrap this up, please? Singularity42 (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Preempting discussion of Jesus

Futuretrillionaire keeps trying to archive an ongoing discussion on the Talk page of Jesus that has barely even begun. He's doing this without any communication, so I'm not sure what to say to him or how to respond. It seems extremely antagonistic. Strangesad (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

He's now done this three times, which seems like edit-warring. Strangesad (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Archiving the thread and referring you to the FAQ was an appropriate response to the revival of a dead-horse discussion. Perhaps you should try taking this up at Futuretrillionaire's talk page before asking for admin intervention? - Cal Engime (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I left a message at his Talk page. Interesting you don't think he should be leaving messages at my Talk page. He is the one undoing other editors' efforts. I was not the only one commenting in the thread before the conversation was stomped. Regardless of all that, even if the content of the article is a matter of consensus, no rule justifies blocking discussion of the consensus. Strangesad (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that. Also, removing a large slice of cited content (at 16:57) before starting the discussion (at 17:00) was somewhat provocative. Let's keep calm and discuss the issue on the talk page. --Stfg (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussing the issue on the Talk page is what I was trying to do. Strangesad (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

And then there was this. --Stfg (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

@Stfg: What did it say? I'm just curious. That edit has now been deleted.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Nothing to see there. Strangesad was making the "Actually, I think Dawkins has said Jesus existed..." edit that's now at the end of the collapsed section, but while making that edit, he inadvertently reinserted some disruptive text that had previously been posted by an unrelated vandal (the IPs in the edit history), so his edit had to be technically hidden together with those of the vandal. The legitimate part of his edit was later restored. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

@FutureTrillionaire: Like Fut.Perf. said. I'll just add that it wasn't directed at you (or any editor) personally. --Stfg (talk) 22:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

So, is there any guidance from admins on hiding discussions on Talk? The only presented argument is that the version being questioned is the consensus version. You are not entitled to stifle questioning of the consensus version of the article. By implication, these editors are proclaiming a right to invalidate any future discussion of these issues on the grounds that it is "in the FAQ" and WP:STICK. The civilized approach to such a thing is to ignore the discussion if you don't like it, not try to shut it down for everyone else wanting to pursue it. Strangesad (talk) 03:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Closing that was a kind gesture considering your argument about Michael Grant (author) was beginning to get into BLP policy for recently dead. Please be more careful espousing your opinion of real people as that could be seen as disruptive in itself.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 04:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I said Grant was an expert on Roman coins. Strangesad (talk) 05:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

There is something very odd about the comments being made here. Here is the BLP policy on the recently dead that Mark cites above: "The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death - six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime." Grant died 9 years ago, and the policy says "two years at the outside." The policy refers to "suicide or a particularly gruesome crime." Grant died at the age of 90, although I don't know how. The policy talks about "particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead, and I said his expertise was as a numismatist and not in the general history of the period. That is exactly what the Wikipedia article about him says: "some academics balked at his attempt to condense a survey of Roman literature into 300 pages, and felt (in the words of one reviewer) that “even the most learned and gifted of historians should observe a speed-limit".

So, what we have are utterly contrived suggestions of BLP-violations, and a lot of insistence that a certain discussion--in which several editors participated--should not be allowed to be seen on a Talk page. I am restoring the discussion, so that those who want to participate can, while those who don't still don't have to. That is how academic freedom works. Strangesad (talk) 05:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

"Academic freedom" is not how Wikipedia works. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

That page is about legal rights, which isn't what I was talking about. I was talking about what it takes to build a healthy intellectual community. Is that how Wikipedia works? Strangesad (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

My point was that it seems this editor is bent of bashing legitimate historians because they are dead. Fine, then we can now begin bashing all those dead religious figures used as references here as well. Light your torches and pick up your pitch forks folks, there are reputations to destroy! --Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 08:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The entirety of what I said is: "The citation says stuff like Micahale Grant is a classicist, without mentioning that his specialty was Roman coins". Exactly how is that bashing?

Can I restore the discussion? The objections here are contrived. I'm puzzled by the lack of guidance. It appears I'm not going to "win" an edit war, but the implication is that only consensus views are allowed to be discussed in Talk, and that's not the intent of the consensus process. Strangesad (talk) 14:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The present wording of the article is firmly supporting by WP:RELIABLE sources from a variety of points of view. Do you know of better sources that say this is not the consensus of scholars? If not, then sorry, a vital article is not going to be edited to appease a WP:FRINGE view. - Cal Engime (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

This thread is not about what the article should say. It is about whether a discussion of what the article should say is allowed on its Talk page. (It is also ridiculous to refer to views held by Harvard professors and Nobel prizewinners as "fringe.") Strangesad (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you'll have to explain what discussion there is to be had. You deleted important, well-sourced information based on your own interpretation of the words "virtually all" and "scholars of antiquity" (that phrase doesn't include Michael Martin). In your own words, "This has been discussed at great length", and "It always ends with the minority skeptics being chased off". Explain why another discussion will not just take up space. - Cal Engime (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The way to do that is start a discussion on the Talk page, which is what I did. Nobody has to start a discussion about whether it is permissible to start a discussion, and the idea that ANI would be the place for such discussions of discussions is absurd. Strangesad (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC) Strangesad (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Latest update. After censoring my attempt to talk in Talk, Futuretrillionaire is now reverting my article edits with the comment "discuss first." [20]. Pretty funny. This is fairly typical of my experience of few months ago editing a different Jesus article. It is how a group of dedicated editors maintains "consensus" on these articles. Gaijin has also continued the tradition of blocking skeptical discussion on the Talk page by closing discussions that are active. Strangesad (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The edits I reverted were of a different issue, so it's appropriate to discuss. In those edits, at least you're focusing on the arguments.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, I didn't realize this issue was also discussed before. Still, the reverts were justified because they were POV-pushing for a fringe viewpoint.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You have provided ZERO sources that contradict the sources we already have included which comply with WP:RS/AC. Rehashing the same arguments that have been discussed ad nauseam are disruptive. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You are confusing issues. The edits FutureT reverted were non-controverisal, and the majority (re argument from silence) based on sources already in the article (which the article currently misrepresents). As for the "virtually all" disagreement, the problem isn't that sources contradict the article, it's that the stated sources are inadequate to support the article. If this has been debated thoroughly, you should know the stated problem.

Trying to bring objectivity to an article on Jesus via the "consensus" process is a waste of time. The community is unable to handle such cases according to its principles. As was said a few months ago, when I last visited this subject: Atheists don't win popularity contests. Strangesad (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

"Jesus probably existed.” – Richard Dawkins (atheist), The God Delusion, p.122 --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

"If Jesus lived today, he would be an atheist." - Richard Dawkins. You're distorting the sources. Strangesad (talk) 18:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins is not a reliable source on the subject of ancient history. His opinion is irrelevant. Besides, a historical Jesus who "would have been an atheist" is still a historical Jesus. - Cal Engime (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Exactly.

Then stop citing him as a skeptic who believes Jesus existed. Also, many people identify the historical Jesus as somebody who definitely would not be an atheist today. What Dawkins means by the historical Jesus and what Richard A. Burridge means are different. This is the exact topic I tried to discuss on the Jesus Talk page--where it belongs--and which was closed/hidden/archived in-progress. Why are we having it now on ANI, instead of where it originally began and still belongs? Strangesad (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Uh. No, you are. The topic at hand is the historical existence or not of Jesus. His divinity is an entirely separate matter. On a related, but also separate issue is how much of what is written about him is historical vs apocryphal, and there there is much wider debate (which we already discuss in the article). But you are attempting to use arguments from those like Dawkins, who admit he existed, as an argument that he did not exist at all. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

FutureTrillionaire's Behavior on Jesus

• FT's last reverts of my edits are BLP-violations and misrepresent sources.

• The article says Robert Price is "an atheist who denies Jesus' existence". When I looked at the source, I found this statement by Robert Price (who is a living person): "...I was for half a dozen years pastor of a Baptist church and am now a happy Episcopalian. I rejoice to take the Eucharist every week and to sing the great hymns of faith.". I changed the article to reflect what Robert Price says about himself.
• FT reverted with this unhelpful comment: "Wrong. A Christian atheist is still an atheist)" [21]
• I restored the article to BLP compliance, with additional informarmation in the comment.
• FT reverted the edit again, and added a source which says nothing about Robert Price's religious belief.[22]

• As described above, FT has aggressively tried to close/hide an in-progress discussion of the article.

• He has made comments relevant to Jesus here, yet tries to keep it off the article Talk page there. Several others have begun discussing the topic here, showing the topic still has life in it. The discussion belongs on the Talk page.
• Despite his squashing of my attempts to discuss, he has never left a message for me on any Talk page, nor did he respond to the message I left on his Talk page.

• The article contains sources regarding something known as the "argument from silence" (drawing conclusions based on an absence of evidence). I added quotes from the sources (I didn't originate the use of these sources). I tweaked the text to make it clear that the sources are not rejecting the argument from silence--the article misleadingly implies otherwise. [23]

• FT reverted again. Again, no explanation on any Talk page.

• The article gives the background of a source as "secular agnostic." Aside from the redundancy, another relevant part of the source's background is that it is evangelical and his early degrees are from a Bible college and a theological institute. So I added that to the background info. FT immediately reverted that too.[24]

He has reverted virtually every edit I've made to the article and tried to censor discussions of some of the edits in Talk, all without participating in discussion. I believe this pattern meets the definition of "ownership". Strangesad (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, all of your changes got reverted, because they are strongly against consensus that you have been pointed to repeatedly. You have introduced no sources that contradict the consensus. Your characterization of FT is grossly misleading, and you should look out for falling WP:BOOMERANGs Gaijin42 (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe that User:Strangesad is actually giving a good description of their own tendentious, POV editing. Strangesad thinks that just about every authority quoted in the article on the question of the existence of Jesus is biased or unqualified to discuss it - Bart Ehrman went to Bible college! [25] - Richard Burridge is a member of the Church of England General Synod! [26] - Robert van Voorst is a pastor! [27] Michael Grant wrote "popular books" and only knew about Roman coins! [28] Strangesad is causing serious disruption to both the main article on Jesus and the talk page and I ask that some sort of warning or sanction be issued.Smeat75 (talk) 20:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

If it is relevant that Ehrman is agnostic, it is relevant that his training and background are not. Still waiting for an explanation of "Christian atheist." Strangesad (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

{od} Three of my edits pronounced "disruptive" have now been reinserted or accommodated, and are now part of the consensus. Strangesad (talk) 03:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Request swift admin intervention to prevent further disruption to the Jesus article by User Strangesad

Strangesad's disruptive editing to the Jesus article continues and is escalating. Strangesad today removed a couple of sources from the article on spurious grounds [29] [30] and continues, against clear consensus on the article talk page, to alter the second paragraph of the lead, which has been arrived at through innumerable discussions over years and is a paraphrase of a cited quote from New Testament authority Bart Ehrman [31]. Strangesad says the cited source is no good because it comes from a "popular book" [32]. Strangesad has been disrupting this important article for days now and I request admin action to prevent further such activity. Smeat75 (talk) 13:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I concur. His eariler disruption is minor compared to the blanket removal of citations without discussion. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I removed two citations, and explained it in the commentary. We are completely distorting what the sources say. Just as we did in calling Robert Price an atheist. I've made the edit once. Strangesad (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Gee, can you get the facts right? I added to the use of the "popular book." I don't think you even read my edit. Strangesad (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I read it and speaking of not reading things, anyone who attempts to edit the second paragraph of the lead will see this notice, which you have either not read or simply ignore -

"-- The paragraph below was created by consensus after considerable discussion by a variety of editors. Out of courtesy for this process, please discuss any proposed changes on the talk page before editing it.

READ THIS FIRST. The following references are WP:RS sources which are used per WP:RS/AC guideline. The issue has been discussed on the talk page at length See the "talk page FAQ" about it—it may answer your question.

The main source says "scholars of antiquity", other sources say "scholars", "biblical scholars and classical historians" and "historians".

Sources do not say "X scholars" or "Christian scholars", so do not modify it as such for that will make it deviate from what the sources state.

The source says "virtually all", so do NOT change it to "most", "several", "many", etc."

Smeat75 (talk) 15:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

In his first edit in this latest controversy, he removed the entire second paragraph, apparently rejecting the edit notice.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Something needs to be done about this. Strangesad's edits are undoubtedly disruptive.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

What the main source says is that there a "bona fide" scholars who question the existence of historical Jesus. Thus, I added to what the main source says. This discussion belongs in article Talk, where it would be now if FT hadn't tried to suppress it. Strangesad (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• I've issued Strangesad a warning about this disruption. Further edit warring will be met with a block. Enough is enough. --Laser brain (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

There has been no edit warring, your warning is one-sided, and my edit now appears to have been accepted (for the time being, at least). Please retract your gratuitous display of power. Strangesad (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

No, that one edit was not one of the series of controversial edits you made earlier.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes it was. It was one of five edits I made. All reverted by Smeat with the single comment "(reverting to version prior to Strangesad's latest disruptive changes) ".[33] Still waiting to hear how removing misrepresentation of a source is disruptive. Strangesad (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Although I don't think Strangesad's edits were (originally) made in bad faith, they have now risen to the level of disruption. I hope Strangesad heeds the warning given. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

By the way, there was an attempt to get Strangesad indef blocked back in April: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive247#Proposing indef block for Strangesad.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

In other news, and without making any accusations against specific editors, I find it highly coincidental, that two content disputes broke out at the same time about this tpoic, on two different articles, with no overlap of editors. It makes my WP:SPIdy sense tingle. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Paul_Barlow_at_Christ_myth_theory Gaijin42 (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Topic ban Strangesad from all articles related to religion This has been going on for far too long already. Many of us spent much of the spring involved in endless discussions about the behavior of Strangesad and her pal Humanpublic. Humanpublic was later banned for sockpuppetry. Strangesad actively encouraged Humanpublic to use socks. Strangesad also used highly abusive language directed at lots of other users. A long discussion about Strangesad saw about half of us supporting an indef ban. The closing admin understood that view, but opted for not banning "yet". Now we find ourselves back at ANI for I don't know which time concerning Strangesad and religion. Enough is enough.Jeppiz (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

*Support topic ban - Strangesad started this latest controversy by deleting an entire paragraph of important information. The paragraph was constructed with consensus and had an edit notice clearly explaining that any changes to the paragraph must be discussed first. Strangesad is clearly asking for trouble.By the way, is Strangesad a woman? I want to get my pronouns correct. --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Um, no. This "controversy" was started when you tried to collapse and archive an ongoing discussion. I made the edit you mention once, and attempted to discuss it on Talk. That's not disruptive, it is what you're supposed to do. (And, yes, I am more of woman than you could ever hope to be (or get).) Strangesad (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Gee, Strangesad, I haven't seen your name in a while. I thought (mistakenly) that you'd gone away. It doesn't appear that your edits or your approach to dealing with other editors has improved any.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Long time, no see. At the moment, the edit that is being called "disruptive" is one that I made twice and has now become part of the consensus. My approach to dealing with editors is according to policy, namely, based on discussion. You will notice that I've spent 10x the effort at giving my reasoning in Talk that FT has, and made no edit more than twice. The problem, which the community refuses to problem-solve, is that normal assumptions and polices don't work for articles like Jesus (or anything highly ideological with a clear cultural majority, e.g. Palestine, etc.). It's very easy for the majority on a ideological subject to drum up a witch-hunt. The question is not when will I change: I have done everything according to policy. Step thru all my edits to this article in the last few days: nothing close to anything that would be considered disruptive on 99% of our articles. Yet, an admin gave me a warning for an edit that nobody objected to. And, there's a topic-ban being proposed (and winning, no less). The question is when will wikipedia change. Strangesad (talk) 23:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

