Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Posse72 (talk | contribs) at 10:59, 25 July 2010 (→‎User:Tbma again!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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

    Christian SPA's Team-warring on various articles

    I am getting pretty frustrated of accounts whose contribs logs show 90% Jesus-promoting edits tag-teaming on Jesus-related articles. For example: [1]. ReaverFlash and Ari89 are aggressive to the point of ridiculousness in pushing religious slant. The majority of sources they add are Christian theologians and Evangelicals. They revert every attempt to identify some of these sources to the reader. They mass-delete referenced text that doesn't promote their view. They are not their to build to consensus , and they will revert every edit I make. They will canvass from other articles [2], and they will (probably) follow me around to other articles to revert me there. (I say "probably" because it is very plausible that they just have every single Jesus article in their watchlist). So what, exactly, are editors supposed to do against tag-team editing and the most fervent bias known to Man? Please do not tell me it is possible to build consensus that the existence of a real Jesus is controversial with a group of Evangelical Christian editors. Of course, I supposed what's really going to happen is that this plea for help is going to be ignored, I am going to be unable to edit the article, and I am going to get fed up and blocked again. Thanks for the help. Noloop (talk) 06:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I have notified the two editors of this discussion. Basket of Puppies 06:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm open to discussing proposed changes in the talk page. Both me and noloop, as well as Ari, among others, have discussed this on the talk page. Noloop's assumption that I and other editors are POV pushers makes collaboration extremely difficult: [3] His characterization of sources as propoganda is also problematic: [4] especially since I'm fairly sure E.P. Sanders is Jewish, and not Christian per his edit. Flash 06:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's quite difficult to discuss the articles with someone who hostilely labels everyone else as Christian fundamentalists and "a group of Evangelical Christian editors". That kind of propaganda and argumentum ad hominem will accomplish nothing. But I guess that's the kind of tactics you resort to, when all other arguments have dried up. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 07:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My suggestion is that for a week all editors editing in this area edit only in the Israel-Palestinian area, and vice versa. And if that goes well, we extend the experiment.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with what Rose and RF said about Noloop's accusations of Christian POV pushing. Here's an example, where Noloop implies that Christian scholars can't be trusted to be unbiased, and therefore must be "outed" in any Wiki article having anything to do with Jesus. I provided a huge amount of quotes correcting his misunderstanding, but I guess he missed it. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 09:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Shit. This likes more of this "Jesus didn't exist" tinfoilhat POV-pushing. I've a research background in Biblical studies (I don't edit articles because of the nutters who do) - I studied with very liberal scholarship and indeed atheists. None of them, no textbook, no serious academic monograph, even engages with this nonsense. Seven years of my studies and it was never mentioned once - yet every Jesus article on Wikipedia wants to present it as a valid and notable view. It's a bit like insisting we put "alleged" before each mention of the Moon Landings, and list the conspiracy nutters along with scientists and historians of NASA. This is a minor and unscientific theory pushed by hard atheists with no scholarly credentials, or peer review whatsoever - it probably merits its own article (since we have articles on most quack theories here) and maybe perhaps the odd "see also" on articles on the Historical Jesus (although even that's pushing it). This is the type of silliness that chases serious editors (like me) a million miles away from contributing to such articles. Anyone pushing this should not be editing this field. --Scott Mac 10:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It has its own article: Christ myth theory. Anthony (talk) 11:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Which sums it up nicely: "the BBC's Today programme once asked N. T. Wright if he would appear on-air to debate Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy concerning the thesis of their book The Jesus Mysteries. Wright, whom Newsweek once deemed "perhaps the world's leading New Testament scholar",[125] declined, saying that "this was like asking a professional astronomer to debate with the authors of a book claiming the moon was made of green cheese."--Scott Mac 11:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It would help the credibility of these articles if editors could cite, wherever possible (and it usually is with historical Jesus stuff), sources who are historians rather than biblical scholars, and avoid priests and known Christians. Not that there is anything wrong with Christian historians . But if the same point can be made using known atheist or even CMT proponents, well, we wouldn't be here now. And we won't be back here every month until someone finds the video of the sermon on the mount. Anthony (talk) 11:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's another quote that shows how silly the CMT is:
    What about those writers like Acharya S (The Christ Conspiracy) and Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy (The Jesus Mysteries), who say that Jesus never existed, and that Christianity was an invented religion, the Jewish equivalent of the Greek mystery religions? This is an old argument, even though it shows up every 10 years or so. This current craze that Christianity was a mystery religion like these other mystery religions-the people who are saying this are almost always people who know nothing about the mystery religions; they've read a few popular books, but they're not scholars of mystery religions. The reality is, we know very little about mystery religions-the whole point of mystery religions is that they're secret! So I think it's crazy to build on ignorance in order to make a claim like this. I think the evidence is just so overwhelming that Jesus existed, that it's silly to talk about him not existing. I don't know anyone who is a responsible historian, who is actually trained in the historical method, or anybody who is a biblical scholar who does this for a living, who gives any credence at all to any of this. (Bart Ehrman, interview with David V. Barrett, "The Gospel According to Bart", Fortean Times (221), 2007)
    And, Anthony, your "video" comment had me ROFLMAO!!! Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 11:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly the claim/theory that Jesus, historically, never existed is not worth much credit in an article about the historical figure :) unless of course it can be backed up... which it can't. On the other hand, as I commented on the article talk page, it seems logical to include references to the consensus from a broad range of scholars, just to avoid such headaches :D --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 11:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bill the Cat 7: Your quote by a professor who is convinced the historical Jesus existed does not show that CMT is silly. It mainly shows there is an ongoing debate in which both sides have serious problems in accepting each others arguments on face value. Naming it silly based on this one interview would actually support the feeling of Noloop that (s)he is fighting an uphill battle against editors who simply discredit any sources that do not align with their belief..
    @Tmorton166, of course the problem with finding support for the non-existence of things is that it is impossible to find (see e.g. Russell's teapot. The Christ Myth people do not look for backing of their claim of non-existence, but take the position that non-existence should be default unless proven otherwise. With that start they scrutinise proof of Christs existence. As such their efforts are extremely valuable, because if they succeed in eliminating all current evidence of existence this will prompt believers in the existence of Christ to look for newer and better evidence; and if they find arguments they cannot disprove this will strengthen the case for a historical Jesus very much. Again naming this as silly or irrelevant may give the view of a POV. Let's keep this discussion on the facts. Arnoutf (talk) 11:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Arnoutf, I just dumped a whole bunch of quotes (by both Christians and atheists) on your talk page that clearly demonstrate that the CMT is not simply rejected, it is rejected with contempt by essentially all of academia. I hope this clears up the misunderstanding that only a few Christian scholars are the only scholars who reject the CMT. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Arnoutf, the "Christ Myth" theory is separate, if related, to an article discussing historical research/evidence into christ. My last girlfriend was a religious history student so I read pretty extensively on these topics; there is a pretty broad consensus that a historical figure Jesus exists (dispute over who he was and what he did is also broad :)) amongst the relevant scholars. I'm simply arguing that it cannot hurt to comprehensively source the fact that there is consensus so that the casual reader is able to see it does exist (rather than rely on a single source). --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 12:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    let's not overdo this, my main point is that calling some POV "silly" is not going to help cool down the debate . I am aware that at the moment the vast majority of scholars are convinced of a historical Jesus, and that attention to Christ myth theories is undue with our current knowledge base. Arnoutf (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I do agree :) I don't think I ever called it silly. My only argument is that it seems fair to back up that statement with more than one source - particularly if the sources could be broad/varied & respected --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 12:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    @Anthony. "Biblical Scholars" are (in the main) historians who specialise in first century history and texts. So, I'm not sure what you are wanting. You are right that a quote from a Christian preacher or apologist may attract suspicion, but we're talking often about secular academics appointed by liberal arts institutions. If you are going to look at whether such people go to church, then I think we've got a problem. There are certainly atheist among such people, but again finding a quote is difficult. I mean, you find me a quote by a leading astrologer to refute the theory that the moon is made of green cheese? As I say, these types of demands are exactly the problem. I've got a PHD in this field, but I will not edit any such articles because some agenda pusher with a Jesus-was-a-man-from-mars theory comes along and demands I interact with his crazy marginal nonsense.--Scott Mac 12:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, Scott. I meant the branch of theology of that name. I know that the religious affiliation of a genuine scholar doesn't matter. I'm suggesting Ari and Bill choose, when they have a choice, sources whose ideology is not going to leave any doubt about their neutrality. Bill can cite 2 or 3 CMT proponents who say unequivocally CMT is very fringe/held in contempt by the mainstream. If the articles cited those scholars, this thread (and countless others) wouldn't be happening. Anthony (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    SM said, ...I will not edit any such articles because some agenda pusher with a Jesus-was-a-man-from-mars theory comes along and demands I interact with his crazy marginal nonsense. Then I strongly recommend against doing anything on the Christ myth theory page. You would be surrounded by POV-pushers who have attempted, and are still attempting as we speak, to raise the CMT from a crazy-ass fringe theory to one of being a respectable minority theory. And reasonable people like Anthony, who made some excellent contributions, were the exception, not the rule. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban for Noloop?

    If anything the editor who started this thread, User:Noloop needs to see some sanctions for continued disruption. This is the upteenth disruptive thread he's started in the last few days revolving around this issue and his own beliefs which amount to a fringe theory -- Christ myth theory. He just came off a block for edit warring on one of the related entries and immediately he ran back to Jesus, Historical Jesus and Historicity of Jesus and on to community boards like this one to complain and waste more of everyone's time. People who are sympathetic to him to some degree asked him to cool it on his talk page, but that apparently had no effect. Enough is enough. A topic ban seems to be in order.Griswaldo (talk) 12:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I can feel the frustration of Noloop as putting critical notes on religious articles tends to be extremely difficult because these articles tend to be guarded by believers. Nevertheless that does not make the behaviour acceptable. So I tend to agree a topic ban would be well suited WP:OUCH. Arnoutf (talk) 12:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to feel frustration, then try editing the Christ myth theory page to say it's a fringe theory!!
    Don't think this is necessary yet. Noloop is not just - not even mostly from what I've seen - advancing a Jesus=Myth position. He/she is also making some very valid points about sourcing (see my comments below), because this is an area which it is almost impossible to approach without a personal viewpoint that lies in the emotional spectrum rather than the scientific, both for editors and sources.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, he doesn't seem to be advancing it yet. However, he is implying it. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a rather biased position to take Elen. What makes this subject matter particularly difficult to study in a dispassionate manner? Every time editors make these types of proclamations about human behavior based on their own intuitions they're discrediting the social sciences. I get it (please read the next sentence facetiously). In the hard sciences we have real neutral experts but when you start talking about literature and history its just opinion, and when you start talking about human behavior and human emotions everyone is an expert. I happen to disagree with that and I happen to believe that unless there is valid evidence to back the type of assertion you have made (in good faith I have no doubt) then its just one editors opinion. Let's stop assuming we're all psychologists here who have done detailed studies of the correlation between religion affiliation, emotion and academic bias. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ho Griswaldo. I disagree with you here. First of all, natural scientists are as biased (if not more because they think it does not influence them) as social scientists (see for example an editorial in Nature a few years ago where the editor acknowledged that Nature had rejected breakthrough papers of many (later) Nobel laureates because they were unacceptable to the beliefs of the reviewers). Secondly I agree social scientists (at least good ones) are trained to keep track of their own beliefs, how this may influence their vision on events and how to separate fact from opinion. However, Wikipedia editors are in majority not scientists, neither natural nor social. And I do agree with Elen of the Roads that the majority of editors take their personal POV with them in these discussions. Arnoutf (talk) 13:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Arnouft my whole point was that I do not think this academic context is any more biased than the natural sciences but I believe Elen was saying that this one was indeed inherently more open to bias in her comment -- "because this is an area which it is almost impossible to approach without a personal viewpoint that lies in the emotional spectrum rather than the scientific, both for editors and sources." Hence my disagreement with her. I also agree that Wikipedia editors are not social scientists which is what bothers me about statements they consistently make about human behavior and psychology as if they are up to speed on the relevant literature when they are clearly not and simply commenting based on their own opinions. No one is unbiased, we had this discussion already, but there are better ways to know how bias plays out in human practice than simply to make assumptions. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I thought it was merely an observation of human nature. It's been a premise of the meta theory of science for some time that even apparently 'pure' scientific theories are always affected by the viewpoint or belief of the proponent. The normal way one conducts any scholarly work (thesis, experiment, archaeological excavation) is to advance a theory and see if the evidence supports the theory, not to assemble a pile of evidence and then attempt to sift a theory out of it. All I'm saying is that for most editors and scholars, where something like Jesus is concerned, the theory they choose to advance is based on their viewpoint - their meta-interpretation of the object of enquiry. There's nothing wrong with that. WP:NPOV does not require that editors have no point of view, nor does it require that sources have no point of view. It does require that one recognise where there are conflicting points of view, and take care to adequately reflect them in articles. There are a lot of conflicting points of view over Jesus, and in many cases the conflicting points of view arise from well defined meta-interpretations held by those advancing the views.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless there is a correlation between a specific "meta-interpretation" and types of scholarly conclusions we should be very weary of this kind discussion. It is one thing to recognize the general principle that we are all biased, or that "scientific theories are always affected by the viewpoint or belief of the proponent" and it is quite another to make insinuations about specific viewpoints and specific conclusions. As I've pointed out elsewhere there appears to be no significant correlation between holding the mainstream viewpoint about the historicity of Jesus and personal religious affiliation. It would be highly misleading to mention the religious affiliation of scholars who take this stance because it would suggest a meaningful correlation where there is none. What you mention generally can be tested in specific situations giving us much better understandings of how bias might actually play out in certain situations. Until we have good evidence we should not be insinuating bias based on such general principles.Griswaldo (talk) 13:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not intending to insinuate bias. Just observing that this is a topic where views are frequently contentious, and one source may not be adequate to support a position that an apparently contentious view is in fact mainstream.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree with a topic ban. Noloop's edit-warring, complaints to ANI and POV-pushing are disruptive. I noticed the same behavior on Anti-Americanism, although that article has far fewer editors involved. TFD (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

    I think it is fairly clear that there is a mainstream consensus among scholars studying the historical Jesus that there was some chap in Galilee underpinning the whole edifice. On the other hand, there has been an extended attempt (Talk:Historical_Jesus#Minimum_historical_facts) by one of the editors listed in the intitial complaint to argue on the basis of one source that there is a consensus among ALL (Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Venusian) scholars studying the historical Jesus that (among other things) :-

    • he proclaimed the kingdom of God and warned of a looming catastrophe in Israel;
    • he insisted on a radicalized ethic of love;
    • he selected a group of twelve to symbolize a renewed Israel;

    In this case, there was an insistence on one side that the list was being rejected because the source was Christian and therefore considered not reliable, whereas in fact the issue was that there was only one source, and therefore it was the view that this was mainstream that was queried, not the validity of the source itself. From the perspective of this discussion, one can see why allegations of being a Christian SPA are being hurled - and the other side is hurling allegations of anti-christian bias. It would help if everyone could stop hurling (I recommend Pepto-Bismol) and agree that this is an area where there are A LOT of mainstream viewpoints. Focusing on that - and the fairly slender consensus in the mainstream - would make it easier to identify fringe viewpoints without falling into accusations of pro- or anti- anything.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Elen, if there are legitimate gripes to be had then Noloop has pretty much sabotaged his own credibility in making them at this point, and that is a shame, but its true. Noloop tried to insert the Christ myth theory into the second paragraph of Historical Jesus. That's starting in the fourth sentence of the lead of that entry. As I pointed out in the last disruptive thread he started here on ANI, Noloop has also made statements that are only a hair separated from the Christ myth there. See my comment to Cyclopia at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ari89:_Repeated_bad_faith.2C_personal_remarks.2C_etc.. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the problem is that everyone is moving to extreme positions. Unfortunately, I agree that if Noloop is moving faster that everyone else s/he is the one going to end up topic banned. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Elen, there is a clear bias in what you just presented above. For example, you are stating that a reliable academic in the field is not able to provide a consensus statement because they are a Christian. Good for you if you personally disagree with the consensus of scholarship, but that is no reason to out of hand dismiss Christian sources. To again repeat the WP policy on academic consensus:
    "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing. Without a reliable source that claims a consensus exists, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. The reliable source needs to claim there is a consensus, rather than the Wikipedia editor. For example, even if every reliable source states that the sky is blue, it would be improper synthesis to write that there is a scientific consensus that the sky is blue, unless sources cited also make such a claim (e.g. a reliable source states, "consensus is that" or "the literature shows that" the sky is blue)."[5]
    I fail to see the exclusion clause regarding Christian scholars or those that disagree with Elen of the Roads. --13:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
    While not wishing to rehash the argument here - you have this one source that says that ALL scholars in the field agree that Jesus "proclaimed the Kingdom of God". That seems very unlikely, given that it is couched in specifically Christian language (indeed, it is a piece of Christian 'shorthand') that is unlikely to be used by a scholar not from a Christian background. But when asked to provide more sources, you tried to turn it into an argument about anti-christian bias, rather than a request for more sources, and tried to argue that questioning the POV of a source was equivalent to questioning the reliability of a source - which it plainly isn't if you read WP:NPOV, which recognises that reliable sources may represent multiple mainstream viewpoints. It is this behaviour which is leading to accusations that you are a Christian SPA, and while I think that is unreasonable, I cannot agree that there is no issue with your behaviour.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, we go for verifiability not what Elen of the Roads personally believes. Your argument here (other than innuendo against myself) is your own personal doubts about the acceptance of Jesus' kingdom preaching. When we test your personal opinion we find out that it is factually wrong. James Dunn writes that "The centrality of the kingdom of God (basileia tou theou) in Jesus' preaching is one of the least disputable, or disputed, facts about Jesus." (Dunn, Jesus Remembered p.383) --Ari (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, "Kingdom of God" is a wide-spread first-century Jewish shorthand, used by many contemporary with Jesus. Just to quibble.--Scott Mac 13:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, although 'proclaimed the Kingdom of God' is Christian shorthand. It was the fact that 'Kingdom of God' requires unpacking because it has a Christian meaning that is different to that Jewish shorthand (and subtly different in the different denominations of Christianity. I think I said at the time that you'd have to first write a book defining the term) that made me want to see another source that supported the contention that ALL scholars agreed that Jesus 'proclaimed the Kingdom of God'. If the source had said all scholars agreed that Jesus 'made statements relating to the Jewish belief in the Kingdom of God', it might not have been so contentious, although even so, a number of scholars do not believe that either Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, or that his disciples believed he was the Messiah. On that basis, it was my opinion that there would be numbers who would not sign up to 'proclaimed the Kingdom of God'. WP:V and WP:NPOV both agree that the thing to do where a statement is contentious is to get more sources. Had more sources been forthcoming to support the position, I would of course have accepted this as the mainstream view.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "it was my opinion that there would be numbers who would not sign up to 'proclaimed the Kingdom of God'." Yes, your opinion. And your opinion does not trump verifiable sources as Wikipedia is about verifiability (yes, actually read the policy you link to.) That you view your personal opinion as superior to reliable sources is completely ridiculous. --Ari (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You're still not getting it, are you. I'm not saying my view is superior to reliable sources. I'm not even saying your source isn't reliable. I'm just saying your source isn't reflecting the mainstream view (even though it says that it is). I am entitled to do that. If I think something looks hinky, I am entitled to ask for more sources. In the case of contentious views, more sources are better. If only one source exists, a contentious view cannot be regarded as mainstream. In this case, others in the debate found sources which did not support your source, which supported a much more limited consensus, or which did not venture to state what consensus if any there might be (other than perhaps the assumed 'the man existed'). That's how Wikipedia works. Someone says - that looks odd/wrong/suspect/like it needs sources. Can you provide more sources.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, your personal opinion disagrees with the source. Your personal opinion has no place on Wikipedia, while reliable sources do. Your personal opinion was that the source was incorrect because you do not believe most scholars believe Jesus preached the Kingdom. Even when I entertained your attempt at granting your personal opinion supremacy over published sources, it turns out that they were wrong. I note you have constantly refused to deal with WP policies, including those extracted for your convenience.
    Furthermore, all the information on what most scholars believe in the article is backed up by multiple sources so your personal distaste for Dickson and pov complaint is pointless --Ari (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's nicely disingenuous. I think anyone reading the thread can see how the debate actually went, and anyone reading the lede can see that it doesn't say what the starting statement was. Better sourcing has shown that the starting statements made on the talk page needed to be tempered before making it into the article. I'll say it again. THAT IS HOW WIKIPEDIA WORKS. Nothing to do with my opinion or your beliefs. More sources are the way to go.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent, you have (again) resorted to calling me a liar. Your personal opinion against the source was not just shown to be incorrect, but your personal opinion is meaningless in trumping reliable consensus statements. You don't have a clue what you are arguing about. --Ari (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As Tank Girl put it "I win!" Really, do stop it with the twisting other people's words. You did it on the talkpage as well. I'm not calling you a liar. You're just putting the best possible gloss you can on an argument that you lost -you said one source was sufficient, but it's evidently better with more. So Wikipedia wins, because more sources are always better, I win, because there are more sources, even you win because there are more sources. Remember, more sources is the way to go. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And I thought this could not get any more pathetic. (1) "More sources" - there are five or so other sources in the article backing up what other scholars believe. As I have said before, you haven't a clue what you are arguing about. (2) One reliable source on a consensus statement is sufficient. Try reading wp:rs on consensus statements. The fact that you see this as a game of "I win" where you don't hesitate to repeatedly call other editors dishonest is pathetic. Your personal opinion about the "mainstream" such as with the Kingdom preaching were wrong, deal with it. --Ari (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, seeing as you've amended the PA (yes, I did see it) I'll leave you to have the last word. Like I said, other people can read and come to their own conclusions. :) Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ari is correct—one RS source on a consensus statement is sufficient. Here's the specific part of WP:RS that speaks about academic consensus. Additional statements can be added, throughout the article as well as in a FAQ, but only one is necessary. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I emphasised that multiple times but, sadly, it fell on deaf ears. I even extracted the entire section on multiple occasions but received the same rhetoric. The editors have either not read wp:RS or the source provided. Which one I am not sure, but what is certainly clear is they haven't read a word I have said! --Ari (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I had the last word something like 24hours ago as it is evident that you haven't the faintest idea what I have been talking about for the past 234238402843 comments. But if it makes you sleep better at night calling me dishonest I wish you all the best :) --Ari (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey! I have not called you dishonest even once. And didn't your mother tell you a million times not to exaggerate. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You only said I was intentionally repeatedly misrepresenting everything, right? Massive difference. I wonder when you are finally going to come to the realisation that (1) not once I advocated copying the Dickson list into the article; (2) the Dickson citation has been in the article all along with multiple other references and (3) that the citation meets the requirements for consensus statements per wp:rs. And this is without having to revisit the issue that academic consensus statements > your personal opinion. --Ari (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, now Ari's mom is being brought into the discussion. What's next? Allegations that he's anti-Semitic, followed up by implications of pedophilia for good measure? Hey, why not go for broke and throw in Nazi too? LOL. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And yeah more evidence for Godwins law. Arnoutf (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bill: Way to completely ignore what Elen was actually saying in your mad dash to play the "victim card" on behalf of your fellow histrionic POV pusher. The fact is that using a Christian source as evidence of such-and-such being a "commonly accepted mainstream view" is no better than citing www.yankees-rule-red-sox-drool.com for a statement that the Yankees are the greatest baseball team of all time. It doesn't matter if the source is correct or not. In this case, the perception of a conflict of interest is just as damning as an actual conflict of interest, and it undermines the credibility of whatever fact one's trying to transmit. Badger Drink (talk) 15:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    ...grandma is lying in the gutter

