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 JanetteDoe (talk | contribs) at 16:31, 28 August 2013 (trout! it's what's for dinner!). 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

    Chelsea Manning/Bradley Manning

    Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Manning
     – NE Ent 23:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Enkyo2 continuously violating WP:SELFREF

    My last ANI on this was poorly put together, so I might as well just start anew. I have drawn Enkyo2's attention to the relevant policy several times,[1][2][3][] but he is continuing to protest my removal of his commentary on Wikipedia policy from the article space.[4] I think he doesn't understand why this is problematic. Could someone help me explain it? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This is still clearly a content issue, just like it was a few days ago when multiple editors told you the same thing here. Look for WP:3O or another form of dispute resolution. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Two users expressed their POV that it was a content issue. This time I have provided evidence that this user, despite being told multiple times what the policy is, is continuing to dismiss it. It has nothing to do with content, since none of the edits concerned affect article content. The problem is with Enkyo2 adding references to Wikipedia policy to the article space and refusing to desist even when pointed in the direction of the relevant policy. I was not given a chance in the last thread to respond to the question regarding what kind of admin action I want. I want Enkyo2 to stop assuming bad faith on my part, or for someone in authority whose good faith he HAS TO assume to tell him the same thing I have. No one has thus far disagreed with me on the substance here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone should definitely help this user out on the matter. (I would, since I've worked a lot in self-referential parts of the 'pedia, but I'm a bit busy.) However, he's clearly not the only one doing this. I've noticed several articles where there's a blacklisted link and it says in the footnote "(link not allowed by Wikipedia)"—there's one on Nate Silver that I've been meaning to fix for ages. I.e., this isn't an incident, since it's a fairly common mistake. Maybe the Help Desk or the Teahouse would be a better place to find assistance in explaining it? — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 17:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hijiri, there are multiple interpretations of what is and is not acceptable under WP:SELFREF (which, by the way, is a guideline, not a policy), and your complaint appears to be not about an editor's behavior but about content being put in an article--that makes this a content dispute. Based on my brief skim of the diff you gave in your first ANI posting on this, that user's edit does not look egregiously out of line (pronunciation notes are not uncommon in articles), so instead of coming to the drama board you should be looking for a reasonable consensus.
    Now on to you. Your own behavior in this dispute, as far as I can tell (I have not taken time to dig up all the relevant diffs and history), has not been above reproach. You started a frivolous ANI thread about article content, where you accused your opponent of not speaking English, when that was nowhere close to true. The four complaints that you raised in that thread were all content concerns, and you never explained the issue (which I saw you mention on the user's talk page, not in ANI) of the clarity of the user's talk page posts, so I have no idea which thing you are actually upset about. Finally, as far as I can tell, User talk:Enkyo2#"Jimmu" and others is the only place where you have attempted to have a discussion with the user about that issue (the other diffs you provided are a revert of his edit--reverts are not discussion--and your own ANI thread). This ANI posting is completely premature. The user in question had already responded to you at his talk page before you posted this second ANI, and yet you chose to return to the drama board rather than actually respond to the user. Why don't you try to go resolve this content dispute in a constructive way? rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The user in question responded on his talk page, but the response essentially said "I don't care what the guideline is, and I'm not going to listen to you". There may be multiple interpretations of SELFREF, but surely inserting one's own controversial interpretation of a Wikipedia style guideline into an article in order to undermine an ongoing RM is near the bottom of potentially acceptable SELFREFS... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, since you have made absolutely no effort to explain the context of this disagreement, why should I (or any other editor here) just take your word that your view is right and the other editor's is wrong? Secondly, you still have not indicated how this is anything other than a content dispute. ANI is not a venue for solving content disputes; people have already given you links to appropriate venues. Continuing this discussion here would be a waste of time. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have any idea how hard it is to edit English Wikipedia on a Japanese smart phone? I have mentioned a couple of times in the last few days, including here on ANI, that my computer is in bad shape and I can only post from my phone. I have made a TREMENDOUS effort to explain the context. Enkyo2 didn't like my proposed move of Emperor Jimmu, and he responded by posting a note in the first line of the article that expresses his personal interpretation of a guideline that myself and a number of other users including In ictu oculi clearly interpreted the opposite way. This edit did not alter the content of the article, but clearly represents an attempt to bring a dispute about style guidelines into the article space. I can't take it to DRN because there is no content dispute. The closest thing to a content dispute is the original RM (which is still open) which only concerns the spelling of one word. But my problem is Enkyo2's way of dealing with this, which is posting comments that belong on the talk page in the article itself. I am sorry if I sound hostile, but it's NOT fun trying to deal with issues like this exclusively from a phone that keeps trying to convert everything I type into Japanese. (That's also why it's difficult to post a full record of diffs.) Seriously. The other issue I'm dealing with at the moment is an obvious sockpuppet/vandal/POV-pusher, and I wasn't even able to open the SPI myself... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on what you just said, this is absolutely a content dispute. A footnote is article content; if you guys disagree about a footnote, you are disagreeing about article content. Your claim that Enkyo2 refuses to discuss the issue is bogus, because he had already responded to your discussion attempt before you opened this unnecessary thread. Let me say it again (this is the last time I will say it): this is a content dispute.