If you want to wax philosophical, I don't think Wikipedia will change any more than you will.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban per Jeppiz and FutureTrillionaire. I feel Strangesad is not acting in a neutral and productive manner and is overtly trying to push a certain fringe viewpoint (in a distinctly discourteous manner, I might add). —Cliftonian (talk) 22:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Topic Ban Consensus can change. If there is a FAQ, that does not mean that the FAQ is set in stone and that it cannot change. If someone wishes to challenge the previous consensus, they should be allowed to do so. All topic bans are good for are getting rid of opposing viewpoints.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment JOJ, could we please not go down that road of trying to say that this is a content dispute? Yes, consensus can change and nobody should ever be blocked for challenging a previous consensus. That is not the issue here. The issue is that Strangesad is obsessed with this topic, has engaged in strong personal attacks directed at users who disagree and, most seriously, has actively encouraged sockpuppetry to get her opinion into the article. It's not Strangesad's opinion that is the problem, it is Strangesad's disruptive behavior.Jeppiz (talk) 12:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban of Strangesad from all articles related to religion per FutureTrillionaire and Jeppiz. Enough is enough.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 22:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Enough is enough of what? You do realize that Stranesad has only participated in two threads at Talk:Jesus and made 15 edits on Jesus and only one thread at Talk:Christ myth theory and no edits to the main page. How is that enough is enough? How is that worthy of a topic ban? Good Grief, a topic ban discussion of 15 total edits and three total talk discussions. Really?--JOJ ^Hutton 23:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit count. It only shows the amount of disruption caused by such few edits has been overwhelming in itself. You may continue to comment but my !vote stands.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 23:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

No. It shows how quickly people want to start trying to get anyone who opposes them banned from a discussion. This fad of quick topic bans should be stopped. Topic bans should be the last resort. Not the first one. JOJ ^Hutton 00:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, JOJ, you're either intentionally dishonest (and assuming good faith, I guess that you're not) or you don't bother to check. Looking at Strangesad's edit history, there hundreds of comments and edits related to Jesus, to going after users who disagree with Strangesad's views about Jonas, and to endless ANI-discussions. You're perfectly free to oppose the topic ban, but both your comment above when you try to paint this as a content dispute and this comment about only a few edits are quite simply misleading.Jeppiz (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I only was referring to the recent ones, but I counted and there were about 100 edits Talk page/Main page on the subject. Most of the edits were on the talk pages. Just over 100 edits on the subject in about 6 months. Thats not a lot of edits to want to get a topic ban. And thats not the hundreds that you are alleging. And no I AM NOT BEING DELIBERATELY DISHONEST. So you can halt that line of thinking right now!!!--JOJ ^Hutton 13:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Just say no to canvassing for bans [34]. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. He also canvassed Jeppiz [35] and Sergecross73 [36]. Exactly what is meant by "drumming up a witch-hunt." Strangesad (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

You better be able to demonstrate that these editors are biased and that the attempt was to find editors who are on the side of the 'canvassing editor" otherwise you are just complaining about things you wish to raise to a level to defend yourself. Please show how this was canvassing or seriously, don't make the accusation because if they were not aware of the guideline we have to assume the didn't have a clue.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 23:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The canvassing is blatant. I've warned FT.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

How odd, I just got the exact same wording from an editor for another discussion canvassing only those with past problems with User:Sitush but that was not considered canvassing, nor when another editor canvassed editors to change their vote at an RFA. I will take you word for it Bbb23 as I would assume it to be but odd that thee seems to be no consistency in application of such warnings.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 03:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I deeply apologize. I shall notify all who have opposed the previous ban proposal (and only those) immediately.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. I was not canvassed. – Quadell ^(talk) 23:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Again, I sincerely apologize. I don't know what I was thinking. I have now notified 9 individuals who opposed the previous ban proposal (I think that's all of them?), compared with the two three users I canvassed. I've also crossed out my own vote and will not participate further in this discussion. I will also not revert any more of Strangesad's edits.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know that any other editor has ever taken one of my warnings so much to heart. My compliments for trying to fix things.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban. I'm honesty not seeing excellent behavior on either side of this mess of disputes, and I don't see a compelling reason to ban just the one editor. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per Jeppiz. This editor has been arguing for giving undue weight to a fringe view. I think the drain on everyone's time and attention outweighs any contribution she might make. - Cal Engime (talk) 03:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban Wikipedia is not the place to rub religious noses in TRUTH. diff Johnuniq (talk) 07:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

That diff shows an edit I made once, with the text I added supported by a source already used in the article. Strangesad (talk) 13:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

No, the diff user:Johnuniq presented is a clear example of an improper edit by you that places the "WP:Fringe view ahead of the mainstream view". And what is worse, you are fully aware of what the mainstream view is, and know full well that the item you added upfront is a fringe view, by virtue of the very quote from the source you refer to. That is a clear case of intentional WP:Disruptive editing on your part, which can not be excused based on the ignorance of the source on your part. The edit and your explanation make it clear that you knew you were trumping the mainstream view with the fringe view in that edit. There is no disputing that. Not here anymore (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• I was notified of this discussion by FutureTrillionaire. In the previous discussion, I opposed a indef ban for StrangeSad, on the grounds that s/he has demonstrated an ability to make useful contributions to the wiki. However, it appears that StrangeSad has continued to show the same inability to work with others or to understand the concept of consensus versus Truth. This continuing pattern of bad behavior has caused StrangeSad to be a drain on wikipedian-hours that far outweighs his/her useful contributions. I thus continue to suggest as I suggested before that some sort of sanction be put in place to stop this fights from occurring, not because StrangeSad is necessarily wrong, but because s/he appears to be incapable of presenting his/her views in an appropriate way. -- LWG ^talk 07:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

"Appears"? Do you know? Please list the edits I've made more than once against consensus. I'm pretty sure the list is empty, although I could be forgetting one. Strangesad (talk) 13:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Restored support for topic ban I was not canvassed, but have been watching the article talk page and its current FAC. Strangesad has been aggressively pushing a FRINGE view in a disruptive manner. This was continued in this edit to the Jesus FAC, in which Strangesad duplicated all previous discussion before adding her own comments. I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt to her explanation immediately below, but in the light of her unwillingness to entertain a good-faith explanation of FT's actions, even in the light of his two apologies, I am no longer prepared to do so, especially as she followed up the offending edit with four tweaks in a space of 25 minutes without noticing the error. The whole thing blew up because Strangesad edited against a consensus she know about before discussing it on the talk page. Consensus can change, but that's the wrong order. Original comment by Stfg (talk) 09:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC), heavily redacted by Stfg (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

You do it by 1) Choosing "Preview Edit", 2) Seeing multiple errors, 3) Choosing "Copy All" forgetting that the entire article is in the edit field, 3) Making the changes in a word processor without noticing the extra text on top, 4) Choosing "Copy All" again and pasting back into the Wikipedia editor. The idea that I spent over an hour working on my comment for the FAC, and then tried to undermine the FAC is....what I've come to expect here. Strangesad (talk) 13:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Thank you for the explanation. To give you the benefit of the doubt, since your editing future is on the line here, I have deleted that part and revised my comment to neutral with an alternative suggestion. I hope you will make considerate use of any slack you may be given. --Stfg (talk) 14:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Benefit of doubt withdrawn in light of failure to AGF. --Stfg (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Holy sheitza. FT has now canvassed an additional six editors whose sole prior interaction with me was a ban discussion several months ago. He hasn't canvassed anyone outside of that one ban discussion..... Strangesad (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

That is explained by this edit, which has received approval. --Stfg (talk) 14:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

That is still canvassing people exclusively on the basis of a discussion to ban. It's a distorted lens. The damage was done when he canvassed Jeppiz, who had already tried to get me banned repeatedly, but hasn't edited with me in 4 months. Strangesad (talk) 16:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I have the article Jesus on my watchlist since at least two years and would have seen Strangesad being back to form regardless of any "canvassin". I find it rather revealing that Strangesad opts for the defence that the "wrong" people are commenting, while ignoring the actual topic. As I said below, there have been few users who have encouraged so many violations of rules and few users who have taken up so much of the community's time with so little to show for it. In short, few users have done so much damage to Wikipedia during 2013 as Strangesad.Jeppiz (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

@Strangesad: a pity you couldn't AGF as I AGF'ed for you. My support for a topic ban has been restored. --Stfg (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Totally Support topic ban: I quit Wikipedia sometime ago because of this type of illogical and contentious situation, as I had explained here. I happened to look on the Jesus page again today and guess w2hat I saw: utter chaos caused by Strangesad - and its discussion here. As Raul correctly stated here, users like Strangesad are clearly in the "liability column" of this web site. Strangesad should be certainly banned for the clear disruption of sources, and logic. Frankly, frankly, did Strangesad expect this edit to survive beyond 10 minutes? In my view the edit that started this chaos was a clear case of WP:POINT and this discussion is a clear illustration of the need to ban disruptive users such as Strangesad. This user has previously encouraged sockpupetting (as shown on their talk page) and has shown little respect for policy all the way. Personally, I think of user:Newyorkbrad as one of the very best and judicious editors on Wikipedia. Alas NY Brad certainly failed when he opposed a topic ban on Strangesad last time around. The reason for the chaos here is that the ban and the warning issued last time were too soft. This user is a liability for Wikipedia, not an asset. This user needs to be banned without further fanfare. I m so glad I quit this web site. There is nothing but contention here. Not here anymore (talk) 14:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

It is a sad thing, to me, that editors are being driven away by the sort of thing you describe. In the topic area we are discussing here, two of the most valuable editors who had expertise in the subject and could edit from a NPOV no matter what their personal beliefs may have been, have recently gone - User History 2007 vanished and User PiCo announced today he had made his last post. Neither of them gave reasons for their departure, and I hope they will come back as in this topic area at any rate we need help to maintain objective balanced articles from being disrupted by highly motivated cranks, POV pushers and fringe theorists who often have minimal knowledge of the subject.Smeat75 (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

That account was created 3 weeks ago. Strangesad (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Background As some users seem to think that the issue is only the latest round of edits Strangesad had made, I thought it may be relevant to give a short background of the problem we've had with Strangesad.
  

- Strangesad repeatedly reverted others at AN [37], [38] despite being warned about it [39]. Ignoring the warning, Strangesad continued edit warring and reported the other for edit warring instead[40].
- Strangesad explicitly encouraged "allies" to create a sock to avoid their topic ban. [41].
- Despite several admins pointing this out [42], [43], Strangesad refused to withdraw the call to creat socks. [44]
- Strangesad argues in favor of violating Wikipedia policies [45].
- Strangesad often goes after people who displease here. [46], [47], [48], [49].
- Shorter blocks has no effect as Strangesad declares they won't change her style. [50].
The time we've all spent on Strangesad is mindblowing, and several good users have left Wikipedia because of her and her relentless fringe pushing. Few users have ever done so much harm and so little good to Wikipedia as Strangesad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeppiz (talk • contribs) 15:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

FT really scored canvassing you (Jeppiz). Those links are from the ban proposal you made 4 months ago, which followed a ban proposal you made weeks before that, which followed yet another ban proposal you made before that. Has anybody but you made one of these proposals? Why don't you provide links to, oh say, the article I created? Or the numerous non-disputed edits I've made? Meanwhile, still no diffs from the last 3 months showing any pattern of policy violations, unless challenging Christianity is a policy violation. Strangesad (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

unless challenging Christianity is a policy violation - I think it is. This is not a place to right great wrongs, battle for the truth or challenge any religion, but neutrally to present verifiable information based on reliable sources, please see WP:5 and WP:SOAP. Smeat75 (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Neutrally presenting verifiable information based on reliable sources challenges Christianity. [51] Strangesad (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The comments by Strangesad indicate a continued lack of logic. Strangesad is not just opposing Christianity, but all the respected Jewish scholars from Amy-Jill Levine to Louis Feldman who support the historicity of Jesus. Strangesad's position is pure WP:Fringe as multiple sources indicate. Strangesad does not have "a single professor of history" in a major university (not one professor of history) who supports the fringe view, and has never produced a source as such. As for the "article Strangesad created" it is just one page, nothing breathtaking by any measure - but it would not be an excuse for disruption even if it had been a major item. In any case, a quick review shows that the majority of Strangesad's time has been on WP:ANI fighting based on illogical assertions and with no sources to support that position. And the community has shown a "mind blowing tolerance" for these disruptions. It is time for that to change. Not here anymore (talk) 16:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm only challenging Christianity in the minds of certain Christians. The real point is that our sourcing is dubious, and selected to promote one view over another. Improve the sourcing and balance, and the objections go away. Who are you? Your account is less than a month old, yet you claim to be "Retired", yet you are obviously not retired (or a newbie editor). What's your previous account? Strangesad (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

No, you are also challenging all Jewish scholars cited in the article. And again, you have not provided "one single professor of history" that supports your position. I was/am retired and will be again once this illogic is over. But please do not divert, and address the issues about your own disruption. Not here anymore (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I hereby authorize a Checkuser to verify that I am not a sockpuppet for any of the user who have commented on this page. Not here anymore (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

unless challenging Christianity is a policy violation - that comment is the clearest possible indication that Strangesad is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia but to treat editing as a battleground - "Excessive soapboxing, importing or exporting of disputes, repeated hostile aggressiveness, and the like, may suggest a user is here to fight rather than here to build an encyclopedia" and fight for the WP:TRUTH. Smeat75 (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

In my book this talk page comment was a clear WP:NOTHERE marker (in line with WP:GREATWRONGS), and all indications here are that the trend has continued. And having looked at the diff presented by another user above, it is clear that Strangesad "knows" what the mainstream view is, yet specifically edits the article to trump the mainstream view by placing the WP:FRINGE view ahead of it, and claims that it is supported by the source. This train of disruptive edits that ignore and defy policy needs to come to an end here. Not here anymore (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Topic Ban Hang on here... I don't see a topic ban offense. Edgy, bold, even a bit reckless? Yes indeed. But I do not think after reading most of this long thread that we have a serious disruption here, as I understand the term to mean. Challenges to orthodox thinking are refreshing, as long as they don't become a chronic condition. The Jesus article is one of the highest profile ones on the 'pedia, but someone who doesn't automatically think with the majority should not just be given a "fringe" label and tossed out. This is someone using the Talk page and working within the established system here. I see a lot of outrage and puffed up chests, but I think we as a group are better than this. Jusdafax 21:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