    Speaking of Pepto-Bismol...a long time ago (in a galaxy far, far away), I used to do shots of whiskey. These days, the only shots I'm doing are of Pepto-Bismol. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sympathises. Stick to editing articles on Dry glue or High shear mixers and save yourself an(other) ulcer.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops! Forgot to sign previous comment. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What, no smiley-face? Badger Drink (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to clarify a few points

    • I have no strong opinion on whether there is a historic basis for Jesus. There is a historic city of Troy and and mythic one, probably a historic King Arthur and a legendary one, and so on. There can certainly be a historic basis for Jesus--in addition to the myth (obviously, I'm not a Christian). I've said this repeatedly, and all the editors who say otherwise know damn well that I've said it repeatedly. They are misrepresenting my position.
    • However, these articles are full of sources who are Christian theologians and Evangelicals asserting there is no dispute at all the Jesus really existed. That has been my objection. My objection has mostly not been to remove the sources, but simply to identify non-neutral sources as such. When I've added notable sources who dispute the existence of a historic Jesus, the text is mass-deleted. Maybe there is a widespread view that it is a "consensus" that Jesus really existed because any referenced text to the contrary is immediately deleted.
    • Most of the editors above demanding I be banned from Jesus-related articles, for trying to identify theological sources to the reader, are Christian SPA's. They edit almost no articles other than Christian ones and with no POV other than promoting their religion.
    • Example from Talk:Jesus. This is the bio of one of the sources used for a factual claim:

    "Francis August Schaeffer (30 January 1912 – 15 May 1984)[1] was an American Evangelical Christian theologian, philosopher, and Presbyterian pastor. ... Opposed to theological modernism, Schaeffer promoted a more fundamentalist Protestant faith and a presuppositional approach to Christian apologetics, which he believed would answer the questions of the age. A number of scholars credit Schaeffer's ideas with helping spark the rise of the Christian Right in the United States.....Schaeffer popularized, in the modern context, a conservative Puritan and Reformed perspective." [6]

    This is the allegedly neutral source for the claim "scholars have used the historical method to develop probable reconstructions of Jesus' life." I didn't try to delete the source (although that's clearly defensible). I just tried to explicitly identify the source for the reader.[6] It was immediately reverted. In Talk, Antique Rose — Drop me a line tendentiously denies that the text above supports describing the source Evangelical and fundamentalist. [7]

    • I believe all these concerns of mine are supported by Wikipedian principles. If I am wrong,, then I should be banned, because I really don't understand how things are supposed to work and can't edit within the rules.

    Noloop (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    With all due respect, Noloop, you should be banned merely for your refusal to acknowledge facts (as Cyclopia does below). See I didn't hear that. You said above, "...these articles are full of sources who are Christian theologians and Evangelicals asserting there is no dispute at all the Jesus really existed." WRONG!! I pointed you to abundant sources that quite frankly contradict your assertions clearly and conclusively. Are there Christian scholars too? Sure. But there are also non-Christian, even atheist, scholars that concur. And to keep asserting that "I have no strong opinion on whether there is a historic basis for Jesus" just brings to mind this line from Shakespeare, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks", meaning this. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    While it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to itself examine the evidence that a historical Jesus actually existed, the article on the historical Jesus should include sources that have examined the evidence. Quite a number of the cited sources start from an axiomatic premise that Jesus must have existed, or that his existence is not up for debate, or they simply do not start from that point (eg starting from "what evidence is there that he was born in Nazareth", rather than "what evidence is there that he was born"). Without wishing to embrace the whole Christ Myth thing - which has descended to ridiculous levels in some areas - there ought to be cited sources that address the evidence for his existence in a scholarly way.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree. There is a definite problem, for example, in Talk:Historicity of Jesus. All I am trying to argue is that if a consensus exists (which I believe is true), we should nonetheless indicate the background of the scholars, make it clear that the consensus exists across the spectrum of backgrounds, exactly to swipe away reasonable doubts of cherrypicking biased sources. I am meeting unexplicable resistance for that, something that in theory should reinforce their position. User:Griswaldo for example denies the very possibility of religious bias in the study of the historical Jesus, a position which looks naive, at best, from me. I have even suggested that, on the opposite side, if we talk of Bertrand Russell support to the Christ myth theory, it is reasonable context to make it explicit the atheist position of Russell. It seems to me that a number of editors refuse a priori that such information should be disclosed, a baffling proposition. --Cyclopiatalk 16:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh please. I do not "deny the very possibility of religious bias". There is absolutely no evidence that there is a correlation between such bias and the position that Jesus was a historical figure. By all signs the baseline position that he was an historical figure cuts through religious bias. There are all kinds of biases in every field of study but we don't go around insinuating specific biases. We discuss such biases if there is good reason for doing so. Good reason for doing so is not based on our own assumptions but on other reliable sources. This is why I stated else where that we leave it up to academic communities to sort out biases -- that is to identify them and to discuss their relevance. This is how we should treat any subject per WP:V and WP:NOR. Cyclopia has provided various comments by biblical scholars about historical biases in Biblical studies and the historical hegemonies of patriarchy and Christianity in biblical studies. That's wonderful, but none of the sources discuss Christian bias in terms of the question in hand. In fact previously Cyclopia provided sources that negated the notion that such a bias exists in the present day. His sources point out that there was a theological bias at the turn of the 20th Century but that this bias is non-existent today. It is getting very frustrating to read all these distortions. The fact is that a fringe minority question the basic foundation of historicity of Jesus, and religious affiliation appears to be pretty irrelevant within the mainstream group of scholars who are not part of this fringe group. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    By all signs the baseline position that he was an historical figure cuts through religious bias. : Exactly. Why do you refuse to make this explicit by providing sources with different backgrounds all agreeing? --Cyclopiatalk 17:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree. Using Christian pastors to represent the consensus of historians is foolish. Allowed if they are widely respected historians, sure, but foolish, when there are atheist historians just as credible, who are not going to generate this perpetual nonsense. I'm not advocating any particular change in text, just the citation. Why won't editors agree to sources that will stabilize these articles? Anthony (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem is that some of these sources are historians who happen to be pastors. I think that's what's tripping up this whole debate. And what's getting people upset with Noloop. Insisting that you must dismiss sources that happen to be Christian is like dismissing Jewish scholars from articles discussing the Holocaust. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    While we should accept sources who "are historians who happen to be pastors" we should be extremely cautious about accepting sources who are pastors who claim to be historians. The holocaust comparison is not flying here (if ever), as we are no longer talking about all Christian scholar but specifically about those who are also pastors. Arnoutf (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • How many times do I have to say this? I am not DISMISSING theologians as sources. I am IDENTIFYING them as sources. When theolgians are used as sources for factual claims, I want that CLARIFIED for the reader. In this entire debate, I think I've tried to remove one source, and it was a non-notable person who is the head of a MEDIA company dedicated to (his words) "promoting" Christianity.
    • They do not "happen" to be Christian when they are writing on whether Jesus existed. Christians are biased on whether Jesus existed. Is that really disputed? The existence of Jesus is not analogous to the Holocaust. A better analogy would be to question the near-exclusive use of jewish scholars when discussing whether God gave Israel to the Jews. Noloop (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • @HandThatFeeds, for every priest- or pastor-historian cited in these articles, there is an atheist- or agnostic-historian just as notable and authoritative, saying the same thing. Why won't editors agree to use atheist or agnostic sources when they are available? We (most of us) get the point: Nothing wrong with genuine scholarship from Christians, per se. But for our sake (look at the time consumed on this crap), if you have a source that is not out of a seminary, use it. Anthony (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is a fair consideration for those editing the article. Cut down on the BS by making sure that you cite non-Christians whenever possible. Don't cut the Christians out but just add extra references to non-Christian sources. If it helps to keep people like Noloop from doing this then its a great idea.Griswaldo (talk) 17:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, fair enough, but what we have been arguing about, I think at this point in a pretty silly fashion but maybe you are less self-deprecating than I am, is whether or not they need to be attributed inline as Christian, etc. Anyway I need to stop the senseless bickering over this. Time for me to move on. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please avoid referring to the religious affiliations of genuine scholars in the article, because it actually is irrelevant. Use it on the talk page, if necessary. Anthony (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not irrelevant at all. It is relevant context. Scholars do not live in a vacuum, a Christian priest will have a definitely different perspective on Jesus than a Jew, or an atheist. --Cyclopiatalk 21:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Noloop, while I can agree with favoring secular sources, there is no reason to exclude "religious" sources. And I seriously object to in-line identification of the sources religion or heritage. We don't identify scholars of works on the Civil rights movement by color, do we? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This time grandma IS lying in the gutter

    Noloop just tried this edit. Fortunately, Cyclopia caught it and reverted. Is is time to vote for a ban/block yet? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you going to explain exactly what is the problem with material that is 1) referenced, 2) related to the historical Jesus in an article on the historical Jesus, 3) based on reliable, notable sources, 4) based on non-religious sources in an article that suffers from a shortage of non-religious sources, 5) placed where the context is the consensus (or not) of theories on the existence historical Jesus....? And, why exactly I should be banned for placing such material in the article? It is telling that you will start a section calling for a ban, but you have never started a section to discuss the content. Noloop (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean other than it is blatantly false? Did you miss this entire thread? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Noloop, the problem is that it is overwhelmingly considered a fringe theory. It should be discussed as such. Putting it in the lead violates WP:UNDUE. --Cyclopiatalk 19:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Document that with neutral, reliable sources. Until that is done, mass deleting referenced material based on content is POV-pushing vandalism. Noloop (talk) 20:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In the edit you made, you used this reference for Bertrand Russell. It says very clearly that Russell's statement was incredible and it lists a few reasons of why. That's a plain misuse of a source. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you seriously trying to argue that it's not a fringe theory? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Noloop, sorry but you are completely and utterly wrong bringing in Christ Myth theory to that page; regardless of any merits of the theory. It documents solely historical records/reconstruction of Jesus as a historical figure. It is like adding elements of that page to the Christ Myth page :) which, clearly, is not required. See also links are fine --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 21:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point, what I am seriously arguing is that nobody has documented it meets the definition of fringe theory. I can certainly believe that it is a minority theory, and an extremely unpopular one, but neither of those features make something fringe. As for "Christ Myth theory" as far as I can tell, that's just a POV fork. Theories that challenge historicity are immediately classified as "Christ myth theory" and moved to a different article. A violation of Wikipedian principles. Obviously legitimate scholarly theories that Jesus is not historical are part of the topic of historical Jesus. Noloop (talk) 23:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    According to Wikipedia's definitions, WP:FRINGE applies to minority, extremely unpopular theories. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This seems to be covered at Historical Jesus#Criticism as myth (which links to the main Christ Myth theory page). Anything more (especially a full paragraph in the lede) strikes me as giving undue weight to a fringe theory. Maybe a slight expansion of the section I listed but I am not convinced that is necessary. Mauler90 talk 23:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Noloop, the correct place to discuss those theories/research is on the relevant page with criticism (as there already is) on the other pages. I don't see how this is even contentious! --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 08:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Typical example of objectionable editing

    Here is a typical example of the sourcing in these articles. Wanting to disclose and limit it is proposed as grounds for banning me. Consider this paragraph from Jesus [8]

    "The principal sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four Gospels. Including the Gospels, there are no surviving historical accounts of Jesus written during his life or within three decades of his death.[119] A great majority of biblical scholars accept the historical existence of Jesus.[120][121][122][123][124]" (emphasis added)

    • 119 is just a Web site called "http://www.rationalchristianity.net" It is non-neutral, and also not reliable. There doesn't even seem to be an author for the page.
    • 120 is "Dr Robert E. Van Voorst a Professor of New Testament Studies at Western Theological Seminary, ... received his B.A. in Religion from Hope College ... his M.Div. from Western Theological Seminary ... his Ph.D. in New Testament from Union Theological Seminary "
    • 121 is published by Trinity Press (sounds secular, huh), and the author is a theologian [9]
    • 122 is something called Christianity in the Making: Jesus Remembered, published by eerdmans.com an exclusively religious publisher [10]
    • 123 is a book called An Evangelical Christology: Ecumenic and Historic, by a publisher that self-describes as "seeking to educate, nurture, and equip men and women to live and work as Christians"
    • 124 is Marcus Borg, A Vision of the Christian Life, who states: "God is real. The Christian life is about a relationship with God as known in Jesus Christ. It can and will change your life."[11]

    Historical articles are supposed to be based on peer-reviewed research. All of these article are shot through with "research" that is Evangelical and proselytizing. If objecting to that is ban-worthy, then ban me. Noloop (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Totally agree with Noloop on this -this is a clearly biased collection. 119 should be removed on sight, and 123 and 124 are problematic as well. 120,121,122 don't know, but should be put together with other sources from other backgrounds. That said, Noloop, editors gave a multiplicity of sources about the consensus on the existence of Jesus on the various talk pages. --Cyclopiatalk 19:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Does no one even bother to find out what the overwhelming majority of scholars think? I don't know how often I need to post this, but I guess if I post it enough, someone will take the time to inform themselves. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You miss the point. This has nothing to do with what is actually the consensus, but with the sources used to document it in the article. The information may be OK but the sources used there are not. Since you collected a lot of sources in your FAQ, you can take outstanding ones from across the spectrum and substitute them to the ones currently present. --Cyclopiatalk 21:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Cyclopia here. There is no reason to have poor quality sources in this article.Griswaldo (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Also agree, I highly doubt there is a lack of sources out there. 119 should be removed and probably 123 and 124 as well. If possible it would be best to either replace the other ones with better sources or supplement them with some good reliable sources. Mauler90 talk 00:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic Ban 2

    Proposal Topic ban User:Noloop from all pages related to Jesus and the Historicity of Jesus.

    • Disagree. While Noloop behaviour is concerning, I doubt a full topic ban so soon would help. I would appreciate an "half-ban", on the lines of "Noloop is required to propose changes on the talk pages and discuss them there, and edit on the article only when absolutely certain that consensus between editors is reached on his edits". Despite all the noise, he also gave some useful input and seems to act in good faith. We could try that, and see if it helps. --Cyclopiatalk 17:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some kind of article probation of a sort? Do you want to draft an alternate proposal of a sentence or two and put it below? I think this might be a fair compromise depending on what you're thinking.Griswaldo (talk) 18:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree - This whole thing seems like a gigantic content dispute to me. I don't see why Noloop can't add the sourced content he tried to add (as discussed under the heading a couple spots above). It doesn't immediately strike me, as a third-party with no dog in this fight, as pushing a POV or disruptive, it actually looks like interesting, scientific material to me. Kindzmarauli (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose pretty much per Kindzmarauli. This seems a very complex content dispute that should be sorted out through mediation and not by simply topic banning someone. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 19:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. The historicity of the figure of Jesus is open to debate - banning someone who wants to add reliable sources that discuss this looks very much like religious censorship. This isn't Conservapedia. Asking for sources from genuine scholars rather than Christian evangelicals seems reasonable! Sure, you can mention that Christian apologists believe that Jesus was an historical figure, but it's the academic view that should hold weight in articles. As for the Christ myth theory, surely Wikipedia isn't presenting the events in the Gospels as fact, is it? And are Thomas L. Thompson and George Albert Wells fringe theorists, or are they rather academics? I rather think it is the latter. Their ideas might be inconvenient for Christians, but that doesn't make their arguments at all "tin-foil hat". Fences&Windows 19:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose As this thread evolved it became clear that all parties here go way beyond what we would like to see. Noloop seems to be in the minority position who demands to see more evidence for the actual existence of Christ, but on the other side editors are pushing their POV that Christ not only existed but conducted indeed (historically) a lot of things attributed to him. I think all involved editors should probably stay away from these articles for a few weeks to cool down, but singling out Noloop is too harsh. Arnoutf (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Most of the points have been made above, but most importantly there is considerable academic opinion that questions the historicity of Jesus and it is legitimate to note this appropriate articles. Frankly I find it worrying that a ban or limitations should even be suggested.--SabreBD (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was suggested because it is usually thought to be disruptive when people try shoving fringe theories into the leads of legitimate entries. Apparently you all don't think it's a fringe theory. That's news to me.Griswaldo (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • oppose - disclosure, I found a link to this on the fringe theories notice board, where such issues usually start. This is a good faith content dispute with name calling. EVERYONE needs to do better both with sourceing and clearly keeping to the edits and material and not each other. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    comment -- These debates have been ongoing for years I'm sure, but the reason why several noticeboards have been clogged up with this nonsense, and two separate threads at AN/I have been started in the the last couple of days is because User:Noloop has initiated them. I do not think that everyone who believes the Christ myth theory should be topic banned like this, I simply thought that Noloop was unable to handle editing in this environment given the ridiculous amount of clutter he's managed to initiate so far. See:

    He was also blocked recently for edit warring on one of these pages, and went directly back to it, even making the same warring edit, as soon as the block expired.Griswaldo (talk) 20:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Return to original topic

    My original concern is that it will never be possible to reach a consensus on these articles. The reasons should be apparent. A consensus process will never work for an even-handed approach to the world's most dominant religious belief (remember, Muslims believe in Jesus). I think the most blatant illustration of the will to win with sheer popularity was when Ari89 canvassed editors from Jesus to oppose my perspective on Historical Jesus (nobody else seems to care much about it, but I found it disturbing). So, what happens when the consensus simply doesn't support Wikipedia's principles on an article? Noloop (talk) 23:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    There are several issues in the last couple of days that intertwine. I try to summarize most of them (my POV on them included).
    1. Christ myth theory material in the lead of Historical Jesus. While genuine doubts can be raised on the reliability and neutrality of the sources actually used in the article, it seems that reliable sources from different backgrounds do, indeed, prove that the Christ myth theory is a fringe theory (that is an unpopular, extremly minoritary position in the academia) and as such it does not belong to the lead.
    2. Qualifying the author's religious/cultural background where relevant. In my opinion, "relevant" = 1)the author has a public role in a religious context, e.g. it is a priest, rabbi, spokesman for a religious/atheist organization, theologian etc. and/or 2)the topic at stake is directly related with such religious contexts (e.g. while nobody, as far as I know, thinks of Julius Caesar as their Lord and Saviour, and as such the religious background of scholars on Caesar is probably irrelevant, belonging or not to Christianity,Islam,Judaism,Western secularism is inextricable from the viewpoints on Jesus).
    3. Canvassing on Talk:Jesus -I would tend to dismiss that, after all it is not like Talk:Jesus is watched only by religious editors. However caution should be always used.
    4. Overall bias (on whatever side) of editors on religious articles and potential to skew consensus against WP:NPOV. This is a very complex and delicate issue, which is not likely to have a definite "solution". I'd say that the first thing is for all editors to be honest in declaring their own background and POVs, so that everyone knows where each other stands, and in WP:AGF as much as possible with each other.

