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

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." [1]. 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)" [2]
• 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.[3]

• 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. [4]

• 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.[5]

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! [6] - Richard Burridge is a member of the Church of England General Synod! [7] - Robert van Voorst is a pastor! [8] Michael Grant wrote "popular books" and only knew about Roman coins! [9] 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)

FWIW, having looked at the quote above about Price, I guess it could be argued that he isn't actually indicating that he is necessarily in any way "Christian" however that term is defined, just that he really, really likes going to church. And it is, marginally, possible that he might be in some way someone who does not believe in Episcopalian beliefs, or that, possibly, the particular Anglican/Episcopalian church he goes to might in some way hold really unorthodox beliefs, even given the broad range of belief within Episcopalianism. Maybe. But that is a really weak argument. And I have seen "Christian atheist" used in some sources as describing someone who does not believe in god of the (mainstream, presumably) Christian belief system, making him an "atheist", but might, maybe, hold beliefs which might be consistent with some other system, which the individual himself might not have reviewed or know, which would only allow someone to say that he is "atheistic" at least relating to the beliefs of what might be the only religion he knows much about, Christianity. It is a term that is in occasional usage, and I think in general it has a clear definition, but I am not sure that the general meaning given the phrase would apply here. It would be a stretch to say that an Episcopalian is not theistic, and I don't see the source material used as being sufficient to make such a statement. John Carter (talk) 20:44, 11 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 [10] [11] 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 [12]. Strangesad says the cited source is no good because it comes from a "popular book" [13]. 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) ".[14] 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 [15]. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. He also canvassed Jeppiz [16] and Sergecross73 [17]. 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)

• And what's to say the individual did not have an earlier account? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:37, 16 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 [18], [19] despite being warned about it [20]. Ignoring the warning, Strangesad continued edit warring and reported the other for edit warring instead[21].
- Strangesad explicitly encouraged "allies" to create a sock to avoid their topic ban. [22].
- Despite several admins pointing this out [23], [24], Strangesad refused to withdraw the call to creat socks. [25]
- Strangesad argues in favor of violating Wikipedia policies [26].
- Strangesad often goes after people who displease here. [27], [28], [29], [30].
- Shorter blocks has no effect as Strangesad declares they won't change her style. [31].
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. [32] 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 [33] wasn't that egregious, but he has a documented history of disruption [34]. 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)

Comment - Just having done a quick review of the discussion, I would have to say that I am not sure that an individual ban is necessarily the best way to go here. The article is currently an FA candidate, and such articles tend to get more attention, positive and negative, when such. The edits are certainly problematic, and I don't dispute that in any way shape or form, but I am not sure that under the circumstances, particularly given the contentious nature of this particular topic, that this proposal is necessarily the best option to employ here. ArbCom is an option, and honestly, given some of what I read above, might be a better option, particularly as I seem to remember some of them also have CU. Alternately, maybe some sort of other short term editor restriction, or page locking, might resolve the question for a while. While I agree that there is good reason for the editor in question to maybe be at least warned about conduct, I am not at this point necessarily convinced that other, less dramatic, options might not yield better results in the short term with less possibly problematic long-term results. Having said that, I personally really would love to see ArbCom place most of the material regarding early Christianity under discretionary sanctions, and hope to maybe get them to do so in the near future, given the number of problematic POV pushing edits from multiple sides. But that is probably a separate matter best dealt with elsewhere, not here. John Carter (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Arbcom is a separate issue and will take forever and a day. You could start that anyway. But these edits are certainly "problematic" as you said, and disruptive, as others have said. And I see that you are not disputing that. But puppetry will obviously render many of the other items on this thread moot in any case. The last round of edits were likely by Humanpublic, not Strangesad. Not here anymore (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban I'm seeing a content dispute with passionate editors more than I'm seeing severe conduct violations. Yes there seem to have been some problems in the past with socking and the like but I'm not seeing new evidence of repetition of past misbehavior. As mentioned before, WP:CCC, and sometimes consensus needs to be reassessed to determine whether it's changed or not. I generally do not find it appropriate to remove another editor's comments and to refuse to engage in discussion even if the matter is "settled" as doing so is a bit too close to WP:OWN than I'm personally comfortable with. If it is the case that Strangesad's case doesn't have a leg to stand on (and I don't know because all my "knowledge" about the historical Jesus comes from Dogma) then the best way to determine that is to invite wider community input. If after a DRN discussion or an RFC the consensus is still the same and then Strangesad continues arguing about it, it might be time for a topic ban, and if Strangesad is as wrong as people make him out to be then it should be fairly easy to demonstrate to uninvolved editors. N^oformation ^Talk 03:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

You mean well, but we've already done all you suggest and more. This started in December, and I would guess at least 50 uninvolved editors have looked at it. I became involved in February, after two months of this. Of course any uninvolved editor who look into it will find that Strangesad&Humanpublic advocate a fringe view. There is not one academic in any relevant field who supports their fringe view. That is easy to demonstrate. The problem is that Strangesad doesn't give a damn. She is convinced she knows the truth, and if other editors disagree, then they are a "lynch mob" (one of her favorite phrases). So it's precisely because this has been going on for so many months and because it doesn't matter how many people get involved that I think a topic ban is necessary.Jeppiz (talk) 13:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

You have done none of what he suggested. No DRN and no RFC. I advocate no view on the historical Jesus. The view that there is no meaningful historical Jesus does not meet Wikipedia's definition of "fringe." According to the article's reliable, cited sources (Ehrman), there are "bona fide" scholars who make "intelligent" arguments against the existence of Jesus. You, on the other hand, have now proposed banning me four times, yet the number of times you've attempted to talk to me on my Talk page (excluding warnings) is zero. Strangesad (talk) 02:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I have not advocated for a topic ban for Strangesad, I am not an admin, so it seems to me I should leave it to them to decide what should be done here but I am certain that some action needs to be taken to prevent this kind of constant disruption to important articles on religion / Christianity / the Bible. As I said earlier, two of the most valuable editors in this area have recently left, History2007 and PiCo, editors who have not been involved in these areas may not realise what a disaster this is for the project as these two were highly knowledgeable in these fields and able to edit neutrally and fend off constant POV and fringe theory pushers. They appear to have got tired of doing that and who can blame them? Dougweller in another thread where I raised this [35] says "In History2007's case, too many sockpuppets were a big issue. For both I think pov editing was another factor." To me, this indicates that WP just is not functioning any more and lack of effective action by admins has resulted in more or less turning over the project in the area of Christianity to fringe pushers. Should History2007 and/or PiCo see this, I appeal to you to at least come back every now and then and check the most important pages. WP is, perhaps unfortunately, now the number one source of information on the web and WP articles come up first on most web searches for information. History2007 and PiCo were doing a service to the world in maintaining those articles, I understand the frustration, no need for either of you to go back to being as highly active as you were here, but please help us out every now and then at least, this project is too important to be abandoned to cranks.Smeat75 (talk) 14:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I just missed it but I'm not seeing a diff of a discussion at DRN or an RFC. If I did miss it please point it out so I can review the discussion and determine whether sufficient outside input came to the same conclusion. As I said, if a DRN or RFC took place and consensus was upheld, and if Strangesad is continuing that same conversation then it might be time for a topic ban. If, however, neither venue has been exploited then a topic ban is premature. Just FYI - and though I'm sure you didn't intend it this way - "you mean well" can come off condescendingly. N^oformation ^Talk 02:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

@Noformation: DRN and RfC are used in cases where no consensus can be reached at the article's talk page. Since there is consensus for this issue (a consensus that involved dozens of users), I don't understand why DRN and RfC are necessary. Just because one or two users refuse to get the point does not necessitate the use of DRN or RfC. These two venues are used to establish consensus (if none can be reached via talk page discussion). They are not requirements for a topic ban. Strangesad is being nominated for a topic ban due to her continued anti-consensus and fringe-view-promoting edits.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

DRN and RFC are used when a dispute needs to be resolved and is a standard progression of WP:DR - soliciting uninvolved advice is never a bad thing (and in this case apparently hasn't been tried outside of drama boards). Again, if the consensus is as clear as you say then there should be no objection to it being evaluated by neutral, third parties and doing so can only solidify the issue should it arise again. If you don't believe the discussion is worth your time you can sit it out and let other editors deal with it, since there are, as you say, dozens who agree. N^oformation ^Talk 03:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

@Noformation:: Actually, it was Strangesad who chose to come to this drama board. The topic ban proposal is something that appeared in the boomerang's flight path. --Stfg (talk) 12:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is relevant to my arguments. I did not make any statements about who brought the issues here, I simply noted that the content aspect of this dispute has not followed normal DR channels and ANI has been the only outside venue. Content disputes are outside the remit of ANI; indeed, Strangesad's complaint here is addressing a conduct issue: users removing her talk page posts - an issue I believe is valid for the same reason I cannot support a topic ban. To reiterate, if proper channels are utilized and if Strangesad continues to argue, then it might be acceptable to remove her posts as disruptive and to topic ban her. Until then I don't know how else to interpret it other than as an attempt to avoid discussion to maintain the status quo, which to me outside the spirit of the 5 pillars. Maybe you all are experts on the subject and Strangesad is on the fringe of the fringe - I don't know and it's not going to be determined on a drama board. The easiest way to solve the problem is to simply file the DRN and let the conversation take place. N^oformation ^Talk 01:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. For those commenting along the lines of "I've glanced at Strangesad's edits and I don't see anything seriously disruptive", I acknowledge that is indeed true. Deeper examination, however, reveals that this editor has engaged in behavior that is difficult to demonstrate in a single ANI thread: the long-term pushing of fringe views, coupled with a persistent and verbose rhetorical style designed to wear down detractors. The long-term effect is that contributors are pushed out of the topic area (or off the site completely) out of sheer exhaustion with dealing with the person. Strangesad is not offering anything constructive to this topic area, and should be removed while constructive editors are still around to maintain logic and fend off fringe positions. Now she is trying to derail the FAC. I do not agree that arbitration is needed at this point. Arbitration is for when the community has demonstrated an inability to solve the issue. If we can deal with it here, we can be done with it. For the record, I have nothing to do with religious topics on Wikipedia, so I am commenting from a neutral point-of-view. --Laser brain (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Update I see Strangesad has now started deleting comments by users she dislike [36], [37]. The first time, she deleted the comments outright, as seen in the diffs above. Fortunately FutureTrillionaire noticed it and reverted. Then Strangesad instead moved all the comments, creating confusion [38], this time she was reverted by Stfg. I honestly don't know what Strangesad is thinking, deleting other users' comments while this thread is going on. Unfortunately, it's not surprising and it is preceisly that kind of disrupting behavior that had made me suggest Strangesad be topic banned.Jeppiz (talk) 09:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

And as if that wasn't enough, Strangesad has continued to move around other users' comments. [39], [40]. So in addition to all the disruption already discussed, Strangesad is now deleting comments by others, and edit waring about moving around comments. How long will this farce continue? Has any one user taken up more of the communities time in 2013, and with so little productive to show for it? Strangesad is most definitely not here to improve Wikipedia.Jeppiz (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Number of times Jeppiz has tried to talk to me on my Talk page (notices/warnings excluded): 0
• Number of times Jeppiz (or anyone) has requested an RFC/U: 0
• Number of times Jeppiz has gone to AN or AN/I proposing to ban me: 4 Strangesad (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you excluded the notices and warnings sent to your talk. The point of these is to warn you, so that we don't have to resort to ANI. Also, RFC/U is not a requirement for a topic ban.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Strangesad is quite right. I've brought her behavior to AN or ANI four times. Not once has the community thrown it out as irrelevant. Quite the opposite, every time most users have agreed that Strangesad is disruptive, and there has usually been a quite even split between those wanting to ban Strangesad and those wanting to give Strangesad "one last chance". And it is quite revealing that Strangesad brings this up to try to change the topic, not commenting with even one word on her deletion of other users' comments or about her edit warring today. That is Strangesad's standard trick whenever her disruptive behavior is discussed, to change the topic to talk about others.Jeppiz (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly why you should file a DRN. Had you done so before bringing it to ANI in the first place, and if the DRN was closed as upholding prior consensus, you could simply point to it in an ANI and it would be positive evidence that Strangesad was being disruptive. This would give you a much stronger case - one based firmly in policy - for a topic ban. ANI should never be the first resort when dealing with an editor making proposals in good faith, even if you are personally sure they are wrong. Seriously, if you want this dispute solved then go right now, file the DRN, make your opening statement, notify Strangesad, let uninvolved editors hash it out and get your answer. If you're right and Strangesad keeps arguing I will support your topic ban proposal next time and I imagine you'll find few who oppose. As a matter of fact, if you do so then feel free to copypaste this comment to the next ANI and call it my support !vote. N^oformation ^Talk 01:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Not Here Anymore

Request interaction ban on this account. Since registering, the vast majority of edits have been targeted at opposing me on this one topic. [41].

Also, what is the policy on breaking up someone's comments in a FAC with sniping and other attempts to turn my comment section into his debating forum? I expected this to be a bit more like ArbCom, where each editor has there own space, and isn't drawn into bickering by point/counterpoint sniping.

Also, please note that FutureTrillionaire reverted my attempt to get NHA's comment out of my section, after announcing (above) that he would no longer revert any of edits. It's harassment. Strangesad (talk) 03:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, there is this sleazy message [42], in which he says "there is now a discussion that they may have exchanged passwords." (The truth is that nobody has made that suggestion but NHA.) Strangesad (talk) 03:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Finally, continusouly calling me "Humanpublic/Strangesad" is sort of antagonistic. File a sock puppet report, or find a more constructive way to spend time. Strangesad (talk) 03:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Important development - Strangesad is now erasing comments made by users who do not agree with her.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I moved them to that editor's comment section. Very important. Strangesad (talk) 04:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Please stop doing that. FAC reviews are threaded discussions. Your comments section is not your private space. --Stfg (talk) 08:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I have now put the comments back to their original position, as moving them obscured which comment was replying to what. --Stfg (talk) 08:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Rather definitely not happening: "I will also not revert any more of Strangesad's edits.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)". I wish admins would give guidance. I think NHA is clearly harassing me, and his arguing with my comments in the FAC is intended to disrupt. However, I'm now getting into 3RR territory if I'm wrong. Rather than blocking for being wrong that 3RR isn't mean to apply to this situation, why don't admins engage in discussion? Prevent problems before they occur. Strangesad (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

My reversion was a mistake in protocol, for which I have apologised on the talk page, but you clearly cannot forbid other reviewers from commenting after your signature. The current state of the FAC review page is that there are no comments by anyone else between your section header and your signature timed at 04:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC). That's all you're entitled to. The "protocol" you cited talks about nominators' comments, but it does not forbid other editors from commenting too. --Stfg (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Requesting closure

I'm requesting an uninvolved admin close this report and defer it to WP:DRN. All the arguments are in and at this point it's just the editors involved in the principle dispute bickering with each other, a sock of someone created just to argue here, and me (uninvolved) explaining that proper dispute resolution has not been followed. Nothing productive is going to come out of this. Strangesad, you can help move this along by filing the DRN yourself immediately, which you should have done in the first place. And if it doesn't go your way then seriously drop it or you will be topic banned next time. Everyone involved needs to adopt a mindset of colaboration and to try and see the opposing side. N^oformation ^Talk 02:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it is time to close this -- I'm not a good judge of that. But I trust all views and proposals will be considered, not just yours. You are presenting this still as an authentic content dispute. Many of us here feel that it is not an authentic content dispute, but a conduct issue, with editing against a consensus documented on the page's edit notice, deletion of another editor's FAC comments, and so on. You are in no position to state that next time she will be topic banned. You simply don't know how it would go next time. The only thing that's certain is that a lot more good editors' time would be spent if there's a next time. Seeing the opposing side doesn't mean we have to give credence to fringe theories. Collaboration isn't a suicide pact either. --Stfg (talk) 13:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Stfg. While I believe that N^oformation is right that it may be time to close, Stfg is right to point out that this is not the content dispute Noformation seems to think. More important, the last time this was at ANI about 50% wanted to topic ban Strangesad and the others said "let's give her one more chance, then topic ban the next time". Well, now is that next time. I don't say that that means Strangesad must be topic banned, but it does mean that Noformation's argument is moot. Either ANI sticks to "one last chance" or not. If it does, it should mean something. If it doesn't, then "the next time" shouldn't be used as an argument as it's meaningless.Jeppiz (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

"a sock of someone created just to argue here" I don't believe User:Not_here_anymore is a sock, but a former editor who created the account to say what he thought about this issue. Smeat75 (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, he said as much, and agreed to checkuser verification. Mind you, NHA had been making unsubstantiated socking allegations too. So many accusations, and not one SPI filing to date. Hmmm. --Stfg (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, Noinformation, I think you're widely missing the core issue here. This hasn't been a content dispute for a long time. It's been long-established that Strangesad is pushing fringe views and trying to edit against consensus. Therefore, this is a user conduct issue that should be handled here or, as a last resort, at ArbCom. --Laser brain (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with your premise but I take issue with your conclusion. Strangesad is an editor with less than 500 edits attempting to work on a page that elicits strong emotions, and aside from boilerplates it doesn't seem as though anyone has respectfully attempted to work this issue out in a non-aversarial manner. I'm not saying that Strangesad will not eventually be topic banned; it very well may be the case that she can't edit on these pages constructively - but the only way to find out is to attempt a real discussion on the subject. I'm honestly astonished that the experienced editors involved in this dispute are actually of the position that discussion on Wikipedia need not take place. Aside from content ground, what is the downside to following proper procedure by simply having the issue evaluated at DRN? ANI will still be here in two weeks if DRN fails and Strangesad continues arguing. Hell, this could have at least been posted to WP:FTN! What is the argument against trying to work collaboratively? It is difficult to interpret this, as an outsider, as something aside from an attempt to silence discussion to maintain the status quo (not from you of course, as my understanding is that you are uninvolved in the content dispute). N^oformation ^Talk 20:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

In general, all the points you make are valid, even very good. That is why nobody objected to a discussion when the couple Strangesad-Humanpublic (along with various now-exposed socks) first turned up. The problem is the two of them have some kind of Wiki-record in WP:IDHT and dismiss any argument. As I've already said, we've been through this since December. What Strangesad and Humanpublic are pushing is an extreme fringe POV. That is not unusual. There are editors denying the Holocaust, denying the moon landings, convinced about Bigfoot's existence etc. Strangesad and Humanpublic's fringe POV is no different. It is a fringe idea dismissed by any academic in any field related to the subject who has looked into it. As you say, the topic of Jesus elicits strong emotions, and there are literally thousands of aspects on which experts don't agree. This simply isn't one of them, this is one of the very few aspects on which every academic agree. Just as we don't insert fringe theories about the Holocaust or the moon landings when dismissed by all experts, I don't see the need to do it here either. Please read WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. That is not to say the question should be buried. Things may change, there may be academics who will challenge this aspect as well and present new evidence. Then we should of course take that into account. When Strangesad and Humanpublic first appeared, nobody told them to get lost, instead they were invited to present sources for the claims they wanted to insert. It was only after a long period of the two of them refusing to hear contradicting arguments, and refusing to accept that their view is contrary to that of all experts, that people started finding the pair (along with the socks, we did not know about the socks at the time) a bit disrupting as they never brought the discussion forward. From there, it just went downhill with increasing sockpuppetry, personal attacks, harassment, and more time spent at these boards than at any articles. Jeppiz (talk) 21:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I also think this should go to Dispute Resolution. At this point, there are too many diffs covering too many months of activity for parties who are not involved in the article editing to sort through. It may be a minority opinion, but I'm most concerned about present behavior (the past two weeks), than edits someone did April, especially if they were a new account and, unfortunately, dove into one of the most contentious articles on Wikipedia.

The point that sticks in my head is WP:BRD...Strangesad was bold, most of her edits were reverted and the next step was to discuss. But her original charge, and the reason that this case was even opened, was that her Talk Page comments were being deleted or collapsed. If this discussion had been talked out on the Talk Page, we probably wouldn't be here in ANI.

What I sense is that there are a lot of editors who, through a painstaking process, have created this article that they can more or less live with. Then, a new editor arrives, makes some edits, is reverted, comes to the Talk Page and the regulars are all talked out. These debates have gone on for years and it's a pain to go over it all again with every new editor (hence, I imagine, the FAQS).

I haven't looked at all of the diffs but gathering from the response, Strangesad probably made some bad edits (maybe really bad edits). But if an editor whose edits are reverted comes to a Talk Page and asks why, there should be a discussion, even if that discussion has been going on for 12 years. So, my question is, how did the regular editors deal with Strangesad's questions on the Talk Page? This is what a Dispute Resolution editor can get into.