That is a good and valid argument, and I fully agree with the principles you state. The problem as I see it is that with Strangesad, it is the chronic condition you describe. This started in December, spearheaded by Strangesad's pal Humanpublic/Minorview with the support of Strangesad. Humanpublic/Minorview was sinced banned for sockpuppetry, a sockpuppetry Strangesad encouraged as she thinks violating the rules are ok to achieve the "greater truth". We should never ever ban someone for the opinion, but when we've been going through the same arguments over and over and over and over again, it becomes tedious. Once again, we've been at this same argument since December. Since December, Strangesad and Humanpublic/Minorview have been encouraged to present WP:RS in support of their views. It's been eight months, and the discussion has never advanced from there. If that's not a "chronic condition", I don't know what is.Jeppiz (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, user:Jusdafax you just verified the comment I made weeks ago about the undue tolerance for disruption. So thank you for supporting my decision to quit. But did you say "a bit reckless?" This user knowingly breaches WP:FRINGE in the diff shown just above and you have fear of attrition? And you call it "someone who doesn't automatically think with the majority"? If I go off and edit the page on Earth to say that it is triangular am I just "not thinking with the majority?". Note that I made my comment about the problem with this website being the sudden defense of disruptive editors in these types of discussions weeks ago. It was not invented for you. And note that this user had been warned before and had been told that they precariously close to the indef block then. Not here anymore (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• First off, I detect symptoms of a WP:DIVA here, and citing the notoriously grumpy BWilkins (who actually finally banned Off2RioRob/YouReallyCan and is now just getting outta Arbcom, if unanimously) is counterproductive. Jeppiz, let's give this unbeliever a final warning and if you're still outraged if there's a next time, write up an Rfc that will probably get enough momentum to knock her outta here. Strangesad... time to chill. Take it from someone who doesn't know you but has a feeling he knows your POV a bit. Tread lightly when it comes to Christians on Wikipedia henceforth. Announce your proposals first, don't just hack away at stable versions. Think smart, edit cool. That way you'll still be around in a year. Otherwise you'll be on the ban list. And cool that sock talk too. OK? Now let's party, it's the weekend. Jusdafax 22:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect Jusdafax, have you looked into this situation at all? I've lost count of the times people have said "Yes, Strangesad is behaving badly but let's give her one more chance". I am not saying we should topic ban for that reason, but I am saying that it is not a valid argument. When someone has had umpteen "one last" chances, then the argument is not credible.

Second, I find it quite offensive that you claim that only Christians can care about sources and neutral editing. I am not a Christian user and most of my edits concerning religion go against Christian views. The question of whether a person called Jesus existed is not a religious question, and trying to make it sound as if the problem here is some "Christians versus non-Christians" is very far off. Surely you can concede that there is nothing inherently Christian in putting sourced scholarship above blind belief. As a non-believer, I would even say it is often the opposite.Jeppiz (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry Jusdafax, but I could not agree with your trivialization of disruption, and the invitation to party. And the diva comment was totally uncalled for - this type of undue tolerance of "continued disruption" was a serious factor in my decision to quit, and I am glad I did. As for user:BWilkins and whatever the arbcom story may be (I am blissfully unaware if it) it is really beside the point here, for as an admin he closed the previous thread and issued a warning. And no one objected or the warning. This user has been close to an indef block before, and now is close to a well deserved topic ban. And note that hardly any of these user's edits to the topic persist beyond a day - and just cause disruption. So I do beg your pardon, but your invitation to party can not be accepted. Not here anymore (talk) 22:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban of Strangesad, at least from the historicity of Jesus sub-topic. The latest incident [52] wasn't that egregious, but he has a documented history of disruption [53]. This was the straw that broke the camel's back as the saying goes. (And I'm no fan of BWilkins if you really want to know that angle.) Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
• I do not support a long-term or permanent ban of Strangesad from editing religion-related articles. However, I do believe that a cool-down period is in order. As such, I suggest banning the user from the article Jesus for 1-2 weeks, and directing her to the appropriate talk page where she indeed has something to contribute. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• This is probably not just user:Strangesad: Looking at the edit history, edit style, points made, the level of contention in the arguments, length of comments, etc. I do not think these last edits are just by user:Strangesad, who is usually short on time and does not make these types of arguments, although the use of the word "absurd" was likely her at the start of the discussions. I think in one of their meetups, the password was likely given to indef blocked User:Humanpublic, who is now using the account. The edit behavior is that of User:Humanpublic who was confirmed as a sockpuppet by User:DoRD sometime ago, but keeps going yet. Not here anymore (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

You'll want to add this to your arsenal. Your contribs log now shows 75% of all edits are to this thread. Strangesad (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally I'm much more comfortable proposing improvements at the FAC than the article Talk page. I can comment in peace there. And, I'm optimistic that venue can have more influence. Strangesad (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The previous WP:SPI link is implied from the User:Humanpublic talk page in any case. I do stand by my statement, and I have previously authorized a checkuser on myself to verify that I am not a sockpuppet. Would you do the same in return please? Not here anymore (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

This makes little sense. If HP is using Strangesad's account to edit here, a CU would be useless. As for a CU otherwise on Strangesad's account, it was fairly conclusively demonstrated that Strangesad's and HP's accounts were unrelated. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Minorview/Archive.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually it does make sense. When User:King of Hearts issued the initial SPI, the accounts were unrelated, but that has likely changed now, given the edit trail. The way it will show up is that part of the edits in the last 48 hours will be from the OS and browser used by Strangesad, and will then interleave with edits from a separate device used by Humanpublic. That information is visible to the CU, unless the June edit by HP has gone stale by now, but may still be fine. In any case, based on that very statement by Humanpublic that "no one has caught me yet" it will make sense to look for sleepers, etc. That statement itself merits a check. Not here anymore (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a CU, so I don't know what all is revealed when one is done. However, I do think that any interleaving should be checked during the summer while all the leaves are still intact, that despite the fact that Southern California doesn't know from deciduous.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I was/am trying not to announce all the checks that a CU performs, so potential sockpuppets do not get trained on avoiding them. So let us just say that a CU sees items that are not obvious to a general editor or a general admin. But let us put it this way: A and B know each other, and A has been indef-blocked. A SPI in the Spring determines that they are not related, prompting A to go out and get a sockpuppet that he uses on other pages. To be sure that the sock is not detected, he meets and gets the password to the account for B (who has less time and is less contentious) so he can edit the same pages he was editing/disrupting before. Then in mid-summer he starts using B's account. But a sleeper check on A and B will likely turn something up. Not here anymore (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate page moves by User:Captain Assassin!

Captain Assassin! (talk · contribs · logs) has been performing a number of page moved that I consider to be inappropriate. The latest is described here. On July 20, 2013, Tneedham1 (talk · contribs) created the article Outlander (TV series). On August 4, Captain Assassin! moved this page to Outlander (2014 TV series), then created a redirect out of it, which he pointed toward his own newly created article at the former location Outlander (TV series). The funniest part is that comparing the diffs of the 2 articles, [54] and [55], you will see that the articles are exactly the same. Captain Assassin! has just copied the work of Tneedham1 onto his newly created page. IMO, this is completely inappropriate and unfair to the other editor.

This is not the first time Captain Assassin! has moved articles so that he can create his own and get "credit" for it (and he does use the word "credit" often). Just over a week ago, he moved Hercules 3D, created by User:Mythoingramus, to Hercules 3D (film) and created a redirect so that it would point to his newly created version of Hercules 3D. There is no reason why Captain Assassin! could not add to/improve the original page.

Other recent examples:

• The Normal Heart (film) was moved to The Normal Heart (play) (then redirected to The Normal Heart} so he could recreate The Normal Heart (film)
• The Flash (film) was moved to The Flash (disambiguation) (then redirected to Flash) so he could recreate The Flash (film)
• Dead Island (film) was moved to Dead Island (video game) (then redirected to Dead Island) so he could recreate Dead Island (film)
• I could go on and on…

Looking at his talk page, there have been discussions regarding page moves like this with other editors, including a "feud" with Rusted AutoParts (talk · contribs), which includes earlier discussions here and here. See also the history of deletions (8 within 2.5 months!) on this page: Into the Woods (film)

(On a separate but related note, Captain Assassin! has been under considerable scrutiny for creating inappropriate redirects. That discussion is for another day because I don't have the time to document that here right now. I will mention that at least 7 editors have pointed out problems with this behavior to him in the last 3 months: [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63].)

Is it possible to block an editor from being able to move pages? I feel Captain Assassin!'s page moves are inappropriate and unfair to other editors. It definitely undermines the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. I do not think that he deserves this privilege. Thanks. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• NOTE: I am currently fixing the editor's copy-paste creations, so some of the links above may appear red. I will look at warning/sanctioning after that. Black Kite (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have fixed the Outlander issue by deleting the copy-paste and moving the original version back. I have history-merged the two versions of Hercules 3D together so that the original creating editor's edits are in the history. The others are not so straightforward, as the articles are either about different things or actually contain the user's own content. I'll continue to look at it. Black Kite (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

My analysis, seeing as I've been viewing his conduct since May when he swiped A Million Ways to Die in the West because he had the content, is that he wants the credit. He seemingly has no other motivation, everything is a personal attack to him. [[Into the Woods was deleted before. I recreated it, but he immediately swiped it again. Rusted AutoParts 22:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no way to prevent an editor from moving pages without blocking the editor entirely; all registered users are able to move pages once they hit the autoconfirmed threshhold. However, we could implement a pagemove ban on him; this would be something saying "You're not allowed to move pages anymore, and you'll be blocked if you do it". Nyttend (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest that probably needs to extend to creating redirects as well. Simply a glance at the user's talkpage strongly indicates someone who doesn't actually seem to grasp simple concepts, and then proceeds to completely ignore them once they've been explained to them. Black Kite (talk) 23:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I would support a page move ban, as well as the redirect creation ban mentioned by Black Tie. Captain Assassin!'s edits are extremely disruptive, and he doesn't see any problems with his actions. Occasionally he does apologize for a "mistake", then continues to make it again and again. I do not feel this issue will go away without administrative action of some kind.--Logical Fuzz (talk) 01:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

You see now, I'm not the only here. And we already discussed it, it was resolved and now he again moved it into some film project page. What now? -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )} 23:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

That's only a minor issue. What about your redirecting of the Outlander article and then recreating it yourself with the same content? That's simply disruptive. What was the thinking behind that? Black Kite (talk) 23:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not only disruptive, although that may also be block worthy, it is apparent copyright violation (and plain old deceitful), because there is not attribution to the original author under the license. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that, won't happen again. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )} 00:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

That isn't an explanation of why you did it in the first place. Why did you do it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Look, I created the redirect of Outlander, a user CSD it and got it removed on July 19. So on the next day some user created it, I was just in bad mood already so it happened that way. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )} 00:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

In an apparent effort to collect "credit" for creating articles, Captain Assassin rushes to create redirects and articles, apparently merely copying info from IMDb. Palo Alto (2013 film) was created with one (and only one) source which directly and specifically stated that the collection of stories ("Palo Alto") was expected to be made into three films, none of which are named "Palo Alto" and none of which are likely to be released in 2013. The Winter Queen (2014 film) was created as a redirect with the target only stating that filming was expected to begin in 2011 (with 2010 sources); the IMDb page likely used has now been deleted. Just Before I Go was created as a nonsensical redirect to the director. Faced with the possible deletion of the redirect, Captain created an article based on one (and only one) source that only knows of the project as "Hello I Must Be Going". In general (supporting my IMDb as the only source theory) his film articles include substantial lists of names not found in any other source (seriously: where else do you find the editor's name when the film has just started filming?). In addressing this issue, Captain says, essentially, that he plans to find sources for the information he adds after adding it. In short, it seems Captain is frequently here to collect "credit", not to build an encyclopedia. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• I've just read the editor's talk page, and I think the problem goes well beyond creating bizarre redirects and unsourced articles about possible future films. I don't think a topic ban is going to cut it here, the real problem is a total lack of competency. I would support a topic ban if that's as far as folks are willing to go, but I'm afraid the real solution is an indef block until this editor shows some sign of understanding how things work, and how he can edit productively. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow, what a good idea of indefinite block, am I doing wrong now? Redirects and unsourced problems are solved already, I'm not doing that again. Now the problem is moving articles or redirects, well you can have my word and see for the next time. There will be nothing gone of you if you'll just give me some time and see if I do it again. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )} 05:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll be very pleased if you show me to be wrong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll show you to be wrong, just give me time to show my improvements. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )} 09:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

He could probably do with tidying up his signature a bit too. 529 characters to sign and date a post (especially when the I'll show you to be wrong, just give me time to show my improvements. comment is just 69 characters long). Nick (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm certainly going to support an indef, having looked at this. Captain Assassin's behaviour is flat-out wrong, and needs to stop, permanently. Moving around articles on your whim, and copy-paste moves to try and gain credit is bang out of order, and this is not what Wikipedia is for. Add in the inappropriate new articles you've created, and we're left with an editor who is clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but is here to attention seek, by any means possible. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