    I think we should split the discussion about each one of these points separately to extricate them. --Cyclopiatalk 01:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure disclosing one's POV or background vis-a-vis a religious topic is necessarily going to help anything. The very religious and the radically atheist editors tend to make it pretty apparent what they believe, and those editors tend to make up their own minds about what you believe if you don't fall into one of those categories. I highly doubt that the POV warriors on either side would take me seriously if I disclosed my own background so why bother.Griswaldo (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I ignore your bickering, Noloop, yet you cannot help bringing me up in everything you say. The fact that mainstream academia does not agree with your perspective is not my problem so do take the grudge somewhere else. The reason I believe no one but you has concern with your accusation of inappropriate canvassing is because only you seemed to see me stating "all input appreciated" on the exact same issue on a directly related page per wp:canvassing as a conspiracy "to oppose my perspective". --Ari (talk) 04:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Move it to an RfC

    I propose that this entire discussion be closed and moved to an RfC as it appears to be a content disupte that just happens to have a fair bit of bickering going on. I cannot see any need for administrator intervention here. What this needs is a venue where debates and arguments can take place, but I don't think AN/I is the place for that. Kindzmarauli (talk) 05:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Agree. --Cyclopiatalk 12:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree . Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 12:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree - Starting an Rfc seems for the best, as this ANI issue has reached WP:TLDR. Jusdafax 12:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree: WP:TLDR, taking up half of ANI (As Xeno says, this board is for problems requiring immediate admin attention, not long drawn out discussions. N419BH 13:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree Some firm policing by a Zen Buddhist admin might be required, but there is so much circular logic going on here that it needs more space to explore it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree Mauler90 talk 21:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree Sheesh, I know something about this topic, & I'm baffled about exactly what people are fighting over. "Jesus Christ is a myth"? No credible expert on the topic argues this; the simplest solution is to accept that beneath of all of the stories & theology there was a real person. Instead the argument is over whether the Historical Jesus was only a human, or some kind of incarnation of God. Someone wants an article on the theory? Well, I guess since we have an article on the theory than Sir Francis Bacon wrote Shakespeare's plays, we might as well have an article on this topic. Beyond that, it's all a matter of proper emphasis, playing nicely with one another, & remembering that we are here to write an encyclopedia not to prove one's peculiar interpretation of things is the truth. Hash out a consensus about how Wikipedia should handle this belief in an RfC & then come back here if that doesn't provide a solution. -- llywrch (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Let me explain the problem. The problem is that there are some people in Wiki-land that want to elevate the Christ myth theory (CMT), which is the idea that Jesus is completely fictional to a minority, but respectable position. The fact of the matter, however, is that it is viewed with contempt by virtually all scholars. Actually, I don't think that there are any scholars with a PHD in the relevant field that currently teach at accredited universities that give the CMT any credence, but I may be wrong on that—there may be one hiding somewhere. That the CMT is not only rejected by scholars but also treated with contempt can be seen here. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      I understood that part, thank you. Where it started to confuse me was who these "some people in Wiki-land" were. I thought I knew who the players were on each side until halfway thru it seemed that people changed sides. Had I been able to keep better track of who was say what, I would have invoked the little-known policy WP:DO NOT ANNOY THE WIKIDRAGONS & a bunch of people would have been blocked for a very long time. But moving this to an RfC ought to do the trick, & require a lot less effort from me. -- llywrch (talk) 04:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      There really is scant evidence though, and that is where this all bubbles up from. It rests on secondhand sources and hearsay. Dawkins has touched on this in a couple of his BBC documentaries, not so much that he didn't exist, but that we cant know because we dont know much of anything about the time period. I find this quote wholly appropriate, because it illustrates the problem without calling it out because there's also no evidence to call it out:
    "We have to accept somewhat looser standards. In the legal profession, to convict the defendant of a crime, you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil cases, a preponderance of the evidence is sufficient. When dealing with the Bible or any ancient source, we have to loosen up a little; otherwise, we can't really say anything."
    -Dr. David Noel Freedman (Bible Review magazine, Dec. 1993, p.34)
    And that is from someone with a PhD in an applicable field (and a minister) who is quite aware of the problem. Now imagine this view applied to something that's not a sacred cow, and you see why it gets people riled up. -- ۩ Mask 04:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite. And there is somewhat of an issue that, whereas if you take some bad science like Polywater, the evidence against it is from scientists pointing to scientific first principles, experimental evidence or what have you. Not from scientists promoting Uniwater. This is where the argument about the religious beliefs of the sources comes in - there is a suggestion that most of the sources saying 'rubbish, of course Jesus existed' are taking that as an a priori position. There is thus a sense in some quarters that these are the wrong people to be asking 'is this a fringe theory', and the right people would be those who are examining the evidence and asking 'can we safely assume that there was a real person'. Is there a significant possibility of other explanations.Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If there is "scant" evidence, then let reliable sources say so, and they can be detailed in the proper context (article). Right now, the few people who are saying so are not experts in the field. And the very, very few people who do have the necessary credentials are viewed by the mainstream with contempt—and they actually acknowledge the contempt mainstream scholarship has for them. Also, I think you misunderstood the quote by Freedman. All he is saying is that we don't have the ability to, in a sense, call witnesses before a jury (since they are long dead). Nor do we have videos, pictures, or audio recordings either. All we have are their writings (which at times requires textual critics to piece together), as well as writings from people who were around in the same general era.
    @Elen, that you have brought up religious beliefs indicates that you haven't had the time and/or the inclination to read this list, which includes a number of well-known atheists (such as Bart Ehrman). remember, we are only talking about the mere existence of a normal man (i.e., sans miracles, claims of godhood, etc.). At any rate, it looks like this topic is going nowhere fast...yet again. Too bad. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Suggest you read what I wrote again. I am making an observation about the thinking of some of the people posting in this thread. I have not actually said anything about the actual position taken by any source - although I would point out that llywrch's piece below does show how a source can present as if they are taking the axiomatic position that Jesus exists, even if they are not ("accepting the fact that there actually was someone with his name ... is the simplest theory"). In his case, he goes on with other - and very interesting evidence - but many see no need to do that, which is why some people (in this thread - for clarity) say that those are the wrong people to ask.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And as I wrote above, the players keep changing sides. Sheesh, while there is very little evidence on the existence of the Historical Jesus, the same can be said about many people throughout history. (For example, one of the major sources about the life of Alexander the Great was written centuries after he died.) However, as I wrote above, accepting the fact that there actually was someone with his name who caused a stir in what is now Israel & was executed by crucifixion, is the simplest theory to handle all of the facts. One of which is that there is able documentation about this guy named James living in Jerusalem between AD 30-60 who was commonly accepted to be Jesus' brother. An odd thing to do is Jesus was only a myth; I'd probably be ignored & face a few psych holds if I claimed to be the brother of a fictional person like Caillou. Now while some would claim that this is only a claim made after there was wide acceptance that Jesus did exist, the funny thing is that starting in the 4th century the Church made a systematic effort to make him an unperson; it would appear that his existence & role as a leader in the early Church conflicted with the emerging dogmas of the virgin birth & the immaculate conception. In other words, a piece of evidence many who believe in the existence of Jesus wish did not exist proves he does. And failing to account for evidence like this makes everyone involved look rather foolish -- Wikipedia: No original research notwithstanding. (That policy was not intended to exclude content which commonsense would otherwise include, but simply to encourage using expert opinion to explain its value. Otherwise the cranks & troublemakers would have a field day abusing it with arguments to exclude information they don't agree with.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Noloop blocked and desires to quit wikipedia

    The RFC might not be necessary at this point given the latest developments. See User_talk:Noloop#I_Quit. After Noloop filed a 3RR on User:Ari he was himself immediately blocked for continuing to edit war. He has now decided to quit Wikipedia. I still think that it is abundantly clear that Noloop needs some help to edit productively in these areas, if that is possible. It is a shame that the thread devolved into a discussion of a fringe theory as opposed to a discussion of editor behavior, but it also a shame that no one was willing to propose other remedies, instead suggesting simply to shovel the issue to RFC. Maybe mentorship would help if Noloop decides he's not going to quit after all?Griswaldo (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The issues raised are independent of the editor involved and the lack of consensus shown on the talk page is evident. I've begun drafting an RFC for the article, but if you're more advanced in the creation of one then I am, by all means take the lead. -- ۩ Mask 21:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JanDeFietser

    Resolved
     – Deletion was proper. Concerns about NL-wiki to be dealt with at meta-wiki as EN-wiki is not the place for it.

    I deleted User:JanDeFietser/wikipedistan001 earlier as an attack page after reviewing a google-translated version ([12]); note that the bottom of the page apparently contains a threat of a fine of 100 euros/day under some Dutch law for nl.wiki because the user's block on nl.wiki - apparently for legal threats (sulutil:JanDeFietser) - was supposedly illegal. The user has since recreated it with essentially the same content. Bringing it here for community review. T. Canens (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I am uncertain that all this effort is productive at all. More effort could be spent on article writing. To most people, the user page is a huge mass of Dutch (could as well be Tamil). The alleged legal threat is not clear and Google Translate is just an unofficial tool. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tim Song has changed his name to T.Canens. Very confusing! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    There is NO legal threat. I am blocked on the Dutch Wikipedia since 06th November 2009 after the false accusations of an alleged "legal threat" that there wasn't at all. Quite strange , even after my clear confirmation dated 19th November 2006 I am still blocked there: there something very very wrong on the Dutch Wikipedia. My message seems enough to inform the community about that. Reactions are welcome, deletions not. Regards, --JanDeFietser (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have re-deleted the page. This is not the place for it. Please do not replace it. James (T C) 16:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the reason for your deletion? It is not an "attack" page and there is no "legal threat". --JanDeFietser (talk) 16:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Reads more like a rant than a message. Could also be construed as an attack on the Dutch Wikipedia in general. Have you considered stating on Dutch Wikipeida "I retract any perceived legal threats made by me". On this wiki that's usually enough to be unblocked unless there are other reasons for the block to remain. That might solve your problem. N419BH 16:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct, it isn't really an legal threat. I apologize for adding that part on to the deletion reasoning. However that stated it basically is an attack page and it does not belong here on enWiki. I understand you are frustrated and angry about your problems on nlWiki but this is not the place for that. James (T C) 16:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Both thanks for your reactions. The statement "to consider" was made already 9 months ago - under illegal duress by the way (art. 284 Dutch Criminal Code). That statement already dates from 19th November 2009. That clear statement was first placed on my user page, but then removed, and no deblocking followed until this day. Again, there is unfortunately something very very wrong on the Dutch Wikipedia. What do you both suggest is then a more proper place to inform the community on this problem? --JanDeFietser (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't looked into the details of your nlwiki block, but if you express yourself in legal terms such as "illegal duress" and citing laws over there as well, then I'm not surprised you're still blocked.--Atlan (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I can not promise you will get a better reception (they will obviously draw their own conclusions) but a more appropriate place would be a Request for Comment at Meta WikiJames (T C) 16:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Atlan, expressing something in legal terms is in the first place not so strange because of my background, but is the most clearest description however when injustice is noticed. The behavior on 6th November 2009 of admin Basvb of the Dutch Wikipedia was indeed criminal, if you want to speak in such terms: he threatened to block me if I dared to address a judge on the false and very harsh accusations against my person on which arbitration was refused on 30th October 2009. According to the Dutch law, no one can be withheld form the judge. See here on the English Wikipedia Jus de non evocando and also Constitution of the Netherlands.

    @ both: But what can one do, if arbitration is refused? (I suppose benevolently: maybe because the issue was /is too complicated ?). If one of you can tell me, I would read that gladly. Again, there is something very very wrong on the Dutch Wikipedia. Regards, --JanDeFietser (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm just saying that when you're blocked for perceived legal threats, it doen't help your case to defend yourself with further legal speak.--Atlan (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Threatening to take your complaints about wikipedia to a judge is definitely a legal threat. And I don't know about the Netherlands, but in the USA there is no constitutional right to edit wikpedia, so blocking someone is in no way, shape or form "illegal". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    @Baseball Bugs: the other way round, there is no right at a;; to use any force against someone to keep him or her away from seeking his right.--JanDeFietser (talk) 19:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I know a little of this user's history on the Dutch Wikipedia, as I am an admin there, though I don't think I've had much interaction, if any, with him; in my perception, the legal threat (whether real or perceived I do not know) was merely the last straw, as the user was making his own position impossible with long rants against just about everything (like the one that was deleted). I don't think this Wikipedia should provide him with a forum for his rants, nor that we should discuss his perceived wrongs here; as Jamesofur said, Meta is a better venue. Ucucha 17:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This reminds me of an old saying -- the more you yell in people's ears, they less they are able (and will want) to listen. Jan, you need to calm down here. Whatever this article was isn't the end of the world. Let it go. Start over again. The world will continue to spin. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (Sigh) Ucucha is wrong: last year I defended myself against false accusations by users Cumulus and Peter b on the Dutch Wikipedia: then thanks to their deceiving of the Arbcom on 10th June 2009 I was forbidden to defend myself against these false accusations by both for a crime ("laster", art. 262 Dutch Criminal Code) that I did NOT commit and, absolutely unacceptable, the morbid and cruel depicting of me by the latter of an alleged "dancing on the grave" of a person who when alive happened to be very dear and important to me, and Cumulus and Peter b then could continue with their accusations, while other users on the Dutch Wikipedia even started to parrot them about this crime that I did NOT commit, on which arbitration was refused on 30th October 2009. @ Doc Quintana: Thanks for your kind words. But in spite of my clear confirmation dated 19th November 2009 I am still not deblocked and you have no idea of the damage that was done. I will inform you maybe later tonight or tomorrow about this by wikimail. --JanDeFietser (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No wories Jan. Trust me, I know how you feel. Step back for a little bit from it and you'll feel better. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing to prevent you from pursuing legal action against wikipedia. But if you do, or threaten to, then you are not allowed to edit on wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    That last remark I do not understand. Who was talking about "legal actions against Wikipedia"? For what? For the refusal of arbitration on 3oth October 2009? I was falsely accused by two individuals on the Dutch Wikipedia, Cumulus & Peter b, of a crime that I did NOT commit. Do you think Wikipedia will have to take responsibility for their false accusations? (I doubt that). And there never was any "legal threat" from me, but nevertheless I was blocked on 6th November 2009 on the Dutch Wikipedia for such a chimera, which was a false accusation concocted by Arbcom-member Basvb who earlier that day threatened me on the Dutch wikichat (imho such persons with such unscrupulous behaviour should NOT be members of any arbitration committee) and in spite of my clear declaration dated 19th November 2009, now in July after 9 months, I am still not deblocked. Again, there is something very very wrong on the Dutch Wikipedia. If you don't mind, I take some rest now (thanks Doc Quintana). --JanDeFietser (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    I'm a bit confused. You've repeatedly stated that you were denied arbitration. However in perusing your block log on nl.wiki I noticed that you were actually repeatedly banned for violating an ArbCom decision about you. You were blocked no less than six times in only four months for vandalism, personal attacks and then finally the ArbCom decision. You apparently followed this up with a violation of NLT here where you apparently twice emailed the NL ArbCom threatening to sue in civil court for defamation. And you wonder why you got blocked? Mauler90 talk 18:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I eagerly admit that you have indeed some reason to be or at least feel "a bit confused" when you see the practice on the Dutch Wikipedia.
    When some user files a case against me, then I should also be able to file a case against him / her / them as well, but this very elementary stuff still has to be discovered on the Dutch Wikipedia.
    In June 2009, I was falsely accused on the Dutch Wikipedia by two users, Cumulus & Peter b, of a crime that I did NOT commit ("laster", art. 262 Sr), and the latter depicted me also as "dancing on the grave" of a person who when alive was dear and important to me: such teasing is an absolutely not acceptable way to discuss matters on Wikipedia. In a procedure full of lies and fallacies from their side, while my defence was ignored, they succeeded in an extremely wide 'topic ban' of which the only purpose was forbidding me to defend myself against their false accusations, that Peter b continued to utter while pushing his POV (Cumulus was blocked then for a while for some other reason). In the meantime other users were parroting these false accusations of Cumulus & Peter b.
    When I am not allowed to defend myself against (false) accusations on the Wikipedia, then these accusations itself should be forbidded as well, as I requested the Arbcom: however, this was finally refused on 30th October, shortly after I informed the arbitration committee on the damages that had emerged in the meantime. Please do not overestimate the admins on the Dutch Wikipedia. There was NO "vandalism", there were NO "personal attacks", just defence against the false accusations that every now and then seem to be rampant on the Dutch Wikipedia, and the deceiving of the arbitration committee by my accusers Cumulus & Peter b. Many users have left already the Dutch Wikipedia because of the atmosphere. They had less endurance than I do (I guess).
    I suppose benevolently that the whole case was / is too complicated for the arbitration committee. That I "twice emailed the NL ArbCom" "threatening to sue in civil court for defamation" is a sheer lie from NL Arbcom-member Basvb, who himself threatened me on 6th November 2009 on the Dutch wikichat and behind my back concocted that block, again without any defence from my side (that seems to be quite "normal" on the Dutch Wikipedia?). Such persons with such behaviour should NOT be a member of an arbitration committee. There is something very very wrong on the Dutch Wikipedia. In spite of my clear declaration dated 19th November 2010 on that alleged "legal threat" that there was NOT, now in July 2010 I am still not deblocked.
    I hope your feeling of confusion is a little less now. I want to take some rest now. Regards, --JanDeFietser (talk) 19:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If this is regarding the nlWiki, shouldn't it be discussed through their appropriate venues, or barring that, Meta? Hazardous Matt (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    To echo what Matt has said. EN-wiki cannot resolve any issue with NL-wiki, so this is the wrong place to post. Sorry. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Matt, to make things worse, when I informed several users of the Dutch Wikipedia in September per wikimail about the negligence of the ArbcomNL, the wikimail was blocked for me by user Woudloper. one of the parrots of the false accusations against which I was not allowed to defend myself. And after I was blocked in november for a "legal threat" that there was not, also the email to the Arbcom was blocked for me: ostrichism. I think that the whole case is too complicated for them, and that they just do not dare yet to admit that they are unfortunately unable to grasp it. I go to bed now. --JanDeFietser (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If NL won't deal with an NL-Wiki dispute, then try MetaWiki. I don't think anyone on enWiki has the authority to overturn their decisions. Hazardous Matt (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest to an admin around here that this conversation be closed. It's going around in circles. Doc Quintana (talk) 20:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Hello, I would like to say that I am having similar problems on the Dutch wiki. From my perspective it is quite corrupt. I do not know this particular user's full story, not have I read the whole issue, I am merely saying that this is not just one individual experiencing this. I have had contact with several other users who are also having the same problems there. In my opinion it seems that when somebody contradicts one of the regular contributor's POV that person gets into trouble with the whole lot. Saying something about that makes it worse. It seems to me that these things should at the very least be allowed to be said here AND there. However, there they are not allowed. My question is why such critical notes are even being deleted in an open and free system? --Faust (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, again, really more of a discussion for MetaWiki. No one here can do anything about it. Hazardous Matt (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum: Can an Admin close this please? En shouldn't be a launching point for NL administration issues. Hazardous Matt (talk) 21:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    See my post here. Not much more we can do here, also recommend this be closed with a possible RfC at meta if the user desires it. Mauler90 talk 21:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Meta RFC link for convenience. Hazardous Matt (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the point is being missed here. The thing is that there is absolutely no reason to delete such content in an open and free system. If indeed someone feels that some things should not be said here, that person can caution another for saying something and after that remove his own static. But deleting something is an entirely different matter. That is censorship to protect a POV. That simply should not happen on any wikipedia. Claiming that disputes should be settled elsewhere is a true statement, but does not apply to the content of a user's page. A user's page can be filled by anything that user wants to fill it with, short of criminal exclamations. If other users wish to discuss matters there, making it a discussion concerning a dispute, those users should be prohibited from editing the user page in question. Simply cataloging a process does not constitute that problem. The reason I am making a point of this is because of the broader issue involved: the difference between an open and free system and one where POV's rule the day. I hope any and all mods will be sensitive to this. --Faust (talk) 23:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The content was deleted because it was an attack page. A user cannot fill their userpage with "anything they want." If it is offensive it WILL be deleted. Mauler90 talk 23:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)
    1. Wikipedia is privately owned, not owned or sponsored by any government. Therefore, there is no Freedom of Speech in any constitutional or legal capacity.
    2. User Pages are not the property of the respective User. The page you are apparently referencing (which has since been deleted) was reviewed to be an attack page. Therefore, it was removed due to WP:CIVIL and/or WP:NPA.
    3. The initial page, the original editor's response, and your responses, have all been a result of an action on NL-Wiki. Several people have informed you that this is not the appropriate venue for reporting questionable action by NL-Wiki Administrators.
    In summation, the page was an attack in violation of a policy on a privately-owned website, and it was attacking an independent faction of the privately-owned website. There is no censorship or POV-silencing as it pertains to this incident. enWiki should not be a springboard to speak out against NL-wiki. Take it to NL, take it to Meta, but attacks against it do not have any place here. Hazardous Matt (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    I think it may be better for Jan to forget about Dutch Wikipedia altoghether. If what he writes is true, then there is little point in contributing there. But then I can understand that he wants to get his version of the facts straight. But the way to do that is not to argue here in the way you would do there. Instead, he should write up something that is of use to us here and that can only be done in general terms. I tried to do that on my talkpage about the negative experience I had on Physics Forums. Perhaps such problems are universal: when you have a small number of Admins/Moderators who get involved in disputes, you can expect trouble; The moderation process can become corrupted. Count Iblis (talk) 00:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    As an nl-wiki sysop I think the phrase "The moderation process can become corrupted" is absolutely not applicable. First of all nl-wiki has more than a few moderators and Jan has been given the chance of arbitration. Since he dislikes the result of that he now follows this path of slandering people and presenting his own fairytale version of the events. As one of the involved admins I can assure that the part concerning me is highly inaccurate and incomplete. What Jan also forgets to mention is that he refuses to make the statement that he will not sue users of the nl-wiki. Feel free to ask me about the case through wikimail or a message on my talk page. This however does not apply to JanDeFietser since he is resending his view of the events including a ton of false accusations to half nl-wiki all the time anyway (badly enough to get his nl-wikimail shut down). JZ85 (talk) 07:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mauler: As stated above it is not an attack page. Please do not double your noise.
    @Hazardous Matt: The wikipedia is not a platform to promote POV's. That is what this is about. To silence people is to promote a POV. Apart from that, no matter the system, basic HUMAN RIGHTS still apply. Please, you have stated your opinion, do not double your noise.
    @Count Iblis: I agree with you that a small number of referees is a problem. A large number of referees who intercommunicate and socialize is a problem as well however. That way people tend to look at what the majority is doing. If a precedent is created, the rest follow in line. That is why, in normal law cases, an IMPARTIAL judge is wanted. Bias is a POV. Apart from that I do believe that forgetting about wiki.nl might be Jan's best option. For now he is not arguing anything by the way, he is showing what happened. There is a difference.
    @JZ85: Perhaps you should stay out of this discussion since you are personally involved and therefore bias? In fact, you are the active corrupting individual in this case. By your actions you are actively trying to get a referee to respond to this case in a bias manner. Please stay out of this matter so there is still a chance that a referee would respond to this in an unbiased manner. Even though I am assuming you mean well, please, refrain from adding more static.
    Please people, I do not think this page is normally used for arguments....
    --Faust (talk) 08:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed, we cannot do anything about NL:Wikipedia here. So let's leave these arguments out of it. The whole thread started with T. Canens telling about his issues with removing inappropriate (according him) content from JandeFietsers userpages.
    My suggestion to JandeFietser would be to let Nl:wiki rest. Do not put up angry ad/or inflammatory references to that on his userpages, and become an active and respected editor on En:Wiki (i.e. here). If he is willing to do that I see no problems, if not, he will run into conflicts here very soon and may run into blocks here as well. But for now I would give him the benefit of the doubt if he agrees not to refer to his experiences on NL:wiki on his userspace (at least not in a way that can be interpreted as aggressive to anyone involved in the disputes he had). Arnoutf (talk) 08:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I ran the deleted userpage through Google translate yesterday, and my view was that it certainly was an attack page. It referred to nl.wiki's ArbCom as a "Kangaroo Court" and moderators on nl.wiki as "lazy". There were specific references to individual arbs and administrators, using equally unflattering terms. I agree with Tim Song's {{db-attack}} deletion, and likewise with Jamesofur's subsequent deletion.
    I am surprised that this is still under discussion. This is clearly not a matter for en.wiki. The editor responsible for the userpage has been directed to meta: I do not believe there is anything further we can do here unless the userpage is recreated.
    TFOWR 08:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I am a native Dutch speaker (and reader). I will agree to the fact that he did use the terms in question, but if the situation was reversed, would you not use colorful language to describe the situation? Granted, it may not be as decent as could be, but here he is merely cataloging. I guarantee that this was not used as an attack this time, merely an accurate log. There is a difference. Please, do consider the larger issues. --Faust (talk) 09:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Whether the editor intended to attack is not relevant: what matters is whether the userpage was correctly deleted as an "attack page" (in my view it was). By way of analogy, an editor might innocently create a userpage that disparages a friend: the friend would in no way feel attacked, but the userpage would still be deleted as an attack page, and the admin who deleted the page would have acted entirely correctly (which was the original issue here - did Tim Song act correctly?)
    The larger issue is that this is outside en.wiki's remit: we have no authority here. The editor has been directed to meta: there is nothing further we can do. TFOWR 09:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fully support TFOWR's analysis. This issue is closed from an en.wp point of view. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    All "quotes" out of context are wrong. But to put it frankly, indeed I called and call the ArbcomNL a kangaroo court, because that term, though pejorative, applies. Today, I have no time to read all comments here or elsewhere. So for the moment, I thank the users above for their kind attention to this issue, appropriate here or not, and politely ask them to be alert and not to be deceived by the prejudiced admins of the Dutch Wikipedia. Bamanekhuda. --JanDeFietser (talk) 11:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    One thing I'm surprised no one here suggested was that if JanDeFietser feels he was slandered libelled [see my comment below] on nl.wikipedia -- which seems to be the basis of his complaint, if I understand this thread -- then perhaps his best option is to contact OTRS. I don't know if they can help him or provide a resolution he will be happy with, but there's no relief or help for him on en.wikipedia, no matter what his user page says in any language. -- llywrch (talk) 06:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for your remark. Please note that I avoid the use of the term "slander", because in the British and American common law systems "slander" and "libel" are NOT identical with the Dutch crimes "smaad" (art. 261 Wetboek van Strafrecht = Dutch Criminal Code or Penal Code from 1881) and "laster" (art. 262 Sr DCC). --JanDeFietser (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How many times do people have to suggest to you, that not using legal speak will make you more friends ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, the only way he could make any use of llywrch's suggestion would be if he mailed the OTRS legal queue, so he might as well use legal language. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly -- although the proper legal term I should have used was "libel" (because it was in print) & not "slander" (which is a transient comment). Any comment someone thinks is defamatory involving one of the Wikimedia projects -- whether the subject of an article or another editor -- needs to be submitted to OTRS. Bringing it to another project will accomplish nothing, even if people are convinced that a wrong has been committed; the various Wikimedia projects operate independently of one another. With that, I think this thread is truly closed. -- llywrch (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Fresh eyes requested