There very well may have been some disruptive behavior here. But people tend to act out when no one listens or responds to them. That's not an excuse, it's just human behavior. On ANI, I often see a quick rush to ban/block which is a way for frustrated people to silence someone who is irritating them (whether intentionally or unintentionally). It's a knee-jerk reaction and I think in this situation, the parties would be better served by having DR sort through all of the claims and counterclaims and propose a scenario where the parties can work better together. Newjerseyliz (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

False premise: Strangesad is not a "new editor". She has been involved in the Jesus existence "debate" for a while. Deleting an entire paragraph of sensitive information, and acknowledging that the paragraph was constructed with consensus, is not bold. It's disruptive fringe-view-pushing and refusal to "get the point". That along with deleting other people's comments are unacceptable behavior.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

443 edits since:2012-10-26 - I personally draw the line at 500 but you're welcome to draw it where you'd like. As for the rest, a DRN would certainly sort out whether or not it's true. N^oformation ^Talk 01:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

@Noformation and Newjerseyliz: It's actually refreshing to read your points here—they are those of editors who have not yet been worn down by the tendentious rhetoric of editors like Strangesad. This is exactly how they work. There is nothing overtly egregious about her behavior on casual glance, but you have to take a long view and see what effect she has on other editors over time. There are always fresh editors to appear and act as apologists every time she lands at ANI because they only see a cross-section. I encourage you to watchlist and babysit an article like Jesus that editors like Strangesad target for a month or so, and you will change your tune. --Laser brain (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

LB, my singular point is that if what you're saying is true and if a DRN is filed and consensus is upheld then that's all you have to point to the next time Strangesad edits against the supposed consensus. You're basically admitting that unless one has followed her edits for a while it's hard to see the overall problem, so how do you expect me to support a topic ban when you fully understand why I can't see the overall problem? And again, why is everyone involved so against a discussion at DRN? What could possibly go wrong if everyone here is correct on both the conduct and content issues? If the involved editors would put as much time into a DRN as they are into arguing that one shouldn't take place then the case would be half way finished by now. N^oformation ^Talk 01:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is useless for handling civil POV pushing—since a case can be made that religion is nonsense and that Jesus never existed, arguing about that at DR would result in a pointless sequence of "my source is better than your source" exchanges. The problem is that Strangesad is actively pushing the view that Christianity is bogus, and that kind of editing is a misuse of Wikipedia. For example, in this edit Strangesad adds "Resurrection is impossible..." to the lead of Resurrection of Jesus where the editor argues that since three references define death as irreversible, it follows that resurrection is impossible. Many edits of that nature have occurred since February. Strangesad is on a campaign to make sure that as many articles as possible convey the message that Christianity is bogus. It's fine to present the views of notables like Hume, but it is not fine to use Wikipedia for POV pushing—the encyclopedia needs to reflect standard scholarship and ANI needs to protect editors who follow that principle. A topic ban of Strangesad should be enforced until a case is made that they have learned what WP:NPOV means. Johnuniq (talk) 01:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's come back to Earth. My view of how to improve the Jesus article can be found at the FAC [43]. My view is not that the article should say "Jesus never existed." I don't think Jesus never existed. I've said this many times (including in the FAC).

My views concern neutrality. One example I give at the FAC concerns the source Bart Ehrman. My critics accept him as reliable. He states "bona fide scholars" question the existence of Jesus, and that their arguments are intelligent and well-informed. Ehrman is used as a source in the article, but those particular comments are not allowed [44] Indeed, attempting to add them is used as an example of my POV-pushing anti-Christian agenda etc.

It is true Ehrman also says virtually all scholars agree Jesus existed. The explanation of the contradiction is that he is writing a popular book, and the language isn't rigorous. Digging deeper into his book reveals that the "virtually all" consensus consists of New Testament professors (many of whom are ministers) and religious studies professors. Whereas, when he says there are bona fide scholars who disagree, he is using a broader definition of scholar. To me this is relevant, and I think it misrepresents the source to hide this point in the article.

Holding this position, even if wrong, does not mean I am (as Johnuniq puts it) "actively pushing the view that Christianity is bogus." It entails no position on the validity of Christianity at all.

All of the accusations here have this character. The article misrepresents what sources say, and its selection of sources is dominated by ministers, priests, and publishing imprints with a stated mission of promoting Jesus. I question whether the sourcing is accurate or neutral, and am immediately accused of being anti-Christian. Strangesad (talk) 06:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, you lost me here, Strangesad. My Master's degree is in Religious Studies from the University of California and if you don't know the difference between the scholarly study of religion and being a priest, well, that's like saying every political science professor is a biased politician, running for public office. Religious Studies is a discipline, just like Sociology or Linguistics, that is rigorous, has a history of scholarship and is not Theology. In fact, although it was very unusual in my department to make your personal affiliations known, there were more than a few atheists in the RS Department. They are "bona fide" scholars. Newjerseyliz (talk) 01:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

You lost me with my losing you. I don't think there's no difference between a religion professor and a priest. Strangesad (talk) 03:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

No one here is concerned with whether or not another editor is anti-Christian. What matters is whether an editor is consistently pushing a fringe view, and is causing disruption by repeated IDIDNTHEARTHAT deflections. If you are going to address my statement, please engage with it by responding to the diff. Johnuniq (talk) 06:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

It is really maddening the way Strangesad just says the same thing over and over. No many times you tell her that Michael Grant and Bart Ehrman are/were not priests or ministers of religion, she will then switch to saying "they wrote popular books" until the next time she says all the sources in the article are priests or ministers of religion. She fought for weeks to put "Resurrection is impossible" into the lead of the article Resurrection of Jesus, just look at the talk page [45], disappeared for a while, then came back to battle over the Jesus article. I left her a message today [46] - "The article Christ myth theory has been re-written with a full and neutral discussion of G A Wells,Ellegård, etc. Please have a look at it, I believe it should answer your concerns on this matter. The main Jesus article has a link to the Christ myth article. It would make the main article too long to go into the detail needed to explain it properly and explore the various views", she takes absolutely no notice or makes any response. I don't like to advocate for people to be banned or blocked but I do know something needs to be done to stop this, how anybody who edits in these areas is expected to stand this sort of thing all the time I do not know, no wonder some of the most valuable contributors have left.Smeat75 (talk) 06:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Refer to ArbCom. Clearly this is not a matter that DRN can ever hope to solve. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Notice also how Strangesad rejects all the sources used in the section of the article she objects to but never specifies or suggests who she wants to use instead beyond demanding that the unnamed ""bona fide scholars" referred to by Ehrman be included, see the discussion at [47] where I told her who, of contemporary scholars, he means by that, to wit Robert Price and Hermann Detering and suggested she find some quotes from them herself which could then be considered, but she does not even seem to read what people say to her and continues to insist that others find citations to her satisfaction from these "bona fide scholars" and revise the article to suit her.Smeat75 (talk) 13:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom requires previous attempts at dispute resolution. None of the editors berating me have attempted a non-berating conversation. Indeed, the incident that began this thread was my attempt at the most basic kind of dispute-resolution: a conversation on the Talk page. FutureTrilliionaire, with the support of several editors here, shut that down. Strangesad (talk) 14:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I had decided not to comment more on this (as I seriously think Strangesad utterly enjoys all the havoc she creates), but as I see that she is again playing the martyr game, I thought a small recap of the facts might be relevant. Strangesad laments that nobody has talked to her. That is a two-way street, Strangesad. Your first edit of topics related to Jesus consisted of deleting a well-respected sourced that displeased you [48]. Your next edit consisted of deleting even more content [49]. After that you spent a considerable time edit warring about inserting a claim nobody but you wanted, leading to you eventually being blocked for edit warring.[50]. When you first came to the talk page [51], the very productive user whom you eventually managed to push away from Wikipedia with your constant harassment responded politely and tried to inform you about WP:RS [52]. So kindly avoid trying to portray yourself as the poor victim of anything. People responded politely to you at first, it was only after your repeated edit warring and constant refusal to listen that people eventually grew tired. Disruption is not only vandalizing a page once. That's easy to fix. It's users who refuse to listen for months, thereby wasting lots of time of other users, that are the most harmful to the project. And as I said, I'm quite sure creating chaos of this kind if one of Strangesad's main reasons to be here. She may be many things, but she isn't unintelligent so I cannot in good faith believe she did not understand WP:RS or the principles of consensus already in February.Jeppiz (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The first diff in your comment is for an edit I made that was never reverted and is part of the current consensus. The rest of your comment is similar. Strangesad (talk) 18:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The Jesus article has now achieved FA status, and the FA reviewer who promoted the article has said to Strangesad [53] "it appeared to me when judging consensus, as it appeared to the other reviewers, that your idea of neutrality is to put in more information and sources to support a fringe theory, which is not what WP is about" which is exactly what she does, along with myriad textbook examples of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:DISRUPT, WP:DEADHORSE,WP:BATTLEGROUND, etc., etc., etc. Smeat75 (talk) 16:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Peteforsyth & Russavia

On 19 June I blocked Russavia (talk · contribs) indefinitely for disruption and this block was overwhelmingly supported by the community [54]. On 24 June AGK locked Russavia's talkpage for a month as a consequence of using his talkpage to continue the disruption and threatened to remove his talkpage access permanently if this continued [55]. Following the expiration of that lock Russavia has been using his talkpage in a manner clearly designed to solicit desired edits on the project. For example, the following diff shows him striking out comments once they have been actioned [56]. Since then a further 4 edits designed to solicit edits have been made.

On 9 August I revoked Russavia's talkpage access as I felt that it was being used for an inappropriate purpose. I felt that another recent ANI discussion [57] concerning Apteva was relevant as their talkpage access was removed while blocked for using the page to solicit edits while blocked. While Apteva was more blatant than Russavia, I see no difference in substance between their actions - especially given that Russavia has been blocked indefinitely and, at the time, Apteva had been blocked for a month.

My block of Russavia's talkpage was challenged by Peteforsyth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - see discussion on my talk page [58] who subsequently undid it as well as removing the standard block settings preventing account creation and ip-autoblocking (basically turning a hard block to a soft block). I see absolutely no logic for this alteration and no satisfactory explanation for the change has been provided - referring to blocks being preventative rather than punitive seems to step around the strong consensus endorsing my original block. I am also concerned that Peteforsyth is not neutral with regard to Russavia - He is clearly friendly with Russavia on Commons and recently supported him in de'crating and de'admining discussions as well as a March post on Russavia's commons talkpage expressing his admiration [59]. I have asked Peteforsyth to clarify this but he did not respond to this question.

I basically have 3 questions that I would appreciate feedback on:

• Is it acceptable for an indefinitely blocked user to solicit edits on their talkpage?
• Is Peteforsyth sufficiently neutral to have undone my talkpage block without seeking a consensus here & was it OK to convert Russavia's block to a softblock?
• Should we leave the softblock be or restore the hardblock?

As noted on my talk, I'm on holiday and have sporadic internet access so may be not be able to step back to this discussion regularly. Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

According to previous discussions on this noticeboard, Russavia was de facto community banned. Peteforsyth is a supporter of Russavia on Commons. He has expressed his personal view that the dispute between Russavia and Jimmy Wales will "blow over". That completely overlooks the Jimmy Wales topic ban of Russavia put in place by Newyorkbrad. Now that the dust has settled from mid-June, it might be worth formalizing a community ban of Russavia either here or on WP:AN. Mathsci (talk) 05:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Responding to the 3 questions in order: If the solicited edits are not themselves problematic, I have no idea. Probably not a WP:Involved violation, as such the conversion was permitted, but unwise. (unwise both due to the potential appearance of bias, and because an admin action should only be reversed prior to discussion for very good reason) I can think of no justification for the change to a soft block, and so Support restoring the hardblock. Monty₈₄₅ 05:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• I do not understand why concerns about copyright (see here) or images not conforming to WP:NFCC (like this) lead to the removal of the talk page access as they were considered as not being helpful. In his reasoning, Spartaz claimed that In the case of indefinitely blocked users, talkpages should not be used to post material about article content. Is it really the intention to have notifications about copyright problems suppressed just because an editor is blocked? --AFBorchert (talk) 06:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: Just an observational note. The block is a hardblock, and Russavia came into #wikipedia-en and made the following comment:

[02:08] russavia an admin around? a hardblock in conjunction with an account creation prevention -- this would mean that any IP i've edited from in the last 3 months would be prevented from editing or creating an account?

Just wanted to point that out. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 06:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed it is now a soft block [60]. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Dusti, aside from being wrong about the block, do you know that posting IRC logs on-wiki is considered a blockable offence by some? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Peteforsyth is WAY too WP:INVOLVED to make that decision by himself. Perhaps he could justify the restoration of the talk page access, but not the other things. I think we may need to run a CU to check if Russavia has circumvented his block as a result of this ridiculous decision. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Point 1, doing so would normally be, in my book, meatpuppetry but given that they're blocked anyone acting on their behalf is basically a sock (not in the classic sense, I hope people understand what I mean). Point 2, Peterforsyth could argue that their friendly relationship with Russavia on Commons is off-en-wiki, but I would argue that given the closeness of Commons and En Wiki, Peterforsyth could in no way be considered uninvolved to be performing such admin actions. Point 3, admins should not be unilaterally converting imposed hard blocks without consultation. Blackmane (talk) 08:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Responding just to your first question: it all depends on how it's done. Since good blocks are imposed to prevent disruption, a reasonable request for what's really an improvement should definitely be fulfilled, and any rule that prohibits it is a rule that prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. Of course, requests for things that damage articles should be denied, and unreasonable requests (e.g. attacks on someone else) are a great reason for shutting down talk page access. Nyttend (talk) 11:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed in general, but I don't think we want to encourage people to become meatpuppets who proxy edit for people who are de facto banned. If Russavia came across something glaring and posted it to his talk page in the hopes someone could help, that would be fine. But if he is repeatedly asking for people to edit on his behalf, then I agree with removing access. I also support others in stating that the hard block should be restored. Resolute 13:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Note Whatever the issues over talkpage access, the IP block and account creation blocks need to be put back, they are entirely standard settings and Pete did not address why on earth he had done that in his response to Spartaz. [61] Black Kite (talk) 12:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• I don't think this was an appropriate use for a talk page of an indefinitely blocked editor. By indefinitely blocking someone we have decided that we do not want them contributing to the encyclopedia. Talk page access is primarily given for the purpose of discussing the circumstances surrounding the block, not for making more contributions. Whether the edits are constructive makes no difference - blocked editors are blocked from making any sort of edit, not just from making unconstructive edits. If anything I would consider use of a talk page in this way to be a form of gaming the system by showing that the block is ineffective. Nor do I see why the hardblock was turned into a softblock, as hardblocks are almost always used in situations where the blocked editor was being actively disruptive. Hut 8.5 15:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed; reset block settings to before Peteforsyth changed them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support talk page access, though I have no opinion on the rest. AGK shouldn't have revoked his talk page access in the first place since Russavia was simply responding to an article written about him in the Signpost. Now he has just been commenting about legitimate issues with content. Revoking talk page access under these circumstances is unduly punitive. As Russavia is merely blocked rather than banned he is allowed use of his talk page for things other than appeals regarding his block.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

A couple comments, since it seems people want them.

• Russavia's edits to his talk page in no way relate to the stuff that he was banned for. Since I restored his privileges, he has flagged four clear copyright violations that have existed on the site for 4 to 9 years -- clearly and uncontroversially problems that should be addressed. That's it. No fanning of flames, no drama. In my view, no harm, no foul. This is a markedly different circumstance than the one Spartaz originally cited as precedent, which among other things involved the use of the {{helpme}} template. If anybody can't handle what's going on, all they have to do is unwatch Russavia -- problem solved.
• Yes, of course I am a collaborator who works with Russavia. He has been around a long time, does a lot of good work; I have learned a lot from him and enjoy his company. This is a far cry from saying I endorse everything he does, or am some kind of meatpuppet. If there is relevance, I fail to see it. My actions have been motivated by what is best for Wikipedia, not by a sense of personal loyalty.
• The hardblock-to-softblock conversion is something I did for a different reason, and something I had expected would be entirely uncontroversial. I have had more than one student who, when attempting to create their first Wikipedia account, are prevented from doing so, and after some digging the reason has turned out to be an autoblock that had absolutely nothing to do with them. To me, this seems like a significant problem in the recruitment of new users, and I would think that autoblocks would typically be used very lightly in consideration of that unintended consequence. I have never heard an allegation that Russavia has socked; doing so seems to me out of step with his approach to editing wikis; and I looked through his block log to confirm that socking has never been at issue. With all that in mind, I thought that removing the anti-socking aspects of the block would be a simple and uncontroversial change. I guess I was wrong, and this is probably not the best venue to address what now seems to me like an overly reactive general approach that has evolved here in relation to blocks.

With all that said, I'm done here -- this is not the kind of thing I log into Wikipedia to work on. I'll probably check back to see what is said, but overall I don't see this as an issue worth the ink that has been spilled on it. I think we all have better things to do. -Pete (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

If you don't want to be involved in discussions about this sort of thing, don't go messing around with high-profile blocks like this one as it is pretty much guaranteed that this sort of hint will attract attention on the drama boards. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Status quo ante - Quite clearly an ill-advised and possibly bad-faith maneuver on PeterForsyth's part, given their Commons connections. Tarc (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Not to put too fine a point on it, blocked means blocked. If a user is blocked, the inherent assumption is that they may not edit the English Wikipedia except to make a block appeal. If that assumption is incorrect, the appropriate action is not to grant them talk page access and give them a limited, hindered route to editing by proxy; it is to unblock them. And to "un-revoke" their talk page access because the edits, of themselves, are constructive is to entirely – I regret to say – miss the point. Revoke talk page access and refer Russavia to an appeals venue. (Full disclosure: Last month, I protected Russavia's talk page for a month, thereby temporarily revoking his talk page access.) AGK [•] 13:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that's an assumption which is particularly prevalent. The user talk page is used for all sorts of notifications (ANI, copyvio, SPI) which may be unrelated to their block but where some sort of response would be expected or solicited. Besides this, many blocked users, like Russavia, use their talk pages to discuss page content issues, and this is the first I've noticed anyone object to this practice. It would help if the community would actually codify its attitude towards this behaviour. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I forget the bit of WP:ALPHABETSOUP where it's at, but a blocked user's talk page is supposed to be used only for unblock requests. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
      • I've heard that said before but never seen the policy that supports it. Can someone point to it, please? I've never been able to imagine a rationale behind such a restriction. Blocks are meant to prevent disruption. A blocked editor mentioning copyvios on his talk page is not being disruptive. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support talk page access - I do not find the edits that are at the heart of this complaint to be problematic. As this is an editor with a history of figuring out where the boundaries are and then walking 3 steps over with his pants around his ankles, shaking his backside at the world like Bart Simpson, I don't anticipate that he will stay within the bounds of such directed, content-related criticism for long. There will no doubt be a time when the cudgel needs to be wielded again, but I don't find anything the least bit wrong with the "corrections to be made" approach. Carrite (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support talk page access. I do not see any point in blocking talk page of a blocked user unless it is used for personal attacks, harassment, soapboxing of particularly offensive POV and similar disruption. Seems to be the case here as I do not see Russavia using talk page for disruptions (at least recently). Some users do not have the right temperament or skills to work with the article space directly but they are productive discussing article content on their talk page. Usually such type of work reduces tensions and helps the problem editor to learn the correct way of editing in article space. Not sure about account creations and autoblocks. Usually it is a bad idea, if Russavia has any special circumstances related to the matter, it is really should be discussed offwiki Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• Status quo ante - it just looks like the ultimate gamer is starting to game again. What part of "no, we don't want you contributing, everything you do is disruptive" doesn't he understand? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• Status quo ante - obviously. Why would I need to add anything to what Smallbones said? That's it, really. Begoon ^talk 05:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support talk page access, until and unless he starts to actually use his talk page disruptively. Don't care if he's soft- or hard-blocked - no evidence has been presented supporting the view that he's likely to sock. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support hard block but with talk page access. Talk page access is a useful valve to allow venting of the frustration at being blocked. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 05:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
• In the absence of any policy or guideline which unamiguously says that this is an inappropriate use of the user talk page, I support talk page access. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
• Reinstate hard block, with talk page access - I'm now going to !vote here, and there's a reason why I feel Russavia should have talk page access. It's not because he hasn't been disruptive there - he's clearly editing by proxy. But that's the thing - it's clear. If we retract that access, he will STILL edit via proxy, but we won't be able to track it as easily. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
• Thanks everyone for your comments and thoughts. I get the sense that the hardblock should be restored but that there isn't a consensus to shut off Russavia's talkpage at this time. Can some kind soul make this happen or do we think the consensus is clear enough for me to do it myself? Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Peteforsyth proxy editing for Russavia

These edits were made on behalf of Russavia.[62][63][64][65][66][67] Peteforsyth has added links to Russavia's user talk page for the file deletion requests. They do not seem clear-cut, since Nyttend had already added "freedom of panorama" tags after Russavia's talk page posting.[68][69] Because the case for deletion of the images was not clear-cut, these edits seem WP:POINTY and would appear to create an awkward situation for any administrators trying to deal with the deletion requests. Mathsci (talk) 04:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Avanhard resort article and self-promotion

• Avanhard (Vorokhta) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have noticed that someone tried to pad this article several times with various links to a foreign commercial third-party websites, such as this one, this and this. All of these commercial sites are using self-published basic info about resort (and few photos of unknown source) for a self-promotion of their own commercial services (namely selling the tours or rooms at the hotels at this particular resort). Am I correct to assume that such sources (which have the only purpose of self-promoting their own commercial service) should not be used due to WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:IS or am I wrong? I have tried to remove these but they were reverted and I was straight away accused of vandalism. I do not really want to break any WP:3RR rules (and if I already did - I apologize for that) or engage into further pointless conversations at an article's Talk page so please help me figure it out here... 173.68.110.16 (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree as per WP:LINKSTOAVOID this is exactly breaking point 5. Also some content in the page was focusing more on a resort than the town/village itself. I have removed the content but not the external links yet though.  A m i t  웃   02:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

What's the problem? Clear-cut advertising case. Just delete the links again and ask the user to discuss on the talkpage per WP:BRD. You're not the one edit-warring here, so I don't see anything worthy of ANI just yet. He's only posted on the talk page once. I'm sorry I no longer have the time to just help you with this, but I don't see any reason why I (or anyone else) would need to at this point. Also, try pointing out to him that "vandalism" is a label that should never be applied to anything but obvious bad-faith edits and so is clearly being used wrongly. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

It would hardly be fair to leave 173.68.110.16 to deal with this alone; naturally, they're worried about 3RR. I've warned the user on their page. Thanks for raising this, 173.68.110.16, and feel free to alert me on my page if there's more trouble. Bishonen | talk 11:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC).