    Also, your problems about your phone are exactly that: your problems. It is frankly ridiculous that you expect someone to take administrative action against some other editor because you can't find a practical way to edit. (Ever think to try a library or internet café?) Likewise, the fact that you're dealing with an unrelated sock is totally irrelevant to this dispute. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. He's explaining why he's having problems with diffs (and his comment about the SPI was an aside - not unusual here). I will say that I looked at the comment about a blocked link at Nate Silver. A good example of why such comments are a bad idea - the link isn't blocked, but does lead to a parody page now (hijacked?). Self-references to Wikipedia are a bad idea - they are similar to using Wikipedia as a source, which we don't do. Dougweller (talk) 15:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Still none of you have said anything to even remotely suggest that this is anything other than a content dispute. No administrator action is needed, and the discussion does not belong here. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Rjanag's insistence that I can go to a library to edit Wikipedia shows an ignorance of Japanese public libraries. Internet cafes are also rare in my area. But I'm in one now, thankfully. The dodgy browser randomly closing tabs I have open is not helpful, though.
    2. This is not a content dispute. Posting a note in the article space that doesn't change the content of the article in any substantial way, but misrepresents current Wikipedia guidelines and serves to undermine an ongoing RM is not a content issue.
    3. This is not a content dispute. I raised a number of issues with a user's behaviour, which have been consistently ignored by Rjanag (and no one else, despite his above claiming that "multiple editors told you the same thing"). This included (a) the aforementioned posting of a problematic note in order to undermine an RM I had just started;[5][6][7] (b) using the passive voice past simple ("A note was added") instead of simply saying "I have added a note", thus initially misleading me into thinking that it was added according to consensus at some earlier date, rather than a deliberate and unilateral edit that he had just made; (c) this isn't the first time Enkyo has been challenged for refusing to use plain English on talk pages -- he has improved, but there's still a way to go in my opinion; (d) !voting against the RM solely as "revenge" against me for deleting said note, despite previously indicating that he would not !vote until more people got involved (which no one did);[8][9][10][11] (e) posting a large amount of peripherally-related text both in the RM and on his own talk page (I'm pretty sure this is also something for which he's been taken to task before);[12][13] (f) closely following on my heels to a bunch of articles.[14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]
    4. Rjanag, do you honestly think if I posted the above 6 complaints on DRN they would take it seriously as a content dispute? Or do you think they would send me back here because I clearly have a problem with user behaviour?
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Another (much lesser) problem. In the past, Enkyo has cited questionable, very old primary sources as references for things that happened after they were written.[25] I don't know if he is still doing this, and his 2007 edits wouldn't be an issue, if he didn't come back two days ago and re-format the reference, without noticing the problem.[26] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Information added to article space (regardless of whether it's in a footnote or the main text) is content. Hence, content dispute. WP:SELFREF is a content guideline, not a behavioral guideline.
    As for the rest of the diffs you just posted, to be perfectly honest I have not looked at them. If there were legitimate behavioral problems with the user's conduct at talk pages, it should not have taken you this long to mention them. Your original complaint was about the wording of content the user put in articles, and that issue is obviously a content dispute. If there was a behavioral issue, you should not have wasted days making irrelevant complaints about content issues. rʨanaɢ (talk) 11:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    My original complaint was that, having posted questionable material in an article, in problematic response to my RM, Enkyo refused to use plain English on the talk page to discuss it, instead posting vaguely related gibberish. He's been called out for this in ArbCom cases before, so your refusal to take it seriously now is just plain baffling. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, your original complaint claimed the user was posting non-English in article space, which was not at all true. You also claimed that the user wouldn't respond to requests for discussion, which again was not true because the user had already responded before you brought this ANI (and instead of engaging in discussion, you came here to open this thread). If you expected me to take previous arbitration cases into account, you should have made at least an ounce of effort to provide links or diffs. I cannot read your mind. You have made barely any effort to provide explanation or background about any of the issues you are trying to bring here. This whole thing is extremely unproductive. If you want a productive solution, people have already told you where you can find content dispute resolution. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Advice Please