    User:Vitorvicentevalente persists in re-adding a speedy deletion request to Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Vitorvicentevalente despite the fact that I have already declined it. His proper venue is WP:PROD or more appropriately, WP:CFD. He is also blanking User talk:70.181.189.126 an IP talk page which has been alleged to be a sockpuppet. I have advised the editor making these accusations to raise an SPI but meanwhile I believe the status quo should prevail as it is not up to users to remove such accusations. Third-party opinions welcome. I am about to notify this editor. Rodhullandemu 16:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    These two "admin" have had problems with me in the past, which proves to be WP: POINT. I don't admit to accuse me without evidence, so if they want request a checkuser. Vítor&R (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The category doesn't seem to fit the criteria for WP:CSD#C1, and once a speedy request has been denied it shouldn't me made again. Take it to WP:CFD. If the originator of the allegation (or someone else) doesn't produce an SPI case in the near future, the category will no doubt get deleted. Favonian (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have restored the tag to the IP's page. The category is no longer empty. The tag should not be removed from the IP talk page by the user himself. Vítor&R, I understand why this distresses you, if you feel that the concerns are not valid, but removing the tag is not the means to address it. It makes it look as though you are trying to disguise something. An administrator has tagged this IP, which accords with policy. If you feel that the accusation is made in bad faith, see Wikipedia:Administrators for steps you might take. That said, referring to the requisite ANI notice placed on your talk page as "vandalism" may give the impression that you are not yourself assuming good faith. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't assume good faith when they are accusing me without proof. It was the same as I begin to speak Portuguese knowing that you do not understand anything, assume bad faith. This isn't my home wiki, and I had promised not edit here anymore, but the image of the article Love the Way You Lie is referenced and I don't understand why is removed. If the file don't meet the criteria should be eliminated or not? Instead of doing his job, the user prefers to make accusations without evidence. I've been out all day, as evidenced by my contributions. Vítor&R (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The content question isn't really at issue here. I do not know if his concerns about your edits are valid, but evidently he feels they are. In situations like this, it's really helpful to remain calm and focus on defending yourself against the charge. User:Rodhullandemu has requested that the editor making these accusations raise a sockpuppet investigation. If he does, you will have the opportunity to explain there why you feel his concerns are misplaced. If he does not do so in good time, it may be necessary to invite further review. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a small comment about the original post, I don't think Categories are eligible for WP:PROD. I could be mistaken though.--Rockfang (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Additional comments

    I was going to add my own report about this user, but seeing that one is already open, I will add to this. Vitor has already been blocked 5 times, more than once for edit warring. In the past couple of weeks, he has repeatedly added an image to the article Love the Way You Lie which had questionable sources. Although being removed by more than one editor, he continued to undo edits and war over song genres: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]

    I requested that Vitor use the article's Talk Page to discuss his edits, as more than one person was questioning the validity of the image, as well as the genres: [26]. Shortly after, IP 70.181.189.126 made edits which completely restored Vitor's preferred version [27]. Upon checking the IPs edit history, and noticing a similarity in Rihanna and R&B-related articles, I placed a suspected sock tag on the IP's page, as well as a warning: [28]. This tag and warning were removed by Vitor, as well as a request for deletion of the category (which he claims was "empty", since he removed the suspected sock tag, see links above), along with an angry demand on my Talk Page [29] and a follow-up comment to "stop nagging and leave him in peace" [30].

    This is also not the first time Vitor has been suspected of sockpuppetry, as shown here.

    A scan through Vitor's Talk Page history clearly shows a dismissive and uncivil attitude (evidenced by many of his edit summaries):[31], and, for anyone who cares to read some of the past dramas that occurred when he was blocked and/or confronted in the past, there is quite a lot to read, although it is not an easy task as Vitor blanks and undoes his Talk Page whenever communication is left there. This to me does not seem like someone interested in working well with others, and who immediately becomes enraged if anyone dares to question his methods. A very recent example of his incivility can be found on Rodhullandemu's own Talk Page: here. - eo (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The lack of civility appointed by you, which frankly don't matter to me, is no reason to accuse me of being a sock of IP. Moreover, I am not the first nor the last to remove the warnings from my talk page, and this is not my home wiki, so what's the point? I don't admit to that user that takes hours to respond to cases of accusations that he do, accuse me without any clear evidence. I want proof! Prove that I'm interacting with the IP, if you can! Vítor&R (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The evidence presented by this user is reason enough for a sock investigation, civility concerns aside. An IP showing up out of nowhere, to support you in an edit war is evidence of sock puppetry, whether you like it or not. Removing the userpage tag only shows that you have something to hide; one also wonders why 'an IP that you have never interacted with before' would have their userpage on your watchlist.
    Lastly, Vit, you are not the one that decides which evidence backs up what, since you are the one being accused. If you really are innocent, you have nothing to worry about.— Dædαlus Contribs 19:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't treat me in any way and limit yourself to comment the case. I have nothing to hide, I only don't want to see my name involved in suspicious done by an incompetent administrator. And for your information, I'm going to write in Portuguese after this comment. Vítor&R (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm treating you how I treat all suspected sockmasters and socks with suspicious behavior. Removing a sock tag from 'an IP you have had no dealings with' is suspicious. As said, if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about. In the meantime, if you continue to disruptively remove the sock tag, all it will do is show admins they can block you on behavioral evidence; CU won't even be needed, and will likely be declined per policy regarding CU. Also, do not call admins incompetent. Such is disruptive editing, and strictly against policy. Lastly, please communicate in english, this is the english wikipedia, and refusing to do so when you clearly can can be disruptive. It comes off as if you're trying to make it difficult for us.— Dædαlus Contribs 19:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Não quero saber o quão difícil é para vocês comunicar em português, é a minha língua materna e é essa mesmo que vou utilizar, estou farto de escrever em inglês, e para nada. Eu não me interessa como você trata os outros, aqui trata-me com respeito, não o conheço de lado nenhum para me tratar como quiser. Não tenho nada a esconder, mas tenho todo o direito a não querer o meu nome envolvido nestas "tolices", e é para isso mesmo que abri o pedido. Vítor&R (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're trying to be disruptive, you're succeeding. I would recommend you stop.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comentando agora, não me importa em nada que tenham essa opinião a meu respeito, não tenciono fazer "amigos" aqui. Apenas quero que este caso seja resolvido, e a minha inocência, posta em causa por quem foi, seja provada. Além disso, já abri o pedido que está à espera de avaliação. Vítor&R (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Translation, for anyone wondering.— Dædαlus Contribs 19:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't mean it couldn't be a meatpuppet.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You and your theories that no one wants to know... Prove that. Vítor&R (talk) 21:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The evidence already exists in this thread, behavioral is proof enough. Lastly, speak for yourself, and not others. Obviously people do care, as otherwise there would not be a thread here.— Dædαlus Contribs 21:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The only person who is interested are you, making accusations without proof, nothing here is proof that I know or edit with that IP. Vítor&R (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, do not act like you know the interests of others, when you are clearly not them. Secondly, there is plenty proof in this thread, simply claiming there isn't doesn't work around here. When you are accused, unless you provide a very good reason to explain the edits, your 'word' is typically not taken. I've dealt with sockmasters who have lied through their teeth until the very end, where CU confirmed abuse.
    Now, discussing this here is pointless, the only thing you are doing now is claiming to know the feelings of others when you do not, and claiming the evidence presented here is meaningless, when it is not. You aren't going to convince anyone of anything by continuously stating there is no evidence. There is nothing more to be gained here by you, so instead of repeating the same things over and over again, why don't you respond on the SPI when it is filed.— Dædαlus Contribs 21:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, realize one thing, your opinion for me is zero, and others are others. I never edited with that IP, nor could I live in another country far away from him, and I don't admit allegations of a user like you, without any evidence. What is here are a lot of edits I did, and apparently the IP also preferred that version of the article. Never edited into articles such as B.o.B. as IP or have interest in such artists. And dispense your advice and opinions that are worth nothing here. I'm innocent, end of story. Vítor&R (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, you need to realize one thing. I don't care about your opinion of myself, and you are not the one that decides the opinions of others, only yourself, so stop claiming you know them when you do not. The existence of this report shows that they do indeed care. Again, there is plenty evidence, simply claiming there isn't doesn't change the fact that there is.
    You don't get to decide whose opinions are worth what here, only your own. I for one have been investigating sockpuppets for quite some time, and this to me looks like meatpuppetry. Meatpuppets are accounts created by friends of the master, to aid the master in their wars. What you construe as evidence against puppetry is actually for it: if the IP had not edited anything related to the article, this is evidence, as there is no way they could have found it otherwise. This, plus the content and timing of the edits is evidence of puppetry, whether you like it or not.
    Again, if you are innocent, you have nothing to worry about. Going on an on about how my opinions hold no water, and that there is no evidence here is rather suspicious behavior for someone who will be found as 'innocent'.
    Think hard before you post here again, and do not act like you know the thoughts of others, or like you control the weight of arguments of others.— Dædαlus Contribs 21:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, you need to realize one thing, I dont' want to know anything of what you have to tell me, talk only to the rest of the community. But who wants to know what this is for you? Do you think your word is worth more than mine? Well, no! Never! I don't know the IP nor do I intend to know who is behind it, and just want to prove my innocence and I wanted my name out of these unfortunate allegations. It is very easy to talk, but if your name was involved, what I do not admired, was not so calm. I want you and your advice to go where you want, I don't want to know, your conversation is pointless. Vítor&R (talk) 21:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, do not call my argument without weight, and again, do not do so of others. On the case of 'worth', our words are the same in weight, but in sock cases, when there is clear evidence of abuse, and even confirmed past abuse, your word regarding such is indeed less, unless you provide a good reason that explains and debunks the evidence explained in this thread; you haven't. The only thing you have said is 'no evidence exists', despite quite clear evidence to the contrary. Simply denying it has no weight, you have to provide a better reason than that.— Dædαlus Contribs 21:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I say whatever I want, you not yet realized it? I'm sick of your theories... It's within the rules, and there is no clear evidence, there is rather a boring person trying to accuse me, which is a clear WP: POINT. Vítor&R (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, no, you cannot. Go have a read of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, two policies you've violated several times today. There is nothing pointy about my edits, and indeed, your edits are crossing into being disruptive. Stop campaigning for my block, and stop calling me a conspiracy theorist.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hum... let me see... No. Vítor&R (talk) 22:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Enough

    Everyone involved here needs to remember our core guideline Assume Good Faith. Also, our policy on civility, our policy against making personal attacks, and to some extent our guideline about not biting newcomers (on ANI specifically, not to the encyclopedia overall in this case).
    Vitor - Please do not insult admins or other editors, and please don't use Portugese anymore. That violates our policy against disruptive editing. We ask that editors treat each other with respect, and the community with respect. That means dealing with situations, even stressful ones like being accused of sockpuppetry or other misbehavior, in a reasonable and civil manner. When people start getting angry and blustering, and making borderline insults or disruptive behavior like responding in other languages, then it degrades the entire environment around a discussion and makes it harder to discern what is really going on and calm situations down or resolve them.
    Daedalus - Is there more evidence here than the recent edit reversion incident? The IP is clearly in California, and the editor is quite likely Portugese (though they could possibly be Portugese or a Portugese language speaker in California). There does seem to be some topic interest area similarity, but without a geographical alignment or more than a couple of revert-to someone else's version incidents that's usually not enough to pass the Duck Test. People do revert to someone else's version from time to time. There are a number of other IPs who edit that article, and Rhianna related articles in general. One could potentially make a case that this is the same person, but I'm not really convinced right now. If you can convince a CU to check that's fine. If there are more diffs, that's fine. But there's really not a lot on the table to be getting this seriously interested in chasing them over. A single revert, by an IP which is at worst mildly disruptive at times, and an editor who is at worst mildly disruptive at times, is not a good case for a sockpuppet. If we set the standards for evidence for the Duck test this low, it will false positive all the time on perfectly innocent activities that by random chance line up.
    I'm not saying you're wrong - but I'd like to see more evidence, and the evidence needs to be proportional to the degree of effort we expend in pursuing SPI cases. If we jump all over every coincidence, we will certainly drive people away who didn't do anything wrong, and ruin the project in short order.
    Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Aside from the timing and content of the edits, and this user's history regarding sockpuppetry and edit warring, no, there is not. Anyway, I don't think they're a sockpuppet, but a meatpuppet(a friend of the user garnered for help by the user). I also have a sneaking suspicion the IP is an open proxy, per it's almost blank userpage(take this with a grain of salt, as I do not have much, if any, experience regarding open proxies(re: I was once told they don't geo-locate anywhere)). In regards to that, it is not impossible for someone to have a friend thousands of miles away. I for one have several friends on the eastern coast of the US, along with a few more in Europe. I live on the west coast of the US myself.
    That a side, CU would be declined as using it to link an editor to an IP is against the policy regarding its use. CU is also not for fishing.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Rbwm was 18 months ago and not CU identified, and was clearly disruptively blockable on their own. There was no block of Vitor coming out of that investigation. That is not a "history regarding sockpuppetry".
    Their edit warring behavior is reasonably straightforwards, and actionable independently, but that's different than spending this much effort on ANI beating them up for alleged sockpuppetry. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, but as I noted above, I still find the removal of the sock tag on the IP editor's page odd, unless Vit was stalking the edits of the admin who placed it there.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Or watchlisted the category after earlier incidents (more likely).
    The alternate (that he is the IP) is possible, but not the simplest and most credible explanation, much less the one AGF argues for. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if that were the case, it's unlikely unless he checked there regularly, as when a page is added or removed from a cat, it doesn't show up on the watchlist. The only thing that does is changes to the cat page itself.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah. After the dispute on the 22nd started, Ericorbit tagged the IP [32], then told Vitor not to IP sockpuppet on Vitor's talk page [33], then Vitor went to the IP talk page and removed the tag [34] with the edit summary "Proff?".
    All of this flowed from Ericorbit's notification on Vitor's user talk. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I stand corrected. Without that piece, there isn't much for this case to stand on now.— Dædαlus Contribs 00:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It was circumstantial, which is why I invited User:Ericorbit to invoke an WP:SPI, which would have brought a fresh perspective to the issue. As it happens, Vitor opened his own SPI, which effectively circumvented any possibility of a CU happening- if Ericorbit had done so in a timely manner, perhaps that would have occurred. However, Ericorbit's notification to Vitor was not beyond the bounds of possibility, and Vitor over-reacted in the worst possible way, by seeking to remove evidence and notifications. That's not constructive. When faced with dubious accusations, it's not helpful to fight fire with fire, and Vitor should have sat back and said "Open an SPI, and let uninvolved Admins judge the merits"; that is now happening, and I agree with that. But Vitor's conduct here has breached so many rules here, as he has previously, that I wonder whether he is a net benefit to this project, especially since he makes a point of emphasising that this is not his "home wiki". He's been here long enough, in my view, to have realised that we may have different ways of working from , and should adapt. Rodhullandemu 00:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    No matter, if you think I will adapt or not. Lately, as you can see in my list of contributions, I just put interwiki, or the image of that article because it was referenced. If the reference is good for the charts, why isn't for the image? I know your rules fairly, and not only studied better because every day I come here I realized that this isn't what it seems, watching this case, I want my innocence proven, and nobody does anything. I just want it, I want to prove, I din't use that IP and I want my name out of those speculations. I just didn't know that here you made accusations without any evidence, but now i know that. After the last discussion I left this project, but it seems that he wants to persecute me for my entire life. Vítor&R (talk) 02:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is missing the point, with respect. If you are incorrectly accused of sockpuppetry, you should have nothing to worry about, and should just sit back and let uninvolved editors and admins come to a rational conclusion based on the evidence presented. As it happens, evidence of sockpuppetry turns out to be thin at best, and therefore unsubstantiated. What is more worrying here is your reaction to this accusation; I repeat- however strongly you feel about your own position, there are processes here that may indicate one way or the other, but deleting accusations, nominating categories for deletion, making personal attacks to editors, even uninvolved editors, isn't going to sway opinion in your direction, because (as already pointed out above), it makes you look as if you have something to hide. I have extensive experience of criminal proceedings, and I have to say that when one is accused of an unsupportable accusation, the best defence is (a) to remain silent and (b) if pushed, say "prove it". However, in my experience, most actual criminals cannot resist the temptation to push it further, and by doing so, tend to incriminate themselves. Your behaviour pointed me in that direction, but I am prepared to assume that your anger displaced your common sense in this instance. Rodhullandemu 05:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "This is missing the point, with respect." And don't talk to me as if I had the guilt, I demand respect. I never be silent knowing that I'm innocent, this is for cowards. I don't care if you think that I have something to hide, I'm quiet and you are not going to change that. What I demand is that removed my name and undo the allegations made to me. The project can not be driven by suspicion but by certainties, and administrators aren't more important that the users, you should already have realized this. I just want to see my innocence proven, I do not want to adapt here, to put iw I don't need to know your internal policies. And my reaction is more normal for a person who is being accused unfairly, and I'm too good editor (even that is not here, because I'm not interested in that) to see my name involved in your unfounded accusations. Vítor&R (talk) 15:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Defending yourself when falsely accused is one thing; lashing out at others as you did [35], [36], [37], and [38] is another. We have processes for resolving disputes, and we all must work within them. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This has nothing to do with the case that I am being accused, are different things and you can't separate matters, unfortunately. Vítor&R (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that they can't really be separated, since they arose directly as a result of this. For example, this edit was in response to the explanation a different administrator provided to you here of the problem with repeatedly tagging the category for speedy deletion. Again, I understand that this has been distressing for you (it wouldn't make me happy, either), but you can wind up getting blocked for this sort of behavior alone, and that won't help you defend yourself against sock puppetry accusations. It's far, far better to just take a deep breath and figure out how to proceed calmly. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The E.N.D.