Negative, the user 173.68.110.16 has never tried to discuss his edits, but rather had intentions to delete the whole article without any discussion. The article itself is not a "clear case" of commercial advertising, but I agree that a lot of links may have lead to such assumption. However, I am willing to improve the article in near future. Also, please not that the article is not about a town, but rather a ski resort that is located in the town of Vorokhta (a bid difference). Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 13:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You are intentionally trying to accuse me of WP:ABF, my dear friend... Why? I did start the discussion on an article's Talk page, right after I reverted all of the spam second time. I started it with an intention of preventing you from reverting my edits and preventing you from adding in more of self-promotion sources. I did NOT start WP:AfD and never intended to (if I wanted to I would've nominated this article right away). I gave you time to improve it and make it more useful for general readers. What did YOU do? You basically said "fuck you" then promptly reverted my edits again, marking them as "vandalism"... Just like you did before. And only NOW you are "willing to improve" it in a proper way... Why such dishonesty? 173.68.110.16 (talk) 07:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Please could an Ukrainian/Russian-speaking admin take a look at the links?

Both the references and the external links, please. They're in languages I don't understand. However, having looked at the article more closely, I now consider the whole of it falls foul of WP:NOTADVERTISING, and have nominated it for deletion here. Bishonen | talk 18:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC).

You can ask Ezhiki, he can understand and translate all of the links or recommend someone else to do this. And WP:AfDing it was somewhat premature, as I have explained it on its nomination page. 173.68.110.16 (talk) 07:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Whatever the merits of the AfD that IP address is sketchy as hell, and possibly related to the two brand new accounts (well, one of them registered in 2008, then just came back, five years later) which showed up at the AfD.Volunteer Marek 23:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, yes, I agree - this IP address is very "sketchy", all it does is vandalizing "foreign topic"-related articles as well as other "non-foreign topic"-related articles! Most likely a troll or a vandal. You should definitely investigate it further! Let me know what you will find, ok? 173.68.110.16 (talk) 07:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

@Bishonen: [70]_(ru), [71]_(ru) and [72]_(ua) all say broadly the same sort of thing. They all describe the hotel (along the lines of: "It is situated in abc; it contains the facilities xyz; ..."). Some of them provide the option of booking rooms. However, in their descriptions they broadly avoid WP:PEACOCK terms ("this is a fantastic hotel" etc.), if that is important. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 09:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Wolfe Tone Societies

I created this article yesterday: Wolfe_Tone_Societies. User:Psychonaut has blanked the page citing copyright violation. I believe this is overkill. I am a hardworking, daily contributor to Wikipedia and if he had highlighted any issues to me I would have rectified them immediately. I think he is aware of this. I don't believe it is to the advantage of the wiki to have this article placed in stalemate for any length of time when I am absolutely committed to putting any errors right. If any admin wishes to make the page available to me again and either tags the suspect text as "copyvio" or hides it with a note to tell me what is wrong I will correct it so that it fully complies with whatever guideline I have overlooked. I do apologise for getting it wrong in the first place and will use this experience to help me avoid such issues in the future. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the text of the article again it appears to me as if the only thing wrong is a missing set of quotes to identify the section "Formation" as a quote from CAIN. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Just remove the (potentially) offending material and reinstate the other stuff. Unless Psychonaut has given you a better, more specific reason that you're not telling us about. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Duplication Detector report The Banner talk 12:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's some of it. The duplication detector doesn't work on printed books. The material copied was from the section of the book cited as a reference. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive805#Werieth may provide some context here. Since that thread (before which I had no knowledge of or interactions with this user), I've been occasionally observing their activity here and on Commons, cleaning up after their copyvios where necessary, and offering them help and advice. Regretfully I have come to agree with Cailil's conclusions that SonofSentanta has been given more than enough time and opportunities to familiarize and bring himself into compliance with our copyright policies. That he has failed to do so in five years can only be explained by either incompetence or disingenuity. The latest copyright violation (i.e., the subject of this ANI report) is rather blatant, with a considerable amount of text copied and pasted verbatim from a website and a printed book, and yet he professes not to know where the problem lies. His personal insults and threats to disrupt the projects don't help much either. (The latest link is to a Commons thread, though it reflects his attitude to objections to his copyright violations generally, irrespective of whether they're done there or here.)

Anyway, to address the specific subject of this complaint, when I tagged the article as a copyvio I immediately provided the author with full instructions on how to go about correcting it. He knows now (if he didn't already from reading the template on the article) that all he has to do is to write a non-infringing version of the article on a temporary page. The temp version will then be copied over the original, and the problematic versions will most likely be revdel'ed by an administrator. This is the standard procedure for complex copyvio cases here (i.e., those which mix infringing and non-infringing text). I imagine it would have taken him less time to simply follow the instructions to fix the article than to post this complaint here. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

This is what happened when I went to Werieth asking for help and advice [73]. Some mentor eh? This was after I had posted this message [74]. Does anyone notice that I'm the one doing all the work, approaching people and asking them to work with me? What do I get for it? "I don't have the time to deal with you". SonofSetanta (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Mentoring or block for SoS. Is "copyvio" an acceptable topic for TBAN? Like if he makes any more copyvio edits he is immediately blocked, and this is his final warning? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think he's going to get any more information from a mentor than he has from me, User:Stefan2, and several other users who over the past month (if not longer) have very patiently and repeatedly explained various aspects of copyright law, licensing, and Wikipedia/Commons media use policies to him. I am not going to waste any further time on what amounts to retyping information which was already provided to him in copyvio/deletion notifications, directing him to informative policy pages that he doesn't appear to actually read, and explaining what distinguishes free content from non-free content over and over again. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Persistent violation of copyright is grounds for an immediate indef block usually. SoS is already on a final warning per the previous ANI thread, which wasn't that long ago. At the very least, a sanction for CIR should be considered. Blackmane (talk) 12:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I am dreadfully upset by your comments Hijiri. Why would I need to be blocked because I make a request here? The copyvio notice at wolfe Tone Societies states "Do not restore or edit the blanked content on this page until the issue is resolved by an administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent." As per that I am requesting the page be restored so I can correct the errors - that's all. I've made no complaint about Psychonaut or anyone else - just a simple request to sysops from a hardworking editor. Restore the page, clearly identify any areas of concern, and I will rectify it/them immediately. The fact that there are errors are simply oversight on my part. I should have used quote marks when I cited CAIN and Richard English and I apologise for not doing so. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Why do I need to be blocked for making a request here? This is not about image copyright, which is what all the previous discussions have been about. This is about me making a simple request to have an article restored so I can correct errors. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

See WP:BOOMERANG. By posting here you inadvertently drew the community's attention to your own persistent pattern of disruptive behaviour. As much as it pains me to say this to a fellow Paddy. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• This is an open-and-shut case, isn't it? If they've violated a copyright-related final warning, which they have, then an indef block needs to follow. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

How have I violated any warning? I left out some quotation marks. The warning you're referring to was in regards to me trying to keep images where there were copyright issues. That's a totally different matter. I've come onto this board to request an article be restored to allow me to correct it by putting in quotation marks. So how is it an open and shut case when I'm trying to comply with copyright? Am I saying anywhere there isn't a copyright issue? Am I saying I'm not going to fix it? Am I insulting anyone for drawing my attention to copyright issues? No. I've made a simple request for the article to be restored to allow me to quickly correct it. FYI: I use quotes from CAIN copiously. I have a permission from CAIN to use an image from their site - sent to OTRS today. I quote from books all the time and fill in the bibliography diligently. Why on earth am I getting all this grief because I left out a couple of quotation marks and want to correct that error? SonofSetanta (talk) 13:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

But there is no persistent pattern of disruptive behavior. There were issues a few weeks ago concerning files I had uploaded in 2008 as well as a couple concerning military insignia where I didn't understand the complications of Crown Copyright. That has all been resolved now, mostly through my own efforts to keep them. I have worked with the editors who are trying to enforce copyright and I have worked very closely behind the scenes with OTRS: something which editors on here won't be aware of. All my copyrights on images are fine now and I understand the process a lot better. This issue is simply about a textual copyright concern where I failed to put quotation marks in to show I was quoting from CAIN and "Armed Struggle" by Richard English. It was the end of the day and I was trying to get my wee article largely wrapped up by dinner time. I had an article update in mind for today. I examined the copyright violation notice at Wolfe Tone Societies and was more than a little annoyed that Psychonaut didn't just tag the text and draw my attention to it. I would have fixed it immediately and I believe he knows that. The softer option to me was to request restoration of the page here as per the notice. I did investigate the other options but noted complaints from others that temporary pages were left for months without action. I promise you: I am a hard working Wikipedian. Take a look at my "contribs". Have you looked at the copyright discussions I have been involved in where I've managed to fix issues, sometimes with the help of others? I am not a disruptive editor. Whatever problems I had with copyright are in the past and I just want to fix these wee errors I made yesterday. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

May I draw your attention to these files: File:BKY08MEM Memorial Gdn BKelly 3677.JPG (uploaded today); File:Crest of the Royal Ulster Rifles.jpg; File:TSMG UDR 1.JPG (nominated for deletion by self]]; File:UDR Stable Belt Colours.jpg (nominated for deletion by self as new image was introduced follwing advice); File:Royal Irish and UDR badges side-by-side.jpg; File:Army Training Booklet.jpg; File:The Elizabeth Cross in presentation box.jpg; File:GSM-ACCM and miniatures.jpg; File:Royal Irish Rangers.jpg; File:Irish Guards cap badge.jpg; File:UDR Greenfinch.jpg; File:Soldiers of 1 UDR on parade at Steeple Camp, Antrim.jpg. These are all files I've uploaded recently - within the last two weeks. There are no copyright issues with any of them. All the issues of concern with copyright are dealt with and my understanding and appreciation of copyright is vastly increased since two months ago when all this started. May I suggest that, instead of taking up everyone's time deciding whether or not I need a mentor, can the page Wolfe Tone Societies be restored so I can fix the copyright issues by putting in quotation marks? SonofSetanta (talk) 13:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there are still copyright issues with several of your images. Isn't GSM-ACCM_and_miniatures.jpg simply a variant photograph of the one deleted as a copyvio at Commons:Deletion requests/File:General Service Medal 1962 rev.jpg? And isn't Army Training Booklet.jpg the very same scan which has already been deleted as a copyvio twice (first from File:Basic Battle Skills.jpg and later File:Excerpt from Basic Battle Skills.jpg)? The current image description page has a prominent notice indicating that the confirmation of permission received by OTRS was invalid, so it too will soon be deleted as a copyright violation. I can also point to several more absolutely unambiguous copyright violations of yours made in the past few days, including File:3 UDR Funeral.jpeg, File:A soldier of 3 UDR on patrol in Irish Street, File:Piper 3 UDR.jpeg, File:3 UDR with RUC-Newcastle.jpeg. The fact that some of the photos you've uploaded recently haven't (yet) been challenged doesn't atone for the infringing material you have continued to contribute in the meanwhile. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

No, you are incorrect. GSM-ACCM_and_miniatures.jpg is not a variant of the Commons:Deletion requests/File:General Service Medal 1962 rev.jpg. It does not show the reverse of the medals and has not been used on the General Service Medal (1962) page. It is an update of another file uploaded by User:The Thunderer and used at Ulster_Defence_Regiment#Awards.2C_honours_and_decorations. Someone challenged my ownership of the medals so I took a new picture and uploaded it - with the correct licencing, under the guidance of OTRS. Other images were challenged in this way and I uploaded new versions of them all to prove my veracity, even offering to upload negatives to prove my ownership. Army Training Booklet.jpg has been uploaded to replace others but doing so isn't a copyright violation. Much work has been done on tracing the original and I am currently working with OTRS to establish the correct licence now that we have the publication date of the first edition. You know all of this from the discussions and I'm very disappointed you're using this example to try and show me as a copyright violator. I've got all the e-mails exchanged between myself and OTRS, MOD, IWM. HMSO and Defence Imagery on the subject of this book. I can show very easily that I have worked hard to try and find the correct copyright tag to use. As for File:3 UDR Funeral.jpeg, File:A soldier of 3 UDR on patrol in Irish Street, File:Piper 3 UDR.jpeg, File:3 UDR with RUC-Newcastle.jpeg, I misunderstood the licence from the Boston College Library. I made an enquiry at your talk page here [75] when you deleted them and was satisfied with your answer. I realised I had made a good faith error and didn't repeat it. I have made no infringements with my other images. If I had, you or one of the others who are engaged in the witch hunt against me would have tagged them for deletion by now. Feel free to check all my image files however and note any errors I have made. By becoming aware of where I have made good faith errors I become more aux fait with copyright requirements. I think sometimes you lose sight of the fact that we're all good Wikipedians and have something to offer. As a graduate my skill is in text and I've had to learn all about copyright since you guys took an interest in me. Constantly beating me like this isn't very encouraging and it doesn't display the type of collegiate discussion which Wikipedia is supposed to foster. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Whilst it can be seen as a violation of their last warning, in all technicality that was in regards to images not text. The copyvio's going by the report don't seem that bad, and SoS at the opening of this AN/I (why open it here in the first place?) has said that they are willing to work to fix the issue. This appears to be a simple easily fixed situation that has become blown out of proportion by SoS's own posting of this AN/I thread. Articles have talk pages and I see that SoS went to the talk page, and whilst Psychonaut did post a template, engaging with SoS on the talk page would of helped the matter as well.

A solution for this issue would of been for a test page to be created in SoS's talk space where they can edit it, for example at User talk:SonofSetanta/Wolfe Tone Societies, and the objector or whoever can give it a going over when SoS has finished to see if it is still has any copyvio issues.

In response to Hijiri 88, how exactly is this an instance of disruptive behaviour? There is no edit-warring or the like. SoS did the right thing and take it to discussion.

If this does count as a violation of their last warning, should they not receive a minor block/topic-ban first? There have been worse offenders in Ireland related articles that have got away with 1/2/3/6 month topic-bans for doing far worse. Psychonaut also could of engaged with SoS in a more direct way. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

"For all you people say you know about copyright you don't seem to be aware that Crown Copyright on written or printed matter expires after 50 years, except where otherwise stated - idiot! ... I really don't know what gets into you people but you seem to be the sort who enjoy pulling the legs off spiders." I know it's on a different Wikimedia project, but it's clearly related to this issue, and obviously disruptive. Both users are engaging each other on the same issue on this project as well. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

SoS also clearly thought he was posting on Wikipedia at that time. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Have you looked here: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Arthur_Denaro.jpg where I get called a liar? And here Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tannenberghindenburg2okt35ba.jpg? These are just two of the number of occasions this has happened. I get frustrated with them from time to time. I can find more, probably worse examples if you wish? There was hardly a day went by for over a fortnight but they hadn't tagged an image of mine for deletion sometime with the spurious tag "suspected of copyright violation". I have dealt with approximately 15-20 cases now where images were incorrectly removed or tagged for removal. In the vast majority of these the image has either been kept or reuploaded with revised licencing. It has been frustrating and I have to confess that sometimes I have allowed my frustration to spill over onto discussion pages. I haven't called anyone a liar though or accused anyone in the wrong the way I've been. I'm only human and ultimately I'm a disabled editor who doesn't always cope the same way an able bodied person would. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Mabuska. In fact I did try another option. In the lead section there is a statement: The previous content of this page has been identified as posing a potential copyright issue, as a copy or modification of the text from the source(s) below, and is now listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems (listing) I followed that link, which seemed to be the most sensible first option, but there's nothing there about this issue. There were however other comments from editors who've been waiting for some time for their issues to be resolved so I made the choice to come here and make a request to have the page restored in order to correct the errors. I felt that, for once, coming to the ANI board for a common sense decision on a minor matter might resolve the issue for me and for the wiki much faster. In the past when my name has been on this board it was as a result of me complaining about something or somebody complaining about me. What I'd love to see happen now is for a sysop to display that famous WP:COMMONSENSE and act on my request. At the moment I'm feeling very upset because things from the past which have no relevance anymore are being dragged up as a stick to beat me with and I don't feel it's warranted. I don't feel like a valued editor. Can anybody see that I just want to correct the errors on the Wolfe Tone Societies and move on to the next article. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Why not try actually creating your own article on the subject, using sources appropriately? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The article Wolfe Tone Societies is my own article. I created it yesterday to replace Wolfe_Tone_Society, an article which was very inaccurate and which I had tagged as such the previous day. I can promise you I used all seven sources correctly to ref inline. I created a bibliography to index the two published sources I used. There's actually nothing wrong with the article itself beyond the fact that I forgot to use quotation marks where I did a copy and paste from CAIN and typed up a quote from "Armed Struggle" from Richard English. The inline refs are all these however. As someone who works regularly on articles which deal with the various periods of Irish "Troubles" I am always very careful to make sure that every statement is properly sourced. In the time it's taken for all of this discourse however, the article could have been reinstated by one of the involved sysops and I could have corrected it. That's all I want to do - correct the article as advised to do so. Are you not a sysop? Can you not let me back into the article to correct these minor errors by using quotation marks? Do you not think that would be preferable to the situation we have now whereby various editors are trying to assert that I am a constant copyright violator who cares nothing about Wikipedia rules and conventions? Look at Pyschonaut's comments above: Isn't GSM-ACCM_and_miniatures.jpg simply a variant photograph of the one deleted as a copyvio at Commons:Deletion requests/File:General Service Medal 1962 rev.jpg? Totally untrue - neither image is related. It doesn't stop him making the accusation though - why? Do you know how many times Psychonaut and his fellow travelers have called me a liar over images I have claimed ownership on? Should I start posting links to those exchanges? Such displays of incivility were common. I was being interrogated like a criminal until I rescanned my original images and posted them. I protested vigourously of course and got apologies but the fact remains that editors who concerned themselves with copyright affairs called me a liar, on more than two occasions. Now we've got Psychonaut trying to assert here that I am a constant violator of copyright. My issues with copyright arose from my use of military insignia. They are resolved now. I have two images, Army Training Booklet.jpg, and another, where OTRS and I are trying to work out copyright at the moment. That isn't copyright violation. It's simply me working with OTRS to satisfy the requirements. The onus is on me, because any images I don't work out the correct copyright for will get deleted. Nobody has considered either the number of my own photographs I have uploaded onto Wikipedia and put into the public domain. Does none of this satisfy anyone of my good intent? Does nobody want to look at Special:Contributions/SonofSetanta or commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SonofSetanta and see the amount of good work I do on Wikipedia? I'm not asking for thanks, just a recognition that I'm an ordinary, hard working editor, who doesn't cause problems on the wiki. I don't understand why this simple request here has created so much trouble for me. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Noticeboards is says, Noticeboards on Wikipedia are pages where editors can ask questions and request assistance from people who are familiar with the policies and guidelines covered by each individual board. That's what I've done: I've asked for assistance to allow me to correct a previous error. The debate has been ongoing since 12:20 GMT and no sysop has restored the Wolfe Tone Societies article to allow me to do so. All I've seen is argument about why I should be blocked or banned. Will no-one allow me to render this article readable again? I've come here in good faith for help. Will you not give it to me? I'm very tired and frustrated now and at the moment I could see Wikipedia far enough. I'm feeling that if this is the kind of message being sent to hard working editors when they ask for help, why should I ever bother asking again if all I'm going to see is a load of people lining up to kick me? SonofSetanta (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd have to say that this situation is of your own doing. Any other editor who had asked this probably wouldn't have raised an eyebrow, although there may have been a few trouts issued. However, with your history of issues with image copyright more than a few eyebrows are raised particularly if there is a sentiment that your copyright issues are extending into text. As has been said many times in the past, AGF is not a suicide pact, it will extend only so far before it runs out. Rather than bring it to ANI where one can be guaranteed a thrashing, approaching an admin directly probably would have been a better idea, that being said I personally don't see why the article couldn't be userfied into a subpage. Blackmane (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Whatever issues I had were temporary and came from a lack of understanding of copyright law. As my understanding of that has improved the problems have faded into the background. I believe I enter enough textual information to illustrate I have a good understanding of the requirements. Why should one be guaranteed a thrashing here? I did approach an admin directly btw but he didn't reply. I also contacted OTRS and they didn't reply either. I'd never encountered one of these notices before so I made my choices based on the information I could see.SonofSetanta (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

For the record, SoS, "Check my contributions list on a different Wikimedia project to see all the good work I do for Wikipedia" is not the right way to convince us that sanctions need to be placed on another user. Your opening post here, especially given that it was here (on ANI), heavily implied that you wanted an admin or the community to intervene on your behalf in a dispute. I told you yesterday how you can deal with the problem in good faith, but then further evidence came out that you in fact have a persistent problem in this area, and apparently you have already been given your final warning... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I haven't sought sanctions against another user. I moaned about the way it was done is all. I felt, and still feel, that it would have been better for Psychonaut to have tagged the offending material and allowed me to correct the errors without the need for blanking the article. It wasn't a dispute. I read the text in the notice, and reproduced it here, which suggested an admin could restore the page. I dealt with the issue in the way you suggested by using a temporary page. The article still hasn't been restored. This further evidence you speak of all relates to the past. The copyright issues I had at that time have all been dealt with and my learning curve has extended into working closely with OTRS, to whom I am very thankful, to resolve any issues regarding copyright directly with them and some quite complicated licencing has been used in this process. To say I'm now a copyright expert would be very wrong but I know enough to approach OTRS for help when the correct method of licencing seems difficult to select. Let's put this all into perspective by saying: I have never willfully created an image with the wrong licencing information. I made some errors, that is all. It would be very wrong to assume that I did so in a deliberate attempt to disrupt editing on Wikipedia. The fact that I involved myself in all discussions regarding images I felt were worth keeping is surely evidence of that - and the fact that most, if not all, of those images were kept, either as originals or by substituting new images with the correct licencing. If you're asking me will I ever have a copyright issue in the future then the answer would probably be yes because it isn't my area of expertise. The difference is, I know how to resolve the difficulties now. Is that not the Wikipedia way? SonofSetanta (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

On ANI, I often see a leap from discussing the initial complaint to scrutinizing the behavior of the participants in a dispute then leading to talk of blocks and bans. There is a reason these are called the "drama boards". Is it possible not rehash SonofSetanta's mistakes of the past and address the question that brought them to ANI in the first place? Should this discussion return to the Talk Page of the article? Or move to Dispute Resolution? How can we move from talking about users' failings to resolving whatever problems surround the posting of this article and any deficiencies it has? Can this be a constructive conversation instead of a punitive one? 69.125.134.86 Newjerseyliz (talk) 22:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, these "Drama boards" as Newjerseyliz calls them, seem to be a place where all anyone does nowadays is talk of punitive action rather than tackling the core issue.