    The conduct problems have been resolved to the satisfaction of the two main protagonists, who have very responsibly kissed and made up. Well done to both.
    There are still some content issues to resolve, but they don't belong at ANI. So we're done here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hello, I've recently registered an account having edited previously with my ip address. With my background I thought I'd be of some help with citations and referencing of information. I picked a new and relatively small [27] article on which to cut my teeth, and have found the experience less than satisfactory. Having offered what I thought was helpful advice, and requested information from a specialized group [28] I seem to have raised the heckles of another person who has being acting in a less than inviting manner. They appear to me to be making peculiar and irrational demands of me [29] and I'm finding the experience less than comfortable. The editing on the encyclopedia is extremely easy, and having edited in the past I've never come across any person like this. I hope I have come to the right place, and if not could someone be good enough to point me in the right direction. --Dr Daly (talk) 16:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I have left the template on the persons page. --Dr Daly (talk) 17:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Dr Daly, I hope you do not get discouraged and stop volunteering. There are always frustrating editors, differences of opinion, all that happy primate nonsense. It's much more common for people to cooperate, so don't lose heart. :) Damotclese (talk) 17:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Mabuska should be admonished for biting a newbie by calling Dr Daly a sock without providing solid evidence. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    So what IP did you edit under Dr Daly? This is contrary to what your user page states- that you are a new user who has just studied Wiki policies and only now confident to make edits, now you edited as an IP previously?

    Dr Daly to be honest may have just been a new editor to arrive at the wrong time in the middle of an ongoing problem wth a certain editor involving SonofSetantas edits and the latest isue in question: copyvio at Wolfe Tone Societies.

    Whilst we should always assume good faith, Dr Dalys recent appearance on Wikipedia and involvement in this very newly created article that has hardly any linked too pages and been very little viewed raised suspicions that they are a sockpuppet of another editor who has been following user SonofSetantas edits and filing AN/I and AE reports on them. Dr Daly has only contributed to this one and only article.

    SonofSetanta created the Wolfe Tone Societies article 15:50, 12 August, just after 2 hours it is copyvio tagged. At 22:27 that night Dr Dalys account is created. Dr Dalys first article edit is on the 19th on the Wolfe Tone Societies article - the only artcle they have so far ever edited. Their only issue seems to be in regards to sources, which ironically is what SonofSetenta gets reported for at AE on the 20th, though this is in regards to the copyvio that was tagged on the 12th. Seems too coincidental, and possibly an attempt (by a certain editor who has been stated by several at SonofSetenta quite recent AN/I of being vindicive towards SonofSetenta) to make SoS's usage of sources a sign of troublesome behaviour.and no doubt hoping to get them riled up on the articles talk page which didn't happen.

    Problem was, I was the one that added some of the main sources Dr Daly queried, and other stuff was copy and pasted from the older article by SonofSetanta. After taken action in regards to the issue, with my suspicions made known, the initial issues are sorted. Daly then raises a new one and I tell them to be bold and make an edit. They haven't since.

    At Dr Dalys talk page I made a reasonable request for them to prove they aren't a sock by making a cntribution to an article on Roy Johnston, a person mentioned in the Wolfe Tone Societies that Dr Daly had a problem with the wording cited. It has similar source issues however despite making a big deal out of the sources on the WST, point blank refused to contribute to an article with similar problems that me, him, and SonofSetanta had not edited before (until I put a tag on the page).

    This editors curious behaviour and quickness to file an AN/I report only further fuels my suspicions that Dr Daly is a sockpuppet. Maybe I'm wrong and as stated it's just bad timing on Dr Dalys behalf, but only Dr Dalys actions in the next few days and months such as editing articles that SonofSetanta hasn't edited before and highlighting similar issues as at the WTS article will convince me otherwise..So far they haven't edited any other article and my behaviour is hardly that 'biting' to put them off.

    Dr Daly can go about editing as he pleases, I've no beef with that and will make no further issue of them unless it becomes apparent they are following SonofSetantas edits. If he is genuinely a new user to this site, then I apologise wholeheartedly to him, however the coincidental arrival of him is what got me miffed.