    Wikipedia Anglophone is a shame. A disappointment. Their policies prohibit a user to fend off accusations without any concept. But what is this scheme? Accusing and stain the name of a person without clear evidence, there is no evidence, just a lot of contributions from a user in the United States and one from Portugal, with no way to communicate with one another. Fortunately, this is not my home wiki, and I do not care what you say. I'm innocent, God knows. Speak freely. Vítor&R (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    We are not preventing you from defending yourself. You're defending yourself by attacking the people who accused you, which is not at all OK, and is in fact specifically prohibited. If you can remain civil and calm you can explain your position and defend yourself as much as you want to.
    Your statement that there's no way to communicate with someone in California is not credible; email, chat, phone calls, and friendships and family are global now.
    With that said, see my comments to Deadalus above. I am not at all convinced by the picture painted accusing you, so far. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This conversation is over for me, I will not say anything else. I know I'm innocent, and that's what interests me. I tried to defend myself, and I is that I have been provoked by another user. Refused the request for verification, I have nothing else to do in this Wikipedia, is your kingdom and I am not aware of your policies. Vítor&R (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Off-topic point

    As the main point seems to have died down, I just wanted to point out that this exact type of dispute (when to tag people as suspected sockpuppets) is being discussed at WP:SOCK (where the stated policy as just written would actually require removal of the tag) and I actually referenced this exact situation to argue for eliminating the whole shebang. More opinions would be greatly desired. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Theobald Tiger

    I have hesitated to notify the referees of this matter, however, I feel a little scared of this user. In an attempt to get a different user to reflect on a certain act on his part Theobald and others showed their support for him. I would let the question with which this started rest. However, the way in which Theobald Tiger showed his support was by means of this remark:
    "I fully agree with MoiraMoira and before you actually start consuming the handsomely deserved watermelon, I hereby kindly offer you a nice kitchen tool for convenience' sake!"
    The remark was adorned with a picture of a knife. Seeing as MoiraMoira had placed a remark concerning a watermelon I tried to assume good intentions on Theobald's part and asked him to change the remark since I felt a little threatened by it. Theobald changed the remark to:
    "I fully agree with MoiraMoira and before you actually start consuming the handsomely deserved watermelon, I hereby kindly offer you a nice kitchen tool to make life easier for you!"
    I thanked him for the revision, but his reluctance to make clear what (or who) the knife was supposed to be used on still makes me feel a little startled. Especially since I specifically asked him to change his remark into saying what that (or who) that knife was supposed to be used on. After repeating this request several times he has clearly refused to do so: "No!". I am not sure what to do about this and I would like a referee to change Theobald's mind on that matter.
    I would like to make clear that I am still assuming he meant this as a joke. That is why I do not think he should be punished or anything like that. However, it is making me feel pretty uneasy and I think that this should not be a part of contributing to the wikipedia. I have thought about asking for assistance concerning wikiquette alerts, but the nature of the double meaning seems too extreme for that, seeing as on that page it is specified that extreme issues do not belong there.
    To summarize: I am making this request in the hopes that Theobald will chance his remark with the help of a referee.
    --Faust (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am sorry, Faust, but there's no there there. I can discern no evil intent here, and to feel threatened by someone handing over a very nice chef's knife, that's being overly sensitive. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at it you didn't mention that these "remarks" are actually picture captions...right next to each other. Frankly I have to agree with Drmies, I don't see anything wrong with User:Theobald Tiger's action. Mauler90 talk 18:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)User notified. Mauler90 talk 17:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello Mauler and DrMies, I did not say that Theobald had an evil intent. I said that I felt a little threatened by it. Changing his remark into specifying that the knife should be used on the melon seems quite a small thing to ask if nothing was ment by it.
    I do not see your names on the list of moderators by the way. Since this page is not meant for discussions, would you, and others, please refrain from giving opinions on what was meant (which is not even the issue) and thus cut the static?
    --Faust (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Interjecting: you want to limit my "freedom of speech"? Seriously, come on. Anyone can comment here--just as anyone can post a request here. Drmies (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone can comment here, Admin or not.
    I do not interpret Theobald Tiger's comment as a threat. (Disclosure, I do not believe I've ever had contact with him)
    I would like to address Faust's behavior, however. This appears to be a matter of WP:STICK
    User_talk:JZ85
    1. Bad faith accusation
    2. Accusations of lying
    3. Bad faith yet again
    4. Second accusation of lying
    User_talk:moiramoira
    1. Accusations of slander and general bad faith
    2. Disregarding instructions to take NL Wiki matters elsewhere declaring EN is the place for it
    3. More bad faith
    User_talk:Hazardous_Matt
    1. Declaring a Human RIghts violation
    2. Requesting documentation of a law stating Wikipedia is exempt from Human Rights violations
    3. Insisting he was threatened and denying he has assumed bad faith
    I think a formal warning is past due at this point. Hazardous Matt (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Admins, Faust is clearly transferring his problems from NL-Wiki to EN-Wiki. For that reason I felt entitled to play a joke upon him. After Faust had suggested to JZ85 that he should resign from being a referee (JZ85 is an admin on NL-Wiki) upon arguments that seem to me totally ridiculous, MoiraMoira (an admin on NL-Wiki as well) offered a nice watermelon to JZ85. I couldn't resist the temptation to offer JZ85 an 'all purposes' cooks knife to cut the melon into pieces. The rest is clearly visible on the talk page of JZ85 and my own talk page. I myself am neither an admin nor important; I am a user who contributes quite regularly both on NL-Wiki and EN-Wiki. I hope you enjoy it. I do not want to interfere with admin-issues on EN-Wiki, but I can only say that the observations of Hazardous Matt have a close resemblance to those of the admins on NL-Wiki. Theobald Tiger (talk) 18:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Matt, I am afraid you are not willing to read what I have actually written. You are dragging matters into this that are not relevant and of which I have not made an issue. However, the accusations are not merely accusations and can be easily backed up by facts by reading what I am responding to. To clarify my position in the initial conversation I would like to say that I have never said that the en.wiki is the place to discuss nl.wiki issues. In fact, I am against that. I have, however, said that removing a log of a rather lengthy issue, in which I am not involved by the way, is a violation of the freedom of speech. Since there are no serious accusations there and an individual is trying to log the unfair treatments he is getting a simple block of the page could do.
    Since the issue started with this dispute, in which I am not involved by the way, I should clarify that I addressed JZ85's attempt to influence the handling referee with his status at nl.wiki and referred to the history there. To me that is a clear sign of not being able the responsibilities bestowed upon him. Hence I addressed the matter on his talk page to make him reflect on that. The users MoiraMoira and Theobald Tiger felt the need to support the user JZ85, in which the remark was made that I feel threatened by.
    So, I do not think that any of my remarks were out of place. I was only trying to make the users in question think about what happened there. This may be out of line, but I did so at the users talk pages so I thought I was acting properly. I have clearly stated every time that I meant no offense and only wanted the users to back off so that JZ85 could reflect on his action.
    I hope all users will now no longer try to influence the handling referee, since I think that what I am asking for is not much assuming good intentions. To clarify my good intentions I would like to say that I have not made an issue out of any of the matters stated above, that I do find very important. I have only alerted the users in question to these matters. I had assumed, in good faith, that such things could be discussed freely on this open and free medium. I do take offense at the remark made by Theobald however, which I feel is at least in part meant as a threat (as by his own admittance above), even though made jokingly (assuming good intentions again). So, please allow this to find its way by means of a referee.
    --Faust (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You are involved because you are the only person who continuously states that "freedom of speech" is being impeded upon. Despite the fact that you have been instructed no less than twice that "freedom of speech" is not a "human right" afforded on Wikipedia. Hazardous Matt (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    More specifically: Freedom of speech does not abrogate the right for a non-government entity to limit what users can say on their property or website. Upon editing any of the Wikipedias, you agreed to this stipulation. —Jeremy (v^_^v Carl Johnson) 19:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Faust - First, there is absolutely nothing wrong with JZ85's action. As most of us do not speak Dutch it is helpful to both get a polite, helpful note on what happened on nl.wiki as well as the opinion of the admins being mentioned on nl.wiki. By your standard JanDeFriester was just as out of line in chiming in on the thread and "attempting to influence the referee." I think it actually speaks quite well of JZ85's abilities to deal with the responsibilities of the tools. Second, Wikipedia does not guarantee limitless freedom of speech, you may want to read this page on free speech on Wikipedia, especially the first paragraph as that seems to address some of the concerns you are having.Third, there is no "handling referee" here and discussion is how we attempt to work through many of the issues brought here (though many do lead to a ban etc). Fourth, I do not believe Theobald Tiger's statement above in any way admitted (partially or other) that it was at least in part a "threat." Mauler90 talk 19:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    May I kindly refer an en-wiki admin to my talk page here which suddenly is filled with weird talk by this user Faust? User Theobald Tiger is a nice positive contributor on nl-wiki I can attest. User JZ85 as well - he is a very kind and helpful admin colleague of mine on nl-wiki. Please can some one here stop this person Faust? Best wishes, MoiraMoira (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I am confused. All of you seem to want to try to make this thing about something it is not. This is about Theobald making a remark by which I feel threatened. That is what I want to see changed. The other, very real, issues I have tried to alert these users to all speak in my favor I would say. I have been trying to point the users who seem to feel they should make sure referees are not unbiased to the nature of their actions. The above remarks by said users are of the same content. They are meant to point towards other occurrences to point away from this occurrence and win this argument by making the referee look at non-related matters.
    I will briefly address some of the misgivings mentioned above.
    @Matt: The site you are referring to point towards the American constitution, not to the universal declaration of human rights. Article 19 states that every individual has the right to freedom of speech and article 23 states that every individual has the right to appeal to international endeavors; pointing back to the universal declaration of rights again. I am well aware that the American government is trying to argue against freedom of speech of late, implying that there are 'free speech zones'. This is not the case if we accept that all individuals have certain unalienable rights. I would like to stress that I was not trying to get the content of the deleted page in question reappear or anything. I was merely trying to point out that actually trying to silence someone is immoral and make the user trying to get the referee to act bias (no less!!) to reflect on that. That is all. That is why I think this (part of the) matter should not be brought here.
    @Jeremy: My point exactly: websites are protected by the freedom of speech amendment. But Matt is making a good argument against that, as is the American government nowadays unfortunately.
    @Mauler90: The other issue I was trying to get through to JZ85 is that any court case needs an UNBIASED referee. That means that the referee should look at the situation at hand and not at previous situations to get to a verdict. The reason for this is that if the referee will look at that suddenly a POV is developed in the referee. In times passed (we should be so lucky) colored people were convicted contrary to evidence for instance. That is an important issue as well. Trying to influence a referee with prior occurrences is therefore immoral (in the narrow sense). Even more so since one of the people mentioned on the deleted page as having acted unjustly is JZ85 if I am not mistaken. So, JZ85 is actively trying to make a referee see his POV and trying to make the referee act on that. That is what I wanted him to reflect on. In the case mentioned the referee has decided to remove the page for alterior reasons, which makes that I am not arguing against the decision. Concerning the free speech remark: see my reaction to Matt above. Freedom of speech applies universally. Concerning your third point: I am unclear on many of the rules on the wikipedia because I am a relatively new user. If I misunderstand, please give me some feedback on my userpage to cut back on the noise. Concerning Theobald I can only say that on the use of the knife he specifies: "an 'all purposes' cooks knife". Yes, I take that as a threat and he admits that there.
    @MoiraMoira: I am sorry to see you arguing in a way meant to influence a referee to judge based on prior situations. I hope you will take to heart what I have been trying to point out to JZ85 and reflect on your actions. Any ruling should be made by reviewing the facts, without head to other situations or the defendants background. If this is not done a uling is made on the basis of a POV, you see. It is the reason why Lady Justice is depicted with a blindfold. Unfortunately we see her without one often in the Netherlands by the way. I am worried about this as well and am involved in processes to counteract this bias in the courts. "Impartiality is the first duty of a judge; before he gives an opinion or sits in judgment in a cause he ought to be certain that he has no bias for or against either of the parties; and if he has any (the slightest) interest in the cause he is disqualified from sitting as judge and when he is aware of such interest he ought himself to refuse to sit on the case." I understand that this particular case may not be as serious as the impartiality of judges, however, the same principle applies. That is why the wikipedia guidelines clearly stipulate (at misuse of admin tools): "Conflict of interest, non-neutrality, or content dispute – Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. With few specific exceptions (like obvious vandalism) where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools." Again, I am not making an issue out of this because he prior situation has been handled by a referee who was gifted enough to judge on other bases than the influence of JZ85's POV. However, I did want to point this out to JZ85. It is important.
    Note:I think the wikipedia guidelines clearly state that no issues from any other wikipedia should be transferred here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faust (talk • contribs) 09:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope everybody can now get back to the issue at hand: the threat that Theobald Tiger placed towards me and his refusal to specify on what (or who) the knife should be used.
    --Faust (talk) 08:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please post your concerns in less than 500 words?.— Dædαlus Contribs 09:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, per Tiger's explanation, I don't see a threat. Now, can you please try to assume good faith and drop the issue?— Dædαlus Contribs 09:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear all, I think the confusion of Faust is real as his lengthy sermon makes clear. Therefore I want to expand my explanation given above in order to make it a bit easier to pass judgment on my actions and to help Faust banishing confusion. I will do it in less than 500 words and I apologize to those who find joke explanation in bad taste or annoying (I sympathize with them, but the only alternative available to me is to keep silent). Of course I never meant to threaten Faust in a literal sense. I was annoyed by two things: (i) Faust was transferring the issues from nl-wiki to en-wiki as TFOWR has pointed out to him on his talk page, and (ii) Faust was, unshaken by his twofold ban on nl-wiki, showing his nasty habit of holding forth at great lengt on issues that have no relevance to the making of an online encyclopedia (by means of deontological moralizing, by offending others, by not understanding what an encyclopedic article is and should be). When I saw that JZ85 provided useful information in a decent and clear way to the admins of en-wiki and became subsequently the object of Faust's offensive moralizing, I went to JZ85's talk page to support him. But MoiraMoira was there before me to do exactly the same. She offered JZ85 a nice picture of a water melon with a nice text. I decided to offer a picture as well. I offered a picture of a cooks knife, with a text to the effect that it was a kitchen tool that would make life easier for JZ85. The meaning of my offer was not double but fourfold:
    1. It was meant primarily to support JZ85
    2. It was meant to let Faust know that Theobald Tiger (who have had numerous conflicts with Faust on nl-wiki) was aware of what he was doing
    3. It was a picture of a handy tool to cut the water melon in eatable pieces
    4. It was an ominous picture meant to form a contrast with the lovely picture presented by MoiraMoira
    I am against violence and bloodshed and I wish Faust all the best, but I hope he will stop behaving in the way he does and choose other forums to present his ideas. The only threat that was implicit in the joke was that Faust could run into conflict with me. Thank you for your attention and I apologize that I had to explain what could have been clear to everyone from the outset. Theobald Tiger (talk) 10:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Related to the above (and at least one other thread here) I have recommeded that Faust (talk · contribs) stay away from another editor's (MoiraMoira (talk · contribs)) talkpage, and warned that I will block Faust if there is any appearance of harassment. I invite review of my actions. TFOWR 10:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had been waiting to see whether xe continued in the same vein, and was going to tell xem to give it a rest if xe did so. In light of your warning in the meantime I've held off. But, yes, a warning to give the pseudo-legalistic sophistry a rest, lest such a rest be imposed by us for the peace and quiet of the volunteer community that is here to write an encyclopaedia, seems entirely appropriate at this point. Uncle G (talk) 13:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks, Uncle G. Since my post above I've also had to warn Faust about reverting Daedalus969 on Daedalus969's own talkpage. I don't intend to issue further warnings. TFOWR 15:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't think replacing a talkback notification would be a problem. I think a warning is ill placed here. I have requested an explanation concerning such conduct here on TFOWR's talk page, since it is unrelated. --Faust (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I disagree that feeling threatened by someone who shows a very nice chef's knife, is "overly sensitive". Contrarily, the person who shows a knife in a debate plays himself a "very nice" malicious and dangerous game.
    Who disagrees with this might consider how he or she will feel, if I tell in some debate about whatever topic that I have a degree in kyokushinkai and give him or her a mouth guard: that mouth guard, o, that is "just" an "innocent" hint to watch your words... - on the other side it is also an ambiguous message to worry about your teeth (and even that I can belittle, o, it's just your teeth and just my hand, foot, knee, elbow, not even a knife - but I expect you might not appreciate it as well, I guess).
    By the way, in psychiatry obsessions and compulsions with knives are known. Showing a knife is NOT harmless, NOT innocent, but dangerous and in certain settings stupid - and indeed it says something about your state of mind. You don't have to be a Nietzsche to call TT a weakling for his resorting to (showing) a lethal weapon and also a hypocrite for belittling it then "just an innocent tool". It's just like the tactics of provocation: a way to arouse violence and then claiming that you yourself were "peaceful" and the other is to blame... : o, I was just "joking", you see, he even has no sense of humor!....
    I prefer real pacifists, or at least peace loving people, not people who boast about being so innocent and so harmless (it is impossible to be harmless when you are of my species) --JanDeFietser (talk) 08:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    TruthHistorian POV edits

    TruthHistorian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been making POV changes to a subset of article (see contributions) including adding satan/satanism etc. to Wotanism and POV changes to Historicity of Jesus (such as upper casing all references to him/he/his and wording that seemed to undermine scholars not of his POV). I rv'd suggested he discuss these changes on the talk page (politely I thought :() but he responded with this edit. Not sure if it warrants a block but could an admin have a look over and keep and eye, pretty please :) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 19:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This response [39] also indicates a familiarity with Wikipedia jargon that this may not be such a new user. Active Banana (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I'm thinking he needs a cool down block so "he has time to learn that we have WP:NPOV and WP:CIVIL, we won't tolerate stomping on those, and messages like Tmorton166's are not examples of biting" (actually, I'm thinking give him more rope to hang himself, possibly gather evidence for an SPI). However, I warned him for making an unsourced addition to Wotanism, and then warned him for calling Tmorton a nazi on his (TruthHistorian's) talk page, he called Tmorton a nazi on Tmorton's talk page. I'm guessing he was saving the second attack just as I was saving the first attack's warning, but he hasn't been editing since then so he may believe he was already blocked or something. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeh, actually I could have been a bit clearer in my message (it's easy to forget that POV may mean nothing to a genuinely new member). As you say, though, TruhHistorian looks "up" on his terminology :) Thanks for looking at this guys --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 20:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    His claim he's been making small edits, mostly grammatical, doesn't explain how he could call [40] minor. He may be cooling down though, so there's hope. Dougweller (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Anybody know offhand what the status of removing the "mark all edits as minor" preference is? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 78#Preference to mark all edits minor by default asked to be removed in bugzilla:24313 is most recent I know. DMacks (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User introducing fake sources into Wikipedia