Also note that despite Psychonaut's response here they have still failed to particpate in any talk page discussion with SoS over the article and the problems Psychonaut highlighted for example at Talk:Wolfe_Tone_Societies and basically blew them off at User_talk:Psychonaut. I'd question the behaviour of Psyuchonaut as well here. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with both the above comments. Why on earth should my simple request have turned into such a drama? Why did Pyschonaut start bringing up past issues when I wasn't asking for sanctions against him? The main issue is - why isn't the page restored now that all the errors have been fixed? SonofSetanta (talk) 11:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Mabuska, I am no longer engaging with SonofSetanta because my many weeks of doing so patiently and politely have led me to believe that it is futile. It appears that SonofSetanta has perfected contrition into an art form. It seems to work very well on people he meets in passing (like me several weeks ago, and some of the people upthread) but anyone who sticks around will see that this is a very practised performance. First he contributes someone else's material with blatant disregard for licencing, attribution, or fair use conditions. Then someone removes it, after which he moans that this was manifestly unfair and impolite, that they're failing to assume good faith, and that they should have contacted him privately to resolve the matter [76] [77] [78]. He goes on to say that he was on a learning curve but that all his mistakes were in the past, that there is almost nothing wrong with anything he's recently contributed, and maybe also that he's the victim of some sort of "agenda" or "witch hunt" [79] [80] [81] [82] [83]. He expresses regret for any disruption he may have unintentionally caused, claims that he's always been "friendly" and "obliging", and points to all the hard work that he's been doing "improving" the encyclopedia. But then the whole cycle starts all over again.

I think he's probably not acting in bad faith. For whatever reason the information he's being given just doesn't penetrate. Multiple people have dedicated entire threads to explaining things like fair use and non-free derivative works to him, at the end of which he often makes some statement or request that directly contradicts everything everyone has been telling him, much to everyone's amazement, consternation, and exasperation [84] [85] [86]. Numerous users have pleaded with him to stop contributing material, or at least to seek advice before doing so [87] [88] [89] [90]. And rightfully so: he has wasted a phenomenal amount of his fellow editors' time, both in cleaning up after his messes and in trying to explain to him, with extraordinarily little success, how to avoid making messes in the future. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

How vindictive is that? You've had everything you wanted from me as regards copyright. There are no further issues and yet you publish such a list of complaints? I am appalled. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Request for CIR enforcement

The previous ANI report concerning SonofSetanta led to a call that he be topic banned. The discussion was closed on the grounds that it had not attracted enough input from editors who had not interacted with him before that report. Well, I'm exactly the sort of editor that was missing from that discussion, so I hereby endorse User:Blackmane and User:Lukeno94's suggestion above for an indefinite block under WP:CIR. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Cailil's closing comments here were clear This thread really hasn't has enough input from outsiders (people who haven't crossed paths with SoS before) on the mattering of banning SoS to effect a community sanction, and also there has been significant improvement in the issue. With SoS now working with Wereith to resolve the problem (I see that as a very positive step in the rigt direction). In the spirit of actions not being punitive I'd be happier to see this closed with a reminder that if such behaviour happens again a dim view will be taken and in that instance the conversation most probably will be pick up from this point. I believe that should suffice for now

I feel I need to remind you that the discussion you are using to try and get me banned stemmed from issues around copyright of images, all of which has faded into the background and already well discussed above. Yet here you are asking for a punitive measure because I inadvertently left a few quotation marks out of a new article which you could easily have advised me of directly instead of blanking and templating the article. My understanding of copyright has improved significantly and I put it to you and other interested parties that there is no reason to call for this ban simply because I called your approach to Wolfe Tone Societies into question. I feel I need to add that: despite me almost totally rewriting the article to please you and asking you here, at the article talk page and on your user talk page, you still haven't restored it. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support ban fails to get the point. Werieth (talk) 13:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

What point is that Werieth? Where are the current issues concerning image copyright? SonofSetanta (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• For the sake of sysops who may be reading this. I'd like to point out that there are no current issues regarding image copyright, everything is under control and there has been a vast improvement in my knowledge and approach to copyright issues since a month ago. There has been no repetition of the behaviour which led to the suggestion of a ban at that time. This entire thread is about the fact that I left out quotation marks on the new article at Wolfe Tone Societies. The errors have been corrected, in fact the article has been substantially rewritten, and that has been pointed out to User:Psychonaut who has accused me of plagiarism, but he still won't restore the article. This is the first time in five years as an editor that such an accusation has been made against me. I have not engaged in disruptive editing, I haven't been uncivil, I haven't done anything except come to this board and ask for the article to be restored. Initially to correct the errors but now because the errors have been fixed on the temporary page at Talk:Wolfe Tone Societies/Temp. I have requested of Psychonaut here, on the article talk page and at his own talk page that he restore the article. Instead of doing so he calls for me to be banned.SonofSetanta (talk) 13:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
• Weird, Echo didn't actually ping this. Given that SonofSetanta is still unable to understand why copying large amounts of text verbatim is problematic, and that image copyright and text copyright are not mutually exclusive, and that they have violated a copyright-related final warning, I support an indefinite block. It's not punitive, as some have claimed; if you violate a final warning, then you deserve all the sanctions you get. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

What on earth do you mean by asserting that I don't understand the consequences of copying and pasting large amounts of text verbatim? Of course I do. I'm a graduate and I am studying for an honours degree at the moment for which I write essays all the time. I made a mistake by leaving out quotation marks is all. The source was clearly indicated. If I'd been allowed to return to it the next day and review the article I would have corrected this error and quite possibly rewritten a lot of the text anyway. This has never happened to me before in all the thousands of edits I've made over the last 5 years. Please do not suggest I did this deliberately. I wouldn't countenance plagiarism for one second. What I didn't realise of course was that the original article created on 22 March 2006 and seen here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wolfe_Tone_Society&oldid=568088587} was a direct cut and paste from CAIN, so I copied and pasted that into the new article. You'd have thought someone would notice in 7 years? It was certainly noticed quick enough when I included it in the new article - now what does THAT tell you? SonofSetanta (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose ban - I may not be an administrator, however I get the impression that Psychonaut is simply being vindictive here. SoS has started to use temporary pages in talk pages to work on things such as Talk:Wolfe Tone Societies/Temp and User:SonofSetanta/sandbox and asking for comment on them such as at Talk:The_Troubles#Rewritten section available for viewing/tweaking in regards to the sandbox page. He is learning, and Psychonaut's hounding for an unreasonable indef ban, I would see as SoS getting the message and thus worth a reprieve in this instance. Why is Psychonaut demanding an indef ban? Why not a month long, or two month, or longer topic-ban or overall ban that expires at some stage etc.? Feels like vindictiveness going for an outright ban when the editor does make a lot of constructive edits. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

What would the ban be for though? The image copyright issues are well behind me. I came here asking the Wolfe Tone Societies article to be restored because I had made errors in not clearly marking the CAIN material as quotes. I've fixed the issues on a temporary page as you quite rightly note - although the page still hasn't been restored. What is the issue here? (I've been using my sandbox since 25th June btw when I came back after a year's break). What I suggest is necessary here is for this idea of a ban to be thrown right out the window because nothing has been done to warrant it and for a sysop to restore the Wolfe Tone Societies article from the temporary page at Talk:Wolfe Tone Societies/Temp. I can't stress enough and I'd like sysops to take note - I've done nothing wrong. Not a single thing, nothing, nada. Sure I made a temporary mistake, but has anyone here never done that? Here's the edit history of the article in question Wolfe Tone Societies: Revision history showing that, after creating it, I worked on it for one hour, 15 minutes - in total. I wrapped up for the evening and when I came back the next day the article page was blanked.

Can anyone show what I've done to warrant a ban? SonofSetanta (talk) 14:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose ban or block. WP:CIR is an essay not a policy, you can't ban someone "under it". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • WP:ONLYESSAY, and yes, we have blocked people for it on many occasions. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose ban or block. It's ridiculous to watch a conversation devolve like this, going off-topic and sliding into personal insults. This ANI concerns the Wolfe Tone Societies article and some users have used it as an excuse to attack another user. If there is a conduct problem, concerning SonofSetanta, then file a RfC/U or file another ANI (since your original one was closed without a decision) where you can build your case and show off all of your diffs. But it it is bad form to hijack an editor's ANI and use it as an excuse to attack him. It's sloppy, reactionary and lazy. Address the subject of the query and don't let these noticeboards become no better than a discussion board on a tabloid website. Newjerseyliz (talk) 02:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Seeing as I am an editor with autopatrol rights, to help SonofSetanta out and learn how to create the basis of a well formatted article that meets Wikipedia guidelines I've made substantial edits to the actual article. It should help give him tips on paraphrasing and what is needed. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Buckshot06

Buckshot06 (talk · contribs) is some what bashing the Afghan National Army (ANA) with his POVs. He refuses to discuss Talk:Afghan National Army#Merge proposal to NATO Training Mission-Afghanistan and blindly reverts all my edits [91] simply because he doesn't like any improvement made to that article. For example, he claims that there are upto 350,000 active ANA soldiers. That is just preposterous! But wait, there's more. Buckshot06 claims that Afghanistan was created as a state in 1880 by Abdur Rahman Khan when in fact that guy was the 24th king of Afghanistan. The CIA World Factbook states "Ahmad Shah DURRANI unified the Pashtun tribes and founded Afghanistan in 1747." [92] This is backed by 100s of other sources. Buckshot06 is determined to keep inserting in the ANA article this unimportant quote: "Thus, former mujahideen who had been fighting for two decades, many wearing plastic sandals and carrying rickety Soviet-era AK-47s, were requested to continue their role as "proxies", while US troops in helmets, kevlar armour and insulated clothing, carrying the best weapons and cold-weather equipment the richest nation in history could provide, looked on." This is nonsense in an encyclopedia because I have never seen a single ANA soldier wear plastic sandals. These actions of Buckshot06 are clearly attempts to degrade ANA and the United States who is spending around $7 billion dollars a year on the ANA. Admins should not be making controversial edits like that or making ridiculous POV-infested statements in an encyclopedia. He is basically trying to tell readers that the ANA is the most low class army in the world but in reality it is the best army Afghanistan has ever seen in its 300 year old history. At least this is what most news reports tend to say and we need to follow up on that. Buckshot06 is only focusing on all the negative reports and that's the problem here. In the meantime, during the training period (2002-2013), there were some negative issues but most of that belong in the NATO Training Mission-Afghanistan. That article specifically deals with that.--Fareed30 (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I cannot comment on the content as I'm no expert on this area. However, that is what this appears to be: a content dispute. It seems that both Buckshot06 and Fareed30 have strong opinions about this matter, but after a look (admittedly a quick one) I can see no evidence of one being more responsible than the other. Fareed30, it appears that you have deleted sources used by Buckshot06, sources that satisfy WP:RS, and that you have been reverted him at least as much as he has been reverting you. Once again, I won't take sides in a content dispute about a subject I don't know well, but if you want ANI to comment on this, you have to display that Buckshot06 is guilty of violating policies. I've found no such diff.Jeppiz (talk) 13:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

He is POV-pushing, reverting without a discussion, adding irrelvant information, putting past events in present form, to make readers believe that ANA army is still low class or in bad shape as it was in the past. As for me, some irrelevant and outdated sources may be removed. Who says they can't? We are suppose to choose between sources, pick the better ones. News reports sometimes make obvious mistakes and in that case it doesn't matter if it is WP:RS or not. For ANA we must use current reliable sources from experts. Buckshot06 relies on information from 2008 and from particular individuals, those that satisfies his POV. I use latest news reports on ANA regardless if they're US based, European, Australian or Afghan.--Fareed30 (talk) 13:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Please provide clear diffs of edits of his that you find problematic, and explain why they are problematic. For ANI to look at this, you have to be much more specific about what he has done that is wrong, and you have to prove it. General talk about POV-pushing with no diffs to show it won't get far.Jeppiz (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Here are the diffs, he stated "Abdur Rahman was the creator of the modern Afghan state." That is problematic because it was Ahmad Shah Durrani who created Afghanistan in 1747, and is recognized as the Father of the Nation. Buckshot06 is making alot more changes in the same way. He falsified the total number here from 200,000 to 350,000. The source clearly states "200,000" [93] so why is he falsifying the numbers? He deleted "As of July 2013, the total number of the Special Forces reached 12,000". Why do that? What's going on? He is a very strange admin, I have not seen other admins make such edits or revert people who make constructive edits. He is basically an edit-warrior and POV-pusher with admin previlages--Fareed30 (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

For what its worth I can also state that I was there for a few months and the ANA wear a similar uniform as the US military, boots and all. So I would agree at least that statement probably should come out. There are hundreds or thousands of pictures showing the ANA wearing military outfits. Wiht that said there may need to be a temporary interaction ban between these 2 and this topic. Kumioko (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

AN/I is no place for a content dispute, but the article is supposed to cover the history of the army as well as a snapshot of the current day, isn't it? There were well-documented problems in recent years; the article should reflect that.

Accusing somebody of falsifying numbers is a Bad Thing if those numbers are actually supported by sources. The article already cites other sources which say 350,000, so Buckshot's "Expert assessments vary from 250,000-350,000" doesn't seem so bad (though it could be improved)... and it's very hard to understand why Fareed30 thinks Buckshot06 is devoted to making the ANA look bad whilst, um, making it look much more powerful. bobrayner (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

bobrayner, you are an example of someone who was misled by Buckshot06. This is my point, he is putting lots of false information to mislead readers such as you. The 100s of news articles online that mentions 350,000 is clearly saying that the entire Afghan National Security Forces are 350,000. That includes the Afghan National Army, the Afghan Air Force, the Afghan National Police, the Afghan Local Police and others. We are only dealing with Afghan National Army (ANA) here. It is false to say that ANA is 350,000. I deal with Afghanistan and I know everything about this country in and out. Now, what were those well-documented problems in recent years? So you're saying that there were no success stories and only problems? You and Buchshot06 are ONLY focusing on the problems part but not a single edit was made by him about the success part. This is what I don't like about his edits and he's an admin who suppose to be a role model.--Fareed30 (talk) 01:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• I think the two parties need to relax a bit and discuss more on the talk page instead of ANI. Sources not being in perfect agreement with each other is nothing new for a topic like this. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Just been informed of this. In my view, the material that Fareed30 wishes to transfer to NTM-A simply doesn't belong there, because NTM-A was established in 2008. That is a military formation article, and most of the training took place under Combined Forces Command or Combined Security Transition Command - Afghanistan auspices; U.S. formations.
  • Now, I've been involved in editing many, many, national military articles, and have been abused regarding Poland, Somalia, Azerbaijan, etc., etc., on information which usually seems to disagree with nationals of those country's views, but is well supported by WP:Reliable Sources. There may be some mistakes in my approach - maybe the plastic footwear quote should go; willing to be corrected if Fareed30 can distinguish between the first claimed king back in 1500 or whenever and Abdur Rahman Khan, who all the WP:Reliable Sources assert effectively made a modern state out of Afghanistan (Library of Congress Country Studies) - but the basis for this dispute, in my view, is Fareed30's desire to move the rather unappealing information in the 'Training and Current Challenges' section to a less visible article. Now, national pride is just fine, but WP:Reliable Sources trumps all. The ANA faces significant challenges at present, and that material should not just be hidden because some find it unwelcome. Support for my general approach, and my qualifications, may be found from any of the coordinators of the Milhist project. Regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 06:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Buckshot06, the issue is that you're adding ONLY negative points about ANA and that makes you POV-pusher with certain agenda. Forget WP:Reliable Sources, that has nothing to do with my complaint about you. You're reverting my edits and ignoring my comment at the talk page. You should stay in line with other encyclopedias such as Britannica and books because those are edited by professionals. Now, I do not care what you add to ANA as long as it is properly sourced but I'm saying let's keep it short and neutral. You can explain in as little as one short paragraph that the ANA was one of the most terrible armies in the world before NATO began training it and that it still faces lots of challenges, including this and that. Btw, the plastic sandals were worn by some members of the Northern Alliance. If you want to make an entire article about ANA training and list every incident you may do so I don't care. However, let's not add excessive negative points in the main ANA article because what about the positive points? Military experts and analysts claim that ANA is doing impressive work today but did you see me add any of that? The answer is NO because I'm not here to do that.
    • The same source you mention (Library of Congress Country Studies) clearly states that Ahmad Shah Durrani created the modern state of Afghanistan in 1747 [94], which is backed by this, this, and the CIA. You still don't get it. Abdur Rahman Khan only modernized the Afghan army by providing them British training, uniforms, weapons and equipment. That's not considered the creation of a state. The "Afghan National Army" naturally includes all Afghan armies from 11th century to the modern one. It's made up of the same people (Afghans).
    • I told you before very clearly that I did not intent to add any pre-2008 material to the NATO Training Mission-Afghanistan (NTMA) because that program began in 2008-2009. In ANA's article (which is becoming too long) there is lots of material that coould be tranferred to the short NTMA article. We can work together but let's stop the reverting of all my edits because it is frustrating and not a good thing to do for an admin.--Fareed30 (talk) 02:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
      • "the issue is that you're adding ONLY negative points about ANA and that makes you POV-pusher with certain agenda." That depends on the state of the article before those points are added. If it was overly positive beforehand... "You should stay in line with other encyclopedias such as Britannica and books because those are edited by professionals." WP:NOTPAPER. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Thankyou for your comments Fareed30. I'm not really interested about whether you consider my edits positive or negative, and I entirely reject your proposed engineering of the article to overemphasise the positive. Sure, it's the best army AFghanistan's probably ever seen. That's worth putting in. Find a source that says that, and add it!! But that does not mean I'm going to let you remove truthful solid research on the army's weak points;- that's POV-pushing itself. I tried to explain to you on your talk page, also by quoting the example of FA-standard Military of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, that our job is not to balance one positive point with one negative point -it's to report what reliable sources say. My admin status is not relevant for this discussion; for this purpose, I'm just an ordinary editor. Now, again, we're supposed to go with peer-reviewed journal publications as our best sources, which are accorded higher status than encyclopedias (as I explained on your talk page) - have you ever accessed any of the articles by Antonio Giustozzi that I'm quoting? Any of that material? Do you want me to send it to you? That's the materials wikipedia rules encourage us to use, and it backs up my general gist completely. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 06:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
          • I read everything. The report by Antonio Giustozzi is from 2008 but you keep presenting it as "current status". This is misleading and is what bothers me. Yes, in 2008 the ANA was still unorganized and ill-trained. But, after the start of the NTMA things have changed in a very big way. Do you get my point or do you want me to go into details? The pre-NTMA situation (2005-2008) should just be part of the history section and not presented to readers as "current statuts". If you want me to add positive points about ANA, I will do that later when I have free time. There are 100s of major news articles which talk about this, they quote top NATO military commanders.--Fareed30 (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
          • The section I created "NATO training and Taliban insurgency" is perfect because NATO has been training ANA since 2002. The Taliban insurgency also started after 2002.--Fareed30 (talk) 17:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
          • The Afghan National Army#Training and current challenges keeps repeating "According to a 2009 news report, the Afghan National Army was plagued by inefficiency and corruption.... corruption, widespread illiteracy, vanishing supplies, and lack of discipline..." You see this in the first sentence of the 1st paragraph and then again in the 14th paragraph. In fact, that entire section needs to be re-written in the order of years. The current version starts with 2009 and goes back to 2006 and then to 2012. Plus, it's very long and should be made a little shorter. Instead of reverting my edits you should fix this problem.--Fareed30 (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
            • Well, would you not mind removing impeccable material from the Library of Congress regarding 1880 creation of a modern state? Or my carefully assembled material on corps and divisions from the 1980-90s? Have you seen [95] by Giustozzi in 2009? Or Adam R. Grissom, 'Statebuilding Orthodoxy and the Afghan National Army, in Egnell and Halden, 'New Agendas in Statebuilding,' 2013, which reiterates all the well-known problems? The essential character of the force hasn't changed. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
              • The Library of Congress is saying that after the end of the Second Anglo-Afghan War, in 1880, a new government led by Abdur Rahman Khan rose to power in Kabul with help from the British. We don't consider that as a creation of a modern state because there was nothing modern about it. For example, the British did not build a single railroad or highway, or built anything else, or bring any machinary, the British actually left that country in that same year (1880). The only thing the British did was quickly assemble for Khan a British style army. Before Khan there was a state called Afghanistan and it was led by Mohammad Ayub Khan who had an army known as the "Afghan army". This lithograph was made in 1847 and it clearly showes "Afghanistan" and its army.
              • In 2009 the Afghan army was just 90,000 strong, and was poorly trained and lacked everything. Today, they are 200,000 strong, well trained, well equipped, well fed and well paid. The US is paying around $4 billion a year to the ANA and another $3 billion a year to the ANP. This includes the ANA salary and everything else for another at least 10 years as of now. The ANA now has US-style military bases all across the country, in every part, several command centers, and better weapons and everything else. It is quite evident that ANA is NOT the same as what it was in 2009.--Fareed30 (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
              • You're like one of those who use incidents like the Maywand District murders and Kandahar massacre to degrade an entire army of a specific country. This is to your google book.--Fareed30 (talk) 23:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
• Thankyou for your comments Fareed30. If you wish to remove material from a WP:RS like the Library of Congress you must present equally well or better sourced info that disagrees. Your repeated assertions have no value here. Instead of arguing with me here, why don't you remove the key words 'modern state' from the 1880 section and leave the rest, which helpfully expanded on what was previously there?
• I'm not sure what your sources are for your assessment of the 2009 situation, or now, but I do not agree with them. Again, find something - not unreliable too-close-to the source U.S. government press releases (like the original source of the pajhwok.com story you just cited) - that say '200,000 strong, well trained, well equipped, well fed and well paid'? Find something that claims that from peer reviewed journal articles or similar academic sources, and that would be great to have!! Do not expect me to believe U.S. government claims on ANA performance after the incredibly unreliable trail they wove on, for example, Iraqi troop strength, or anything relating to their desire to declare victory and get out as soon as possible. The relevant rule is WP:SELFPUB, point 4, '..reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.'
• Oh, and I'm not critising the entire army of a specific country. Find and cite reports on specific units and we'll get along much better !! Buckshot06 (talk) 06:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Did you carefully read the news story posted at Pajhwok Afghan News (PAN), which is about Dr. Peter R. Lavoy, Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Security Affairs, telling the United States Congress that: "The ANSF are being tested this fighting season. They're performing admirably. Afghan forces now plan and conduct the overwhelming majority of combat operations and also are taking the vast majority of casualties...." If you don't like how the story is presented at PAN, you may find the same information at other news sites, including at the U.S. Defense site. [96]
  • You don't agree with what in particular? Please be specific. Why do I need to 'find something that claims that from peer rewiwed journal articles or similar academic sources'? If I say in a comment "the sky is blue", you want me to find a peer reviewed journal article that mentions this as my proof? I have said that you are POV pushing with specific agenda and it is now getting clear that you are doing that. If you don't trust U.S. government then who do you trust? Anti-American elements such as Iran, North Korea, al-Qaeda, Taliban, Hezbullah, and etc? You're misunderstanding me, I'm simply saying to you here that ANA's strenght is now 200,000, which was only 90,000 in 2009, and it's well-trained, well-equipped, well-fed and well-paid as compare to before 2009. This is as clear as saying that the sky is blue. You can find alot of information on ANA by following them at [97] and [98]. ANA is taking over responsibility for the entire country. The Afghan people have finally began supporting the ANA like never before. This is the reason why the Taliban came out in Qatar a few months ago asking for a deal because they realized that they have no chances of winning against the ANA, and if they don't come out now they will be vanished in history as nothing.
  • My overall point is let's not try to degrade or glorify the ANA. The history part should not be very long and explained without going into details like some soldiers were wearing plastic sandals, others decided to hide during a fight or another group began aiming weapons away from enemies. Those are only isolated incidents and involved a few soldiers. This is using small petty incidents to degrade an entire army of a specific nation. People usually do that stuff in chat rooms or other such places.--Fareed30 (talk) 10:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The suggestion at the start of this thread that Buckshot06's edits "are clearly attempts to degrade ANA and the United States" is ridiculous: Buckshot is an editor in good standing with a fine track record of fair-minded and well referenced improvements to articles on the militaries of developing countries. Moreover, Fareed30's assertions about the ANA suggest a strong bias. The general theme of expert commentary I've seen on the topic is that while there are some good ANA units and the overall quality of the force has probably improved over the last couple of years, the ANA as a whole is seriously flawed. This reversion by Fareed30 in which he or she labeled some of Buckshot's changes as POV-pushing and removed reasonable requests for citations appears to illustrate this problem. Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Paddington (UK Parliament constituency)