    Mabuska (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Many people chose to contribute through IP because they weren't sure of their commitments to the project. And IPs can't create articles, something you should be very well aware. To create an article, they must register. I fail to see how a new user creating a new article is instantly considered as socking. OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read what I wrote and try to fully understand the situation. Most of your comment is based on something I never said and what I laid out makes it clear there is the potential that Daly is a sock. Take time to read what I actully wrote please. Just to clarify, though it should be obvious in what I wrote above - I'm not claiming Dr Daly as a sock of SonofSetanta. I never said an IP or Dr Daly created anything other than their own account. Also should I notify this potential sock issue at the AE concerning SonofSetanta seeing as it possibly relates to an editor currently at odds with them? Mabuska (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, having spent some time going through edit history of the two editors I believe Dr Daly to possibly have been a sock of and comparing it alongside Dr Daly's, I have to say that unless they where logging in an out every minute to make edits under both accounts, the first suspect is extremely unlikely. The second hasn't made enough edits to substantiate a comparison, thus I have most likely made a serious error in judgement and am quite mistaken by the coincidental nature of events as they unfolded.

    In that case, I fully apologise to Dr Daly for any distress I may have wrongly caused them, and will issue such an apology on their talk page. Mabuska (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps you would consider extending your apology to the falsely accused sockpuppeteers as well, whom you all but named in this thread. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I found at least 4 policy violations by Mabuska: biting Dr Daly, not assuming good faith, falsely suggesting that User:SonofSetanta was socking with Dr Daly, trying to blame Dr Daly for another editor's copyvio (and blaming the victim when you said "it's just bad timing on Dr Dalys behalf"). OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you're right on some counts. Mabuska says in his opening post above that the Dr Daly account is actually operated by "another editor who has been following user SonofSetantas edits and filing AN/I and AE reports on them". The links he goes on to post in the subsequent paragraph leave no doubt as to whom he means. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    Dr Daly, the two editors you had differences with have withdrawn from editing that particular article. But, being Wikipedia, you can expect conflict and debate in the future, it's how we reach consensus. You took the right route, discussing it on the article Talk Page then going to RS noticeboard. I'm not sure that filing an AN/I was required as the situation worked itself out. Liz Read! Talk! 00:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    FLASH: BRAND NEW EDITOR FINDS RSN ON 16TH EDIT AND AN/I ON 28TH EDIT WITH NO ONE POINTING THEM THERE: FILM AT 11 Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Main Page ->Help Desk->FAQ->Contributing FAQ->Dispute resolution boards. It's almost as if we want new folks to be able to find things. NE Ent 12:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your thoughts, I think? Like I've said, I've edited before as an IP. You would hardly need two PHD's and a BA to edit here or find something, its pretty basic. It has been resolved on the talk page. Dr Daly (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Re NE Ent: I have a even faster path (Welcome template + 2 pages vs. your path of 5 pages). {{Welcome}}->Questions->Editor assistance request->RS/ANI. It is precisely the mentality demonstrated by the community like Beyond My Ken that the foundation is spending lots of money on recruiting but failing to retain new editors. OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think that's the main reason there's a recruitment "problem", I have some bad news for you. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There are many main reasons. This is one of them. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    FLASH: PROLIFIC CONTRIBUTOR SUPPRESSES COMMUNITY GROWTH WITH ACERBIC JOCULARITIES: FILM AT 11 Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I wish to make it clear that User:Mabuska has made no accusations against me. He is in fact my mentor. I have conversed with Dr Daly only once here because I found some of his reverts to be out of step with WP:MOS and to give him advice on the naming convention concerning Derry/Londonderry. I noted that several of his concerns were what I would consider pedantic however as a new user he may well have high standards regarding sources, which really we all should have. One of his concerns however was a quote from a newspaper where I wrote, and Mabuska confirmed, that the Wolfe Tone Societies gave support to "Sinn Fein policies". In fact the quote said the the society gave "support to Sinn Fein". Dr Daly deleted the sentence without apparently noting what the source said. I felt, and Mabuska seemed to agree, that the sentence was better kept in but modified, which is what I did. Dr Daly went on to take issue with the "Protestant faith" of the subject Roy Johnston which was referred to in the article. Mabuska invited him to take WP:BOLD and rewrite but also pointed out that the correct policy as per WP:MOS would be to insert a "citation needed" tag and invite others to participate and add more information. Mabuska also pointed out the existence of the Roy Johnston article and invited Dr Daly to scrutinise it. At this point I decided I had no need to further edit the article and made a statement to that effect on the talk page here. My opinion is that I certainly gave good advice to a new (if confident) user and Mabuska, whilst being cautious, was also civil and invited further participation by Dr Daly and pointed him in the right direction to learn more in accordance with Wikipedia:Five pillars. Both of us extended WP:GOODFAITH. It would appear correct to me to assume, for the moment, that Dr Daly should read up on the Five Pillars to find out more about how to engage with other editors in a collegiate discussion, especially when he doesn't agree with the opinions put forward. It does seem odd that someone who can so quickly find out how to lodge a case here and find a forum for sources, that he didn't read the guidance for new editors first. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I am sorry that my view of the situation isn't the same as Dr Dalys. I am now withdrawing from the AN/I. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't really think you needed to make a comment here SoS, though thanks anyway, however my initial attitude should have been more good faith rather than getting caught up in the paranoia surrounding you recent AE's. Mabuska (talk) 15:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of my own current position Mabuska I felt I should comment here. I found Dr Daly's position to be one of confidence but inexperience and have pondered why he has spent so much time learning how to make a complaint when really he should have been reading up on the Five Pillars. It's unfortunate he decided to edit that particular article but perhaps he will take heart from the fact that, although you and I were wary, we treated him with respect and civility. I hope he extends the same to other editors whom he finds to be in the same position in the future. Thanks aren't needed. You've done more to support me than I deserve, so it is I who should be thanking you. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "I found at least 4 policy violations by Mabuska: biting Dr Daly, not assuming good faith, falsely suggesting that User:SonofSetanta was socking with Dr Daly, trying to blame Dr Daly for another editor's copyvio (and blaming the victim when you said "it's just bad timing on Dr Dalys behalf"). OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)" - did you read what I posted? Where do I suggest that SonofSetanta is socking with Dr Daly? Even SonofSetanta made it clear above I never did. As Psychonaut was suggesting, I implying him however, I just didn't want to name names as it was a uncertain allegation and may have been wrong. I accept that it most likely appears to be wrong so I apologised to Dr Daly, and will likewise do so now to Psychonaut. Mabuska (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact OhanaUnited - of those four charges: Where did I accuse SonofSetanta of socking? Where did I blame Dr Daly for another editor's copyvio? And how does stating that maybe it's a case of bad timing on Dr Daly's behalf count as blaming them? The only things I did wrong was not be as good faith assuming as I should of been and questioning them as to whether they where a sockpuppet, which I suppose is biting them, but in light of the situation it was a possibility - however I have made a full apology to them. I am finding your comments in relation to this discussion incredibly bizarre, almost as if you haven't read my comments accurately or looked at the situation fully. Mabuska (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In any case: the rubric at the top says "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors." It's really a last resort to be used when other avenues have failed and only admin tools such as page protection or blocking, or community decisions such as bans are in order. Coming here prematurely (which I think Dr Daly has done) is not a good idea when other options are available - seeking the advice of an admin you trust, or raising the issue on a project page for example. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Mabuska, enlighten us all. You first left this comment bringing up the sock issue and mentioned yourself, Dr Daly, and SonofSetanta. Then you pushed forward with a second round of sock accusation. At no other time did you mention any other user names aside from yourself. Since you only retracted your sock accusation here after Dr Daly asked for advice here, may I ask which editor(s) did you believe in socking? Socking requires a link between two or more accounts/IPs. If you intention was not to claim Dr Daly operating as a sockpuppet account in the first comment, you don't have a valid reason (or target) to call someone socking in the first place. And why did you bring up SonofSetanta's name if your intention was not to consider SonofSetanta being the sockmaster? OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm more than happy to accept Mabuska's fulsome apology and let it go at that, and as a result of the Talk:Wolfe Tone Societies I've picked up some more editing tools such as the "outdent" function. I do however have a concern with SonofSetanta who despite Mabuska's full and frank apology would suggest that I was extended WP:GOODFAITH. Having read the WP:MOS linked above by SonofSetanta, there are none of the issues I raised contained in WP:MOS. The text was incorrectly cited, poorly sourced and remains so because I backed away from it when I got the reaction that I did. The group at Reliable sources/Noticeboard [30] agreed with myself on the two sources I took issue with, yet they remain on the article. The construction of a sentence based on a hodge podge of separate unrelated sentences still remains regardless of having illustrated the concern with direct quotes. This concern is being disingenuously presented above by SonofSetanta i.e. "Protestant faith," likewise the very misleading suggestion that per WP:MOS the correct thing would be to insert a "citation needed" tag. WP:MOS does not mention anything about "citation needed" tags. Mabuska's advice was useful despite how it is presented here by SonofSetanta, and I did actually use them. That Mabuska was gracious enough to remove and I appreciated what I considered to be a challenge [31] being presented as an invitation by SonofSetanta appears to be indicative of the user. That SonofSetanta is reserving judgment on me 'for the moment' in light of the above and Mabuska's genuine WP:GOODFAITH I will obviously treat in a like manner. Having reviewed SonofSetanta contributions, I have found countless occasions of disingenuously and blatantly misleading the readers of this encyclopedia. I do not make baseless accusations or assumptions, however I feel confident that this user in no way reflects the vast number of volunteers on the encyclopedia. I do not want to give the impression that I'm unsuited to robust discussion, but civility and reason will always win out in my experience. Dr Daly (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    While there is clearly still a dispute going on here over sources, it seems appropriate that this discussion return the article Talk Page as I don't see that an Admin is required to weigh in over what is a disagreement over content, IMHO. I think the Talk Page, RSN and DRN are better forums for resolving this disagreement than AN/I which typically involves editor misconduct. Liz Read! Talk! 18:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I will resume interest in the article to help address Dr Dalys concerns in a more fitting way. Though out of curiousity I'm confused by Dalys last comment. Are the disingenious and misleading comment referring to me or SonofSetanta?Mabuska (talk) 21:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Mabuska, the comments were not directed at you and having read again my comments above I agree that it could be confusing. I have therefor add SonofSetanta for clarity. I hope that addresses the issue. Thanks, Dr Daly (talk) 05:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Otto Placik editing plastic surgery articles