    Per this edit [41] User:George Al-Shami introduced a fake source into Wikipedia to support the statement: "...to defend itself against Israeli shellings into Syria. According to the UN office in Jerusalem from 1955 until 1967 65 of the 69 border flare-ups between Syria and Israel were initiated by Israelis." in the article, cited to "Kamrava, Mehran, The Modern Middle East: A Political History since the First World War, University of California Press; 1 edition, p. 48". I checked the source in the library, neither on this page nor anywhere else in the book is there anything even remotely. You can even check it on Google Books, [42]. For me page 48 does not show, but it is clear that this chapters is about the pre-World War I era. You can also search for the numbers 67 and 69, the numbers 67 or 69 are not mentioned anywhere in the book. This fake source has subsequently also been used and defended by User:Supreme Deliciousness when the factual accuracy of the statement has been questioned by other editors, see Talk:Syria#Border_Flare-Ups, Talk:Syria#Invalid_Source_on_Dayan_Admitting_to_Israel_Provoking_Clashes). I do not know how one can work collaboratively on this projekt or have trust in Wikipedia articles if we cannot trust our editors to be honest about their sources. This is even more important than civility and conforming to NPOV. Hence I request some admin action. Pantherskin (talk) 10:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Just had a quick look for it and I am unsure why but it is also here, According to the UN office in Jerusalem from 1955 until 1967 65 of the 69 border flare-ups between Syria and Israel were initiated by Israelis. with a copyright claim at the bottom? http://syria.tripholidays.com/syria-history_sixdaywar.php Off2riorob (talk) 10:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite likely copied from Wikipedia (without the appropriate licence). Pantherskin (talk) 10:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Disclaimer: I've not looked at your diffs (and won't: see below), but I'll make a few general points:
    1. Editing in the Middle East geopolitical area (which includes articles about Syria) is tough, and you will encounter issues like this.
    2. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles almost certainly applies to Syrian articles, and you should be aware that editing restrictions apply.
    3. You should probably raise the issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts (WP:CCN)
    I'm currently working on another, similar issue affecting a different region so I really don't want to get involved in a Middle East issue - sorry! However, I suspect most admins here won't want to get involved, either. As I mention above you should raise this at WP:CCN where you will find editors and admins who are prepared to get involved.
    TFOWR 10:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not really a conflict that needs to be solved, and the Israel-Palestine conflict is only the background. Unless I am missing something here it is simply the issue of editors using a fake source to support their POV. That could have happened in all topic areas from Armenia-Azerbaijan to Pokemon, and I suspect it does. Pantherskin (talk) 10:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you need to resolve whether the source used is OK or not - hence WP:CCN. You could also WP:RSN or WP:NPOVN, if you'd prefer? The sanctions on Israel-Palestine cover an area broadly interpreted - this includes Syria (Syria having been historically involved with the conflict). TFOWR 11:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a case of assumption of bad faith, forum shopping and "game of gotcha" by Pantherskin. The part about the UN office had been in the article for a long time, and I assumed good faith about the person who added it. Not one single time did Panterskin say that the UN office text had a false source, he said at both the Syria and Golan Heights talkpage that the Dayan quote was incorrect, but that wasn't true and I knew this, the main discussion was about the Dayan quote. Panterskin removed the what appeared to be sourced UN office text together with the sourced Dayan quote that I knew was correct. And once again, he never said that the UN office text had a false source. Later when it was pointed out to me that the UN office text had a false source,[43] I looked at it and I removed it myslef[44] and put a strike on my earlier comment on the talkpage about that source: [45] I also asked the editor who had added it to the article about why he had added it: [46]

    This is also a case of forum shopping from Pantherskin as he have brought this up at AE [47][48] and also at NPOV noticeboard: [49] "caught red handed".. clearly assumption of bad faith. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    (Reply to Pantherskin): According to his block log, George Al-Shami has been blocked two times, both in August 2009, the first block for violating 3RR, and the second for block evasion. Deliberately and repeatedly adding untrue sources should lead to a block; hoaxing is not accepted on Wikipedia at all, so I agree an admin action is fully justified in this case. /HeyMid (contributions) 11:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    EDIT: Actually, that edit was made almost two years ago (in November 2008). So a block could definitely not be warranted in this case. /HeyMid (contributions) 11:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you talking about me who assumed good faith that what a user added with source was true? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case the link to the source was obviously false. /HeyMid (contributions) 11:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The source didn't have a link: [50], it was only text. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a question: Was that false statement not detected and reverted until now? /HeyMid (contributions) 11:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As I have shown above, first time it was told to me that the UN office source did not say what the text was, was two days ago, and I removed it immediately. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I see it here. Does that mean the false statement was in the article for almost two years? /HeyMid (contributions) 11:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What it means is that the source (Kamrava, Mehran, The Modern Middle East: A Political History since the First World War, University of California Press; 1 edition, p. 48) added for the the claim that "According to the UN office in Jerusalem from 1955 until 1967 65 of the 69 border flare-ups between Syria and Israel were initiated by Israelis.", is not true. And as soon as it was pointed out to me I looked it up and realized that the source was incorrect so I removed it. As you can see the source wasn't a link to the book., it was only text. But there are many other sources that say that Israel provoked Syria, but this specific source and what it specifically claimed was inaccurate. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it was there for two years. The content sourced (or rather not sourced) to this book was already questioned in June 2009, Talk:Syria#Border_Flare-Ups by a different editor, but Supreme Deliciousness defended the inclusion on the grounds that it is sourced. So even if I am assuming good faith here you at least mislead other editors as you never made it clear that you do not actually know the source. Your quick removal after having been caught suggests something different, in particular as you usually question my sources and motives. That in this case you decided to trust my claim that it is not in the source and almost immediately removed it after my message suggests that all the way you knew that it was a fake source. Pantherskin (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No because, the source was only text, there was no link in the source, so I assumed good faith that he who added it had written what the source says. Even if a source is not accessible with a link, it can not be removed just because the source is only text. But then you pointed out to me at my talkpage that the text was not the same as was written in the book, as shown above, so I went to google books and searched for the book, and looked at the page that the text was sourced from, and I realized that the text was incorrectly sourced from that page or book, so I removed it myself, and striked out my comment from the talkpage about this specific UN office sentence. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it is such a big issue, book citations like that are hard to check, of course if it originally was a falsification of a citation then that original falsification was a big issue. http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/11/world/general-s-words-shed-a-new-light-on-the-golan.html there are other online cites that report similar claims. Off2riorob (talk) 12:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Only yesterday a good faith user said to me when I questioned a book citation..if you don't like it, get yourself down to your local library and check it. Off2riorob (talk) 12:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)If SD made any mistake here, this was clearly a good-faith error, in not checking the validity of the long-standing reference in half a passage s/he restored. AS SD notes above, as soon as s/he was informed of the false reference, he removed the statement. This is a case of perfectly good editing, and it is only through a massive exercise of bad faith that SD can be accused of being "caught red-handed using a fake source"[51]. RolandR (talk) 12:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, looking at that diff from RolandR and this thread I think User Pantherskin would do well to apply a little more good faith to other users. IMO this is far from a caught red handed situation as he alleges.Off2riorob (talk) 12:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This claim is one that Pantherskin has now been using to smear SD over several boards, here at ANI, at AE, at NPOVN, and in what might easily be construed as canvassing attempts at WikiProject Israel and WikiProject Syria. Unomi (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that first allegation was on the 22nd (at an AE to which it was largely irrelevant) and Pantherskin was told then by an univolved admin [52] that the situation in no way justified his allegations. Then as Roland & Unomi points out 3 different attempts ([53], [54] & [55]) to canvas an already debunked insult. And now this ugly bit of forum shopping? Pantherskin easily qualifies for another block. Misarxist (talk) 12:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)I notice that on her/his usertalk page, Pantherskin has accused SD (and Nableezy) of "lying about a source"[56]. This is worse than simple bad faith, and surely warrants some sort of sanction. RolandR (talk) 13:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of Pantherskin screwing around or not, the only real answer from Supreme Deliciousness should be "I got caught up in debating the issues and failed to check that particular source. My bad." There is no good excuse for arguing to keep a source that has not even been checked. Deflecting is definitely not one.
    And Wikipedia:Offline sources is a fantastic essay.Cptnono (talk) 09:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support blocking any registered users and IPs that can be identified as being connected to any of the 2,015,276 page views of the Syria article since the inaccurate source was introduced at the end of Nov2008 for failing to spot it. Oh wait, that includes me, bugger. Scratch that idea. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrator Fut.Perf.'s self-issued topic ban to User:Hkwon

    Background: I have been working on a content dispute on Kimchi for about one month. I came to this dispute (if I recall correctly) because of an RfC about how to word the lead. The dispute essentially boiled down to User:Hkwon having a preferred way to state the lead, and between 2 and 5 other editors, myself included, preferring another. During that time, due to edit-warring being conducted by several participants, the page was fully protected twice (once for 3 days, once for a week). There was a bit of incivility, mostly between Hkwon and User:Sennen goroshi and, to a lesser extent, User:Melonbarmonster2; incivility which I believe spanned across this page as well as user pages and other Korean-related pages. At one point User:Hkwon was blocked for a week for personal attacks [57], later reduced to 24 hours [58]. By the end of the last protecting, we still hadn't reached consensus; however, once the protection was removed, edit warring did not recommence--instead, the lead was changed to the majority view, and Hkwon requested assistance from the Mediation Cabal (the request for mediation has not been acted on yet, and can be seen here. For my part, at least, throughout the Kimchi debate, I found Hkwon's insistence on his version to be tendentious, but I also felt that he was providing solid, policy based reasons for his opinions along with reliable sources to support it. He didn't seem to be edit warring any more or less than other users. I further felt that he was no more incivil than other participants. During the same time frame, though, Hkwon was also involved in what I believe were heated discussions on other Korean related topics; I wasn't involved so I won't speak to his behavior there.
    On July 22, however, Fut.Perf. posted on Hkwon's talk page [59] that s/he believed Hkwon had been "persistently disruptive" and "fuelling one of the lamest edit wars I've ever seen." Then s/he stated that Hkwon was "indefinitely topic-banned from all edits relating to Korean cuisine (including, but not restricted to, the Kimchi article and anything to do with dog meat). If you make any edits about this topic, you will be blocked with no further warning." I am requesting community review of that "decision." According to WP:BAN, bans (both full bans and topic bans) can be only issued by community consensus, ArbCom (directly, or by uninvolved administrators in areas they have specifically delineated), Jimbo Wales, and the WMF. Therefore, I don't think Hkwon is actually banned, because I don't think Fut.Perf. has the authority to do so. User:Martin Hogbin and myself questioned FP about this "banning" on FP's talk page, both stating that we felt it was excessive; other users (User:Heimstern and User:Cydevil38) argued that if Hkwon deserved a topic ban, so did others, for employing the same basic behaviors. FP has so far stated that he believes his actions were right, that his experience with Korean topics leads him to believe strong administrator action is needed/justified, and that the burden is currently on Hkwon to "comment on the situation and explain how he plans to conduct himself more constructively in the future."
    So, two questions: 1) Is Hkwon really topic banned (that is, does FP's comment have the force of policy), and 2) Is it appropriate for an administrator to act unilaterally in this fashion?
    tl;dr:FP unilaterally claimed to topic ban Hkwon. Is this acceptable and legitimate? Qwyrxian (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I came as an uninvolved editor to the kimchi article as a result of the RfC. After a while of trying to mediate in a simple but intractable discussion on whether kimchi was 'a fermented food' I was staggered to find that the supporter on one particular view, Hkwon, had received an indefinite topic ban from Fut. perf. I commented on FP's talk page that I thought his action was too strong and later made this simple and positive suggestion to FP: 'Can I suggest that you lift the ban on Hkwon and allow the uninvolved editors to continue the mediation, with the strong suggestion that all the involved editors refrain from editing the article and on the understanding that if we get nowhere we can hand the topic back to you for tougher action'. This was rejected. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • This was recently discussed (can't seem to recall where), I believe the notion was generally disfavoured as it had too much potential for abuse. In general, my thoughts are that if the behaviour in question could justify an indefinite block, then the topic ban to prevent disruption is being offered to the user as a lesser measure. Haven't looked at this in any detail, so I can't say whether it would apply here. –xenotalk 14:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disclosure - I was previously blocked by FPAS. I'm not otherwise involved. I believe that it is beyond FPAS's authority as an admin to topic ban an editor. Bans are to be imposed by the community or ArbCom, and an admin does not have that authority. Further, based on the fact that FPAS exceeded their authority as an admin, I believe that a subsequent block by FPAS would be ill-advised, and that either the community or another admin should handle the situation. I do not have any input on the conduct of any of the other parties in this matter, and am just commenting on the procedural issues. As far as I can tell, FPAS is otherwise a decent admin - there should in no way be any sanctions, just a friendly word of advice. GregJackP Boomer! 14:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Despite it never having been written into policy, it's not too uncommon for admins to issue sanctions on their own, particularly is heated areas. Note that this proposed finding of fact which would have clearly asserted that admins do not have the authority to issue topic bans was firmly rejected by ArbCom. (The sanction under consideration was in fact confirmed by the community, but that doesn't seem to have factored into the voting.) My observation has been that single-admin-imposed sanctions of this sort are valid if the community is willing to enforce them. For my part, the edit warring I saw at Kimchi makes me believe there ought to be more, not fewer, sanctions here (maybe not of indefinite duration, but definitely for long enough that the article can have some rest. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    *Disclosure - I was also previously blocked by FutPerf and also have been the subject of a topic ban (topic ban was nothing to do with Futperf) I have found that while FurPerf is not as lenient as other Admins, his actions (including this one) have been spot on every time. This isn't about punishing various editors, neither is this about a content dispute - this is about making specific set of articles free from disruption. The editor in question has been recently blocked twice in a few weeks for actions related to these articles and each time comes straight back and continues with the disruption. I consider a topic ban to be far more effective and lenient than a number of consecutive blocks that slowly increase in duration, with periods of disruption between each block. My topic ban saved me from my own stupidity and saved me from a far longer block than I have ever had the dubious pleasure of experiencing, it also allowed me to edit unrelated articles and contribute to wikipedia on less controversial articles. I wish Hkwon good luck and have confidence in him making constructive edits, I just don't think that will ever happen if he edits these particular articles - if it isn't on the Kimchi article, it will on another Korean cuisine related article. This topic ban probably means that he is unable to edit about 0.01% of the articles on Wikipedia, not such a heavy price to pay for some stability on these articles. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This block does not affect just Hkwon. How is the issue now to be resolved? Hkwon is no longer able to put his side of the argument leaving the uninvolved editors who were trying to mediate hearing only one side of the story and thus unable to make any progress. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    They can read the archives to find out what he has to say -- it's not like his opinion has been completely removed from the discussion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyone who's been around the Korea/Japan related topics knows Futper has done this in the past. The ban is harsh but Hkwon picked up right where he started even after his ban instead toning it down. The situation was such that several neutral editors, and even Sennen and myself(mortal enemies) were on the same page trying to reason Hkwon into a compromise about kimchi being "often/usually/primarily" fermented to no avail. I do think a stern admin warning would have sufficed but I can't say I'm surprised and it puts the rest of us on notice.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 20:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Administrators have no authority to issue topic bans without prior authorization (normally concerning a specific topic area) by the Arbitration Committee or the community. A policy proposal (by me) that would have given administrators such authority, WP:Discretionary sanctions, did not obtain consensus. Accordingly, topic bans without basis in an ArbCom or community decision are void and can be ignored. However, admins may and often do sanction disruptive conduct with blocks, and if an adninistrator determines that a user's editing in a topic area is consistently disruptive, they are free to either block the user or to warn them that a block will ensue if disruptive editing in that topic area continues. The practical difference between this and a formal topic ban is that edits within the scope of a topic ban need not be disruptive in order to trigger a block.  Sandstein  21:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Sandstein that it seems to me Futper has applied WP:DIGWUREN reasoning to a topic area not addressed by ArbCom. There's also been a request to MedCab by Hkwon where the involved parties are welcome to comment there and I think any issue with Futper's actions should be brought here by Hkwon and not others. --Wgfinley (talk) 22:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it's worth noting that Futper was strongly admonished and desysopped for 3 months about "displaying a long pattern of incivil, rude, offensive, and insulting behavior towards other editors and failure to address the community's concerns in this regard". Later Jimbo raised concerns along similar lines. ++Lar: t/c 00:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see how that is relevant here. That arbitration action doesn't say anything about issuing topic bans and Jimbo's concerns appear to be about FPAS performing administrative actions related to Greece/Macedonia not him being "incivil, rude, offensive and insulting." AniMate 00:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    A clarification to the above; I believe Melonbarmonster just misspoke, but Hkwon has not performed any editing since being banned. He did edit again after being blocked, and some of that editing was questionable. At least on kimchi, he did not, however, engage in any personal attacks, which is what he was blocked for. As with others above, I certainly believe Fut.Perf. can and should have warned Hkwon that his behavior was unacceptable, and that he was headed for a block (possibly even an escalating series of blocks). But banning is obviously far more harsh--it means that even should he make a good faith edit, everyone else can and should revert his edits without even reading them. Furthermore, the ban gives the appearance of being partial--it implies that the behavior of others in the topic area was acceptable, while Hkwon's was not, according to some arbitrary standard held by one administrator. In a sense, this topic ban is less readily reviewable by others than a block would be. I'll point out that while Fut.Perf. has posted on his own topic page that he wants Hkwon to account for his past behaviors and explain how he will fix them in the future, he hasn't notified Hkwon of this. If I and others hadn't brought this issue up, it must have appeared to Hkwon that he has no recourse to dispute this ban. Fut.Perf. implied that the law has been laid down, and that is the end of the discussion. Even a block has, built into the template itself, a means for disputing the block. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sanstein has it correct. There have been a number of administrators who've inferred the ability to individually topic ban problematic users: after all, if you have the ability to physically block an editor from editing anything, isn't a topic ban a lesser included power? Consensus has been that no, it's not, and that topic bans should be proposed and discussed appropriately. This was hashed out sometime in the middle of 2009, IIRC, so I have no idea why FP thought it appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 05:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has been longstanding practice, ever since the ad-hoc imposition of administrative emergency measures on Liancourt Rocks, that the specific field of Korean (and especially Korean-Japanese) disputes is under a de facto "discretionary sanctions" regime analogous to those of the Balkans, Eastern Europe and the like. We've had no formal Arbcom case stating such a rule, but given recent cases, there can be hardly any doubt that if the Korean-Japanese disputes were to be brought to Arbcom, exactly such a discretionary sanction rule (as is by now routine) would be formally passed. Since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, it is only reasonable that we needn't wait for Arbcom to pass it. The amount of disruption on these articles is clearly comparable to that in other political hotspots. I have made such topic bans on several occasions in the past, and in each case that I can remember they have stuck and were upheld and sometimes enforced by other administrators. Best example I can remember was Bukubku (talk · contribs), who I topic-banned [60], and whose topic ban was confirmed on multiple occasions (appeal 1, (appeal 2) and further enforced by admins such as arbitrator Rlevse [61]. Of course, any such sanction is always open to review by the community, and if anybody wants to question this ban on its merits rather than on the formalities of how it was passed, I'm all ears. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Could somebody please block IP vandal

    Resolved
     – blocked already

    [62] [63] Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Citadel Broadcasting Websites and Malware

    I have been visiting the websites of various radio stations that are owned by Citadel Broadcasting and I have noticed a great deal of pop-up windows that my latest version of Norton Antivirus has been working feverishly to close up. Although it seems as though this Malware issue is a pervasive issue for all the Citadel Broadcasting radio station websites, this problem persists all throughout their websites and seems to intensify with the Listen Live links. I was unaware that .pls files could be infected and thought that direct linking to the Listen Live feeds (i.e. the direct .pls links) could bypass any Malware issues. Meanwhile, I will simply inform Wikipedia that Citadel Broadcasting has, indeed, rolled out a brand new streaming plan and all their stations that have been streaming online have changed their Listen Live links. I will leave it up to Wikipedia users who are somewhat more talented than myself to insert the updates to the Listen Live links. Information on all the stations can be found at this webpage. The Listen Live links should all look similar to this Listen Live link that I have taken from the website of WXLO. But there are no guarantees that these Listen Live links (or anything that is on any of the websites for any of the Citadel Broadcasting radio stations, for that matter) are not infected with Malware. I stopped trusting the websites from this company. If you feel I am being too paranoid, then you are probably right. The threat of Malware on a PC could could make anyone over-cautious, I guess. 24.218.178.242 (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    List of bhangra bands

    Can someone take a look at List of bhangra bands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as well as the user Noxiousnews (talk · contribs)?

    The user has been repeatedly reverting to the version they prefer while claiming "the information is being sourced from cassette covers and bands themselves", has not engaged in a discussion that was started at Talk:List of bhangra bands#uncited information and redlinks, and has continued without discussion beyond a fourth warning on their user talk page.