• Paddington (UK Parliament constituency)

User:Sam Blacketer is restoring content to the above article for no good reason, and for no benefit to the article or the UK parliamentary project. The information I want removing deals with the Sixth Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies which has been abandoned, making the information irrelevant and pointless to the article itself.

The information has been removed, without any reverting or reversal or protest, from around 100-200 other articles. I therefore find that Sam Blacketer is purposely choosing this one article to revert and re-revert for his own pleasure, or for purely disruptive purposes.

Further more, you will notice that he has removed a 3RR warning from his page that I put on there as a friendly wrist-slap, and a further removal of advise that I would being his constant edit warring to an administrators attenion (see [99]

doktorb _words^deeds 18:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

A. don't link to off-site harassment pages. B. You've broken 3RR and he hasn't, so you don't really have "clean hands" here yourself. I suggest you discuss the matter on the talk page instead of continuing to edit war or you'll likely be blocked. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not in the wrong. Over the history of the Paddington article, I have not broken 3RR, he has. I will continue to fight my corner, because I am in the right. doktorb _words^deeds 18:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

No, you won't. You do not have to breach WP:3RR to be in a edit war, and being "in the right" does not entitle you to "fight your corner". Right now you are at 3RR, he is at 2RR. Stop the edit war now and discuss. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no discussing with that editor, as you should be able to see, he is an edit war editor, and I am not. I will not be bullied into submission here. No other UK Parliament constituency article contains the information he wants to include. No other editor agrees with him, else they would be putting it the 650+ articles. That proves - not merely implies - that I am right. So I will keep reverting because I am not in the wrong. I did not come here to be warned about banning when there's a proven sockpuppeter re-reverting everything! doktorb _words^deeds 18:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF - and WP:POINT. Also provide your proof of the other editor being a sock. And let's repeat this: being 'in the right' does not entitle you to edit-war. Your promise to "keep reverting" and claims that you are "in the right" indicate a complete refusal to listen and will result in a block if continued. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll just echo what The Bushranger has said: you seem to think you have the right to continually revert but he doesn't... the fact is neither of you do. You need to start a discussion on the article's talk page instead. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

This is madness. I have looked after hundreds and hundreds of UK Parliament constituency articles. I'm damn proud of articles being looked after and tendered well. I revert vandalism. I add election results from the 1940s onwards when they are missing. I clean up pages when I can. Now this! I can't believe that *I* am being threatened when someone else is in the wrong! I want all UK Parliament constituency articles to have the same content, that's all I'm doing, it's not vindictive, it's constructive! How can you be twisting this against me - can't you see my side of things? I won't back down on this - Sam is in the wrong, not me, and I have to revert his edits, it's a matter of principle. I'm not backing down. doktorb _words^deeds 18:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

No, you do not "have" to revert his edits, and "matters of principle" have no place on Wikipedia. I could very easily block you immediately for threatening to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point and gross refusal to listen. However, instead, I have reverted the article Paddington (UK Parliament constituency) to the state it was in before this edit-war began, and full-protected it, as the two of you have been the only editors, batting this back and forth, for the last 45 days (indeed, the last edit before this started was 1 January). You both need to discuss the contested content on the article's talk page to reach consensus for its inclusion or non-inclusion, and you need to start by dropping the contention that you are automatically right and he is automatically wrong. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Also both of you need to avoid having this edit-war spill over to other articles like Cities of London and Westminster (UK Parliament constituency). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course, what The Bushranger says is absolutely correct in terms of Wikipedia policy, but I do want to point out that we set up a very difficult dilemma in human psychology by asking editors to give their all to improve articles, to the point of their taking pride in their work and feeling not WP:OWNERSHIP of the articles, but a positive sense of stewardship regarding them, and then not giving any recognition of that feeling when situations such as this come up. It is far too easy for casual editors to put vested editors in the position of having to restrain themselves for fear of being blocked for edit-warring. Some recognition of "stewardship" ought to be taken into account by admins when sizing up these types of situations (and perhaps it has here, given that Doctorbuk has not been blocked), and more care should be taken to gently "talk down" the vested editor to get him or her to the talk page. Contrarily, those casual editors who provoke these situations (probably without meaning to) should have the situation explained to them, and be put on a shorter leash if they continue to revert. Because the relationship of the editors to the article is asymmetrical, there should be a similar asymmetry in how the editors are dealt with. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, no one should take my comment as criticism of anything that The Bushranger has done in this case. It's really a general comment and not specifically about this incident. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you BmK, that's exactly how I was feeling. I can spend an hour putting in past election results and all of the rest of it, knowing that I'd not get thanked. Then this happens. Feels like a lot of hard work has been for nothing. But as you say, I've not been blocked, so that's a positive sign at least. doktorb _words^deeds 21:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

@Doktorbuk: - in your opening statement you accuse Sam Blacketer (talk · contribs) of being a sockpuppet. I strongly suggest you either retract your accusation, or back it up with conclusive evidence. GiantSnowman 08:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The alternative account (which finally was User:Fys) was explained in 2009 when Sam Blacketer resigned from arbcom.[100] It's hard to see that it has any bearing here. Sam Blacketer is a long term contributor on politics and politicians in the UK. Mathsci (talk) 09:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• I* am a long term contributor on politics and politicians on Wikipedia, does that not count? doktorb _words^deeds 09:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Not really. Please see WP:OWN. In these particular circumstances, I think you should take Sam Blacketer's contributions in good faith. As a side remark, asking that articles conform to a particular mould is not something that you can insist upon. That just leads to problems similar to disputes over WP:MOS or infoboxes. The issues here are best discussed calmly on the article talk pages or on a suitable wikiproject page connected with UK politics. Mathsci (talk) 10:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

"Not really"?! So Sam is good, Dok is bad, despite us doing the same thing? I've worked damn hard on the same kind of pages that he works on, so why "not really"? doktorb _words^deeds 10:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

No, that is your misreading. You started this thread with bad faith accusations about Sam Blacketer, which have been removed by an administrator. You needlessly personalised things and escalated the dispute to this dramaboard. You have been advised to continue your discussions calmly at more relevant venues (see above). Please do so. Mathsci (talk) 10:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Why hasn't this been taken to DRN? The existence or lack thereof of material in one or another article is covered by WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and is never a valid argument. You have a content dispute with another editor, take it to an appropriate venue ([[WP:3O, WP:DRN, etc) and get an outside view. Histrionics isn't going to get you far. Blackmane (talk) 11:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend doktorb to take this much less personally. It is clear to any neutral observer that both users are involved in a long and tedious edit war. I won't comment on the actual content dispute, but it is painfully clear from the long edit warring and the lack of discussions on the talk page that none of the users is adhering to Wikipedia's policies. Unfortunately, doktorb seems to take any comment from uninvolved editors as a personal insult, as seen by his/her replies above. That attitude is not productive, neither is claiming that you will continue to revert because you know you're right. I would strongly recommend a short break, and re-reading key Wikipedia policies and procedures such as WP:OWN, WP:EW, WP:AGF and WP:TRUTH.Jeppiz (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Wikipedia is not a battleground. And the whole point of a wiki is that everybody, in every moment, can modify what you have written. That's the very concept behind it. We all follow the same rules, no matter if we edited the article for ages or just yesterday.-- cyclopia^speak! 17:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Users circumventing topic ban

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

---

Lucia Black and Ryulong have been collaborating in an effort of evade the three month topic ban levied at Lucia Black. There is evidence of this on Ryulong's talk page (and probably a great deal more done via PM) [101]. Ryulong has also deleted a previous conversation with Lucia Black in which she gives him instructions on what to do [102]. It seems that there is meat puppetry going on. DocIger67 (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Will notify with next edit. DocIger67 (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

No, acutally, because you have been blocked for username impersonation. And a quick look at the evidence indicates that your case is wholly without merit, as the "deleted previous conversation" is still there and the diff used indicates a warning that Ryulong believes it would violate Lucia's topic ban. Suggest this be closed forwith. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I should feel flattered or insulted to have been impersonated. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• Well, isn't copying supposed to be the sincerest form of flattery? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Call me cynical but this might indicate that Special:Contributions/99.251.120.60 (being discussed above for hounding Ryulong) has changed their MO. They appear to have taken a shine to both Lucia Black[103] and Ryulong. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

They tried this tack earlier; there should be reference to it in the ANI archives of a while ago, to someone claiming to have been Chris Gualteri but posing as Lucia Black's sock though pretending to be Chris's sock or something like that. A clear attempt at trolling, to exacerbate an already bad situation. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I'm not entirely sure this was an impersonation of Roger (Dodger67) as DocIger67 made no attempt at least in this discussion to try and pass himself off as "Roger", which until recently (because he felt generous after I pointed out that not including his real username in his signature and the fact that there really is a User:Roger, that the signature was confusing at least) was the only name in his signature. Doc Iger, while if mashed together just right (which he made no apparent attempt to do with css) doesn't seem to have ever included "Roger" in his signature. Technical 13 (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • You didn't see his talk page before I nuked it. DocIger67 had cut-and-pasted Dodger67's talk page, in its entirety, onto his own. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Fair enough... If that account is confirmed to be a sock of Technoquat, then my point was moot anyways... Good day. :) Technical 13 (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
      • If it was Technoquat that explains it - I had a run-in with it/him/her some time ago. Case closed. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Suspicious/problematic behavior of Moheen Reeyad, TilottamaTitlee, and Leelabratee

I've noticed some problems with editors Moheen Reeyad (talk · contribs), TilottamaTitlee (talk · contribs), and Leelabratee (talk · contribs).

• Moheen Reeyad copied the toolserver note Magnus Manske (talk · contribs) uses on his talk page, changing the links, despite the fact he doesn't have a Toolserver account, possibly attempting to pretend to have one.

• Update: This is gone now ([104]). Jackmcbarn (talk) 12:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Moheen Reeyad and TilottamaTitlee regularly edit each others' userpages [105] and trade barnstars [106].
• Moheen Reeyad and TilottamaTitlee both have userpages that look like articles. When I tagged them as userpages [107] [108], Moheen Reeyad untagged them [109] [110].
• Leelabratee, who doesn't participate in AfC other than what I mention here, has approved several AfC's by Moheen Reeyad, many of which should not have been created: Rajnitibidgon, Theatre Institute Chattagram, Kazi Ahmad Shafin, Template:William Jude Aher, Tilottama (disambiguation)

• Note that Tilottama (disambiguation) linked to User:TilottamaTitlee, but the link was piped to make it appear as an article.

• Leelabratee submitted Naree, Pak Sar Jamin Sad Bad, Hafiz Rashid Khan, Jahajee, Shironamhin Rabindranath, Ichchhe Ghuri, Bondho Janala, Rokeya Prachy, Agrabad (disambiguation) Moheener Ghoraguli discography, Bondho Janala, William Jude Aher, Shironamhin Shironamhin, Template:Moheen Reeyad, and Template:Shironamhin to AfC and accepted them himself, all of which Moheen Reeyad and/or TilottamaTitlee subsequently worked on.
• Leelabratee also accepted these AfC submissions of his own, though I don't see a connection to Moheen Reeyad or TillotamaTitlee with these ones: Chittagong Shilpakala Academy, Template:Shironamhin/doc, Shironamhin discography, Anjan Dutt filmography, Adam Surat, A Kind of Childhood, Tareque Masud filmography, Muktir Kotha, Template:Tareque Masud, Kagojer Phool, Ontarjatra, Muktir Gaan, Pohela Falgun, Anjan Dutt discography, and Cheragee Pahar Circle.
• Moheen Reeyad repeatedly adds links to his userspace from article space [111] [112] (entry originally added by 202.65.173.11 (talk) [113]) [114] (Leelebratee did this first [115]) [116] (Leelabratee added the original [117]) [118]
• Moheen Reeyad repeatedly requested a redirect from mainspace to his user page: [119] [120] [121]
• Moheen Reeyad removed content from Leelabratee's talk page [122]

I think that, at the minimum, meatpuppetry between these users exists (note that according to their userpages, TilottamaTitlee and Moheen Reeyad are dating), and AfC was definitely used to evade scrutiny of articles. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I've just noticed Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hashimukh, being actively edited. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

And Leelabratee accepted it a different one by him. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• Wow, this doesn't look pretty. Just to begin with, encyclopedia articles must not be linked to userpages at all, see Wikipedia:USERPAGE#Userspace and mainspace. To create a userpage that looks like an article and then link to it as if it was one, is worse. It's either a crass attempt at self-promotion by masquerading as somebody who has a Wikipedia bio, or just some kind of fit of bad judgment. The removal of Jackmcbarn's userpage tags[123][124] makes it difficult to believe in the second alternative. I hope somebody has time to deal with it, as also the apparent misuse of AfC and other problematic behaviour outlined above — I have to go to bed now. Bishonen | talk 23:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC).

• Ugh, indeed. I too have to go to bed as it's 1am, but I've redirected a few obviously NN band members to the band article and deleted a template with no links - that's as far as I've got so far. Some of the articles are obviously notable, but I'm sure not all of them are. I've sent the userpages to MfD as well. Black Kite (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• I went ahead and started AfDs on a couple of the articles that were definitely not notable and promotional, linking only to sales sites for the books. GregJackP Boomer! 00:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Just a note: I brought up a previous issue with Leelabratee in June. Granted, it wasn't about potential sock/meatpuppetry, but there were serious editing concerns. Woodroar (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Since I posted the report, Leelabratee has accepted the following AfC submissions, all by Moheen Reeyad: Template:Jahajee tracks, Template:Jahajee, and Hashimukh. In addition, Moheen Reeyad created Category:Shironamhin songs on his own. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Upon further investigation, Leelabratee has also accepted these AfC submissions of their own: Suprobhat Bangladesh, Ekobingsho, Humayun Azad bibliography, and Template:Humayun Azad (though the last two have such a move web that I'm not sure). Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

As a RFC "regular" I've also noticed these odd activities - substandard drafts being accepted but didn't connect these users with each other. Unfortunately much of this activity coincided with a backlog drive which also revealed other problems. We're currently working on a few ideas for filtering out reviewers with insufficient experience and knowlege of the minimum acceptable standards for articles - which would probably also help to uncover abuses such as this. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Facepalm ... As an AfC regular, and the man who dragged Arctic Kangaroo up to ANI a few weeks back, I can only repeat my increasingly regular calls for the ability to review submissions to be stripped and given out only by consensus at WP:RPE, which would solve all this for the long term. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

That wouldn't have stopped this, because for some of the articles, Leelabratee just moved them to mainspace and removed the AfC template manually. Jackmcbarn (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Untangling this

• I've only got a few hours before I'm away for a few days, I'm afraid, but I'm currently leaving warnings on the three user's talkpages to stop their activity on creating new pages and AFC submissions until this is sorted out. I'll then try to have a look at some more of the articles. Black Kite (talk) 08:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• I've tagged a few more articles and deleted some that clearly fail speedy deletion criteria - and I've also opened an SPI - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moheen Reeyad because some of the stylistic and spelling similarities between the three users' creations is far too close to be a coincidence. Good luck to whoever takes this up. Black Kite (talk) 09:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• On that note, could an admin keep an eye on them and warn/block if they carry on creating articles/using AFC? Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 09:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm going through their submissions. The trouble is, they aren't entirely obvious spam / promotional so they can't be speedied via WP:CSD#G11, and Theatre Institute Chittagong might be borderline notable - though I think that's more by luck than judgement. The numerous articles relating to Shironamhin might be notable, but the current articles give no indication why or cite any reliable sources - but again I think this is sufficient to avoid CSD. I've reduced a couple to redirects. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• My apology for my behavior. But, I want to contribute here. In sometimes I was confused as like my previous work. I committed, in future I should be careful. Moheen Reeyad (talk) 13:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Checkuser confirms that the three accounts are the same individual. Indefblocks for abuse of multiple accounts. Confusion doesn't go far in accounting for such abuse. I've blocked the three accounts; could somebody else add the appropriate tags to the pages, please? I'm having trouble finding them. (The tags, not the pages. :-)) Bishonen | talk 09:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC).