How is my behavior flat-out wrong now? What am I doing now, I'm just saying that I'll show myself improved if you just give me some time and see. Is there anything wrong in saying that? -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )} 16:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Capt. Assassin - recommend you post on the Film Project talk page to get other users opinions on page moves. For example, you recently moved Belle (2013 film) to Belle (2014 film), which I believe you did in good faith. I've moved it back, per WP:FILMRELEASE (the Toronto premiere makes it a 2013 film). Please read the FILMRELEASE guide I've linked to, and if in doubt, please head to the Film Project for futher clarity. The same with the redirects too. Thanks! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you Lugnuts, I'll discuss the films related topics there next time. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )} 22:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• • No probs. Rather than all this topic ban nonsense, I purpose a simple "do not move/do not create redirects" until futher notice. Captain Assassin has done some great work expanding articles and I think this is a bit heavy-handed (I can't see a previous ANI about the same issue). For page moves, if in doubt either go to the film project or log a request at requested moves. For redirects, there's no need to create them as they would fail WP:NFF and will be speedily deleted in any case. Of course, if you are actually starting a new notable article, that is fine. Any of the people who brought this to ANI disagree? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks again Lugnuts, but look, I'll not move any redirect or film page until I noticed you but creating redirects is another problem. Because if I'm willing to create an article (as example an adaptation) later so if I have reliable sources at the target and the film is in development so I should have created the redirect, what do you think of that? Sorry if I'm wrong but I think WP:NFF is for future films articles but I'm not creating the articles until principal photography or filming begin, I'm just saying for the creation of redirects to make them article later when filming begin. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )} 15:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing in Wikipedia:Redirect which appears to justify creating a redirect for a subject that doesn't meet notability guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes and there is a thing in that to create the redirects to the sections of other articles if we need it, so I think redirects can be created if they meet notability, like I said I will only create the redirects when target articles have reliable sources and proper evidence of the redirected article and then it is a significant redirect to wait to be created into a good and expanded article later. And its just redirects man, everyone creates the redirects some have been caught ( like me :), kidding ) and others fled, it's just the matter of time. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )} 16:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Per the last comment, I would say that at minimum, any topic ban on Captain Assassin! needs to unequivocally include a complete ban on creation of any redirects. This contributor is self-evidently obsessed with 'getting in first', and such an attitude can only be to the detriment of the project. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I would agree completely with the fact that any topic ban will need to include a complete ban on creation of any redirects. Unfortunately, I cannot see Captain Assassin! being able to follow through with this. From his comments above, he clearly is not interested in agreeing to such a ban. From the conversations he has had with User:Rossami and User:SummerPhD on his talk page, he has gone back on his word to not create redirects without proper sources many times. For that reason, for his recent comments above, and his history of wanting to get "credit" for everything, I think the encyclopedia would benefit if he was permanently blocked. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the evidence doesn't look too good in CA's favour. This redirect was created in the last 24hrs (IE while this discussion was ongoing) with the edit summary "Film is not started filming or production yet so redirect to its main article". The main article states "[the film] was still in the works however likely would follow Terminator 5, which is due for release in 2015". Hardly grounds for creating a meaningful redirect of any real use. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not saying that I'm always going to create redirects, I'm just saying that I'll only create some redirects with high notability. I'm not fighting and doing anything harm to you or Wikipedia, I'm just asking for it to let me do it just a few which I will create and expand later. I'll create redirects like 50 or 100 a moment or in a month, I'll only create which have to be created (like novel and musical adaptations with production information at their targets. I'm asking it very politely, if you are thinking I'm in bad mood or I'm a angry person, well I'm not. I'm agree with you all but about redirects I'm just asking for it because everyone here in Wikipedia is allow to create them, so should I. I've learned so much in this discussion but I want to help Wikipedia. If you just think a little that a redirect will take us to the target where information of that redirected article is available with pure reliable sources and this thing is also an Admin said to me to put information about the redirected article at the target with sources then create the redirect. I'm not talking about credits here, I'm talking about rules. There are no rules to not create the redirects, if you want to ban me you should ban completely creating redirects so no one will create redirects in future. And again (specially to you Logical Fuzz), I'm not a bad guy or a rude if you are thinking of that, I'm a very politely talking and kind heart person in my real life and I'm not talking rude here too. And as above User:Lukeno94 said about my behavior, I never get angry even if someone beat me hardly so how would I behave rude or my behavior could be wrong. I'm just a animation student with full of sorrows and grieves who is looking for happiness in real life. I never hurt a person real life how can I harm or destroy encyclopedia, I don't want to. I'm nothing in here, I've made mistakes and still making perhaps, so do everyone (if not now sometimes in the past). I like very much to help encyclopedia even I tell everyone around me (my friends) to use it and help it by editing, I'm a fast learner and I don't do the thing again if someone stopped me to not to do (even in my real life) but this redirect thing is just making me crazy, you now why if you have just saw me editing or working here you all can see that I've mostly worked on stub creating, I mean I love to create stub articles, I love to start them and see others expanding them. It's not like I want credits, once I wanted it when I moved some redirects mentioned above but when I got here in this discussion I swore not to do that again. You are not thinking clearly or perhaps not understanding me clearly, don't mind I'm just saying, I think I wrote something which teased you or I don't know...which showed you or made you think that my behavior is rude but seriously I'm very polite talking. I don't know why I want to create redirects so much perhaps for stub creating as I told. You can see my whole editing history or ask Mr. User:Bgwhite or User:Mar4d, I'm really very interested in creating stubs and I had always in past. So I'm just asking/saying please don't ban it, it helps to create history in editing of that article which I think also benefits Wikipedia. Or if, if you want to ban it then I'll suggest ban it permanently in Wikipedia so no one should create them (if you think redirects are harmful to encyclopedia). And in last this blocked thing, I don't think Wikipedia wants a user blocked who is editing a lot (if not a lot then a few but it is something), so I don't want to be blocked at any price but I've told you my problems and solutions as well in this comment. I don't know what you all are thinking but I'm not being rude to anyone, once I was angry only with User:Rusted AutoParts but I forgave him after that and I apologize to him now. You all should know that I'm a Muslim and we are very good in forgiving (if not everyone, I'm), our religion wants peace and we are peaceful. Today is our Eid al-Fitr holiday celebrations, this is a great celebration day for all Muslims, I'll just say Allah bless you all with great happiness :). Please don't think I'm involving the religion in this, it's just because today is a big day for us. By the way Lugnuts, I thought you were helping me in this condition of mine Twins 2 is the title in development announced by actor, is it wrong seriously?. So the decision is up to you all, I'm nothing guys but I'm just wanting to help it because I love Wikipedia and I told this to everyone around me when they make joke of me editing it (personally I want to edit it and edit and edit and edit it like always :) ). -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )} 15:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Considering the above, I repeat my suggestion of a WP:CIR block rather than a topic ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• I also repeat my comment. Captain Assassin is either trolling, is otherwise choosing to ignore the concerns raised by everyone in this thread, or simply doesn't understand what is going on. Either way, their wall of text is a clear sign that they're a net negative. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• I just don't know what to say now really, I'm feeling very sorry for my last comments above. Just do what you want to do, I'm on my kneels now. Or let's negotiate it in better ways if someone here is good in that or bring someone here. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )} 15:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I've known Assassin since he first started. For full disclosure, I do consider him a friend around here. I've personally never seen Assassin do any trolling or ignore concerns. He does however have trouble understanding. Assassin's current actions are vary similar to when he first started. It took a bit, but Kudpung and I finally "knocked" some sense into him. I'm not sure if it a language barrier or cultural differences or.... I can see two solutions.

1. Before any page move or redirect created, he asks somebody first. After a bit of time, Assassin will understand what constitutes a good or bad page move. I am willing to be the person to help him out, however this is not my area of expertise. If Assassin does move a page or create a redirect without asking first, he should have a page move and redirect ban placed.
2. Place a page move and redirect ban now. But, not a permanent one.

I would, of course, favour option #1. Beyond My Ken said, "...real solution is an indef block until this editor shows some sign of understanding how things work, and how he can edit productively." I don't think one can get an "understanding how things work" without one showing him how in a non-adversarial setting. Bgwhite (talk) 00:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Its a good idea what Bgwhite recommends, ask someone first before creating a redirect or moving a page, if I was doing wrong or I'm doing wrong I think I'll understand the problems and errors what I was doing in the past. I've learned from Bgwhite so much, he helped me a lot and I respect him and all of you here but I'll suggest to give me time first and let me go on the good way. Eventually you'll see my improvement, I can guarantee that. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )} 05:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
• So the solution is simple - don't make redirects and discuss page moves first (ideally with the film project)? Yes? This is the way forward for everyone, right? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• I would suggest, having read the entire screed, that CA be mentored actively to ensure that he understands. During this period we can expect a decreasing volume of errors. However, if the willingness he expresses to ask first shows signs of weakening, and if the behaviour of poor moves et al reappears, the community should take a further view. Fiddle Faddle 08:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, I'm 100% agreed with Lugnuts, I'll not create redirects and I'll discuss moves at Film project talk. And as Bgwhite said to ask first, I'll ask someone for further moves and redirects. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )} 09:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

How can we know you're being truthful? In all of the previous discussions on your actions, you said you'd comply with what the editor asked you to do and then not do it. You had been warned numerous times not to and yet continued. You even kept doing it during the course of this conversation. Until I see it for myself, I don't think I can believe you. Rusted AutoParts 16:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm giving my word you believe it or not it's not in my hand, by the way don't mind RAP but you are also a terrible redirects creator and mover as you did with Into the Woods (film). But I've made mistakes and I admit it and from now I will do after discuss it with someone. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )} 16:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

How can someone be terrible at creating redirects? Into the Woods is another example of your recklessness. You moved it so you could own it, it was deleted, I recreated it, then you took it again, and again was deleted. Even if Lugnuts or BG stand in your corner, there is still quite a few people who feel it best to remove you from the project. And considering our history, I feel it's for the best as well. Rusted AutoParts 17:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Incivility, personal attacks, bad faith by User:Joefromrandb

Joefromrandb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Several hours ago, User:Joefromrandb made this edit to a discussion of the merits of having either George W. Bush or Henry Clay on the list. His edit summary was "I get it- you hate George W. Bush; get in line", and his edit accuses me (and by extension the four other editors who want Clay on the list) Setting aside the NPA nature of his comments, the following things are wrong with his assertion of bias:

1. The primary reason for removing Bush was recentism, not incompetence
2. Henry Clay is a quite significant American political figure
3. We just removed Bill Clinton from the list
4. Clay and Bush are of the same political persuasion; Clay's Whig Party morphed into Bush's GOP

When I explained those points to him, he said that it was "a laugh", taking this as some colossal joke and refusing to walk back his allegations of political bias against five editors. Oh, and as I was preparing this thread, he not only continually refused to walk back his outlandish claims, he called me "assholish" for asking him to do so, referring in his edit summary as my request being "sauce for the goose". Could somebody please explain to him that he can't make blanket accusations like that, because I'm not getting through to him? pbp 18:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• I would note that this is hardly the first time this user has resorted to ad homonem name-calling of people he disagrees with: a few weeks ago, he called mops who were involved in blocking him for 3RR "children". Last week, he levied this gem at an admin he disagreed with. In addition, he has been chastised for incivility at WP:VA/E within the last 48 hours. This is clearly an ongoing pattern with him. With 2 blocks under his belt, this user probably needs a 2-week forced vacation to remind him that doing this kind of behavior repeatedly is uncalled for. pbp 18:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • In all fairness, I've made that observation about quite a few administrators; not just the ones who've blocked me. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Um, that doesn't make it right, it actually makes it worse. You just admitted to calling even more people names than the people in the diffs I provided pbp 18:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
      • I did? Joefromrandb (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Competence case anyone? Or am I thinking too much? MM (Report findings) ^{(Past espionage)} 22:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• • You're thinking too much. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
• FWIW, Joe's disruptive actions are continuing. A few hours ago, he made a spurious soapboxing claim. And, for asking him to stop soapboxing, he accused me of being a troll and acts like being told to stop his incivility and personal attacks are some sort of joke. This has got to stop, and I'm afraid a block is the only way to do it. I again ask admins to review Joe's many unacceptable attacks on admins and non-admins alike pbp 05:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • When you want to accuse someone of "making a spurious soapboxing claim" it probably isn't a good idea to include a diff of the actual soapboxing. Just some food for thought. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
    • 'Cept for the following two points, buddy: a) the original posting wasn't soapboxing, and b) the diff is only you. Look, the fact remains that you have acted without regard for policy and guidelines vis-a-vis civility and AGF, and for that, you should be blocked pbp 13:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Purplebackpack89, have you considered just disengaging and finding something else to do for a while? Your reporting is somewhat misleading (October 2012 is hardly "a few weeks ago") and this all seems like a tempest in a teapot. When you find yourself getting this upset about something, it's best to take a breather and come back in a day or two. I don't see any point in this bickering and I really don't see any point in blocking someone over their rhetorical style. --Laser brain (talk) 13:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Um, all the other diffs are from the last two weeks, and most are a lot more than "rhetorical style"; they are flat-out personal attacks. He repeatedly engages in personal attacks, and laughs off requests to be civil. I am very disturbed by his recalcitrance, and you should be too pbp 15:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Hey Joe, where you going, cool it down a notch or two, willya, and quit abusing the admins. PBP, like Joe, I voted against the proposal, though I suspect for vastly different reasons. In any case, seems like you were involved in some pretty heated personal battles with Gabe, even on my personal talk page, only a couple months ago. Let it go for now is my best advice. If Joe keeps it up, revisit. Give me the word and I'll close this for ya. I don't see a lot of traction for your position. Jusdafax 21:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you could show me where I've "abused the admins". Joefromrandb (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    • It's up above per PBP re: BWilkins, and don't play dumb, dude. Jusdafax 00:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
      • In other words, you can't. Thank you for the clarification. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Ok I see the problem. Give him a two week block. Jusdafax 01:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
          • No, if you "saw the problem" you wouldn't have come here to stir the pot in the first place. "Give him a two week block"! You're hilarious. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• I say block him for username violation. Inanygivenhole (talk) 01:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Maybe. But he's lost me completely accusing me of stirring the pot. I am a member of WP:VITAL where PBP and I have been editing for months, and came here to cool out the discussion. If he's looking to be disruptive and antagonize people deliberately, as is becoming clear, a timely preventative block is a good call. Make it a month or two, the way he's going. Jusdafax 02:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    • If you don't want to be accused of stirring the pot, don't come to a stale thread and post baseless accusations. It doesn't get much more obvious than that. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

User talk:74.120.133.55 will not stop with the soapboxing

The above user has been an a tear about some perceived "plot" being hatched in Gilberton, Pennsylvania. There is clearly soapboxing at that page's talk (see last section). He added (and then deleted) more yesterday (diff), at which time I left him a final warning about it on his talk (diff). He responded to it with more rant. Note that he was already blocked once for 3RR on the Gilberton page. Certainly seems like WP:NOTHERE to me. At best, he is an extreme WP:SPA with a serious bit of "lack of clue". Will notify IP user immediately after I finish this. Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Please be careful whom you call "extreme". I was just over at your user page. I would call your views right wing extremist. In fact, it seems that the only opposition to allowing any mention of the Insurrectionism in the town of Gilberton seems to be coming from the radical right, along with this entire discussion here. I call WP:CENSOR. 74.120.133.55 (talk) 23:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

There appears to be plenty of coverage of this issue by RS at the moment judging from a google news search, probably enough for something to be added somewhere at some point if it passes the WP:NOTNEWS threshold. The IP just doesn't appear to understand Wikipedia policy at the moment. Perhaps if someone worked with them on on the article talk to find proper sourcing, showed them how to cite things, how to comply with NPOV and avoid OR they might calm down. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I am learning that the radical right's complaints that wikipedia is "left-wing" is just BS. I am learning wikipedia policy from this experience, and am almost coming to the conclusion that wikipedia is run by those wanting it to be more like conservipedia. I am willing to work with someone on wording, but the attempts by the radical right here to suppress any information on the history of Gilberton seem to indicate that wikipedia has no desire to allow anything but right wing approved material. At this point, omission of the information indicates a desire to hide the long-term status of Gilberton. 74.120.133.55 (talk) 23:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