    Both Gogo Dodo (talk · contribs) and myself have been involved with the user and the article. As Noxiousnews is refusing to engage in discussion on the dispute despite multiple warnings, I was tempted to block the user - but chose not to do so as I'm involved. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Had a look at it, seems pretty clearly disruptive. I've blocked for 3 days. Shimeru 17:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok this is Technically not a WP:LEGAL, but this deserves wider attention. I recently edited heavens gate for Neutrality, and Found an Economist used as a source. I say ok thats odd and click the wikilink and come across a Spammy looking article. I check out the history and not to my surprise a single purpsose account created it. i checked and every thing that links to it was added by a different SPA, since i nommed it for AFD another single purpose account pops up and Votes Keep Twice! When it is struck out by another user Since somone can't vote twice a IP adress pops up and votes keep again. and says Do not delete my boss will be very upset! I will be contacting my lawyer to consider my options if this is deleted! Personally I am getting Fed up and now a Borderline Legal Threat. Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Screw "borderline"; that is a legal threat. Threatening to bring in a lawyer is tantamount to threatening to sue, since both have the same purpose of intimidation. —Jeremy (v^_^v Carl Johnson) 18:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to mention serious WP:COI issues. I've seen COI editors refer to "my boss" often enough that I've created the shortcut WP:MYBOSS. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked 64.134.190.246 4 days (the remainder of the AFD) for making a legal threat. –MuZemike 19:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I am constantly being accused of being a sock of light currant

    A few idiot administrators have declared I am a sock of light currant. I think by now they acknowledge their mistake, but they now claim I'm to be called light current for simplicity of tracking!?!?! wtf!?!?!?!? I've only started changing IPs etc since they started this. They should accept it is mistaken identification. Please investigate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.226.121 (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know who "light current" is but I'll assume that he did something "bad" and got blocked for it. Therefore, the only reason that these administrators might think that you are him is if you are doing the same "bad" thing. (see WP:DUCK) Therefore, whether or not you are him, the solution is simple, stop doing the "bad" thing. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This IP is making severe personal attacks and needs blocking, range, town, whatever. Off2riorob (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh no it isn't, this IP is making aggressive banter at worst. Heck, perhaps it isn't acceptable, but I'm being driven to it by the incomprehensible behaviour of those who continue to block me. 217.41.226.121 (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy to describe myself as "an idiot". However, I'd suggest that you might want to scale down the attacks on other editors.
    Further information is available in my logs and by examining this editor: 86.178.201.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). TFOWR 18:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll stop everything once this is sorted. FFS. Maybe as first step, gimmee immunity on that page you created? 217.41.226.121 (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No one gets immunity. Seeing as this IPs edits start with this thread (apart from some personal attacks), what account or IP have you been using that is being "declared" a sock. S.G.(GH) ping! 18:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP claims that 79.75.171.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was their first. The first time I encountered them was in their 86.178.201.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) incarnation (which I blocked). I've blocked a few since then. They've been hitting Tnxman307's talkpage as well as Baseball Bugs' talkpage. In addition to the "rusty knife"-style comments at Tnxman307's talkpage and mine, there's also image uploading, this original piece of vandalism, etc. It's entirely possible that the user behind this isn't Light current (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - but, as Ron Ritzman points out, they're making it really hard for us to spot the difference. TFOWR 19:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked 217.41.226.121 for harassment. His comments at Baseball Bugs and TFOWR are completely unacceptable, and if he cannot even attempt to communicate civilly with others, then we cannot help him. –MuZemike 19:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Should just run up a CU. S.G.(GH) ping! 20:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Waste of time. The editor should prove he's NOT a sock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.173.135.155 (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:DUCK is right. Regardless of whether it's an actual sock, if it acts like one, even if just because claims to be being pushed to do it by others, I don't care why it decided to cover itself with feathers, duck is duck, disruption is disruption, blocks prevent disruption. If the editor can't realize that he needs to stop being the trigger for the problem, well then that's the critical point that blocking addresses. I don't care who or if it's a sock. Disruption is disruption. DMacks (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "I'll stop everything once this is sorted. FFS. Maybe as first step, gimmee immunity on that page you created?" 217.41.226.121 18:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC) This type of "terroristic" negotiation attempt is typical of socks, whomever's draw they belong in. --GabeMc (talk) 21:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the IP has not provided a single example of anyone calling him a sock, the discussion thread should be closed. TFD (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The way this user has been acting, making threats etc, it's no longer relevant whether they are a sock or not, they've shown such a degree of hostility and unwillingness to listen to others that it is in the project's best interest that they remain blocked. Maybe we can get a rangeblock expert in here? Beeblebrox (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Active Banana

    User:Active Banana has engaged in overzealous editing over the last several days on the List of Annoying Orange episodes page. The revision history page shows four edits reverting to a description of a certain episode that was plagiarized. He also claimed that none of the edits deserved to stand because there was no reliable third party information- a threshold that, quite frankly, cannot be adhered to in this situation due to unique circumstances surrounding the article. This was explained to Active Banana on his talk page in great detail, and instead of responding he dismissed the legitimacy of the circumstances as my alleged unwillingness to follow policy. After I explained it to him again, he threatened me twice on my talk page. I did not appreciate his battle mentality nor did I appreciate his condescending attitude (which I noted as such), and I also did not appreciate the lack of good faith he showed in the edits I made. Placed here because I could not think of where else to put it. --173.54.204.113 (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not sure what the poster is referring to when talking about Plagiarism. I am unaware that any of the content on the page is taken from elsewhere and not appropriately cited. If there is such content on the page, I fully support removing it/citing it.
    On other matters, after receiving a final warning about disruptive editing on my talk page on July 22 from User:DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered [64], the IP responded on my talk page with [65] oops that was a different IP posting in the middle of the conversation with this IP. Active Banana (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought you might blame that one on me- was a little concerned. (Obviously 78.whatever has some unresolved issues with you, Banana.) However, since you bring up disruptive editing, I noticed a blatant violation of 3RR extending from your eagerness to revert the edits for no legitimate reason. The points I raise are these.

    1) The video in question features about as blatantly obvious a Lady Gaga parody as could possibly be. From the dress of the character to the video to there being a song that's a parody of "Bad Romance", it all fits the profile. It's common knowledge, not original research. 2) The video description is lifted word for word from the video itself. That's plagiarizing. If you're going to have a description, it really should be reworded as not to have it look like it was plagiarized. Which is why every other episode's description has been reworded. 3) The reason why I've said extenuating circumstances exist (as ActiveBanana has either not understood or refused to listen to) is because you may never get to 100% with reliable third party sources. This is a problem that exists on an overwhelming majority of episode lists. However, if you were to delete all of the episode lists based on that, you would do a disservice to the people who edit those pages and relay the information. My motives are based on having the free flow of information, not an unwillingness to follow policy, and I believe ActiveBanana is not only failing to assume good faith but engaging in unnecessary edit warring, battles, and an overall lousy attitude regarding something that quite frankly isn't worth the amount of trouble he's causing. --173.54.204.113 (talk) 05:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If the contents initially inserted by other editors are copyright violations, adding "in a parody of Lady Gaga" doesn't fix that issue at all. And the fact that WP:OTHERCRAP exists in no way is an excuse to allow unsourced crap in yet another article. Active Banana (talk) 06:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You forget that Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia that contains only content licensed under the Creative Commons-Sharealike license. –MuZemike 08:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tbma again!

    Tbma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has again started his editing war in Battle of Tali-Ihantala already breaking 3rr violation this last hour. The goal of his behavior is to break down the article in to noconsistent rubbish.Posse72 (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This user was already previously blocked for his attacks on me. This article has open NPOVN investigation, and my edits were adding information from more sources. User Posse72 continues to reverse my edits, and falsifies numbers from the references. --Tbma (talk) 21:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're reporting a 3RR violation, you should do so at WP:ANEW. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Pls Check User:Tbma history, and compare with former user YMB29. Also dont forget user:Tbma a few days ago accused article Battle Tali-Ihantala being a hox and fake. This was investegated by WP:NPOVN who disregarded Tbma accusation as false.Posse72 (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Your claim was removed from sock-puppet board. If you think that it should be re-opened - you might do it again. --Tbma (talk) 21:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    After I have read trough all of user:YMB29 postings i 200% she and Tbma is the same.Posse72 (talk) 10:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:hammy64000 - constant personal attacks, religious vilification, etc

    On the 6th of July user:Hammy64000 was indefinitely blocked for harassment and personal attacks by user:SarekOfVulcan. After they were blocked, these personal attacks of an extremely abusive nature continued on their talk page as that is the only remaining place with editing privileges.see this edit after being blocked. They were then subsequently blocked from editing their talk page by the same administrator. However, on the 19th of July the administrator user:kaldari unblocked Hammy64000 without any visible discussions writing "user has pledged to edit cooperatively" on the log. Following the unexplained unblock I have made no contact with Hammy64000 knowing their abusive nature yet they have begun with adding false warning templates to my page. They were removed and they were reverted by Hammy64000. It should be noted that this followed once my page was semi-protected after vandalism by a series of anonymous IPs [66] and [67]. Something is not right here regarding the unblock with no retraction of the personal attacks and the continued intimidation through the abuse of warning templates. --Ari (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I am preparing my response with diffs. I was blocked, it is true. But I am not continuing any offensive behavior. I discussed the block removal with another admin. by email, before Kaldari removed the block. He provided many diffs, which I researched. This was an email account of 'excirial'. I did not vandalize anyone and I never have done vandalizm since I started working here. About the warning template that I gave Ari, I don't know how it can be defined as false. First Sarek accused me of creating the template, but it was already created before I found it. [68] Also, I can provide many diffs which show countless warnings on my own page from Ari and SpigotMap when all I was doing was trying to oppose a merge without consensus. [69] I will provide diffs to show my edits and discussion during this time. I believe they were not disruptive. I know for a fact that at least one was doctored. The corresponding warning is here.[70] Here is the diff.[71] I never touched the Islam section. I believe this was changed to coincide with SpigotMap's warning. I believe this constitutes WP:GAME, [72]but it was never reported. I don't think the previous block should be part of this discussion if I am not going against Wikipedia standards at this time. I do object to Ari89 defining my "nature" as "abusive."I will provide diffs shortly.Hammy64000 (talk) 21:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, it is not correct to say "they have begun adding templates." For one thing I am only one person. And I only gave him one and replaced it when he deleted it from his page. I have been trying to deal with this article all by myself. Ari89 does not respond. I did some research and found applicable policy guidelines. I thought I had a right to give him a warning on his page. I put it on the article page and that was a mistake. I did not replace it after Sarek deleted it. But please see the discussion on my talk page. [73] Sarek put the heading "Disruptive editing" which hasn't been determined. I changed it and he changed it back several times. This was at the same time that user:Moreno oso was informing me that Ari could do anything he wants with his own talk page. I did not replace Ari's warning after that. But user:Moreno oso then acted as though I was still deserving of a block. I don't think I am.Hammy64000 (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You continued the very vile harassment after you were blocked. Now that you are unblocked and I have made no contact with you the false templates begin.
    I called your behaviour abusive because that is the persona you have demonstrably made known, especially noting the above.
    Finding diffs of who knows what will not address my concerns - unless there is now a policy that says you can make unprovoked vile attacks such as you repeatedly calling me "a liar", "thief", "fraud", "refuse", "low-life" among many other things.[74] --Ari (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    That was the offense I was blocked for. I have already said I expected to be blocked. I have already discussed this with an admin. and another admin. chose to unblock me. I have not repeated anything of the kind. Hammy64000 (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Also please see the beginning of my contributions here. [75] I worked for weeks on the article with no working discussion page. Then on the same day I first heard from Ari he merged the article without consensus and without provided details about his objections, even though I asked for them. I think I was very patient in a trying situation. To define me as basically abusive is not true. You can only do that if you ignore all the other contributions.Hammy64000 (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hammy64000, what made you think that User:Ari89 has a "conflict of interest" related to Miraculous births? I'm having a little trouble imagining what that would entail; does Ari89 get personal or financial benefit from such births? Normally, we don't 'template' people who already know the rules, but instead, we use personal notes to discuss our disagreements. Why did you decide to use a template, instead of simply asking Ari89 about your concern? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it is possible, since he is a Christian and since he seemed to object to comparisons of mythological births with Christianity. Also the merge was extreme because of its abrupt nature and the newly merged article was immediately changed to add Judeo-Christian births at the top. The warning does not say I must prove it--but he does have reason to organize the article in this way. Also, conflict of interest does not require financial benefit. It has to do with neutrality. Please see the description. [76] In addition, I have done the majority of the discussion since the day of the merge. He tends to not respond. If he is saying he has had no contact with me because of the abusive language, this is not true. He didn't respond before this happened either. Please see the earticle discussion to see if I was ever able to discuss such things with him. Please see my attempt at a compromise here.[77]Hammy64000 (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The only thing you have correct about me above is that I am a Christian. You have made quite an issue of this fact, for example:
    • "You are an embarrassment to christianity and a black eye for Wikipedia. You are completely off the wall and anyone can see it." -Hammy64000 (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
    • "You are an abomination, a travesty of a human being and an embarrassment as a Christian." -Hammy64000 (talk) 05:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
    • "I have tried to warn you about the bad reputation things like this give to Christianity, but you don't seem to care...You are just validating my concern about how degenerate Christianity has become. Truth and goodness is real. No matter how dark you are, it is real." --Hammy64000 (talk) 02:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
    • "This is not the death toll of Christianity. That happened long ago. This is the faint echo of that tolling bell. If you are the face of Christianity, Ari, then Christianity has become rigid and perfectly hollow." --Hammy64000 (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
    Just a few reasons why I see you as an abusive editor.
    On the issue of Abrahamic religions being at the top (the alphabet does start with A) and does that mean I am also a Muslim?
    re me not responding to you, I did there at 11:38, 17 April 2010 which states: "I don't quite understand the point you are trying to make here, Hammy64000." (not the direct reference to you)... --Ari (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It is against Wikipedia policy, having received answers to your questions to act as though you never received answers and do something drastic like merging an article. If you repeat the offense for which I was blocked over and over, and add a little more each time, it is still not a fresh instance. Again, all of my contributions should be taken into account. Ari did not do the merge properly. He made it look like I had no part in it. Here is Wnt's opinion:

    Don't cancel your account just yet! Alright, it's obvious that I was wrong about this one. But you didn't help things by saying over and over that Ari "moved" the article - on Wikipedia, that's different than merging the article, which is what he did. And it's clear now looking at the last version of that article - which still does exist in the history - [4] and seeing your contributions in that article's history, that this is where you did do just about all the work that I thought he'd done. Wnt (talk) 08:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC) I'll add that the "manual merge" - which I should have caught in the article history - wasn't done up to the current standard for WP:copying within Wikipedia, which recommends that the source article be credited in the edit summary, and notes be added to the talk pages of the source and destination articles. Additionally, you could have reverted the proposed merge and requested discussion of it on the talk page (see Help:Merging). Wnt (talk) 08:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)"

    I did revert the merge later--after Ari redirected it so you could not longer see the original. Then I was said to be edit warring.Hammy64000 (talk) 23:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hammy, none of what you have said is addressing my issue. Is that the WP policy that states that you have every right to personally attack me over and over without consequence? --Ari (talk) 23:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Please see the request for an "unmerge" discussion. It was requested again after I was unblocked. While I was blocked Wnt and Ari had a short conversation and Ari redirected the article again so the original can't be seen.[78]
    Also, here are links to diffs showing that Ari deleted the sources, which I provided at his insistence--at least twice.

    "After the merge you put citation tags all through a sourced article. I provided additional sources even though I questioned the necessity. It started here. [79] My next 3 edits are added sources. In this one I said in the history that I had returned my library books but added a source from the library online catalog. [80] Then three edits involved my adding sources and removing your tags. You deleted my sources from the article, saying they were dubious. [81] I replaced them. You deleted them again. [82] The next several edits were my replacing the sources again. Here Wnt says the article is well sourced except the last paragraph. [83] I believe that was part of the original Miraculous births article. Hammy64000 (talk) 23:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC) The offenses for which I was blocked were rude and I have never tried to make an excuse for them. I fully intended to never come back here again. But after I was blocked, the protection was removed on the virgin birth (mythology) article. I thought it was protected from Ari, but apparently it was protected from me. Also, I had a problem with SpigotMap's part in the block. He has been harassing me on my talk page since April and both he and Ari have threatened repeatedly to block me. For the block, SpigotMap then requested that Sarek of Vulcan block me. My argument for the unblock was based on policy violations involved in SpigotMap's conflict of interest. I said then and I'll say again, I expected to be blocked. I don't make any excuses for the attack that got me blocked. I'm only here now because this is all so wrong.Hammy64000 (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I checked the diffs for April 13 and 14 because I got so many warnings on my talk page for those dates. On this one [84] it looks like I deleted material about Moses, etc. Please go to that diff and click "next edit." I never deleted any Christian or Judeo-Christian material. I did not wish to participate at all because of the animosity of the merge. All I did in those days was add sources because Ari said he was going to re-write and delete material. So I don't even know if my links above still go to the place where he deleted my sources. Then on the 19 is the diff where I apparently messed with the Islam part. I never did. I provided that diff above.Hammy64000 (talk) 01:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I clicked link 94 above that use to go to his deleted sources. Now it looks like he was "improving" the article by adding Egyptian material. Here is a version of the original material.[85] He did not improve this material. On the contrary, he threatened to delete it. Hammy64000 (talk) 01:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is what Miraculous births looked like before the merge.[86]Hammy64000 (talk) 01:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it possible to see changes to the revision history? If not, evidence for any dispute process would be impossible.Hammy64000 (talk) 01:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I provided the links to Ari's source deletions here [87] at 2:27 on July 3. At that time, these links showed his deletions of my sources.Hammy64000 (talk) 02:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The link to Virgin birth (mythology) is number 2 here.[88] I have it on my user page or else no one would be able to see it at all. Also, some of the discussion can only be found there.Hammy64000 (talk) 02:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It was here [89] that we had the following conversation about sources. It was at this time that Ari put citation requests all through the article and threatened to delete material.

    Ari, you requested citations for the Egyptian article and I provided them. Now you have marked that they need page numbers. That is a bogus way to justify your re-write. Anyone here? Why does this person think he can do this? --Hammy64000 (talk) 01:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC) You may not know this, but quotes and ideas attributed to a book that are not the main thesis require page numbers. This is basic referencing, and not a conspiracy theory. Once again, calm down and think for a minute before ranting. --Ari (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC) The conspiracy theory comment is beyond old. Why do you keep saying it? Do you think it makes me look bad, because I'm not the one who is having a meltdown here.--Hammy64000 (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC) I told Ari on the article history page that I returned my library books and so he is asking for page numbers to justify changing the article without discussion.--Hammy64000 (talk) 01:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Hammy64000 (talk) 02:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Hammy64000 (talk) 02:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Hammy64000, once again you are not addressing the issue with your extensive monologue. Complaining about a content dispute when the issue is your abusive behaviour is obvious side stepping of the issue. --Ari (talk) 06:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Back to the issue at hand

    Neither of you two comment here please, you're both just arguing back and forth and nothing is really coming of it. I am therefore requesting this section be reserved for comment by an uninvolved administrator, as that is the only way this is going to go anywhere.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Those large chunks of varying indents is actually just Hammy64000 arguing with himself which seems to obscure the actual issue. I have set it outin my few posts having provided diffs and extracts to quite vile abuse. I will respond to requests for more from the backlog but hopefully this will be all from me. --Ari (talk) 06:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Ari (talk) 10:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What did I just ask? This section is reserved for an uninvolved admin, or other uninvolved admins to make comment. It is not for you to continue the argument above with a snipe at the other editor. Please leave it be.— Dædαlus Contribs 08:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JackShestak

    I just came across edits by this user today. Apparently a long history of unsourced edits and an impressive record of creating articles of dubious note [90]. One administrator, Dlohcierekim, discussed this with him and brought the issue here back in March, but the pattern continues unabated. Left behind is a trail of deleted articles, and a lot of clean up for subsequent editors. JNW (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I notice that a few of the articles he has created have not been deleted; I can't judge in this field--were they just overlooked, or is some of the work satisfactory? DGG ( talk ) 22:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    [91] 85 of them. Maybe at max four meet guidelines. I'm leaving right now to ref some football games, but otherwise I'd be putting a ton up for AfD. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 22:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at a few:
    Sourcing wasn't extensive, and at least one Youtube link, but they didn't strike me as unusually problematic.--SPhilbrickT 22:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It is disruptive to create numerous articles that lack proper sources, despite numerous notices. The fact that some of these articles failed AfD or adequate sources were later found is irrelevant. JackShestak should be blocked from creating new articles. If he wants to create new articles he should go to Articles for Creation. TFD (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite protection of Jessi Slaughter cyberbullying case

    Resolved
     – nothing wrong with semi-protecting that article. Toddst1 (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kafziel, an administrator who I have been cordially editing with at Jessi Slaughter cyberbullying case has fully (and indefinitely) protected the article due to a dispute over including the Leonhardt family's names in the article. While I do not doubt the sincerity of his desire to protect the Leonhardt family (his motives are admirable), there are a multitude of opinions (both on the article's Talk page page and its ongoing AfD discussion) that support inclusion. Kafziel believes the "Jessi Slaughter" incident is analogous to the Star Wars Kid WP:BLP case, but other editors (myself included) believe there are substantial differences between the two situations.