You want to use Template:SockBlock, probably with Moheen Reeyad as the master - I can add the tags but a) I'm not an admin and b) it's probably better if the admin doing the blocking also does the tagging. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

All now blocked and tagged. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Adam Hills

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

---

The Adam Hills article needs to be protected. On the live TV show The Last Leg he challenged people to update his Wikipedia page, and guess what? It's happening. Mostly it's nonsense/vandalism. Thanks, Bazonka (talk) 21:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It's OK, someone just did it. Bazonka (talk) 21:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Actually leaving it in a vandalised state would be pretty good "punishment" for his stupidity. If he wants an article about him to consist of mostly bullshit, then so be it. Even better if some lazy journo ends up spreading the vandalism around as "The Truth". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, tempting as it might be to "enforce the Golden Rule", it's still a WP:BLP violation and if somebody raised a stink about it they'd probably still win... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

User:R-41 and various IP addresses

R-41 (talk · contribs) was indefinitely blocked back in May by User:Dennis Brown at their own request, following a run of problematic content additions and general behaviour, and on the basis of evident issues, including edits that had to be oversighted. In blocking, Dennis Brown suggested that in six months they could request an unblock but that in the meantime any IPs they continued to edit through should be blocked also. Since then the editor has returned to editing through a succession of IPs. In doing so, they have made no attempt to edit in different areas or amend their behavior, ie to make a fresh start (and even if they had of course, they would still be falling foul of the terms of the block). They are still editing in a combative fashion – for example shouting in full caps in edit summaries and telling other users, ie me, that they "hate [my] guts" and that I am a "smart-ass" – and are edit warring even when mistakes in the content they add are politely pointed out to them. They have also made several further talk page comments that have had to be oversighted. There is also the underlying issue that their continuing to edit here is clearly not helpful for them as an individual. I guess this could have gone to SPI but I'm not sure that is technically the problem and arguably it goes beyond that anyway. The following IPs are the ones they have definitely been editing from recently, with the most recent/current one at the top.

• 70.26.155.42 (talk · contribs)
• 74.12.192.213 (talk · contribs)
• 184.145.75.33 (talk · contribs)

Not sure what can be done if they insist on editing from constantly altering IP addresses, but something clearly needs to be done with them, if only for their own good. N-HH talk/edits 21:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• I've just blocked User:70.26.155.42 for a month for making threats on both this and N-HH's talkpage, and have rev-deleted the edits. Black Kite (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess we'll have to wait and see if they pop up in a few days under another IP address. They rarely deny it's them when challenged, and the editing patterns and writing style make their identity rather obvious. N-HH talk/edits 08:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Requesting Sanctions enforcement

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

---

Jattnijj (talk · contribs), a new user, has been disruptive in the field of Indian caste material, especially on Jat people. This field is under community imposed discretionary sanctions, as can be seen at Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups. The user has already been blocked twice for edit warring (once on a Sikh religious article, Sarbloh Granth, and once on Jat people). The user has been warned many times (see the user's talk page), and given a formal sanctions warning by me in this edit. Despite these warnings, the user has continued to edit war on Jat people. Most recently and tellingly he has attempted to invoke "freedom of speech" (see edit summary on this and this edit on his talk page in response to a warning). Clearly this user is hellbent on making the article conform to his own personal opinions about Jat people, regardless of what sources say. Also, based upon this edit summary and the contents of this talk page edit, I believe the user is fundamentally opposed to the use of western scholarly sources, asserting that they may be biased (this is true, but that does not mean that we just remove them in preference for people's personal opinions).

At this point, since neither warnings nor prior blocks have had an effect, I think we need a topic ban. I leave it to the community's discretion as to how widely the topic ban should apply. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Give them a nice long block (two weeks or so duration or a month perhaps?). Not a fan of this new fad on India-related pages of biting newbies with topic bans (which only lead to more ANI theatrics from editwarriors and wikilawyers). To clarify Qwyrxian, this is in general, and not directed towards you as I think you've exhausted good faith in dealing with a misguided user.Pectore^talk 03:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

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

I support User:Pectore's recommendation of a block of at least two weeks. User:Jattnijj has already had 24-hour and 72-hour blocks as well as a sanctions warning. We've exhausted what can be done here by persuasion. EdJohnston (talk) 03:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Is wiki here to promote democratic learning or allow bullies to write bias? WP:REFBEGIN and WP:RELY.

I am a jatt of the jatt race And a sikh some we are not a caste nor hindu. The caste system is a creation we did not and do not live by, its dangerous and fictitious. Some claim that jatts are a caste or labourers or peasants is not proven. It is a pov promoted people who propagate dogma or those up to mischief.

If that is the point of wiki then I will fight you. If not then learn something of the subject matter ! Would you allow non Jewish people dominate the writing about them ? Which side do support copernicus or the church?

If you persist to allow this material without context, balance and researching what is already on the page you leave me with no choice but to escalate to the authorities in race and religious hatred. The least you could do is read my comments - I am not anti western or academic but anti bias. Jattnijj (talk) 05:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• The comment above was posted to another thread above this one so I moved it here (it seemed quite obviously like a response to this thread). I have tried to clean it up a bit for clarity without removing any context. On the face of it, this seems like a fairly obvious case of WP:NOBLE and WP:NOTHERE. Stalwart111 07:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for moving, still trying to get used to wiki and my phone 08:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jattnijj (talk • contribs)

• Im on the talk page waiting to have a reasonable debate wIth whomever to explain why this article's claims are too strong. I'd ask the editor team here to read all my comments and if they are unclear I will clarify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jattnijj (talk • contribs) 09:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Jattnijj, taking it to Talk:Jat people is A Good Thing and follows our chat here. Do you agree to let the article talk page discussion develop and not to edit war now? Respect for consensus is important here on Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 09:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
• Jattnijj, anyone can edit any article on any subject on Wikipedia; "non-Jewish people" can, and I would venture possibly do, "dominate the writing about them" on Wikipedia. Now, sometimes this can be frustrating when you're a genuine expert on the topic and you're seeing the article being edited by Randy in Boise, but that's how Wikipedia works; nobody owns an article or topic, regardless of whether or not they're part of the group being written about (indeed, in many cases it's better if they're not). Now, one other thing you might want to be careful about are your suggestions that you will "escalate to the authorities in race and religious hatred" - this sort of thing is frowned upon here, and can lead to a block if it's determined you're trying to force a chilling effect on other editors. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Having just returned to Wikipedia after a year long absence, I'm struck by how much time is wasted by productive editors in reasoning with aggressive, unrepentent, and ignorant ideologues. No one in the real world would give them this kind of attention. Yes, a block of at least two weeks is in order. She or he should use that time to bone up on Wikipedia policy and etiquette. I don't believe discussing things on Talk:Jat people will be productive at this stage. After a block, hopefully chastened and wiser, they can continue the discussion, if they so choose. Being a newbie is no excuse; we were all newbies once. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support a block for two weeks. I've tried both on their talk page and at Talk:Jat_people#Opening_claim but it is clear that Jattnijj either has not read our policies etc or has little intention of abiding by them. Let's give them a chance via a block to read and/or reassess. The signs are not good to those of us who are familiar with behaviour in this area of WP, so if there is no real change when they return from the block then I would support a long-ish topic ban from caste articles because they're already proposing to get involved with others of that genre and, really, I for one am becoming increasingly tired of having to deal with this sort of stuff. We're losing good contributors because of it. - Sitush (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support two week block. Shows WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality in comments above. GregJackP Boomer! 14:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Support - and a month's block. I am sick to death of India related articles being attacked like this. People are taking great care over these articles, and people are coming on here with real WP:COMPETENCE issues and destroying them. Sorry about the rant, but with this and other Inida related articles, I'm just sick of it. Thanks SH 17:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support any block from two weeks to an indef. The number of POV-pushers editing Indian articles is already too high; this new user is clearly lacking in WP:COMPETENCE, clue, and isn't a benefit to the encyclopedia. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm 'aggressive, unrepentent, and ignorant ideologues'

Please explain.

Thanks

Jattnijj (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it has been explained to you quite clearly on the talk pages and your user talk page how you meet those criteria. You definitely need to review and absorb Wikipedia's rules quickly, or more punitive measures are justified.Pectore^talk 03:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Maxximiliann

Maxximiliann (talk · contribs) is continually attempting to alter articles about historical topics relating to the Neo-Babylonian period to suit an alternative chronology which is a theological opinion of Jehovah's Witnesses. When facts are presented at Talk, he does not respond with any sources to support his view, and instead attempts to dismiss the evidence with childish retorts (e.g. [125]).

If not blocked altogether, the editor should be topic-banned from editing articles relating to Jehovah's Witnesses or the Neo-Babylonian period.

Dougweller (talk · contribs) has already warned the editor about edit-warring.

See:

• Talk:Babylonian captivity#JW chronology
• Talk:Siege of Jerusalem (587 BC)#Erroneous Topic-Wide Chronology
• Talk:Siege of Jerusalem (597 BC)#Erroneous Topic-wide Chronology
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible#Editor changes biblical dates, etc
• User talk:Maxximiliann

--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Herewith I file a Counterclaim against Jeffro77 (talk · contribs).

The changes I've attempted to implement are solidly based on archaeological evidence (Cyrus Cylinder), historical evidence Jeffro77 (talk · contribs) himself has presented (See: Fringe Views? 04:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)), the research presented by other Wikipedia editors (See: 530s BC, 539 BC, 6th century BC, Babylonian captivity & Cyrus the Great among others.) and grade school arithmetic, to wit:

Since King Cyrus of Persia conquered Babylon in October 539 B.C.E.. Cyrus' first regal year began in the spring of 538 B.C.E. This means that the Jews would be back in their homeland by October 537 B.C.E. or "the seventh month (Tishri)" as Ezra 3:1 states. Since this date for Israel's repatriation after its seven decade exile in Babylon ( Chronicles 36:20,21; Jeremiah 25:12; Zechariah 1:12; Daniel 9:2; Zechariah 7:5 and Jeremiah 29:10 among others) is based on the pivotal year of 539 B.C.E, and is, therefore, authoritative, this makes:

1. Ab 607 BCE the legitimate year for the final siege of Jerusalem
2. 617 BCE the year for the second siege of Jerusalem and
3. 618 BCE the year for the first siege of Jerusalem

These are just simple, straightforward conclusions based on the preponderance of the evidence. Really, I don't see what all the fuss is about.

However, since Jeffro has made it clear he intends to ignore the evidence and coerce his point of view on all Wikipedia pages pertaining and related to these historical events, it is with sincere sadness that I respectfully request he be topic banned from editing all articles discussing this period in ancient Jewish history. —Maxximiliann talk 01:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The editor's claim that This means that the Jews would be back in their homeland by October 537 B.C.E. is a fabrication. Most sources give 538 for that event. The "preponderance of the evidence" does not support these theological opinions of Jehovah's Witnesses. There is a great deal of evidence in support of the secularly accepted Neo-Babylonian period, and this is not countered by theological superstitions. Further, even if the scriptural passages are considered in context, they don't support the '70 years' as a period of exile anyway, but of nations being subject to Babylon, and a later release from exile.

The supposed "simple, straightforward conclusions" are based on a faulty premise and contradict all secular sources (and not merely 'my point of view') about the Neo-Babylonian period.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I would like to hear User:Dougweller first before any further discussion as a more reliable and neutral editor. Otherwise, based solely on above it could be WP:BOOMERANG. The very first link offered by Jeffro77 shows him/her reformatting the Talk page and creating subsection JW chronology over references like the NIV Student Bible which suggests that Jeffro77 is back to WP:Battleground behaviour with too much time combatting JWs. As far as the actual issue I justed posted a German academic source at the bottom of Jeffro77's Talk:Babylonian captivity#JW chronology section which makes it clear that the "JW Chronology" comes from a historically questionable verse in Book of Daniel - regret I have no English source to hand, but the German academic doesn't ascribe Daniel 1,1 to JW authorship. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The German source you provided explicitly states that any 607-based chronology is wrong.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

In relation to the other complaint, I gave the section a name (it previously had no name) because the other editor had tacked it onto a stale discussion from several years ago; I have no objection to renaming that section heading. The chronology these days is held almost exclusively by JWs. However, there are other minor Bible Student groups with common origins to JWs that also hold to these views. More accurately, the interpretation of the '70 years' in question is a teaching borrowed and adapted from Millerism, from which JWs and various other Adventist groups developed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Jeffro you're not getting it: this is ANI, not Sunday School, the issue is not my German academic's opinion of the reliability of Daniel 1,1 - no one here cares about what is "right" or "wrong" (moreover I don't see "wrong"/"falsch" anywhere in the ref I provided). The issue is WP:Battleground behaviour which your reply above "'70 years' in question is a teaching borrowed and adapted from Millerism, from which JWs and various other Adventist groups developed" (both factually wrong and confirms the simplistic combative frame of thinking here) just confirms. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Your source states, "Diese Datierung widerspricht nicht nur allen historisch zuverlässigen Quellen, sondern auch den Darstellungen in den übrigen biblischen Büchern" (Literal translation: "This dating contradicts not only all historical reliable sources, but also representations in the other biblical books")--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I also notice that although In ictu oculi claims to be neutral in this matter, he made a jibe about 'Sunday School' when I briefly responded here to a matter he raised about a German source, yet he made no such objection to the POV comments made above by Maxximiliann.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Argumentum ignoratio elenchi. Since when is truth established by consensus? Try again.—Maxximiliann talk 02:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia WP:TRUTH. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I would also clarify that the concern expressed by In ictu oculi (talk · contribs) is based on only a subset of Maxximiliann's assertions. There are various changes sought by Maxximiliann in various articles that contradict reliable sources, and not just the more broad interpretations about only Daniel 1:1 raised by Iio. Considered in full, the position taken by Maxximiliann is peculiar to JWs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

"The editor's claim that This means that the Jews would be back in their homeland by October 537 B.C.E. is a fabrication. Most sources give 538 for that event" Have I got this right? Are people really arguing over one year, could even be just a few months,when this ancient event of somewhat dubious historicity supposedly took place?Smeat75 (talk) 02:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

One year can matter a lot when you are a Jehovah's Witness trying to keep the house of cards that is your entire worldview from falling apart. Wikipedia should of course not see it as its mission to help keeping up that house of cards, but should simply provide the year most commonly used in reliable, non-sectarian sources - i.e. 538.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

That difference of one year is only one of several changes the editor wants to make. He also wants to shift the fall of Jerusalem from 587 to 607, and he wants to move the earlier siege from 597 to 617. He wants to do this throughout Wikipedia. I recommend that Smeat75 (talk · contribs) read the actual discussions cited at the beginning of this section.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

As with the recent incident involving the Haymarket affair article here on Wikipedia, the overriding imperative needs to be the truth as sustained by evidence, not the upholding of they tyranny of the majority by fallacious argumentum ad populum. —Maxximiliann talk 02:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have missed some of our important policies which clearly shows that consensus and reliable secondary sources decide what goes in our articles - not anyone's private and unsupported interpretations of primary sources. Wikipedia is basically ruled by the the consensus of qualified opinions.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

A subjective interpretation of scripture does not trump all of the evidence on which the secular history of the Neo-Babylonian period is based.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support short topic holidays for both as [modified] per both's proposals - Maxximiliann from Bible chronology, Jeffro77 from Jehovah's Witnesses. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

In ictu oculi has not disclosed that he has previously disagreed with me about theological issues and is not a neutral observer in this matter.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

In this I'm neutral, I see you both behaving in a way that would benefit from a holiday. Jeffro77 I couldn't care less about "theological issues" and do not recall having seen you post anything related to "theology" - what I have seen (that Instrument of Jesus' crucifixion comes to mind) is single-minded pattern of WP:SPA edits, and have previously warned you about your focus on one religious group and conducting what looks more like "JW-hunting" suitable to a forum or blog than en.wp. In addition to your WP:Battleground behaviour on Talk pages and making it an issue of which church editors belong to, additionally in this case you need to provide a diff for where Maxximiliann self-identified as a "JW" - if you can't that would be an additional reason for holiday from "JWs" and contributing something else to the project. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

You are definitely not neutral. (In ictu oculi's personal bias was demonstrated in this edit, where he lied about me in support of another editor's lie about me. Both editors ignored the actual order of events, which was evident from the diff supplied in my response[126][127].) But aside from that, I don't care about to which religion any particular editor belongs. Anyone is welcome to believe whatever they like. They are not welcome to push those beliefs onto Wikipedia articles about historical subjects that are extremely well attested by secular sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Lie is a big word. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

OK. In ictu oculi said: "However if you actually look at the link Jeffro posted in evidence [128] all it shows is AuthorityTam notifying the page of the ANI, and Jeffro being caught calling AT a "liar," and then AT posting Jeffro's own words to show that he hadn't lied and Jeffro seems to have forgotten what he said at ANI." In that case however, 'AT' had actually posted my "own words" (where I provisionally agreed with a recommendation by another editor) from 3 days later than the original accusation made by 'AT' (who claimed I was 'moving to have that user blocked'). 'AT' in fact had lied about the order of events, and then In ictu oculi also lied by saying that 'AT' had not lied, which he did in order to make it appear that I had lied.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

As to In ictu oculi's claim that this is merely a matter of me on some 'JW-hunt', see also concerns raised by Dougweller about Maximmiliann's edits.[129]--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::::::I ran into Maxximiliann when he started changing dates and the name of God in biblical articles. I ended up giving him two 3RR warnings, one for Book of Ezekiel and the other for Nebuchadnezzar II. I just noticed when I logged on a few minutes that he gave me similar 3RR warnings although I only edited Exekiel once and Nebuchadnezzar II twice. From a quick look at my edit summaries, I reverted him for changing dates and the name of God with no explanation, changes that in some cases then contradicted other articles. I also posted asking for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible. Note that I've also notified Til about this discussion as he was also involved in it there and with some of the articles. Dougweller (talk) 05:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Doug, thanks, you would then agree with topic holiday for Maximillian? Be interested to hear what Til E says too. As regards Jeffro's involvement, do you see any diff for where Maxximiliann self-identified as a "JW" - much as none of us like JWs, given the recent Scientology "outing" on ANI etc, we shouldn't be attributing religion to other editors. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

"much as none of us like JWs"

If you are prejudiced, In ictu oculi, you should only speak for yourself. Imagine if there was an "e" between the J and W and maybe then you can see the blatant religious intolerance. You might disagree with the opinions of members of a particular religious denomination but you don't speak for Wikipedia. Newjerseyliz (talk) 02:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Newjerseyliz, I fully agree, but the point is that I'm just being honest, declaring my weakness; I don't like anyone who knocks on my door when I'm watching TV, but two times now I have been the one standing up for two different editors accused by Jeffro77 of being JWs. I agree 100% with you that it's a small step from JW to any other religious group - imagine if there was an "e" between the J and W in Jeffro77's posts; the question User:Newjerseyliz is do you support Jeffro's attribution of religious affiliation to a User and characterizing the edits as "J W" ? Should en.wp be a place for religious hounding? What do you think? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Quit the irrelevant posturing. I didn't 'accuse' editors of being JWs. The fact that an editor may be a JW is not the point at all, as I've already clearly stated here several times. I stated (correctly) that an editor is allowing his own bias to heavily influence his dogmatic insistence of broad changes throughout Wikipedia. Not only has he quoted JW literature (without citing his source), but he is also pushing for a rewrite of history that is only important to JWs, the editor's personal bias is very clear. As I've already stated—repeatedly—whether or not he is officially a member of that group is entirely irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Whether Maximmiliann is formally (or even informally) a member of Jehovah's Witnesses has no real bearing on the fact that he is using Wikipedia to promote a minority view of history that is peculiar to that religion.--Jeffro7 7 (talk) 07:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::@In ictu oculi Yes, I'd agree with a topic holiday for Maximillian. I have seen no statement by him that he is a JW and I agree we shouldn't be attributing religion to other editors. However, I'm not sure this also means that if we see a pov being pushed that we can attribute to a particular religion that we can't point that out as Jeffro has done at Talk:Siege of Jerusalem (587 BC) (although he's also called these view's Maxximiliann's views). Eg., we can say that a Creationist viewpoint is being put forward by an editor, surely? I'll also note that Maximillian moved from edit-warring to overtagging, eg [130] (by the way, do I spot some OR there from earlier editors as well as statements that need attributing so as not to be pov?)Dougweller (talk) 07:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Doug, thanks again. Then I don't see anyone opposing a topic holiday for Maxxiimillian.

As for Jeffro77, the "I smell a JW!" approach is a bit different from someone noting that an argument (not person) tends to denying evolution, round earth or greenhouse gases. We generally don't need editors saying "I smell a Catholic!" "I smell a Pentecostal!" in the middle of esoteric Talk page discussions and these are borderline incursions into breach of WP:NPA "Racial, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor, or against a group of contributors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.". And Jeffro77 is persisting here at ANI with identifying another user's religion, despite his own acknowledgement that the chronology is not exclusive to that group:

The Methodist Review - Volume 37 - Page 420 1855 "Jehoiachin fell about the year B. C. 606. At this date commences the seventy years' captivity. Judah was therefore carried to what we have called Babylon proper; for, as is apparent by the dates already given, Nineveh was now included in ..."