There is coverage of the police chief's rant. I certainly haven't seen anything about anthrax, ricin, the overthrow of the government, the national guard, armed insurrection or any of the many other things he is going on about. Did you actually read it? I suspect this is a WP:CIR issue, and that is in your ballpark, not an editor's. Gtwfan52 (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, I read it, and other comments, including the "honestly, I want CIA to put a bullet in his head" comment at Talk:Pat Robertson (which hasn't been removed yet and for which he probably should have been blocked) and the puzzling, given his activity level, "My daughter is going to be born Monday" from July 28. Call me cynical but I'm not convinced blocking people like this works. They just come back. Their soapboxing definitely needs to stop though. I usually just delete content like this from talk pages (in the WP:ARBPIA topic area where it's pretty commonplace) and cite WP:TALK/WP:SOAPBOX. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I did that at the city article. I am not comfortable doing at any article I am not involved in or on his talk page. Thanks for your help. Gtwfan52 (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, now a long term registered editor, User:Sweetfreek, is at the Gilberton, Pennsylvania page, spouting the same (word for word) rhetoric as the above IP. It doesn't take an expert to see WP:DUCK here. I have done again what Sean told me to do regarding the soapboxing, and reverted his edit per the already established consensus on the talk page. I did ask him to come back and try to discuss the situation sans the rhetoric after the city council meeting, so we have a better idea of where this is going in order to make a reasonable addition to the article, which, if we can keep the rhetoric out of it, is probably unavoidable. I hate controversy sections in small town and school articles, as they almost never are truly anything meaningful with time perspective. I am certain enough of the quack that I am not going to notify him. The IP already was, but if someone here thinks it needed, go for it.Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I can assure you that I am not the IP listed above... though frankly, I have no idea how anyone expects me to prove my innocence now that I have been accused of a crime. After all, I have been accused by the infallible word of somebody who redacts comments and pleas from the talk page, so I must be undeniably guilty of whatever he says I am, no? Sweetfreek (talk) 05:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Stealth censorship of this discussion on the part of Bushranger removed. I call WP:CENSOR on the attempt. 74.120.133.55 (talk) 22:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

You can only call it "Soapboxing" for so long before your protest falls flat. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-horwitz/the-town-the-militia-took_b_3694293.html It's only a matter of time before there are more of your prized small towns needing documented for history. I've been keeping tabs on these Insurrectionists since the early 1990's. Unless FBI/NSA/CIA/DOD steps in, it's looking like they may just pull it off on a Nationwide basis soon. Like I said, it's only a matter of time. They are on an irreversible course. That is the cumulative effect of propaganda and religious extremism. Call it "Soapboxing" if you like, I call it history in the making. In the future, someone will want to know WHY such towns were wiped out, and that it was justified for the sake of the Nation, all these Tea Traitors have to do is get froggy, and wiping out those towns will be a necessity for National Security. Gilberton is on a one-way course, and they show no sign of changing course. 74.120.133.55 (talk) 01:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Your words clearly indicate that you don't belong on Wikipedia. You should find a different outlet for your views. Zero^talk 01:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Coming from someone whose own body of work seems replete with political implications and religious implications. Maybe your neutrality should be reviewed. 74.120.133.55 (talk) 22:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding all of this stuff that you think will happen, We can wait until it fleshes out and becomes actual facts. If you are looking for the developing stories then you may want to head over to Wikinews.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

To a degree, I can accept that, but the facts are coming in on the Gilberton thing now. There was an actual takeover by a Terrorist Militia there this past week, in which swastika-tattooed gun-toting freaks were keeping citizens from going into a hearing, at gunpoint. The outcome of the Council meeting shows that the problem will continue. Fact is not soapboxing. I don't anticipate major media coverage until it does turn into a shooting thing there though, as I subscribe to the theory that widespread reporting of the events surrounding that Council meeting were not publicized because of fear it will start a domino effect. 74.120.133.55 (talk) 22:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

And after that example of WP:NOTHERE after being warned about inappropriate discussions, a block should be applied. Probably with TPA revoked, as this IP user's only purpose here appears to be to vehemently push a political POV, using talk pages to do so after being warned about doing it in articles. WP:NOTHERE, WP:NOTFORUM, WP:NOTADVOCACY. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Pretty good from someone whose personal page here reads like FOX News, TheBlaze, and Infowars ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Bushranger#No_Spin_Zone ). Interesting how you can't keep the soapboxing off your own page. "to suppress Insurrections" is nonpartisan. At least I still keep MY oath. "all enemies..." 74.120.133.55 (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

In fact, I hold that the WP:CENSOR going on with the Gilberton page is so extreme, that an addition to the effect of "In January 2013, The City Council of Gilberton passed an ordinance declaring that it is the SOLE arbitor of what is Constitutional, and that the Supreme Court of the United States holds no authority over it." would be rejected by the creators of the discussion right here. That proposed addition would be a statement of fact, without a political POV, simply FACT. Seriously, we are talking about a town in total rebellion against Constitutional authority, and it's supporters are attempting to WP:CENSOR the facts from being added to the town's entry. One editor of this discussion, "The Bushranger" has even attempted to WP:CENSOR my defense of my edits in this very discussion, and given his own user page, I personally question his loyalty, and adherence to an oath he claims to have once taken. Personal attacks have been made against me in this discussion, I have a right to state my opinion as well. 74.120.133.55 (talk) 23:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Why has the IP not been blocked for spamming all sorts of bollocks on ANI and elsewhere? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

More inappropriate blanking of Turkic-related articles

I previously posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive806#Requesting rangeblock of 217.76.68.0/24 about an issue of blanking of Turkic-related articles from a range of IPs. The page Kyrgyz people is now having similar inappropriate editing done. Can a rangeblock of the IPs in question be considered? Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done Rangeblocked 1 month. I'm inclined to agree based on the contribs that I can see. Nothing but nationalistic POV pushing for the last several months...let's see if 1 month will help.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

It's happening again on the same pages from 2.133.32.0/18, such as 2.133.57.134 (talk) (this frist one's recent, the rest are older) 2.133.53.46 (talk) 2.133.45.214 (talk) 2.133.54.41 (talk). Can it be rangeblocked temporarily as well? Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I've placed some semi-protections on his primary target articles to thwart him. This may be better than blocking every range that he gains access through.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

He's had this range basically as long as he's had the other one, so it's not like he keeps getting new ones. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Although it has been a while (April), other editors have used this IP range for non-controversial edits such as this. However, if he persists under this range and there is more problematic editing then we can look at blocking that range.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment This is a common problem on articles related to anything Turkish. We had huge problems in the spring with a very aggressive Turkish dynamic IP who targeted over 50 articles with bizarre POV-pushing, and it became almost impossible to control it; we had to block a quite wide range. Problems like this is one of the main reasons I think editing should be restricted to registered users.Jeppiz (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Ferret baiting

Some completely uncalled-for baiting of Malleus going on at Transportation of animals (NB talk:). Will someone please stamp on this ASAP, before it gets out of hand. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Unproductive; collapsed. TY Andy. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

So once again baiting goes unaddressed. Eric Corbett 01:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

But it was addressed and mostly because it was you. For most editors, there would not even have been a report filed at ANI; nor would any action likely have been taken had one been created.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you kidding me dude? Hillbilly posted an article containing personal information with the sole purpose of mocking and baiting another user, and then proceeded to edit war without any purpose other than to get a reaction. It's unacceptable behavior no matter whether it's directed at Eric or an IP, and is borderline WP:OUTING. Eric chose to make his name known here, but Hillbilly obviously didn't randomly find an article from 2004 in a Manchester news site. This whole thing was designed to harass and bait. --Laser brain (talk) 02:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

My assumption was that Eric objected only to the latter part of the topic. Frankly, I thought the whole topic shouldn't have been on the talk page. I would have just removed it all. BTW, I don't mind in the slightest your disagreeing with me, but could you please not call me "dude"?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:14, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the dude. I agree that even placing it on the Talk page was a poor decision. Edit warring it into the article was disruptive and way over the line. --Laser brain (talk) 02:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Speculating much Laser Brain? I was working on an article called Transportation of animals, (in fact the previous edits were concerned with transporting ferrets in particular). I think the ferret-hammock piece definitely comes under that umbrella, I brought it up on the talkpage first, linked to Eric's name so he would know that I was considering adding the material. Another editor agreed that it should be added, so I did. You can see on the talkpage I wasn't baiting anyone, just trying see funny side of it all. I've always held Eric in high regard, and am surprised that he took offense. I do apologize for the 'old chap' remark, which could be considered over-familiar. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 02:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• My apologies for misreading earlier; I thought it concerned the talk page only. The added text was, even if intended in good spirits and humorously, not of proper encyclopedic level--that should be obvious to someone like Hillbillyholiday, who seems to be an editor who knows what's what. Restoring it ("not taking the piss") is disruptive, and Hillbilly could have shown better manners: you know what's going on and you should have known better. DracoE, you know I love you, but come on--if a girl says no, it's no, simple as that. If everything else fails I can invoke BLP which would urge us to be cautions. But seriously, Hillbillyholiday81, that was not a good move on your part. Eric, I'm sorry that I did not look more carefully the first time. Drmies (talk) 02:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The article has had something of a history of funny-but-true facts and I thought that the ferret-hammocks quote would perfectly fit the bill. As Eric himself pointed out on the talkpage, the fact that ferrets can now happily travel within the EU was in some part due to his efforts. The material could have been worded differently or trimmed down perhaps, but it was relevant to the article. I undid Eric's edit because his comment 'taking the piss' was simply not true, and not a comment on the validity of the edit. I have no intention of restoring that material if Eric doesn't wish for it to be there, but I must reiterate that I wasn't trying to 'bait' him, I was just trying to raise a smile. Don't worry, it won't happen again. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 03:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Surely part of the aggravation was that this was on the main page as a DYK at the time, right? Add ferrets, by all means, but the timing was perhaps a bit insensitive. Stalwart111 02:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with Laser Brain's comments about about baiting. I've just removed the additions from the page history as disruptive. It seems clear they were added to get a reaction out of one editor, and are definitely WP:POINTY if not harassment. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Or maybe that was an overreaction on my part. I guess if anyone thinks it's unwarranted they can revert me. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Again, I refute the accusation of harassment or pointedness or whatever. The information was relevant, sourced, and IMO (whisper it) 'quite funny'. For what it's worth, Mark, I think your wholesale deletion just then was uncalled for. I've been around long enough to know not to ask for assumption of good faith at AN/I, so I'll leave it at that. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 03:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thinking about it some more, I don't think it met any of the criteria to be removed from the history, so I've restored it. I'd like to assume good faith here, but it really does seem like you were out to poke Eric. Mentioning passports and so on I can see, but getting into one couple's travel plans to France seems too silly to take seriously. I feel a bit conflicted though, since I've never taken you for the disruptive type. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Mark. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 03:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• @Hillbillyholiday81: Thanks for your thoughts on whether the edits were harassment or pointedness, but they are not relevant. Such behavior is indistinguishable from trolling, and participants here are unlikely to care whether it is intentional—that's just not relevant. Eric is known to attract misguided attention, and I ask any passing admin to ensure that nonsense like this is stopped ASAP. If the disruption continues, please block the user and bring it here for review. Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

  Ah yes, how silly of me to think that my own opinion on my own edits could in any way be deemed relevant to the situation, though I congratulate you for proving my point about the lack of AGF here. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 03:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

  Once again you are missing the point—your good faith and your intentions are just not relevant. If you lack the necessary judgment to participate in a collaborative community you will, at a minimum, have to be removed from that page. Johnuniq (talk) 04:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

  You aren't really going to try to tell us that we shouldn't allow people to comment on their own edits, are you? AutomaticStrikeout  ?  13:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

  Why not? It happens all the time. Intothatdarkness 13:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have no doubt that HBH was just being playful. The problem is that, while cow-tipping may be good clean fun for us hillbillies, bull-tipping is never a very good idea as bulls tend to take it the wrong way. He should remember that. Anyway, time to shut this down, I think.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
• Baiting? Maybe not. OUTING? Yes. Inappropriate? Definitely. GiantSnowman 16:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
• Related: Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_August_9#File:Young_ferret_relaxing_in_hammock_before_transport.jpg Andy Dingley (talk) 09:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I have speedy deleted the image, and left a warning at User talk:DracoEssentialis#Vandalism and personal attacks. Fram (talk) 09:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

What? You speedy deleted an image of a ferret because it was "created purely to attack or mock another editor"? This is an image of a ferret, not a portrait painted with someone's penis. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't a picture of a ferret, it was some kind of long-haired gerbil or similar. GiantSnowman 16:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I approve of Fram's action, and would support a block if this harassment were to continue. --John (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• I accept Hillbilly's good faith; perhaps Eric doesn't, but he has good reason to be miffed about this. I haven't seen the image so I don't wish to comment on it. Are the edits OUTING enough to warrant revdel? Mark backtracked on it (this is not intended as an indictment) while I'm inclined to think that revdel would be proper. Given the BLP issue Eric should have a say in this as well: if he wants it gone it should be gone, and since we should err on the side of caution I'm going to revdel it again. If an uninvolved admin disagrees they can undo me, preferably with an explanation here. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Ok, good to get more input on this, erring on the side of caution is fine with me. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• The only real outing involved would be the fact that the article mentions his wife and I think that is reasonable cause for removing the edits. It doesn't seem to be a news piece too important to the article in question.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• (non-admin, partly-content observation, so mostly out of place, but whatever.) Hillbilly, you seem to know the history of the article. When it was at AfD, some of us fought tooth and nail to keep barely-relevant crap like this ferret news story out of the article. Adding stuff like that brings up not only the baiting/outing concerns mentioned here (I support revdel and removing the ferrets here, by the way), but also stuff like WP:UNDUE issues that we were all trying to avoid by deleting or cutting down the article. What you did, even if in good faith, was by no means constructive, both for the community and the article in question. Ansh666 22:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC) (By the way, ping me if you want me to see a reply or something. I don't hang out at AN/I much anymore.)

I didn’t think I’d have to explain this, because it seems so obvious, but my involvement in this bit of light-hearted fun was motivated by a wish to confirm, again, that there are very different rules for Wikipedians and BLP “subjects” who don’t have friends on the inside. When User:Eric Corbett, an established Wikipedia contributor, objects to User:Hillbillyholiday81 adding sourced information about his wife’s achievements in the field of ferret transport, somebody drags Hillbilly to ANI, and what follows are the inevitable cries of WP:OUTING and harassment. Some of you may not know this, but Hillbilly is doing sterling work protecting notable people from actual harassment by Wikipedia contributors.

By the way, the somebody who started this here thread was none other than User:Andy Dingley. The same Andy Dingley who had made it his personal business to torment a non-notable living person and his family by means of a Wikipedia biography sourced to such wonderful publications as the Daily Mail. Andy Dingley seems to have had no qualms as to how his behavior on here would make that living person feel hounded, harassed, persecuted, you name it, and I for one am appaled that Andy Dingley is still considered an “editor in good standing”. Going after someone’s children and declaring them bastards by implication? Classy, Andy, real classy.