    Again, I want to reiterate that I do not begrudge Kafziel his position on the issue, and I very much empathize with his motives. The Jessi Slaughter case is a difficult and unfortunate subject. Regardless, as an editor involved in this content dispute, Kafziel should not have exercised his administrator tools in this fashion. Indefinite full protection is uncalled for in this case. I would like to continue developing the article, but this is now impossible. I would also appreciate Kafziel not referring to other editors' good-faith inclusion of the names (I have been discussing the issue with him and have not re-inserted them myself) as "vandalism." Ingersollian (talk) 23:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It doesn't appear to be fully protected: it just seems to be semi-protected? TFOWR 23:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the very real threat of harassment to a living minor, WP:BLP it SHOULD be permanently locked down. Active Banana (talk) 01:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the very real threat of real life harassment to a living minor, it should be permanently deleted as quickly as possible. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, but the "Wikipedia is a Tabloid" crowd's scream would shatter fine china. Tarc (talk) 02:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    God not one of these again, at least it's a little better than the last one. At least deletion arguments are actually grounded in BLP Notability policy (even) this time. Fair enough. S.G.(GH) ping! 07:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:IMOS and its application

    Can an administrator please take a look at McKownville, New York regarding the issue of having County Londonderry mentioned, originally the dispute was over having the word linked to the city of Derry which IMOS does say must be referred to as Derry and not Londonderry, but the county is to be called Londonderry. When I brought the issue to the WP:Village pump the issue was split 3-2 in favor of changing the link to the county to keep the name Londonderry as the source mentioned it and as the place would have been named in that time period. This was not acceptable to some and now they have removed all all together. After being repeatedly made fun of I replied that I would not argue but would rather this go to the next level of dispute resolution, they refused and have decided to continue to edit out Londonderry (simply changing to Derry was originally what they wanted until a compromise ruined that and now they want it completely removed). I will abide by whatever a fair and impartial consensus (ie- not a giant spam attack on this page of COI editors who work on IMOS related issues) no matter what side is done, I simply think an impartial view needs to be done.Camelbinky (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I did warn Camelbinky about WP:BOOMERANG before they chose to post here. The issue is whether a guideline should be followed, and Camelbinky's ownership problems, failure to assume good faith and abusive attitude. Comments such as "this is not an article about Ireland in any way, please stick to messing up Irish articles since that is what you know", "for someone who is so concerned about "comment on content not the editor" you are surely a hypocrite" (for the record I never said "comment on content not the editor" either), "You are a disruptive POV pusher and I do not have to respond or engage in debate with you because of that" (and "But that brings you here with a COI that is hard to ignore" and "This discussion is over, the dispute is not resolved in your favor"), "The whole purpose of some editors here is simply to remove from Wikipedia the word Londonderry and not to improve this article" speak for themselves. This is essentially a content dispute, no admin action is needed. O Fenian (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked that this be brought forth for content dispute resolution and that offer was declined. Taking my words out of context of what I said around them and from what O Fenian said to provoke the words in the first place is ridiculous and another example of those brought to AN/I having the thought process of "bloody the witness", boomerang is simply an essay that those with that philosophy use to try and legitimize that tactic. It is scummy when a defense attorney does it in a rape case it is scummy when it is done here. I suggest if others want to make my reactions and comments an issue that a new thread be made just for that and Ill take whatever punishment is decided by consensus. However I do not think that should muddy the waters about O Fenian's continued crusade across Wikipedia, to which he was warned previously about not doing, this is disruptive and violates common sense.Camelbinky (talk) 00:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Its worth noting for any person not familiar with the various naming issues on Irish matters, that the Derry for the City, Londonderry for the County is one of the few stable areas in a difficult area. I can't see, and I have no recollection in several years of any warning to O Fenian in respect of any wikiwide campaign to remove Londonderry, so that needs to be supported by a dif or withdrawn. I also note that Camelbinky properly notified the editors involved of this ANI thread, but also chose to notify one and only one other editor namely a SPA who takes a consistent strong Unionist position. The detective work to discover that name could as well have discovered the names of 4/5 admins with experience of this area whose invitation would have helped gain a neutral perspective. --Snowded TALK 05:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Caden

    I am leaving this message here out of concern that a potential problem relating to the ongoing rfc for Blablaaa (talk · contribs) may balloon to the point that an admin may be needed, but in the interest of transparency the matter I can not handle the matter since I am one of a number of the current admins and coordinators of the military project presently involved in the above mentioned rfc.

    My concern relates to the behavior of one Caden (talk · contribs), who over the last few days seems to have tried very hard to inflame not just those opposing Blablaaa in the rfc but also Blablaaa himself (interpreted by me from this discussion here, where Caden appears to canvass a little until Blablaa asks him to stop). From where I sit on the matter, the behavior exhibited by Caden could be interpreted any number of ways from unsound advise given in good faith to disruptive editing.

    Over the past 48 hours Caden has alleged that a so called conspiracy exists, and has openly rather unsubtly called several different editors out his RFC post (full details), and has singled out both EyeSerene (talk · contribs) (see banned editors link for details) and The ed17 (talk · contribs) out as problematic editors (against ed), even going so far as to defend a banned editor by claiming he was a victim of EyeSerene's abuse of admin privileges.

    Certainly I feel that the matter is explosive enough without his two cents, and that is why I am asking for an outside opinion on the matter. I do not believe Caden is acting for anyone's good, I think he is capitalizing on the situation to maneuver a couple of people around so he can further his position that we are all involved in some kind of conspiracy. As I noted above, I'm involved, so I recuse myself from taking an official action, but (and I believe I speak for everyone at the this point) an outside opinion on the matter would at this point be greatly appreciated. At the very least, we must protect Blablaaa from Caden's influence to ensure that the RFC currently running on him remains doesn't collapse into conspiracy theories. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    My relevant contribution here is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Blablaaa#An annoyed and slightly off-topic second outside view by The ed17. I regret showing so much of my annoyance in that post, but the overall sentiment is (I hope) clear. Caden's use of these unfounded, baseless, and quite offending accusations without any sort of evidence has gone on for too long. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Caden means well. My impression of him is that he's younger and holds the moral absolutes of the young. When it comes to anything remotely political, he's right and everyone who disagrees with his position is part of a (gay or liberal or anti-German) conspiracy. He does quite well when he's editing music or model articles, but he gets really easily worked up when he edits articles that are political (for lack of a better term). He's been topic banned from articles in regards to sexuality before, and he's managed to stay away from those since it expired. I'm not familiar with this situation, but he's a fine editor when he's not emotionally invested in the topic. AniMate 01:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I'll let it be then, however the others may have different opinions on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just giving background. If he's as disruptive as you say, another topic ban might get him back to editing productively. AniMate 01:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm slightly hesitant about posting here, but thank you AinMate for your advice. I must admit I'm starting to wonder if I've run over Caden's cat or something; it's quite disconcerting when an editor I've never encountered before turns out to be able to dismiss four years' work here as POV pushing and admin abuse using only their logic and common sense. However, I certainly don't feel any need to defend myself against Kurfurst's lunatic notions - his record speaks for itself, he remains indefblocked and Wikipedia's a better place for his absence. If certain editors feel that citing him as evidence will improve their case that's their decision, though it's not one I would be making in their position. It is disappointing, though perhaps not surprising, to see the RfC/U being used as a vehicle for unsubstantiated personal attacks and daft conspiracy theories, but I'm still hoping something worthwhile will come of it all. Stranger things have happened :) EyeSerenetalk 08:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Numerous systematic removal of Media Matters citations

    LegitimateAndEvenCompelling has been systematically removing citations to Media Matters (a media watchdog organization) from multiple (seemingly random) articles, and replacing them with citation needed tags. (See: [92],[93],[94],[95],[96],[97],[98],[99],[100],[101],[102],[103],[104],[105],[106],[107],[108] and many more too numerous to list.) He continues to do so even after several users have pointed out that his interpretation of policy on this issue is incorrect, and that he should stop. (e.g. [109], [110], [111].)

    LegitimateAndEvenCompelling argues that Media Matters is not a reliable source, and that the articles linked to violate WP:LINKVIO. Media Matters has been discussed on WP:RS/N several times (e.g. [112][113], [114] are the last 3 discussions), and the conclusion is that while it may be a partisan news organization, but it is still a reliable source, and can be cited the same way as other partisan sources, like for example, Fox News. Also, a reading of the policy 'Linking to copyrighted works' shows that it does not apply, as WP:LINKVIO forbids the linking to external Web sites that carry a work in violation of the creator's copyright. Media Matters is a well known, established organization in the US that carries video excerpts in accordance with 'fair use' laws, if they were systematically violating copyright law, it would have been sued by now. Also, the weblink can be removed if it violates WP:LINKVIO, but the reference itself should be retained.

    LegitimateAndEvenCompelling has been polite about it, but he has been ignoring opposition to his systematic actions, and reverting people who undo his removal of these citations, demanding that those who oppose his actions justify themselves on the talk page of the respective articles. (e.g. [115], [116], [117].)

    I stumbled across his actions when he removed this perfectly good citation [118] from an article I helped create, and reverted me when I undid his removal.

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

    MMFA is good for a secondary source for things already covered by the MSM. That being said, simply deleting MMFA while doing nothing with content is indeed disruptive and serves no purpose. This needs to stop. Soxwon (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Media Matters is extensively used by non-partisan information outlets like NPR (indeed, their On The Media show frequently uses them). They are with out a doubt a WP:RS. Removing them whole sale and placing citation needed tags is disruptive and pointy -- ۩ Mask 02:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Media Matters for America is an openly partisan source that is unfortunately used in place of journalistic sources more frequently that it proper. That being said, I agree that simply removing the citations with no apparent effort to locate other sources or otherwise mitigate the holes left by the removal is disruptive. --Allen3 talk 02:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    LK's claims are inaccurate. I have responded here to his efforts to keep an MMfA ref that disparages someone as a means to support the claim that people burn money. As to my other MMfA, almost none of them have been reverted because they are proper. Further, I do not remove all MMfA refs. Indeed in one case I even improved the ref by adding an author. I hope people will support me in applying Wikipedia policy and perhaps join me.
    As to removing the refs and adding Citation tags, that is not inherently evil. Am I supposed to buy a subscription to Lexis/Nexis and source everything? Am I not allowed to comply with Wiki policy? The alternative is to remove the ref and the associated text. I see people do that and I don't like that. I choose not to do that. My purpose is not to eliminate things in the text, rather it is to ensure proper RSs are used.--LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yes, I am aware that people are using the Citation tags to properly source the information. In one case, for example, I can't put my finger on it, someone added a NYT ref where I had removed the MMfA ref. So the Citation tag is working exactly as it was designed to work. Wikipedia works to allow people to work together to improve articles. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Your appeal to policy is undermined by the fact that your interpretation of policy has been challenged. Your appeal for cooperation is undermined by your use of reverts. Even if you are 100% sure that you're right, you should still be able to step back and understand these problems. Melchoir (talk) 04:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The challenges made are based on either ad hominem argument or on the irrelevant claim that other MMfA refs have been found to be RSs. No one has yet gone to the specific context as required by RS.
    As to my use of reverts, you are joking, right? I make an edit and specify exactly why I made the edit and include specific Wiki rules, a very few revert me with either no comment or a comment that has nothing to do with the RS/LINKVIO concerns, so I revert that, and suddenly I'm the bad guy for reverting a revert? Where's the WP:AGF in that?
    I totally understand that some people are opposed to removing MMfA refs. But WP:RS is what necessitates the removals, not me. The only reason why my ensuring compliance with WP:RS is problematic to some is that I have applied the policy on numerous pages. Nevermind that MMfA refs in the hundreds are used all over Wikipedia inappropriately, as Allen3 generally agreed above. Suddenly I'm the bad guy for making a small dent in the removal of the non-RSs.
    Look at the specific page about which LK complained, Burning money. Look in Talk. Look at the discussion I am having there. Tell me specifically why the MMfA ref on that page is a RS. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Seems to be a perfectly clear and consistent case of subversive editing.--Wetman (talk) 07:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wetman, on the page you reverted, explain how MMfA is a reliable source for Institute for Energy Research funding coming from the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation. Don't just ignore WP:AGF. Is MMfA a RS for anything and everything? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Unomi, I am acting in compliance with Wiki policy. Most of my edits have not been reverted, almost all, that is. Why? Likely because the other editors agreed. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Even though everyone who has commented on this thread agrees that his actions are inappropriate, LegitimateAndEvenCompelling continues to remove Media Matters citations, and to argue with and revert users who disagree with those removals. A short preventive block might be in order. LK (talk) 07:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    One guy, Badger_Drink, is reverted all my edits claiming it is "vandalism".
    And LK, to this point people are saying MMfA is generally a RS but no one, not a single person, has addressed the specific issues on any page. It's as if they know they have no legitimate substantive argument so they say things ad hominem in nature like "A short preventive block might be in order."
    I am beginning to sense that the MMfA supporters care more about MMfA than about WP:RS or WP:LINKVIO.
    I will need to get help with this as restoring non-WP:RS en masse is a serious problem. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Another editor has just reverted Badger Drink's restoration of an MMfA ref saying, "rmv disputed statement - only "source" was a copy of the cnn show, posted on some other site, with no additional commentary. does no-one understand notability anymore? So I see WP:NOTE may be another relevant issue as edits like this one are all over Wikipedia. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 08:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As a preventative measure User:Badger Drink should be blocked for disruption - that user has mass reverted all the removals of MM as a source, but has failed to examine each case, leaving some very poor "sourcing" in this encyclopedia. BDs behaviour is nothing more than edit warring that will eventually have to be undone. Weakopedia (talk) 09:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As a proactive measure, you should soak your head. If a stopped clock was right twice in a day, we don't start getting in a self-righteous huff over a clockmaker fixing it. That's not to say the edits in question by LaEC were correct, either - see below. Badger Drink (talk) 09:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Self-application of WP:TROUT

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

    I just loooked at your latest contribution, which was rubbish.[119] If you don't understand basic policy you certainly shouldn't be going on any ill-advised reversion crusades. I've removed the passage you tried so hard to keep in, because it is poorly sourced. Weakopedia (talk) 08:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you fucking kidding me? Wikipedia statement which you removed: "Arthur Laffer made [a statement] on CNN". Media Matters link: "Economist Laffer [makes same statement] on CNN", complete with fucking video of him fucking saying it on fucking CNN! Honestly now, you're being beyond tendentious. Badger Drink (talk) 09:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I just looked at your second last contribution, which was rubbish.[120] You warred to have this "source" remain despite it not supporting the statement it is there to support. Weakopedia (talk) 08:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Funny you, of all participants in this discussion, should use the word "rubbish"... Badger Drink (talk) 09:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If that is the best you can resort to, then you shouldn't be editing here, full stop. While you are adding non BLP compliant material to BLPs, you will be reverted automatically. Good day. Weakopedia (talk) 09:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Taking the "shotgun approach" to discussion in the hopes something will stick - yawn. Are you really this stupid, or do you just assume that everyone else is too stupid to see your edits here for what they are? Anyway, let me know how the air on that lofty mountain of yours is. Badger Drink (talk) 09:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Both of you stop replying please and leave the issue in question for other editors to evaluate first. It'll drop the unnecessarily high temperature of this thread a little. sonia♫♪ 09:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed indefinite block of User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling

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

    • Reject Examination of the history shows many articles where MediaMatters was being used inappropriately. Those who are blindly reverting all removals of MM as a source should be blocked, as they are in many cases simply reintroducing inadequate, or even misrepresentative sourcing to articles, just to make a point. Weakopedia (talk) 09:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Bold>Revert>Discuss doesn't work if the person being bold refuses to actually discuss. The previous discussions where consensus in re: MMfA was formed were provided to LaEC, who chose instead to ignore it and insist that somehow they were right in the face of a multitude of editors suggesting the exact opposite. Indefinite need not necessarily be infinite, but given LaEC's past history, I would suggest that he would truly need to display that he understands that he went about this in entirely the wrong fashion and is prepared to make a serious endeavour to mend his ways before the block is lifted. Badger Drink (talk) 09:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support If LaeC had really been removing dubious sources from articles, then in examples like CIA leak scandal timeline he would also have removed all the references to WorldNetDaily, a source from the other side of the political spectrum that at RS/N has repeatedly been described as even more unreliable than MMfA. But he left all of those in. Thus, it has to be described as nothing more than political POV-pushing. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: LaeC is looking for instances where MMfA is used inappropriately, and finding them. In some, few. instances, other editors disagree. Nothing wrong with any of that. LaeC does need to be admonished for ignoring WP:BRD. That's all. Anything else is an overreaction and smacks of "I don't like you." Anthony (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: ChrisO, how far back in history do you want to go to skewer me? Don't people change? Have I done anything recently/currently to deserve a legitimate block, other than people doing what you are attempting to do, namely, use procedural means to avoid substantive discussion? Not a single person supporting the block has ever, not once, addressed any substantive issue relating to this matter. Indeed, before the en masse reverts made with ad hominem history comments without substance, most editors left my edits in place. The community accepted them. Look, here is the one and only instance where a person actually discussed substantive issues with me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Burning_money#Media_matters and when I responded, he politely bowed out. Blocking me will not solve the problem, but I will admit it will probably make you feel really good. What will solve the problem is the proper application of WP:RS, not the blocking of the person applying it. And no one told me this was going on here? What a disgrace. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Pvae again

    Back in April, I posted here about Pvae (talk · contribs) constantly adding links to Songfacts.com; see here. The discussion hinted at possibly blacklisting songfacts.com, and it went nowhere. Before the last ANI discussion, I warned this user twice that Songfacts.com is generally considered unreliable since so much of it is user submitted. Now, this user's spamming Songfacts again. I don't wanna keep playing whack-a-mole with this user, so for a change, can we actually GET somewhere with discussion instead of having it peter out after a day? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    A blacklisting of Songfacts.com is probably a good idea, but this is not a the right forum for that. Unless you're suggesting a short block for Pvae (talk · contribs) as a whack with the cluebat? I would support that too. LK (talk) 02:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    67.170.86.33

    On my user talk page (User talk:Coasterlover1994). The IP appeared to be calling me a Sockpuppet, as evidenced by this line from a reverted edit to my talk page: You should have read my first edit when it was obvious to a blind man that I put the userspace page live: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A67.170.86.33&action=historysubmit&diff=375307256&oldid=359398796 which netted that warning. Nice sock account by the way, going right to policy-wise Vandal Fighter status after about 20-hours of membership. 1 up! 67.170.86.33 (talk) 03:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC). I don't know what I did to offend the IP, other than removing a redirect to the article namespace that was placed on a user page. Also, after looking at the IP's talk page history, the IP seems to have a history of personal attacks to users after the IP's edits have been reverted. Coasterlover1994Leave your mark! 03:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    No doubt he'll be here in a few hours. He also reverted your talkpage warning.--Rockstonetalk to me! 06:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Backlog at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

    There is a growing backlog at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, if someone could go take a look. Thanks! Active Banana (talk) 05:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    3 cases is a backlog? Soxwon (talk) 06:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if you hadn't had a BM in 3 days, it would be a major backlog... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive content editing by Shouko0624

    Resolved
     – The block is good. LK (talk) 08:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Shouko0624 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing content disruptively (removing some info (including birth name in edits such as this) and adding other info) without explanation, without references, and without communicating on any talk page. In some of this behavior, the user could be described as a Genre Warrior. Diffs include 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Active Banana (talk · contribs) wrote in this edit that the user "keeps editwarring across multiple pages to do things like claim that a persons father is trivia The user has received a pageful of warnings and made no attempt to communicate back." NativeForeigner (talk · contribs) wrote in this edit 'I blocked shouko for one day, but I"m inexperienced in dealing with disruptive content editors, so please bring it to ANI where people more well versed in this can figure it out.'   — Jeff G.  ツ 06:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]

    The block looks fine. I don't think any further action is needed at this time. Tiptoety talk 07:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:ThomasK

    User had squeezed an unblock request onto their unprotected user page. I have reverted him and protected his user page, and moved the request to talk. I have no experience with this user (that I can remember!), am guessing it will be declined given the contents of his talk but want to check here first. --S.G.(GH) ping! 07:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hahaha, I've just noticed that the last comment on there before the current unblock request was by me! Idiot! S.G.(GH) ping! 08:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So this user has been blocked for four years, and still trying to get unblocked? This (in March 2010) doesn't look convincing for an unblock. That edit may have shown his true nature.  Davtra  (talk) 08:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Cross-Wiki sabotage

    A sockpupper, Rafax (es:user:vitamine = en:user:Rafax = es:Usuario:Dermot = es:Usuario:Cronoster, etc. etc. etc...) was blocked in eswiki for sabotage for a whole month the discussion es:talk:choripán. Three wikipedians we denounce him (es:user:Aleposta, es:user:Rosymonterrey, and myself), and two administrators ratified the denunciation (es:user:Ecemaml and es:user:Ezarate, here).

    Now Rafax tries to do the same thing in talk:choripán, aggravated by the fact that the sources, here, are not understandable by anyone (are sources in Spanish). He uses the sources to his whim, and for this motive he was blocked one month in eswiki. This is a case of manipulation of sources crosswiki. Ferbr1 (talk) 09:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=375353321"