The only problem would be that a topic holiday for Jeffro77 might be tantamount to a full ban, since he/she seems to make no edits outside JWs. Perhaps then rather than a like-for-like holiday, a Warning not to attempt identifying other user's religion and then personalizing Talk on that basis might be in order? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

You're seriously citing a periodical from 1855 to support your claim that the editor is promoting beliefs of some group other than Jehovah's Witnesses? Not only was that before the more recent discovery of a great deal of archaeological evidence from the Neo-Babylonian period, but the year for the fall of Jerusalem also has no special significance in Methodist belief. I already previously indicated that various minor Adventist groups hold to similar chronologies based on a view that developed from Millerism (and evidently other groups held similar views in the 19th century as well). The fact that such groups were more prevalent in the 19th century also has no bearing. I already explicitly stated that it doesn't matter whatsoever whether the editor is or is not a member of Jehovah's Witnesses, even though the edits are entirely consistent with the beliefs of that group (and not merely similar to the beliefs of a group from the 19th century). If the editor is a member of some other minor religion, or of no religion, the fact remains that his desire to distort the history of the Neo-Babylonian period is entirely inappropriate.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

It also strikes me as odd that In ictu oculi insists on charging me with 'borderline personal attacks', when it was he who said earlier today on this page that "none of us like JWs".[131] He clearly has his own reasons for wanting some kind of remonstration against me, which he's done during the last year almost every time I've particated in an ANI. My best guess is that he has maintained a grudge after a dispute with a "pro-JW editor" "spilled over" into an article he watches (where he labelled me a "anti-JW/ex-JW editor", though I don't identify as either).[132] Perhaps he just doesn't like atheists editing articles about religion. Who knows? Whatever the case, I haven't done anything improper here by preventing a biased editor (whether he be a JW, a Bible Student, or a Methodist from 1855) from trying to get false information put into all articles relating to the Neo-Babylonian period.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Jeffro, yes that's about right, your anti-JW activities spilled over into a mainstream Christianity article I had watchlisted, and I remembered it. Spot on. My view that en.wp is not a place for this kind of activity is not a "grudge," it is a view that en.wp is not a place for this kind of activity. I would say the same of an editor whose Talk page contributions are centred on anti-Catholic anti-Muslim anti-Mormon or anti-Bahai edits too.

And no I'm citing a Methodist periodical from 1855 to show that (whatever my own view on taking a verse from Daniel as historically reliable) the view isn't limited to the group you are going after.

I do not give an expletive deleted what group Maxximillian belongs to - and neither should you. If you want to play religious heresy-hunter, then please go do it on a religious forum. Your approach doesn't help dealing with edits like Maxximillian's and en.wp doesn't need a sectarian approach to keep fundamentalist chronologies out of history articles, there are plenty of editors willing to stand up for that anyway. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Your claims about others holding a strong belief about 607 are tortuous at best, and derive no support at all from the fact that groups in the 19th century held similar views (but not strongly) before the actual chronology was more clearly established. In fact, groups then believed it was 606, and even Jehovah's Witnesses didn't adopt 607 until the 1940s. I do not care whether editors are JWs, and I've engaged with various unbiased JWs (i.e. they are able to edit without relying on personal biases) on Wikipedia over the years; you've never heard about those because they weren't causing problems. I have only ever objected to editors injecting bias into articles (which I have done in the case of both 'anti-' and 'pro-JW' editors) or when being lied about by other editors. I've sometimes even been accused of being 'pro-JW' by other editors with a negative bias toward the religion. If following up the bias of other editors happens to occasionally affect your happy little world, well that's just tough. The fact that I have occasionally complained about biased editors doesn't make me the bad guy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

It may be that Maximmiliann's views about both biblical chronology and importance of the name Jehovah just happen to co-incide with those peculiar to JWs, though that is extremely unlikely, and entirely unimportant. The views he is pushing (therefore his views) are also the views uniquely held by JWs. (Some extremely small Bible Student movement groups—which have common origins to JWs—hold to a similar chronology.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I was invited to give my comments here. This is a good demonstration of the fact we must admit that there are in existence conflicting views of history between differing schools of thought (the more so for BC times.) The JW school of thought and their view of history is but one example. So much of the reconstruction of events that long ago relies on assumptions, conjectures and interpretations made by historians who are 'mainstream' in one country, 'fringe' in the next country. The JW school of thought has enough of a following that it should be mentioned in the appropriate context on the relevant articles, in the relevant subsections, with attributation to them. I have no problem with a fellow editor subscribing to JW or any other belief system - as long as one doesn't try to make the entire project conform to one's own belief-system to the exclusion of all others. JWs follow methods for arriving at dates that are uniquely their own, not shared externally, and Maximilliann surely realizes this. Different schools of thought attribute different amounts of face value to different pieces of evidence, which is why one will hold a given shred of evidence at no value and ignore it altogether, and another may give that same evidence maximal face value while ignoring some other evidence. This is even among the critical historians who try to examine all primary sources whether Hebrew, Babylonian, Egyptian, Hittite, etc. etc. for their respective potential intended uses as propaganda in BC times. So accomodating the JW viewpoint in a dedicated subsection seems reasonable enough, but certainly not presenting it as the only correct view. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Your suggestion is quite different to Maximmiliann's 'request' for the dates to be "corrected" in all articles relating to the Neo-Babylonian period: "Given the whole host of articles pertaining to this period in ancient Jewish history that need to be corrected to these dates, I kindly solicit your help to make these changes effective as soon as possible."[133]

I have no objection to articles about relevant events having a brief subsection indicating notable alternative view(s). Such subsections would need a clear indication that they are not mainstream, and should not become preachy treatises. Such a subsection may be appropriate on articles such as Siege of Jerusalem (587 BC), though I do not see that it would be appropriate or necessary to modify every article for which JWs posit a different year (the 20 years they add to the Neo-Babylonian period affects the timing of all earlier events, in addition to other variations in their chronology before, after and during the Neo-Babylonian period), nor at every article that happens to mention the year for events they consider notable. I do not believe such sections would be appropriate at list articles in the form "Year BC", as it would dominate the content.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Maxxiimillian wrote above simple, straightforward conclusions based on the preponderance of the evidence. Really, I don't see what all the fuss is about whenever I see that from an editor on the project for all of 4 days, about material from 2,500 years ago, I would say topic ban immediately. --Malerooster (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

His newness to the project generally works in his favor, not against him, per WP:BITE. But his responses I have seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible#Editor changes biblical dates, etc consist largely of rhetorical retorts like "And how exactly does that change the fact that your entire argument is just naked casuistry of the worst kind?" I would give him a chance to acclimatize to our more tolerant culture, and explain that he can help properly elucidate this viewpoint in the appropriate places as Jeffro outlined, but if he doesn't shape up soon and continues to insist his view is the only correct one, he can and should be topic banned. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

You've made some very salient points which I have certainly taken note of. And, for the record, I would be more than happy with a subsection explaining the controversy surrounding the use of 587 BCE as opposed to 607 BCE in relevant articles just as the opposing opinions of Albright, Thiele and others are also represented. In my humble opinion, I think this would be very much in harmony with WP:NPOV.—Maxximiliann talk 15:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

There really isn't much "controversy surrounding the use of 587 BCE as opposed to 607 BCE". 587 has broad acceptance. Dogmatic adherence to 607 is controversial. The view certainly isn't as notable as the views of Albright and Thiele, but as already stated, it should not be a problem for articles about relevant events to have a brief subsection explaining the JWs' alternative date. Such subsections must be based on reliable sources (which may include JW literature for expressing the JW belief, though secondary sources would be preferred), and not merely on subjective interpretations of scriptures.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Regrettably, although you might be happy with a separate subsection, I believe WP:CONSENSUS overrides the opinions of any one editor. Also, there is a real problem of any article of this type, where there seem to be religious opinions on a topic which might not have much if any support in the independent academic world, that an article could quickly be overburdened by material on the alternative view(s). Largely because of that, I believe that we have made it a point to follow the lead of, basically, the leading reference sources of all kinds. Jeffro is an experienced editor around here, with some familiarity with policies and guidelines, if also, maybe, a bit too anti-JW, and I think between Maxximiliann and himself they might be able to determine whether there is sufficient basis to establish notability of a separate article on the alternative dates given by the JWs to biblical events, and/or whether they would meet WP:WEIGHT guidelines in the main articles, or whether there might be (maybe) reason for thinking that some sort of alternative views of the Siege of Jerusalem article including this material and other might be best. But I would very much urge Maxximiliann to familiarize himself with the relevant policies and guidelines first. Otherwise, I would tend to support Til's statements in general myself. John Carter (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't follow. What religious opinions have I expressed? —Maxximiliann talk 19:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I've just discovered that at Talk:Book of Ezekiel he has written "I propose that, especially in articles written in English, "Jehovah" be used as God's proper name." Dougweller (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

And how precisely is suggesting that English names be used in articles written in English a religious statement? —Maxximiliann talk 02:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's fairly clearly a rather clear statement of not only a religious opinion, regarding "Jehovah" being God's proper name, but also one which fairly clearly and I think exclusively is held by the JWs. John Carter (talk) 00:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Maxximiliann's question, What religious opinions have I expressed? He quoted a JW publication at Talk:Book of Ezekiel (without providing his source), and it's been fairly evident all along that he is expressing the views of Jehovah's Witnesses. As I've already stated, the fact that an editor is either a member or supporter of the religion is unimportant, but it is not appropriate to deny a conflict of interest.

You are mistaken. That "Jehovah" is the English translation of the Hebraic Tetragrammaton is well attested to by many, many scholars. —Maxximiliann talk 02:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not object to Til Eulenspiegel's suggestion about a brief subsection at existing articles about events that are significant in JW belief. I do not believe there is sufficient notability (i.e. discussion in reliable secondary sources) for a separate article on the matter. The JW belief about 607 BCE is currently expressed in various articles about Jehovah's Witnesses: Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs, Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses, Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine, and Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

With all those articles already covering it, one would have to conclude that it has received due mention here somewhere. I'd have to check on articles on the Siege itself to see if the JW belief gets much attention in them. I don't know one way or another, but I tend to think that really independent academic sources on the subject probably don't give the religious views of what is apparently one fairly significant, but still rather small as percentage of the population, group's variant ideas about dating much if any attention at all. John Carter (talk) 00:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I note the segue from "in articles written in English, "Jehovah" be used as God's proper name" to the argument that "That "Jehovah" is the English translation of the Hebraic Tetragrammaton is well attested to by many, many scholars." That's not an argument for using Jehovah instead of any other name in our articles, something that can't be decided here or on an article talk page. Since I know for a fact that Yahweh is used by many scholars writing in English, M's argument fails but does indicate the type of argument he uses - which simply isn't helpful. Again off-topic here, I'm concerned about using non-mainstream dating even in a subsection unless it is significantly discussed in reliable mainstream sources - otherwise where do we draw the line, and how to we maintain WP:UNDUE in articles? Dougweller (talk) 06:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Maxximiliann is now resorting to personal attacks.[134].--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, calling people bigots isn't really going to help anyone, is it? Anyone think that we shouldn't block here? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Herbxue

User: Herbxue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Page: Acupuncture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The user Herbxue has been engaged in an edit war on the Acupuncture article. The user was warned previously about 3rr here. A few months ago, violated 3rr warned here. Most recently, violated 3rr ([135], [136], [137]) and warned again here. He continued the edit war ([138] [139] [140]), engaged in personal attacks on the talk page, and showed no remorse/understanding of the edit warring. He gives personal attacks in edit summaries and edit wars asking for an admin to take action.

In summery, the user is an WP:SPA with a history of bias/disruptive editing in acupuncture-related articles. Recently, he's escalated to personal attacks and edit warring, including 3RR violations. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, Im glad you posted this because its time for an admin to look into this issue. This mostly has to do with the questionable scientific basis of acupuncture, which is obviously a very controversial issue. But to be fair, I dont think Herbxue has any intent to engage in edit wars and I do feel that he is putting in a lot of effort to engage in discussions on the talk page and, until recently, was not that active in editing at all. At least not before I made that controversial edit regarding the effects of acupuncture. In any case, I hope any admin looking into this matter would be neutral and impartial, without any prejudices against this topic and its editors, or else the dispute won't end. -A1candidate (talk) 06:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for referring to the talk page discussions, A1Candidate. On all the recent controversial issues, I have either defended existing text, suggested compromises in wording on Mallexikon's edits to satisfy Dominus, suggested compromised wording on the issue of "theory" to satisfy Dominus, and more recently suggested mutually agreeable wording on the placebo issue. All this was met with immediate unexplained reverts by Dominus, who clearly has a strong POV, stating that acupuncture is practiced by "quacks". Dominus and Tippy have repeatedly restored wording that is controversial and not supported by the sources. When repeatedly asked to justify their edit using the source, Tippy responds by accusing ME of edit-warring. It is amazing that Tippy has the nerve to accuse me of edit warring when I have been the one trying to engage in the actual content issue while Tippy lectures me with WP policy that he himself is violating.

Please see my talk page and the acupuncture talk page under the subjects "medical procedure?", "theories?" and especially "its effects are due to placebo" to get a feel for how things have progressed the way they did. You will see a clear pattern of me trying to reach consensus and being reasonable, while Dominus and Tippy show a pattern of disruptive and disrespectful editing.Herbxue (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with the sentiments of both A1candidate and Herbexue. There has been a habit of drive-by editing/reverting by Tippy and Dominus at the acupuncture article, with no apparent effort shown to AGF or to even read the sources or verify the text that they are editing. Herbexue has made repeated requests at their talk pages and at the acupuncture talk page to address the article content, but the focus has been left on Herbexue himself rather than on the content or edits.Puhlaa (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Note: this page is covered by standard discretionary sanctions under WP:ARB/PS. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Taking a quick glance at this since no one else is commenting: while I am skeptical of acupuncture and am inclined to think the page needs to be edited to be less promotional, it looks there's a good chance of a boomerang here. I have to get on my high horse a little bit. You can't just write something on Wikipedia and cite as a source something that directly contradicts it. My view is that ranks among the highest crimes one can commit on Wikipedia, especially if it is deliberate (but even if it is just negligent, as in the case of the Jagged affair). To bring this to ANI at this point seems remarkably brazen, as if there's an assumption that neutral parties can't read or comprehend sources. The article lead says right now: "General scientific consensus maintains that the effects of acupuncture are due to placebo, and is therefore solely dependent on a patient's expectation of treatment outcomes". Three scientific reviews are cited. As pointed out calmly on the talkpage, none of the sources support this statement. The only one that comes close is the Ernst paper, which only says: "In conclusion, acupuncture remains steeped in controversy. Some findings are encouraging but others suggest that its clinical effects mainly depend on a placebo response". The others two say (1) "A small analgesic effect of acupuncture was found, which seems to lack clinical relevance and cannot be clearly distinguished from bias" or (3 - Cochrane review) "For chronic low-back pain, acupuncture is more effective for pain relief and functional improvement than no treatment or sham treatment immediately after treatment and in the short-term only". Note that edit-warring goes both ways, but if someone is deliberately misrepresenting academic sources in Wikipedia, that seems much more problematic, and the party which should be looked at closely is the one working to include misrepresentation. Now, maybe one of these reviews, particularly the last one, really needs to be dropped. The argument can be made and hashed out, perhaps with the help of people at RS/N or something. It looks like Dominus is at least making an attempt to explain why some high-quality sources should be discounted (altho concluding consensus, when every source talks rather about controversy and uncertainty, seems untenable at this point), but I don't see the same at all from Tippy, whose comment when accused of lying was simply "no, u". I can't promise to be engaged in this conversation as I'll be traveling most of tomorrow. My hope is that future participants here resist the urge to slip into an alternate reality where the brazen source misrepresentation is not happening, simply because of the subject at hand and many people's preconceived opinions. Sometimes problems are just so obvious and incontrovertible that they have to be acknowledged. II | (t - c) 04:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I would be pleased address the content and sourcing issues you've raised. If you are able to spare the time, please bring them to the talk page. TippyGoomba (talk) 06:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Request delete and salt of Sanad Rashed

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

---

Sanad Rashed is a BLP which has been deleted on two separate occasions and has been recreated by the same editor Dubaismart three times now. I am requesting a delete and salt of the article, and whatever the appropriate measures are for the editor who keeps recreating the same article. I have already tagged it for CSD G4. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 05:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Links to the previous discussion. First discussion, Second discussion. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 05:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Article deleted and salted. Warning given to user that recreation will lead to a block. Dpmuk (talk) 06:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Concerns with Jessica Christy and Hgjkfl

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

---

I tried to report this to AIV despite rock-solid evidence, but no action was taken despite a history built up of the problems (there's more frustration with AIV involving serial vandal reporting I won't go into here).

Supermariofan12 (talk · contribs) was blocked a month ago for creating a series of false articles around the false television station WKOL-TV. I thought it was resolved, but last night an edit involving a new false television station WBCG on List of The CW Television Network affiliates (note the Charlotte area already has a CW affiliate) popped up. I reverted that and was about to warn the user, Jessica Christy (talk · contribs) for their falsehood and suddenly found they edit to Hgjkfl (talk · contribs)'s userpage with regularity...with the same information about WKOL that got SMF12 blocked. Likewise Hgjkfl was also editing WKOL information with Jessica onto their userpage, while Jessica's talkpage also contains a false station infobox. There had been a mess of non-free images I removed of the WKOL "userpage" and on another WKOL farm on Hgjkfl's talk page, flaring up my suspicions of both of them being WP:DUCKs of each other with SMF12, along with the usual concerns that other editors have no business messing with each other's userpages to begin with. Nate • (chatter) 16:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Hgjkfl is a complete duck for Supermariofan12 (aka Supermariofan, and who knows what else) and I had no hesitation in blocking indefinitely. Jessica Christy looks to me more like a meatpuppet than a sockpuppet, and she does have some constructive edits in her history, so I have blocked her indefinitely too, but with a custom block message which is intended to give her more encouragement to request an unblock, if she is willing to drop the unconstructive parts of her editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Yelena Isinbayeva

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

---

Apparently just after winning the World Championship in the Pole Vault, Yelena made a statement about gay rights in Russia. In the last hour or so the article has been vandalized [141] [142] [143] [144] [145] [146] multiple time by different, IPs or new editors. We might reduce further damage if we limit editing to experienced editors until this blows over. Trackinfo (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Block of Samuelled for copyvio

I've just blocked Samuelled (talk · contribs) for repeated insertions of content that violates copyright at INS Sindhurakshak (S63). As there's a possibility that some might consider me WP:INVOLVED after nominating his content fork of that article, INS Sindhurakshak disaster, at AfD yesterday (where it was speedy-deleted for the same copyright-violating content (word for word, even) being included), I've brought it here; I believe that even if WP:INVOLVED would apply this falls under the 'any reasonable administrator' exemption due to his apparent complete lack of understanding of copyright and Wikipedia's copyright policy, but if there is disagreement will not object to a trout and an unblock. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Looking at your edits to the article, the spinout, and the AFD I would say that it speaks well of your judgment to be concerned about WP:INVOLVED. If this were just an edit warring block I might say it would have been better to have let someone else handle it; it would depend on any other involvement in the topic area or with Samuelled and with avoiding the appearance of impropriety. For blatant and repeated copyvio, though, this block is perfectly reasonable. I can re-block if we really need to, but WP:NOTBURO. If they continue to disregard our copyright requirements, an indefinite block would be in order until some indication is made of intending to follow policy. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

We don't need to reblock - honestly, I likely would have done the same in Bushranger's place. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Me, too. I've given him a bit of the {{uw-copyright-new}} explanation, which hopefully will help avoid issues going forward. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks MRG - that's a lot better than I could have ever explained it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I, obviously, think the block was warranted, as I warned the editor earlier. Seeing his denials that the content he added was unacceptable reinforces that and, further, raises questions about how he'll proceed after the block. That being said, yeah, you could have left the block to someone else, as your objections to the INS Sindhurakshak disaster article were not purely based on the copyright violations. -- tariqabjotu 20:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

If it had been anything else, I would have absolutely waited, but as he was repeatedly re-adding the problematic content, I judged that it was best to attempt to prevent further copyvio and accept a seafood dinner if need be. Thanks everyone, and hopefully he'll be more understanding of policy when the block expires. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

TJRC

TJRC block needed.

Comments being deleted (from Copyright status of work by the U.S. government talk page and from within tags in the article).

(revived discussion)

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)

As far as I can tell, TJRC deleted your Talk page comments exactly once, apparently because he believed that you were editing his comments. I can see why: the formatting, quite frankly, is a mess. Indented quotations may be standard in scholarly works, but indenting on Talk pages means another editor is writing, so when you mix and match indented sections and single sentences per line you become impossible to follow. In addition to that, half of your discussion is on the Talk page and half is in edit summaries. Use the Talk page to discuss. Also, there's no need for edit summaries like this, accusations and demands, or "bumping" comments. You're absolutely right that TJRC shouldn't have made the revert on the Talk page. I feel that he's probably been overzealous in tag removal, too, but he's trying to get a clear justification for the tag but not getting one from you. Please just AGF and answer his question without unnecessary indenting and copying attacks from further up the page. Woodroar (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for (if I'm reading you correctly) confirming that TJRC did delete my talk page comments, shouldn't have, and explaining that his accusation that he was reverting a violation of WP:TPO by me was mistaken. I hope TJRC will recognize/acknowledge it too. I couldn't make sense of the false accusation at the time, but see HOW he went wrong now. If you can suggest a better way to include those quotations in the talk page, I'm all ears; if it's a mess, then perhaps we can agree on something better. It seems pretty readable to me; I certainly wouldn't call it a mess; what minimal markup will improve it? IIRC, the quote template makes a worse mess.