By now, some of you may have hopped over to my talk page and found some recent edits describing me as a vandal and a troll. One of them by Cyclopia, that living epitome of kindness and empathy (irony alert). Cyclopia has got his nose way up Jimbo’s behind whenever he posts on The Revered Co-Founder’s talk page. But his true, heartfelt “respect” for BLP “subjects” keeps shining through in “edits” like this one: 'Let's stop spinning this into some kind of "kindness", "understanding" or "respect" issue. There is nothing kind about a public person asking us to remove trivially public information. Nothing. There is just someone who is used to get things their way, and that someone this time doesn't like, for whatever reason, that we, of all websites, host an openly available official information. I think this is not kind at all, and it is instead insulting, bullying and demeaning to us to say the least. But even if it wasn't, and it was asked in good faith, it is still unreasonable. So we can give the asker a pleasant smile, and say "thanks for asking but no thanks, your request is not really reasonable because it is anyway publicly available information, so we feel we can cover it anyway". If being gagged by strangers is your cup of tea among "kind gestures", well, to each one their own, be my guest, but do not try to sell it as a regular "kind gesture" we are bound by ethics to perform. -- cyclopia^speak! 16:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)'

This is the same Cyclopia who censored my replacing a photograph of Jimbob Wales with a portrait painted by notable Australian artist Pricasso. I had a reason for doing this. As in giving someone a taste of their own medicine. Round about a year and a half ago, Jimbob threw a notable person to the wikiwolves and then refused to reply to this notable person’s distressed emails. Said notable person had made a very simple, heartfelt request not to have a completely irrelevant piece of information pertaining to his past made known on Wikipedia. You know, the first google hit for his name? Unfortunately, said living person had previously identified as a liberal. The Wikiconservatives, among them a guy proudly displaying the KKK flag on his talk page, persevered, and despite the fact that the source they used was ridiculous to begin with. It’s not like I hadn’t made His Jimboness aware of the fact on his talk page while this disgusting charade was going on. (Hey there, “Beeblebrox”. You took it upon your grammatically challenged donkey to close that Rfc. Did you actually read all of it? I doubt it, but hey, I’m just a lady “vandal” who used to actually care about this project a long time ago. Hey, Jimbob, what a coincidence that one of the current Arbcommers you seem quite friendly with attempted some damage control on a certain notorious WP:SLIMEBUCKET’s talk page a mere two hours after a certain journalist had asked you for a statement. Oh the hypocrisy!)

In closing, I guess you folks can choose to get worked up over an issue that isn’t that much to write home about to begin with (let’s be real here, who outside of Wikiworld would ever give a flying ferret about Eric Corbett and his numerous wikigripes), or you can be WP:BOLD and address the wider issue. If a WP editor can get information about himself and his family deleted, why can’t you folks extend the same courtesy to barely notable people who don’t want their lives dissected on here? Draco^E 12:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Well said! "Gum..?" -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 13:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Right on, lovely. Consider yourself hugged by one of the slowest writers in WP HISStory. Think you've seen it all? How about this one? Who in their right mind would think that a picture of a notable Wikipedia critic eating a cupcake was in any way encyclopedic or edumacational? Taking a picture of someone eating? How rude is that to begin with? Posting it on WP, unchallenged? Oh yeah. Wikipedia critics are fair game on here, right? Where are Andy Dingley, Eric Corbett, Jimbob and Cyclopia when you need them? I once spent a miserable evening sitting opposite a sizeably chunkificated member of WMUK, and, believe me, watching that guy devouring his food was anything but enjoyable, but I would never have dreamed of taking a picture of this pillar of WMUK/WP righteousness adding to his considerable bulk while not seeming to get any enjoyment out of it. Food, like information, should be delicious and nourish the seeker on both a physical and a spiritual level. Funny how Jimbob's official WP and slightly less offical WP user page have yet to feature a picture of WP's "Sole Flounder" stuffing his face. ;) Draco^E 15:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

my involvement in this bit of light-hearted fun was motivated by a wish to confirm, again, that there are very different rules for Wikipedians and BLP “subjects” who don’t have friends on the inside. There's a term for this: disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. And then you proceed to throw out personal attacks left right and center. Wow. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• There's been a systematic and deliberate attempt to distort the reality of the events that triggered this thread, so let's get a couple of things clear.
  • I never asked for anything to be deleted, I simply objected to the addition of trivia concerning my wife to the transportation of animals article.
  • Whether or not anyone outside Wikiworld gives a flying fuck about about me is neither here nor there, and seems like a clear personal attack. And if it were true, how is the newspaper article and television appearance to be explained? Arguing that I'm not sufficiently notable for a WP article (which is undoubtedly true) is completely irrelevant to the addition of trivia about me to an article on the transportation of animals. Eric Corbett 16:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Let's see, if I understand the situation, Ruth Corbett was heavily involved in campaigning on the issue of being able to transport ferrets freely throughout the EU. This was added to the WP article on the transportation of animals, in a section about ferrets. That seems appropriate and uncontentious. This would be completely unremarkable except that Ruth Corbett happens to be the wife of Eric Corbett. If an IP were to delete that material, they would be reverted and, if they persisted, blocked. But since Eric Corbett is a long-time Wikipedian, he is able to edit war to remove this innocuous material, claim that this is somehow harassment, and have the material rev-deleted. I think DracoEssentialis may have been a bit cavalier in making her point, but it is none the less valid. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• • • Okay, I'll bite the bait. Can someone explain me what the fuck does User:DracoEssentialis wants from me? Is she whining because I don't like people who disrupt this site to make their points? For the record, I hardly got my nose "way up Jimbo’s behind" - I disagree quite frankly with Jimbo almost regularly on his talk page. Yet that's no reason to troll. That said, I stand by the edit she quoted, but I'd be happy if her ongoing trolling (of Jimbo, Eric Corbett, me, whoever) would be put to stop, regardless of how she covers it under the veil of supposed ethical crusades. -- cyclopia^speak! 17:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive edits to prehistoric animal articles

Tenacious IP constantly changing fossil range data at article Alamosaurus. After source was provided for original data, editor continues to change the data without chaining the source. See [64] [65] This IP address has apparently only ever been used to make unsourced edits to data in the temporal_range template of various dinosaur articles.[66] MMartyniuk (talk) 11:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Dinoguy2 understates the case. This IP has been doing the same thing in multiple articles without a single word of explanation. Since it has been blocked for 24 hours once before, I'm blocking it for one month. If the same behavior restarts when that block expires, let me know and I'll make it permanent. Zero^talk 07:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Miesianiacal and decorative icons

User:Miesianiacal is aggressively restoring decorative icons to infoboxes on articles on Canadian Governors-General. When the practice was discussed back in April at Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 17#WP:ICONDECORATION there was no consensus that they were valid exceptions to WP:ICONDECORATION. Our long-established practice is not to use icons in this way, as I've explained. Could someone else have a word with him please? I'm rather surprised to see they have never been blocked as I see they have also aggressively edit-warred against talk-page consensus over terminology in another article. Edits like this one are in breach of consensus and have continued in spite of a warning that I would escalate the matter if he continued. This comes on top of discussion at user talk since April. Thanks for any attention you can give to this. --John (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

John has misrepresented the situation.

The images have been present in the articles on Canadian governors general for many years. John's first move to delete them in April was thus a bold change the status-quo; acceptable within Wikipedia practice. However, when that first attempt was reverted, he proceeded to revert the revert. He did on April 8 initiate a discussion at my talk page, but quickly descended to low-grade personal attacks and demonstrated a misunderstanding of WP:CONSENSUS. On the same day, another discussion began at Template talk:Infobox officeholder. But, despite having failed to find consensus at the latter venue to remove or not use the images, he proceeded to resume reverting on all the articles on April 10.

He was, at that time, reverted by editors other than myself: [67] (never reverted by John until August 9), [68] (reverted immediately by John on April 8), [69] (never reverted by John), [70] (never reverted by John). I restored some in May, which he reverted some of quickly and some others in June; others I restored in June, which he reverted, again, only some of. Another discussion was begun at Talk:Roland Michener that again resulted in no consensus for change. Today, he's resumed reverting at some of the governor general articles.

Aside from John having never found a consensus to change the status-quo after being first reverted and instead choosing to sustain a slow edit war, the result of his haphazard reverting since April has been the loss of a consistent appearance throughout a series of articles to a persistent, though shifting, inconsistency; i.e. John may mistakenly believe the guideline WP:MOSICON empowers him to remove long-present images without consensus (despite not one editor at either Template talk:Infobox officeholder or Talk:Roland Michener opining that the presence of the images, per say, is offensive to the guideline), but he has never exercised that belief regularly, always removing images from some articles and leaving them at others.

My feeling is John does not understand WP:CONSENSUS or WP:BRD. Also, I suggested he try the next step in dispute resolution (an RfC, I believe), which I think he should have pursued before coming straight here (with misleading claims about me and all). Should a consensus to remove the images ever be established, I'd take them out myself. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Which claims do you regard as misleading? Where do you see a personal attack from me? WP:MOSICON is part of our Manual of Style and enjoys widespread consensus across the project. We would need you to establish some kind of consensus or rationale to diverge from the MoS to use these images, something you have never done. --John (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not going to get into the details of why your claim in your OP about my editing in the context of an entirely separate matter is misleading; people can see why for themselves, if they're really interested.

The MoS is a guideline. In the two discussions you started away from my talk page, three editors participated. None indicated agreement with your interpretation of the guideline: i.e. that is is a policy in all but name without exception. User:Pigsonthewing insinuated images are permissible by starting his comment with "If they are used..."; User:PKT told you "Judicious use of the icons in question is not unreasonable"; and User:EncyclopediaUpdaticus quoted directly from WP:MOSICON and informed you specifically that "WP:ICON is a guideline not a policy and as the banner states should be applied using common sense. In this case the editors are using common sense and this article is a valid exception so the icon should stay."

No consensus was needed to be found before putting them in. Putting them in way back when would've been the bold edit, which, since it wasn't quickly reverted, gained consensus by staying and staying so long; WP:EDITCONSENSUS: "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus" and WP:SILENCE: "You find out whether your edit has consensus when it sticks." As I said above, the images have been there for many years, with multiple dozens of users editing all those pages over that time, and nobody made an issue of it until you in April. Of course, it's your right to do so; but, the convention is that the status-quo, which has a consensus through silence, remains until a new consensus is established; WP:BOLD: "[A]fter a deletion [or revert] of a bold edit [your change to the status-quo], you might want to be bold in an edit on the talk pages so as not to start an edit war." You've failed to find any agreement for your deletions thus far, which is not to say you can't or shouldn't try. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, others can read the discussion at template talk and see if they agree with your reading of it. I certainly don't. Putting them in broke MoS; my removal was in accordance with MoS which is a long-standing project-wide consensus. Your restoration of them was not in accord with any consensus or policy, and you have not attempted to justify your actions, and there is no justification for them. We do not use images for decoration like this. You would need to demonstrate a consensus to go against MoS and you have not done so. I am glad, incidentally, that you have stopped edit-warring on the other issue you don't have consensus for; that is very encouraging. It would be great if you could stop doing so on this one as well. --John (talk) 18:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Either I didn't make myself clear enough or you're not really reading what I (or others) wrote. Regardless, I'll wait to see what others have to say, if anything. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

My comment was in no way intended to show support for, or "permissibility of" the use of decorative icons. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Your use of "If they are used..." indicates a permissability for the use of images, as opposed to starting with "They shouldn't be used". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I do apologise; I forgot that you know what I mean when I comment, better than I do. I'll remember to consult with you in future, before making any further statements about my intention, in case I have the wrong understanding of my own views. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

1) The MoS is intended to provide sensible/practical consistency between articles. There are all sorts of exceptions, but this particular issue doesn't seem like an exception-worthy one - If we allow shields/seals/insignia in "Canadian Governor General" articles, then it will spread, leading to disputes in thousands of other articles/infoboxes.

2) The image is tiny, compressed beyond any hope of recognizability. (eg and and ) The only way it would possibly be useful is if greatly enlarged, which would lead to problems of undue prominence, and overwhelming (the other information) size.

3) It's a symbol of the office, not of the person. A personal/family shield/seal/flag might be an acceptable exception, but not this. Particularly because a person might hold dozens of offices/positions in their career, leading to an abundance of images.

In sum, it seems sensible and practical to disallow tiny icons in infoboxes. HTH. (Please alert me if this issue is discussed elsewhere). –Quiddity (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

These are valid comments. But, shouldn't there be a proper RfC started in some appropriate location so interested editors can be alerted and contribute and a consensus established? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The crest of the governor general appears to be a copyright violation of this site's artwork [71]. While it is not the same as the current COA of Canada, it appears to be a recent artistic rendering. I also note that the boilerplate seems to be innacurate as they are stating the source as themselves improperly.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 21:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

This seems somewhat OT, but I can see differences between the Commons file and the one at the GG's website, most notably the absence in the former of shading that is present in the latter. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

That slight variation is not enough to say it isn't a violation when it is clearly stated in the image page where the source came from and the image is a faithful reproduction of the original. Making even color changes is not enough when it is very clear that of all the variations of this uploaded on Wikimedia Commons this one was taken from a site that still holds copyright.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 23:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Miesianiacal, you're making a mistake I see a lot of people make. They see that something is a "guideline", which means that there may be exceptions, and then they simply assert that their own edits are an exception (for reasons they, unsurprisingly agree with), and then go and make a bunch of changes to suit their preference. However, the burden really is on you: you need to make a case for why this one particular case is exceptional, and you need to do it not on the individual articles, but on MOS talk pages. Otherwise, you'd be trying to use a local consensus to override a site-wide consensus. Personally, I cannot possibly imagine any rationale why one particular type of politician is an exception while others are not (unless perhaps every reliable source that talks about these types of politicians uses these symbols and that is not true of other politicians), but you're welcome to make the argument. In the meantime, you should self-revert if John hasn't reverted you already. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I would say lose the icon, what does it really add. Didn't we go through this with flags getting plastered on every bio? At the least, there should be a clear consensus for inclusion to have them. The "default" would be not to have them. Tie goes to the guideline. Just my 2 cents. --Malerooster (talk) 00:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment on icon - I can vouch for User:Sodacan, the author of the icon as he is usually quite informed about copyright. You may want to ask him to chime in here... – Connormah (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

PrivateMasterHD and 69.122.190.4

PrivateMasterHD keeps adding baseball terminology to football articles (and has added generally incorrect information and used questionable word choices in several articles) and has been unresponsive to messages left on their talk page except to blank the page. There have been documented concerns about them for past behavioral issues and while PrivateMaster has demonstrated the ability to make constructive edits, edits such as this continue.

I became aware of their activities on June 17 at Nick Folk when they made this edit that I reverted. Nearly a month later, they returned to the article to make two consecutive edits. There was a third edit made by an IP account (69.122.190.4) that I believe them to be using as the edit was a minute apart from the other edits. The IP claimed Folk was "designated for assignment" however, this does not exist in the National Football League (NFL) only in Major League Baseball (MLB). I left a note on the IP's talkpage however, I did not realize that Yankees10 had warned PrivateMaster a month earlier for a similar incident which aroused my suspicions. As it turned out, both accounts heavily edited MLB and NFL articles so I decided to do some research and found some trends.

Via PrivateMaster's account: Jason Babin ("designated for assignment"), Boomer Esiason (In this instance, the majority of the edit is fine but the disabled list does not exist in football), Kris Jenkins ("eliminated for the rest of the year"), Michael Crabtree ("disabled list"), Orlando Franklin (Trivial information under "Other"), Danny Woodhead (Incorrectly stating Woodhead "lead" the Jets to the AFC Championship when he had little playing time), Shaun Suisham ("designated for assignment"), Jonas Mouton ("eliminated for the entire season"), Billy Cundiff (There is no preseason roster however, there is in baseball), Jeremy Maclin ("eliminated from the season"), Percy Harvin ("60-day disabled list"), Rob Gronkowski ("60 day DL"), Physically Unable to Perform (addition of a link to the disabled list which is exclusive to MLB), and Joe Morgan ("eliminated from the season").