I'm not sure if you managed to miss the content of the mainspace edit of the diff I provided, but in addition to the deletion you linked to - of THREE questions of mine, I wrote that TJRC " DELETED THE ANSWER " - and in fact he deleted my answer over and over and over and over and over - the answer he deleted 5+ times is: "Puerto Rico and DC are not part of the U.S. Government; they are subnational entities." Because I had answered the question 5+ times, it sure felt like gross violations of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and had me wondering about WP:CIR. What makes me certain that TJRC DID in fact SEE and READ the answer is TJRC's later edit summary, ""Puerto Rico and DC are not part of the U.S. Government" == "does not apply to .. District of Columbia or Puerto Rico" which proves he read it because it quotes from it. I do strive to always AGF, however AGF doesn't mean one must put up with WP:IDHT over and over and over and over and over.

That's why I suggest pointing out to TJRC that it's not constructive to demand an answer to a question when the question has been answered and TJRC has himself DELETED THE ANSWER.

I'll try to find wisdom in your criticism, and try to fathom why you assert I haven't answered his question as to you why I placed the tags when I have, "Multiple times. Multiple ways."! I'll even answer it again, for a 6th? 10th? time! --Elvey (talk) 05:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

First, I have to say, it would have been nice to have been notified of this discussion. I know Elvey had a complaint at the end of July (notified by a bot here, but I was pretty much off-Wikipedia for about a week, and when I went to AN/I, it was already gone).

Woodroar is correct; I had reverted Elvey's edits of my comments only once, and I had intended by my edit summary to make it clear why. I do disagree though, that I shouldn't have made the revert on the Talk page. WP:TPO says it pretty clearly: "If an editor objects to such interruptions, interruptions should be reverted and another way to deal with the issue found." I object to the interruptions, and, exactly as WP:TPO says, the interruptions should be reverted; and I reverted them.

As a matter of disclosure, after Elvey deleted my non-interruption comments yesterday ([147]) and re-instated his interruptions, I did undo that edit, as well, also based on TPO.

Elvey's links to what he thinks are deletions of talk page comments are actually removals of the tags; they're not even edits to the talk page all.

I believe now that Elvey believes that his comment in the tag is self-evident and not in need of further explanation. So when I've asked him what he thinks is confusing, he thinks he's already answered. However, I don't see why he thinks the statement is wrong or unclear, so I'd like to find that out and address it. I think it's clear, but if Elvey doesn't, at least one person finds it confusing and it's worth fixing.

I would also like to distinguish between the two templates Elvey applied here. His first (and second) claimed that the section was inaccurate, because "Puerto Rico and DC are not part of the U.S. Government"; but that's pretty much a paraphrase of what the section actually says: the prohibition against copyright of works of the U.S. government does not apply to District of Columbia or Puerto Rico -- because Puerto Rico and DC are not part of the U.S. Government. So the claims of inaccuracy were just plain wrong. After a couple taggings of that, he's now revised that to "confusing" (with the edit summary "Same difference"; however, I see a big difference between a claim that a passage is inaccurate and a claim that a passage is confusing).

I do think though, that Elvey has some fundamental misunderstandings of US copyright law, and the very different roles that the United States government and the individual state governments play in it. Those misunderstandings, coupled with his confidence, makes this a pretty challenging issue to resolve. Add in his general incivility, and tendency to throw accusations, and this is a pretty frustrating experience for all involved. TJRC (talk) 22:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

TJRC, I think you need take on some simple tasks, or a break if you're getting frustrated! Your multiple false allegations that I violated WP:TPO with edits that you reverted are addressed by Woodroar, but seem to have gone over your head. They're upsetting and disruptive. FACT CHECK his claim that he "reverted Elvey's edits of my comments" and you'll see that the diffs show no such thing.

I'm sick and tired of TJRC's false allegations. Some people aren't able to grasp the subtleties of how Wikipedia works or lack the maturity required to edit effectively. They may still be able to do some easy jobs, but they'll probably run into trouble if they try biting off too much. TJRC fits this category.

Finally, TJRC's accusation that he wasn't of notified of this discussion is demonstrably false! I most certainly DID NOTIFY HIM! And since I've revivied this discussion, I'll notify him again.

TJRC needs to be blocked. He has a very very poor grip on reality. A user who deletes another's comments 5+ times and denies it when diffs are provided, who makes so many blatantly false accusations has got to go! I've told him over half a dozen times that subnational entities are to be discussed in the article with subnational entities in the title, but he doesn't hear that… We have a history; he throws around false accusations like they're going out of style. --Elvey (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Full disclosure: Elvey has been following me around lately because he's angry with me for disagreeing with him on a legal article. It's kinda creepy, but I'll put that aside. At the outset, I see hardly any diffs in support of what appears to be a claim of refactoring. Elvey mentions a revived discussion, but I'm sure what he's referring to. After that, he took Woodroar's criticism and transformed it into a confirmation of this report. I could also do without the exclamation points, the inflammatory rhetoric, the shouting (caps), and all the rest of the drama. I deeply sympathize with TJRC. My limited interaction with Elvey indicates that (1) he has no grasp of legal principles and (2) he has great trouble connecting sources with article assertions. As a consequence, he makes rather bizarre claims about content, as well as outlandish claims about others' conduct.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

BBB mentions anger and following in a completely one-sided review. Perhaps it's him who is angry and following, because our most recent interaction was that I chastised him on his talk page for inexplicably biting a helpful newbie. (See how much better the article is now, perhaps thanks to the 'unbiting' of the newbie!) IIRC, encouraging new contributors has been determined to be top priority 'round here.

I don't recall referring to or using the word refactoring. I have provided many diffs showing my comments being deleted (from Copyright status of work by the U.S. government talk page and from within tags in the article). Hardly any? Hardly.

I would urge TJRC and others to reread what's been said to understand why Woodroar said, "You're absolutely right that TJRC shouldn't have made the revert on the Talk page."--Elvey (talk) 02:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment by TJRC

I will admit that I am now running out of patience with Elvey.

First, on the comment editing. I don't have a lot more to add beyond what I wrote above. WP:TPO says that when an editor objects to someone putting interruptions in his comments, he can revert them. I did. Elvey refuses to abide by that and continues to reinsert them. I want that stopped. It is important to me that Elvey's misunderstandings of the subject matter, and his hostile tone, not be attributed to me, which is the primary reason why I wish to rely on WP:TPO.

I will also note that I did not manage to get all of his interruptions out, and have held back on removing them further because he's already pissed off enough, and I have no desire to exacerbate the situation.

I rather politely explained the basis for this on his talk page:

Editing inside another editor's comments

Hi, Elvey. I suspect what might be getting you upset in Talk:Copyright status of work by the U.S. government is less the actual content than my objection to you inserting your comments ("interruptions" in Wikiparlance) in the middle of mine.

I don't like that practice, because it very quickly makes it hard to track who said what, particularly as the conversation gets longer and more iterative (and this is certainly one of those cases).

WP:TPO discusses this. Although that type of editing is not prohibited, "if an editor objects to such interruptions, interruptions should be reverted and another way to deal with the issue found." Since I do object to that, I reverted your interruptions. I'm happy to continue to engage, but please continue to make your replies independently rather than inserting your text amid my existing comments. Thank [sic]!

Elvey deleted this comment, with the edit summary "False allegations from TJRC - AGAIN - this time of editing inside his comments".

Furthermore, Elvey's reinstatement of his interruptions was not only contrary to TPO, but in the process he is removing the little actual progress made to addressing the underlying issue. Take a look at the talk page in this state. There is a section '"Innaccurate"/"confusing" tags' that is trying to address his issue in good faith. Despite the incivility of his response there, at least some headway is being made. Elvey's next edit was to delete that section, for the sake of reinstating his interruptions.

Elevey continues to be wrong in claiming that his diffs show me editing his comments, except for the three I now document; the two discussed above, and again today, all pursuant to WP:TPO. His diffs are edits of the article, not the talk page.

The notification issue is a sideshow, but just to be clear, Elvey did not notify me of this AN/I, or his reinstatement of it today. As I said I got a notification by a bot (not by Elvey) of a different AN/I in mid/late July, but that occurred during a rare period where I actually had a life and it was archived before I could respond. Elvey then added a comment to that notification, but it did not not mention any new AN/I or include any link, or anything else to suggest that it was in reference to anything other than the AN/I archived a couple weeks earlier.

To the extent that Elvey has any valid issue about the potentially confusing passage, I also would like to address any valid issue he has, but I'm now frankly reaching the end of my patience. TJRC (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

TJRC, can you provide diffs where Elvey is editing inside or moving your comments? It seems like this claim is a source of much of the reverts—not the only reason, of course—but I just can't see it, even after spending far too much time a few days back and again today. In the first diff where you bring up WP:TPO, Elvey strikes out and amends his own comment (nothing unusual there), moves his reply from 2 to 3 indents so that appears as it should (a good thing), and expands some of his comments (again, nothing unusual). In short: he's editing his own comments, not yours, and in ways that general improve discussion. I think it would help everyone involved to move forward if this could be cleared up. Woodroar (talk) 01:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The original inline reply appears to be here. --Carnildo (talk) 02:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I see it now. TJRC added a block of text which Elvey later edited inside. Woodroar (talk) 03:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Forgive me, I haven't read the entire thread but just bits and pieces. I have a simple question though. Is this an ongoing problem? I keep checking out the diffs and keep ending up with stuff from early June. I don't understand why we are discussing stuff from earlier June unless it's an ongoing problem. Whatever mistakes may or may not have been made, it seems clear there's no reason to block someone for something from June which isn't ongoing. If the dispute itself remains unresolved, then it will need to be resolved somehow and it's unfortunate if the DRN discussion didn't achieve a resolution but there are other steps which can be tried (none of which are ANI) and more importantly, any attempt at resolution should concentrate on the locus of the dispute, not whatever mistakes may or may not have been made in deleting comments over 2 months ago. If you feel you already gave an answer and it was deleted, rather then spending all your time arguing over whether or not the deletion was appropriate and the answer was already given, either rephrase the answer and give it again or show the diff to the person who you feel didn't read it so they can read your earlier answer. In other words, concentrate on resolving the dispute rather then assigning blame. Nil Einne (talk) 12:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Grossly insulting edit summary needs revdel

[148]

Thanks. Binksternet (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done Edit summary removed. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm being abused by an admin

Can i please get some help against User:Inayity and User:Malik Shabazz. Inayityi will not allow me to add an image of Rima Fakih in the infobox at Islam in the United States. in 2010, she became the first ever muslim american in U.S. history to hold Miss USA title. [149], [150], [151], [152], [153], [154] [155]. Inayityi is making up excuses at the talk page in order to not allow me to add fakih's image. And Malik Shabazz is in the background keeping a close eye on me and repeating threats of blocking me.[156] i feel that they're either working as a team against me or they're both the same person. judging by their behaviour, style of writing, point of views, area of editing, and feelings towards the Nation of Islam, they're likely the same person.--22 Male Cali (talk) 06:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

You're not being abused. You keep trying to add an image in without any reliable source to back it up.

When challenged, you've offered original research. That research makes sense to me and actually looks like it's correct, but Wikipedia does not allow original research anywhere, especially not for living people. They've asked you to find a reliable source , otherwise, the woman you want to include as a muslim cannot be included.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  11:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by "You keep trying to add an image in without any reliable source to back it up."? i listed 6 top news sites (ny daily news, today show, the guardian, abc news, daily mail (uk), huffingtonpost [157], [158], [159], [160], [161], [162] [163].) and you think these are not reliable sources? plus, where am i suppose to cite the sources in the imagebox, next to her name?

Beyond this, ANI is not about solving content disputes. We're not a dispute resolution board. You are talking on the talk page about the inclusion of Rima Fakih, which is the right thing to do, and it will be settled by consensus there. I note that Inayity is not the only person who has objected to her inclusion - another user has asked you to defend your choice on the talk page. "Dispute resolution" has some tips for resolving issues of this kind. Your job at this point is to convince others cordially and within policy that you are right, as KoshVorlon notes, using sources to support your opinions.

In terms of your concerns about admin abuse, I don't see any sign that Malik Shabazz is abusing you. He has cautioned you to respect the biographies of living persons policy and avoid edit warring. You seem to me on the verge of running into problems with the former, referring to people as "fake" Muslims, and your attitude towards the article in general seems problematic with the latter. He seems to be rather patiently dealing with your insistence that he is the same person as Inayity. Just tone down your comments, work within consensus, and you should be fine. I would recommend you read Wikipedia:Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet, though. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl, you are wrong dear. he didn't cautioned me, he threatened to block me when i didn't even edit war. the other day, he told me not to call followers of Nation of Islam (N.O.I) fake (counterfeit) muslims and i didn't do it again. i felt that he may be a follower of N.O.I. it seems that he's still not satisfied so he's now threatening to block me for edit warring when in fact i didn't engage in any edit-war. he didn't warn Inayity, the one who is constantly reverting everyone. that's when i noticed that something is wrong, that he may be using that name to get his work done and Malik Shabazz to block the other editors.--22 Male Cali (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Macktheknifeau

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

---

I have had a run-in with Macktheknifeau (talk · contribs) at the Eddy Bosnar article; this has gone beyond a mere editing dispute and now needs further attention. A quick history:

• He added unreferenced + POV material to a BLP
• I removed the POV
• He re-added it, supported by a very unreliable website
• I removed the non-RS
• He re-added it exactly as it was
• I removed it again
• He re-added it with some better wbsites
• I made the wording more neutral, removed 1 of the 3 sources as potentially unreliable, and moved it from the lede into a new section to avoid UNDUE weight
• He reverted me
• I reverted him
• He reverted me

I'm going to admit my editing here has been less-than-brilliant, but this editor has added the same material 6 times to an article, and completely ignored my attempts to reach a compromise make it suitable for an encylopedia. The content as it stands violates WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE; more troubling is this editor's behavior and attitude, as he has done nothing but accuse me of "administrative abuse of privileges", bullying, and vandalism etc. I am bringing this here for a review of both of our conduct. Note - I am away for a long weekend in 2 hours or so, so if you're gonna trout me please do it quickly. GiantSnowman 08:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I would note that Snowman breached 3RR before I did (in fact, I refuse to accept the premise that I did breach 3RR at all, because I was improving the page by adding sources), because he continually tore down my constructive changes to the page, simply reverting them with no discussion, until he started to make threats using his administrative privileges. I have reported GiantSnowman for breaking 3RR here. Here. I strongly protest at this admin using his administrative privileges to intimate and bully me into toeing the line on what he wants the article to be like, and I find the idea of an admin having his behaviour 'reviewed' by yet more admins to be inherently biased against me.Macktheknifeau (talk) 08:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The article does not violate NPOV, because it was a verifiable fact about the person that I sourced multiple reliable sources for, and it is not 'undue' because the significance of the fact is that this person has an ability which is the best in the world. It is equivalent to going to the Usain Bolt page and removing all information about his athletic achievements, and that would obviously be wrong, like it is here. Macktheknifeau (talk) 08:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I did not revert you 3 times in 24 hours, though I have edited the article more than that. Note WP:3RRNO which states that it is not a violation of 3RR if the material is contentious or poorly sourced about a BLP, as this was. On the other hand, you have blindly reverted me way more many times that than, adding the exact same material to the article. Where have I threatened you? Where have I abused my "administrative privileges"? How is the phrase "In addition to his solid defensive duties, he is known for phenomenally powerful left footed free kicks" anything other than POV? It is not supported by any of the sources that you added. The info about the freekick is sourced, but it is also UNDUE - as I previously asked you, what official body or organization has verified that as a world record? Even your own edits state that it is only "believed to be" the fastest in the world. GiantSnowman 08:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I request that this conversation be locked and discussion be limited to Snowman's breach of 3RR here. You began to quote wiki-lawyering at me, reverted edits and then blatantly abused your powers to report me for so called 'breaches' of 3RR, when you were the one who breached that rule in the first place, because you kept removing legitimate and valid edits because you didn't agree with them. Notability doesn't require 'official' sources, only reliable ones, and being 'belived' to be the fastest in the world is perfectly notable when backed up by reliable sources, especially when the topic at hand is a fact, but not a regulated specially administrated event. You simply don't like my edits, have taken a turn against me, and want to use your admin powers to stop anyone going against your opinion. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have closed the AN3 report, giving this discussion priority over the whole suite of issues. Macktheknifeau has accused GiantSnowman here and at the article of abusing their admin privileges, but this accusation appears to be without merit; likewise the accusation of vandalism is unwarranted. That leaves us with the edit warring (we could lock the article but my guess is that there is no need at this juncture), with the addition of low quality sources and promotional language to a BLP, and with the accusations of bad faith. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
• The statement "In addition to his solid defensive duties, he is known for phenomenally powerful left footed free kicks" is very, very heavily biased. Every time GiantSnowman removed a poorly sourced piece of information from a BLP, he didn't add to his "3RR" count, because such content should never be present in a BLP. Macktheknifeau's statement "in fact, I refuse to accept the premise that I did breach 3RR at all, because I was improving the page by adding sources" is deeply troubling; blindly edit-warring is wrong, even if you believe your position to be correct. The allegations of administrative abuse are totally unfounded; I cannot see where GiantSnowman has used his tools here. Macktheknifeau should be blocked for 48 hours, due to violating 3RR and editing in a heavily biased manner, as well as issuing personal attacks and such. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
• Mack's edits were inappropriate for many reasons. As 2/0 says, his accusations that GS abused his administrative privileges or committed vandalism are baseless. However, I would not claim a BLP exemption for this sort of thing. I generally regard the BLP exemption as adding negative material to an article, not promotional material. To claim the exemption here would be hypertechnical, and the policy warns against relying on the exemption. Mack needs to get a grip, on encyclopedic editing, on policy, and on silly attacks of abuse. GS should have stepped back earlier; judging from his comments, I think he knows that.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23 said it well. Jauersock^dude?/_dude. 15:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Bbb23's analysis as well. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Big surprise, admins protecting their own. This is why regular people don't waste their time on this site. The moment you disagree with an admin they bring out their big ego banhammers and wikilawyering so no-one can disagree with them. I wonder how much I can bet on Snowman getting blocked for his anti-social behaviour and threats by his fellow admins. Fat chance. Let me guess, because he "knows what he did" that somehow makes up for the fact he was reporting me falsely, he breached 3RR while incorrectly accusing me of it, even though I was the one making legitimate edits to improve the article. If Snowman had just left the article alone like any rational person would have, instead of deciding he needed to start a vendetta against me, there wouldn't be a problem. Macktheknifeau (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Serial vandalism on Indonesian football clubs

Hello. On 4 August, an Indonesia-based anon editor started adding false information to Persekam Metro FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an Indonesian football club, e.g. the playing staff included Karleigh Osborne, who plays for English club Millwall and did so last week, and the coaching staff included Jim Magilton, recently appointed to a post with the Irish FA. This continued with increasing fantasy from IPs in the range 114.79.16.xxx to 114.79.19.xxx, and one registered account, Arfian anthok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who stopped contributing after getting a message in their own language. (FWIW, I'll notify them.) The page was semi-protected for a week, but once the protection expired, the fantasy additions started up again, and this time it was protected for a month and the most recent IP 114.79.19.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked for 24 hours.

This morning, very similar edits have been made to a different football club page, Persires Rengat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), including Magilton as coach, Osborne as player, and a member of the Maktoum family as chairman. On the basis it's probably not feasible either to protect or to watchlist every Indonesian football club page, is there any possibility of a range block, or would it knock out half the country? Or does anyone have any other constructive suggestions? thanks, Struway2 (talk) 09:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Holy editwar, Batman!

Would someone with more patience than me take a look at the exercise in WP:LAME currently ongoing at List of exclamations by Robin‎, before someone does something stupid and gets themselves blocked over what's arguably the most trivial article on the entire project? As the one who originally declined the prod on it, I'd consider myself involved so don't want to start handing out warnings myself. – iridescent 2 10:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Holy chocolate fireguard Admins to the rescue! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I've restored the deleted content, and I note that I'm the third user to do so. It was deleted after the AFD started, and as per the AFD notice on the article, "...the article must not be blanked ... until the discussion is closed". In my opinion deleting the entire list from a "List of..." article can be equated to blanking, therefore re-inserting the content is appropriate. Organics^LRO 10:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I've warned the user who was blanking the content. Let's assume that they get it now and won't continue to revert - especially since their next revert will break WP:3RR. Jauersock^dude?/_dude. 15:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, the revert after that would break 3RR, seeing as only the last two are within the last 24 hours. But agreed that this is holy lamearoni, Batman. Also, nobody notified User:Koavf of this conversation, so I have now done so. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Argh. Well, to be fair, I use both hands while typing, so I can't exactly pull one away for counting. :) Jauersock^dude?/_dude. 15:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

His response has a ring of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT about it, though he's now discussing and not reverting, so I wouldn't support a block. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

User PrivateMasterHD is back

...editing as IP 69.122.190.4 since yesterday and showing the exact same behaviour as before he got blocked. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 17:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)