A look at the edit history of the IP account reveals a similar batch of edits: Darius Slay ("disabled list"), Shawn Nelson ("designated for assignment"), Colin Baxter ("disabled list; designated for assignment"), Albert Haynesworth ("designated for assignment"), Dennis Pitta ("disabled list"). Most concerning is an edit made back in May to the Injured reserve list which stated MLB players were placed on an injured reserve list if they were lost for the year. This is not true because the MLB utilizes the disabled list (for example Johan Santana was declared out for the year after undergoing shoulder surgery prior to the start of the baseball season—he was placed on the 60 disabled list).

For what it's worth, in addition to the consecutive edits made by PrivateMaster and 69.122.190.4 at Nick Folk, this occurred again on July 27 at Andre Gurode with the IP incorrectly stating Gurode had been ""designated for assignment" while PrivateMaster added dates in the section titles which has been a trend in the edits of both accounts (see here and here).

Being that they frequently edit MLB and NFL articles, I could see, earlier on, if it was a mix-up however, we're to the point where multiple messages have been left for both accounts and yet they are still blatantly substituting the incorrect terminology. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 17:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Indef block until he decides to communicate with other editors. I don't see where he's communicating at all with any editor. Blanking and continuing the same behavior is not acceptable.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • He actually has communicated with other editors - but only about protection templates, it appears, and nothing about this behavior, so I'd support an indef based on WP:IDHT if it continues. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    • They blanked the ANI notice and have continued about editing. I'm beginning to sincerely doubt that they're open to discussion on this matter. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 18:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef block: Very disruptive editing, no communication with other editors about the problems they notify him about, and a clear lack of competence. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 13:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

GAR discussion

I think that the discussion on Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/BGM-75 AICBM/1 may have become somewhat polarised. In particular, I do understand why a contributor is saying that he will bring this to ANI, if I do not withdraw the GAR. Is this manipulative? Please see this edit and this edit. I think that a calming influence is needed. Snowman (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I was in the middle of writing this when I was notified of this thread. I'll post it here instead. Parsecboy (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Snowmanradio, an editor who has been an editor of Wikipedia since December 2005, has opened a Good Article Review of the above article here. In it, s/he has demonstrated a shockingly bad understanding of both the Good Article criteria and basic practice on Wikipedia. For instance, s/he has suggested that the author of the article, User:The Bushranger, has a conflict of interest by participating in the review. S/he has refused to get the point that his or her requests, which are either demands for information that may or may not even exist (and if it does, is still classified) or utterly ridiculous, are in no way supported by the GA Criteria. How this editor, who as I said has been here for eight years, is so shockingly unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies, I do not know. But I suggest that this farce of a GAR be archived. Parsecboy (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Please note that in the GAR discussion my intention was to bring up conflict of interest only the context of an editor being protective an article that he or she has created. Snowman (talk) 19:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Snowmanradio, do you not understand that that only underlines how unfamiliar you are with basic Wikipedia practice? Authors of articles are expected to participate in reviews of their work. Parsecboy (talk) 20:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• I think that you are being too presumptive here. Of course, contributions to a GAR from an editor who has created the article are important, but it is possible to be "too close" or "too involved" with an article. Snowman (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• What am I presuming, exactly? Regardless, pointing out that the requests you made are completely ridiculous does not make one too close to an article. Parsecboy (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• That is a shockingly poor review, actually. I wasn't in any way involved with the creation of the article (or aware of it), but my responses to some of those review comments would have been similar. Intothatdarkness 20:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Agreeing with Intothatdarkness here. I have no idea what the hell is going on with your assessment of #5, Snowmanradio, but either you're not competent enough to be conducting a GAR, or you're being deliberately disruptive. Bushranger's "defense" of the article is perfectly valid, and no conflict of interest is apparent; why should a major contributor of an article be excluded from either improving the article, or explaining their edits? I've never participated in a GAR myself, I must admit; but from my work with turning articles into GAs, that review seems well out of touch. I suggest you withdraw the GAR pronto. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• It should be noted that User:Snowmanradio did not notify me of this AN/I. On the subject, I'll just say I would have no problem whatsoever with a productive GAR of that article, I fully accept constructive critcism (something on which the opposite was strongly implied by Snowmanradio in his GAR), and if the consensus of a proper GAR was that the article in question did not meet the GA criteria, I would have zero issue with it being delisted (indeed, I was honestly surprised when it passed its GAN - I had simply nominated it on a "well, nothing more can be done here, so let's see what happens" basis). I do not, however, believe that a GAR that is filled with WP:IDHT on the part of the revewier, and which could very easily be taken as a WP:POINTy nomination in response to the article in question being brought up as a challenge to this statement, serves the project at all. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Please not that User The Bushranger commented on this ANI within about 20 minutes after I had started it. Snowman (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• I brought this discussion here for opinion on another editor's contributions and not on anything you had said. As far as I am aware, under these circumstances, I have no obligation to inform you about this ANI. Snowman (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• (ec x 3) Even I can find problems with the writing there. User:Eric Corbett would probably see red. The GAR is justified, but should probably be conducted by another editor at this point. The more general problem of making GAs out of articles where not that much is publicly known about the topic (this is a 4-paragrah GA, not counting the lead) should probably be discussed elsewhere. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

  Actually no, not even a light Suffolk pink. The glaring omission for me though, which disqualifies it from being a GA in my opinion is the political and military background that led to it being proposed. What would it have been able to do that existing missiles couldn't, and why was that important? Eric Corbett 22:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

  That's a good point, and something that (honestly) had completely escaped me while writing it. I wouldn't have any problem with it being delisted until I (or anyone else, of course!) can dig stuff up on that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

  It's not necessary to delist it if you or someone else can come up with a background section within the timescale of the review. Eric Corbett 22:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

  Unfortunatly, it would have to be somebody else, as here in Podunktown I've exhausted online sources and interlibrary loan requests usually come back stamped "lolno". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Well, as I said, I wouldn't object to a proper GAR - heck, there's been times I've looked at that article and wondered if I should do it myself - even if it was only on a "meets the letter of the criteria, but not their spirit" basis. One like this though...ugh. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

    And, IMO, that should be the issue here. It's not the question of a second review, but the lack of quality and professionalism in the one being conducted. Intothatdarkness 22:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

    • Indeed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• The article (currently 337 words of readable prose) does not say who initiated the project, why was it needed, who participated in the planning stages, and it omits costs that were incurred. These are major omissions to my way of thinking and I think that this is not meat criteria 3a of the good article criteria which says that a GA should address the main aspects of the topic. The discussion is a community Good Article Review, used for controversial GAR's, for the community to decide on. Article size is not a GA criteria. The GAR is somewhat of a mess now and uninviting for community reviewers due to the polarised discussion, and I think that it probably needs restarting. I would be happy to end the current community GAR and start a second community GAR to briefly outline the important issues that I think are important for the community to look at. I am not actually sure how to close a GAR, but if it is closed then I can start another tomorrow or in a few days time and I hope the second GAR will be better. Snowman (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd appreciate it if you would allow somebody else (like Eric, perhaps) to open a second one, instead of doing it yourself. (As for costs, that is something not in available sources...) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I've not taken part in the review, so I can close it as "kept" if everyone agrees, then a second community GAR can be opened. But like Bushranger I think it would be better all round if another reviewer did that rather than you Snowman. Eric Corbett 23:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I would be happy for you to end the current community GAR, which needs closing, because it has been spoilt by a polarised discussion. My main interest is to see that this article is either improved to GA standard or de-listed, so I would welcome second community GAR. I have no objections if someone else starts a community GAR, but if one is not started within seven days, then I would endeavour to start the second GAR myself. I would recommend a community GAR is started rather than a individual GAR. Snowman (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

      I'll close the current review tomorrow, if nobody does else first. I'd still strongly recommend that you do not start another community review; I'll do that myself if necessary. Eric Corbett 23:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

      If you do that, please copy my comments from the current review, as they have been offered in good faith, even though you seem to disagree with them. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

      If you want to comment at the review you may of course do so, but I'll be copying nothing. Eric Corbett 00:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

      I note that the discussion on the current community GAR has recently been advanced by User Someone not using his real name. With this in mind, I have changed my mind about restarting the current community GAR, and I now think that it would be simpler and appropriate to continue the existing community GAR. The ground has already been ploughed and there is no need to re-plough it. I would take heed of User Eric Corbett's recommendation that I do not start another community GAR myself on this article. I note that User Eric Corbett would restart the community GAR, if necessary. Snowman (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

      OK, I'll leave the review open then. Eric Corbett 19:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• In which case, you should strike pretty much all of your comments, Snowman, since they're mostly irrelevant to the GAR process, and some border on nonsensical (your comments about #5, for example) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

IP user reporting possible child molestation

I'm not quite sure what the policy is, but I suspect this conversation should be redacted and the claim of possible child abuse be reported to someone. μηδείς (talk) 01:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

At Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Closed_section_reporting_possible_sexual_assault the closing editor indicated someone at the foundation had been informed. Monty₈₄₅ 02:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I missed that given it wasn't noted on the item itself. Looking at the suicide guideline I suspect it should still be redacted by an admin. μηδείς (talk) 02:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I have hidden the edits. Mfield (Oi!) 04:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 04:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah just to confirm I did email emergency -at- wikimedia.org as they seemed the best equipped to decide whether and who to inform even if it's arguably not a literal emergency. I didn't mention it in my response to the OP as I wasn't sure it was a good idea to say it there where the OP may read it. I'm aware of the guideline but wasn't sure whether to treat it like a normal treat of harm or suicide case so left the question and responses be rather then deleting and asking for revdel, but will do so in the future if people feel that's best and in retrospect I probably should have brought it here so others could decide whether to do so even if I didn't delete the question. Nil Einne (talk) 08:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Someone should take care of the sinebot edit where the IP is revealed.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• One thing to keep in mind is that many jurisdictions have very strong new "requirement to report" laws where not reporting something to the proper authorities can come with its own criminal penalties. That was my reason for coming here even after seeing the thread had been archived. (Again, I hadn't seen Nil on talk saying he'd emailed WMF yet.) μηδείς (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Elaborate hoax articles

I have PROD'd these two: Murray Chance and The Tarsus Club. Both were written by WP:SPAs in 2010–2011, both are about a mysterious Chance family, neither has any decent sources, but both are supported by professional-looking hoax websites (which they'd be largely copyvios of if those sites really existed first). Am I right? How might we discover if there are more like this from about the same time? Dicklyon (talk) 06:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The "Memorandum of Understanding between the HM Treasury, the Bank of England and the Financial Services Authority" doesn't seem to mention the guy at all (either as David or Murray Chance). So that's at least one problem with WP:V. The first three sources, which would be legit if verified, are unfortunately dead links now, thanks to the never-ending website redesigns that these money-laden orgs pull. Someone not using his real name (talk) 06:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

There's another hint of hoax if you search for the "one of the leading forces that helped create the euro in the 1990s" quote. That finds an article here (in a not terribly reliable source) with a near identical quote about "Etienne Davignon- decade-long chairman of the Bilderberg Group". Someone not using his real name (talk) 06:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Basically, the bio article appears to have been constructed by piecing together verifiable facts about several other people and then attributing the deeds to this Chance guy. I have tagged that article with CSD#G3. Someone not using his real name (talk) 06:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

As for the club article, none of the independent sources cited even mention it. So it's really only sourced to itself. Tagged with CSD#A7 as the fantastic claims about itself are not credible lacking even a mere mention in the independent sources cited. Someone not using his real name (talk) 07:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, it was some filmmakers' rather clever decision to promote their conspiracy film by creating Wikipedia articles on some of the shady fictional players before the film was even released. This is what they call guerrilla marketing.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Good catch. By the way, this is an ongoing vandalism issue. The mythical club has been added as recently as last month to three articles [72][73][74] by an IP. Google Books finds no mention of this club. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Section blanking of Burj Khalifa by Binthaneya (with npov issues)

I don't generally find myself doing much more than basic vandal reverts (this is my first ANI post) so forgive me as I try to do the best I can here (and hopefully this is the right place). I stumbled upon this (possible) NPOV/Section blanking issue through my regular vandal patrol. I have no ties to the page whatsoever.

User Binthaneya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has insistently blanked the "Labour Controversy" section of Burj Khalifa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) with edit summaries that indicate NPOV issues. Diffs of these section blankings can be found here: 1 2 3 4 - I can see no valid reason for this section to be removed without discussion.

I contacted the user via their talk page and stated that before they blank a section, they should cite sources/discuss it on the talk page. The talk page discussion can be found here with my initial comment, the user's reply and my subsequent reply. The Labour Controversy section of Burj Khalifa remains blanked as I wish not to violate 3rr. -Ryan 07:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Also, a look at the twitter the user connected connected themselves to in their talk page reply (@binthaneya), indicates they are from a Human Resource company. -Ryan 07:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I've restored the section and warned for WP:3RR violation, explaining that Twitter is not a good venue for dispute resolution. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

...apparently with not useful effect. The Guardian and the BBC are biased, western colonialisms. Can another admin please step in? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

User has begun making biased edits (see edit summaries) to The Dubai Mall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) -Ryan 08:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for starting a new edit war at The Dubai Mall. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 08:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a bit strange, but the editor in the section below on AfD canvassing also has edited substantially at Burj Khalifa and The Dubai Mall. curious, especially given that they are now fairly clearly using socks. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 11:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Coincidental. Binthaneya is a self-identifying individual through his edit summaries and his attempts to use twitter features. Even then, this account should probably be indefinitely blocked. He is clearly here to push an Emirati nationalist agenda.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing at AfD

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

---

Nabil rais2008 appears to be engaging in some pretty obvious canvassing in response to some AfDs. [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], etc.

They also appear to have done the same a day or two ago in response to another AfD. See [82] and similar edits from their contribs. That particular AfD has already been closed though. Advice, suggestions, etc appreciated. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 10:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Yes - even though the notice appears to be "neutrally" worded, it isn't as it claims these things are all "notable". The editors who have responded to the canvassing have not even looked at the AfDs - they've just !voted "Keep" three times (in one case in less than a minute). I've left a final warning for the editor. I'm going to close and re-open the AfDs, along with a list of those contacted. Black Kite (talk) 10:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The reason for canvassing is just to broaden the discussion, and inviting more participants and it does not mean to bring the decision to one side. In my point of view by inviting more participants randomly one can easily reach a consensus without any delay, as i did.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 10:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Which is why one editor came and voted Keep three times in a minute without even looking at the notability? No, notifications like this do not help. If the items are notable, let other editors decide that. By the way, where did User:Blog123 come from to vote Keep three times? You didn't even notify them, and they haven't edited for three years. Very suspicious, that one. Black Kite (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Even more suspicious when the edit summary of this diff is considered, IMHO... EdChem (talk) 10:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned, the previous AfD discussion regarding Balochistan Rural Support Programme quickly filled up with Keeps. I took that at face value and rescinded its nomination, but it appears the same thing has happened there. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 10:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• User:Nabil rais2008: The following edits are problematic: [83], [84], [85], [86]. Per WP:CANVASS, these edits are problematic because the messages are not entirely neutral; they state that several sources have been found and that the topic is notable. Despite the fact that you suggest to !vote either "keep" or "delete," it appears that you're attempting to solicit keep !votes by stating the topic is inherently notable. There could also possibly be issues regarding a selective, partisan audience being contacted, in attempts to votestack, but this would require more research to determine. To avoid future problems, I'd advise you at the very least to word notices absolutely neutrally, and rather than posting to individual users, do so at WikiProjects and via Deletion sorting. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Its ok to reach consensus again by re-starting the nomination for deletion, and lets see what opinion other users make. One thing more the User: The commandline had wrongly nominated the articles of Dubai Central Library, and Zabeel Mall for deletion, as they do not fall under section "A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events)" of [for speedy deletion], here: [87], [88] as they are building structure are not (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events). So please advice whether the articles should be nominated for deletion or not ??? Even though the articles are notable, so the question of deletion doesn't arises even.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 11:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked. As EdChem points out above, User:Blog123 which voted Keep on all three AfDs in one minute after not editing since 2010 was previously named User:Nabil rais2010. Blog123 created Tanveer Ashraf Kaira which the above user then took over the editing of. an SPI has been raised, but per WP:DUCK I have blocked Blog123 indefinitely, and User:Nabil rais2008 for one week. Black Kite (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• You blocked Nabel rais2010, or 2008? (or both) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, fixed. Blocked the master (Nabil rais2008) for a week, and the sock Blog123 (formerly Nabil rais2010) indefinitely. Black Kite (talk) 12:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

It appears mostly solved for the moment, but I think it germane to the discussion (and for archival purposes) to point out that based on this, for example, (on the user page of one of the users canvassed above, but from 2011) the canvassing does not exactly look like a new thing, nor an isolated incident. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 12:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• On his talkpage Nabil rais2008 has claimed that the Mohammad adil account is not his but is editing from the same place. How does he know that, unless it's him? He also claims that Blog123 is not him. Editing history (and the gaps in his edits this morning) say otherwise. We actually might have quite a long-term abuse history going on here. Black Kite (talk) 14:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• He's clearly being untruthful about Blog123, given that account's previous name, so I'd be inclined to disbelieve what he says about any other user linked to him. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

He or she could have simply looked at my contribs. I mention that the adil account mentions Quetta, bodybuilding, etc in the SPI filing. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 14:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Stephen Nowlin

Hello -- I am attempting to create a biographical article named "Stephen Nowlin" but am receiving an alert preventing me from even beginning to do so. The alert says the name of my article is blocked because it:

"matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism."

The Stephen Nowlin I am attempting to write about is a noted curator of contemporary art. The article draft, with references, is located in my sandbox. Can you help enable me to submit this new article?

Many thanks,

Luther Hathaway

Luther Hathaway (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

You should post this at Wikipedia:Requested moves, not here. Note to admins/anyone else concerned: It's tripping filter

.*\bN[äao]wlins?(Wiki)?\b.*

Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

@Luther Hathaway: - I have moved your sandbox to Stephen Nowlin. GiantSnowman 20:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Jackmcbarn, this is the right place — when you try to create a page with a blacklisted title, you're told to come to the administrators' noticeboard if you're making the edit in good faith. Luther Hathaway, I think I know what happened: one of our more prominent administrators is someone called NawlinWiki, and the code that Jackmcbarn provides makes me guess that someone was creating junk pages to attack him. Basically, the software's set up to prevent pages being created about him, and it incorrectly thought "Stephen Nowlin" was another one of these attack pages. Nyttend (talk) 21:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I've mentioned that at MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist. Also, I just checked MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-forbidden-move, and it directs you to WP:RM. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but that's one of two things that happens when you try to move a page; I can't remember seeing that name before, because I've always encountered MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-custom-pagemove. Both it and MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-forbidden-edit reference the administrators' noticeboard, and (more importantly) note that Luther said that he got a notice that didn't even let him start the page — that's Titleblacklist-forbidden-edit. I guess he put it in a sandbox because he couldn't create it at the proper title. You can easily get Titleblacklist-forbidden-edit by going to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HaGGER&action=edit. Nyttend (talk) 22:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Could a talk page also be created, with the text {{WikiProject Biography|class=Stub|living=yes|listas=Nowlin, Stephen}} added?--Auric talk 17:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Unhelpful edits, redux

Last month, I reported 108.54.106.70 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for causing several issues in his edits and not responding to requests to stop. Following the end of the block, the IP has performed the same disruptive edits any time it makes edits to the whole of a page rather than its sections by removing every single carriage return between section headers [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95]. I'm aware these pages aren't the best anyway, but the edits are not going to be of any help when editing the article. The previous block obviously did not send any sort of message to the operator of the IP.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

This one definately needs an admin to study this one somewhat. Ryulong has been hounding this IP, reverting almost every edit made, reported the IP as a vandal causing what appears to be a block by a careless admin based on just Ryulong's report. Have a look at the IP talk page for this no history block for "not responding on his talk page"?? Later another careless admin posted a warning on the IP's talk page only to have Ryulong revert the admin's reversion of the edit, stating that the edit was helpful. This is the forth frivolous complaint (I can't find one linked from talk page probably removed due to ridiculousness) Ryulong has made against this editor in what appears as a clear case of WP:Ownership. Ryulong needs some attention here. This is clearly disruptive behavior over content disputes.

Twice this IP has cleaned out old edits on his own talk page only to have them replaced by Ryulong and a second time by a careless admin. Surely an IP has the right to maintain his own talk page providing a notice isn't a current ongoing issue. Even the welcome banner was replaced two times. Quite the forced welcome for newbies. 99.251.120.60 (talk) 14:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

108.54.106.70's actions are inconsistent with WP:BODY, "Between sections (and paragraphs), there should be a single blank line; multiple blank lines in the edit window create too much white space in the article." 108.54.106.70 simply needs to change the way they edit. Since they haven't done that, this report doesn't appear to be a frivolous complaint and reporting it here can't reasonably be described as "clearly disruptive behavior". Sean.hoyland - talk 14:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for recognizing the problem, Sean.hoyland.

99.251.120.60, I don't see how attempting to get the IP's attention and to change his editing patterns counts as "hounding", particularly when the deleterious edits (as described by WP:BODY) are making things difficult to edit. Regarding my revert of the admin's revert, I felt that those changes were done in good faith to the article and were overall helpful, which is why I restored them and did not revert anything here except the carriage return removal. There's nothing wrong about that nor is it against policy. Also, IPs are not in control of their talk pages as much as registered users are. Registered users are free to remove content at will. IPs cannot blank the entirety of the page when much of the content is not personal to them but simply for identification of the IP address. So, 99.251.120.60, if you have nothing useful to contribute to the thread leave. If you think I am such a detriment to the project, why don't you start your own thread pointing out the problems that you assume I am causing rather than attempting to turn every report I post here into a WP:BOOMERANG.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Cristiano Tomás

I would like this user banned from reverting any edit of mine on any page. I'm fed up with his uncivil attitude, exemplified by [96][97][98]. DrKiernan (talk) 22:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

We generally don't do interaction bans unless other things have failed first. I've given Cristiano a "stop now" warning and will give a final warning if I notice more. Either he'll stop or he'll be blocked; an interaction ban would be a lot of unnecessary bureaucracy at this point. Nyttend (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Incivility and long-term edit warring by User:201.215.187.159

I have continuing concerns over this editor; he has been using very strict interpretations of guidelines as justification for some of his edits, he has made rather uncivil remarks in various locations (particularly edit summaries and his talk page, and has also repeatedly removed two images on You have two cows and For sale: baby shoes, never worn, asserting from the MoS that "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic", yet have been long-standing images supported by consensus. Even after being given a final warning surrounding his disruptive behaviour (and staying off said articles for just over a week), he has returned and removed the controversial images again.

Could we have someone take a look at this? ViperSnake151  Talk  23:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked them for a week.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk page comments being deleted (from Copyright status of work by the U.S. government talk page).

Please see this DRN, which received no input, even after a relisting : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&oldid=567171893#Copyright_status_of_work_by_the_U.S._government

Re. links and diffs to involved pages, editors, proposed solutions : see the DRN, please… --Elvey (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Notification

Also, why is manual notification of involved parties still considered necessary given bots that do this : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATJRC&diff=cur&oldid=prev ? I will notify if someone doesn't beat me to it, but still wonder. --Elvey (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Unlike DRN, there's no set process that we must follow here, so there's nothing on which to base a bot's actions. Let's say I complain about something you're doing, but I don't link your name; how will the bot know that I'm talking about you and not some random person who goes by Elvey in real life? Or if I don't mention you by name, but I link to a diff made next after an edit you made (like you did, linking to your edit when talking about the bot edit that preceded it); how will the bot know that I'm complaining about you and not the person whose diff I've linked? I agree that it would be very convenient to have bot notifications for this page, but I simply don't think it's possible. Nyttend (talk) 04:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contribs/64.134.96.161

The IP defaces the user: page, making an edit war in process. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:AIV would have been the correct venue, but I have reverted and blocked as a sock. GiantSnowman 12:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban violation by Yogesh Khandke

Yogesh Khandke was indefinitely topic banned on 4 April 2012 from subjects relating to colonialism and Indian history. I recently requested clarification on this but it was archived with no resolution. YK continues to flout the topic ban at the DYK for Anti-Muslim violence in India an article which deals with Indian history, more specifically he continues to question the hook is which is explicitly about violence since partition, which most certainly falls within Indian history. So this again requires either a clarification or a broader interpretation on the topic ban as his behaviour at that article is exactly the same as what earned him a topic ban to begin with. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

(1)I had also raised questions regarding the correctness of the hook before the scope of my topic ban was discussed here a couple of days ago, so it isn't a new area I'm getting involved in. (2) I have presented my side at the previous discussion,[99] (@19:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC) and @20:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)) (3) I've tried to contribute positively to the project since my topic ban, I leave it to the community to judge how successful I've been. (4) Regarding my edit which DS considers a topic ban violation, DS writes "...all you are doing is being a tendentious and disruptive pain in the rectum".[100] I request the community to look into this too. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Given the failure to arrive at a conclusion during the last discussion, I don't think we have adequately informed Yogesh Khandke about whether this sort of editing is within the scope of the topic ban. Even if we decide it is, I don't think sanctions for edits prior to that determination would be appropriate. Looking at the article, it is primarily focused on contemporary events, and the DKY discussion is very heavily slanted towards the most recent of those events and the ongoing situation. As a result, I'd say the participation at DKY is probably not a violation. Monty₈₄₅ 16:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Is partition a "contemporary event" This article deals with incidents that are historic in nature, does the settler colonialism of Bangladeshi immigrants which led to the Nellie massacre a violation of the TBAN? Are the events from 1946 "contemporary events" I would say not, the article deals with historic events, not daily trivia. And as I said, his behaviour on the article talk page is the same as that which earned him the topic ban to begin with. Perfect example, On 11 July 2013 YK proposed the article be turned into a list. When that obviously never got anywhere on 24 July 2013 he suggested the article be merged claiming it was a synthises, not to mention how many times he had to be told that a court conviction against an organization was not needed when we have academic sources which say the RSS carried out acts of violence. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• If the topic ban is to do with Colonial India, then everything after 1950 should be fine - the reason I say 1950 is because that is when the constitution was completed. And everything before the 18th Century should be fine as well (prior to when the British Empire began getting heavily involved in the country.) If it is "all Indian history, apart from recent history" then I'd say it would be only for the last 100 years of history that Yogesh Khandke can edit. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The topic ban just says history, and how is 100 years ago not history? That is not even close to recent history. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

"topic banned from Indian history, broadly construed. He is not permitted to edit or discuss these topics anywhere on Wikipedia." Is what I am seeing in the discussion about the TBAN. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

A topic ban is not effective unless it is explicit what topics are being covered. Reading the last time (last week?) this same complaint came up, there was a lack of consensus on the extent of this topic ban. If Admins are confused, it's reasonable to assume that it is equally unclear to Khandke (and the rest of us). I think this calls for an full explanation of what topics this ban applies to and not some sort of prosecution over a ban which is ambiguous. Newjerseyliz (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

That is exactly what I am after here. I want it clarified as to just how broad the TBAN is. And once we have that down we can all move on with editing. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Brad Friedel‎

An IP: 86.148.195.168 has been reverting a cited reference on Brad Friedel‎ about a reported Bankruptcy concerning him in 2011. I have tried to encourage the editor, who gives the impression of being new to Wikipedia, via the edit summary and also their Talk Page to visit the discussion page for the article where I have also posted a message provide a reliable source and any other relevant information. The IP concerned has suggested in one edit summary that I should get my legal team involved and in the latest revert said in the edit summary ..... "I deal with things via phone and email not talk pages. My lawyer, Alan Digirolamo, of bdblaw will be the most reliable source you can get. I suggest u keep this off your page and speak with him instead of hiding behind a computer" See here. Assuming good faith I presume they have just misunderstood how Wikipedia works but guess it could just as well be a hoax. I did not judge it as amounting a legal threat to Wikipedia hense the post here. Please could an Admin take a look. Thanks Tmol42 (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Well, the IP is absolutely right to remove the information as it stands - it's cited to the Daily Mirror, which is a tabloid newspaper and hideously unreliable. However, there are other sources out there, and I'm going to use Eurosport to replace it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • There are other sources,[101] [102] [103] However it is qualified as a "technial bankruptcy" whatever that means as a clarification from the goalkeeper's spokesman, quoted speaking to the Daily Mirror. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• As I said above, I've recited it to Eurosport. The Mirror is highly unreliable, and should be avoided for basically everything. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Before I did anything I went and had a look and found a significant number of other news articles reporting the same information as the DM. Yes the DM can be unreliable at times and caution is needed when using it but just because of this it is not a reason to dismiss every citation from it. If I had not found the case and the facts reported in the Mirror also referred to in a number of places elsewhere I would have removed it but saw no reason to replace it just for the sake of it this time. In any event if you are proposing to use the 'Eurosport' reference I have seen, I would think twice as this looks, in part at least, a reworking of the DM article! I will leave it to you though to choose one of the others which have reported the events independantly to the DM including news media in Ohio and in Cheshire where Brad lives and the case was heard in the UK at Macclesfield County Court. Tmol42 (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Being hounded

Two weeks ago, I had posted a thread requesting assistance dealing with an edit warring dynamic IP editor and the thread was responded to by 99.251.120.60 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) attempting to turn my report into a WP:BOOMERANG against me in the ensuing archived discussion, by taking various resolved issues on multiple pages and saying I was violating WP:OWN. Last week, when I reported an editor to WP:AN3 the IP appeared again to attempt to turn my report against me. And in the past day, in the thread above, he has done the same in regards to another report of mine, even though an editor has commented and realized the problem that I've stated. This is all the IP has done. There are two edits to the article space simply fixing missed grammar, and everything else is a comment on this board attempting to implicate me in some trouble or contributing to other pieces of ANI drama. The IP appeared out of nowhere to turn my post against me 2 weeks ago and has done nothing else of note on this site. In response to my inquiries as to his identity, he made this claim, which I still find highly unlikely, and also accused me of having handed off my account to someone. It feels like I can't get help because of this IP editor. Can someone please help me out?—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)