    This has been open for three days now and there is a remarkable unanimity among those who have expressed a view that a ban is in order. The majority favours a full community ban but in this instance I think a topic ban would be a sensible first step, the topic being all discussion of plastic surgery, broadly construed. This means no edits to articles or article talk pages or project pages about such procedures, or the specialty in general. As Dr Pacik has expressed an interest in providing photos and some at least have been described as useful, I specifically exclude the uploading of images from this ban. It would be reasonable for Dr Placik to be permitted to announce the upload of such images at his talk page, so that editors seeking these could know they are available. However any discussion beyond the announcement would be a violation of the topic ban. For the disruptive, non-collegial edit warring style described I will indefinitely block this account until assurances are received that this editing style will not continue. I am leaving the final section of this thread open - the sockpuppet investigation is ongoing and can be decided upon separately. Of course it is proven then this would be likely to solidify the indef block. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 09:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Otto Placik (talk · contribs), whose user page identifies him as a Chicago-based plastic surgeon, fails to follow WP:BRD and insists on edit-warring a major re-write into labiaplasty. He has now been reverted by three different editors: User:SlimVirgin, User:‎Christopher Connor and myself. His large-scale changes have been reinserted five times this month:

    All of us feel that the changes turn the page into an advertisement for the procedure (which is, after all, one Mr Placik performs in his day job as a plastic surgeon in order to earn a living).

    Also note this earlier revert by a similar Chicago-based single-purpose IP. (Note: Casliber has now fully protected the article.)

    As SlimVirgin has pointed out on Talk:Labiaplasty, there is a significant and recurrent history of COI and neutrality concerns expressed about Otto Placik at WikiProject Medicine, over a period of years. The most recent discussions were [32] and [33] – note for example comment by Jmh649: "I would agree that some of this appears to be little more than advertising." Also note the list of single-purpose accounts and IPs editing Wikipedia solely to come to Otto Placik's aid, provided by Paravis in this discussion. They were all blocked by PeterSymonds in 2009:

    In my opinion, there is a consistent pattern of abuse, incl. edit-warring with the aid of meat- or sockpuppets, across multiple articles, spanning at least four years, and Dr Placik should be banned from editing articles on plastic surgery, broadly defined, if not community-banned.

    Speaking to the broader point, we have had problems with plastic surgeons in this topic area before (e.g. WP:COI issues re plastic surgery articles; Plastic surgeon using Wikipedia as an advertisement for his services; etc.). Vigilance should be exercised, as almost any woman or man contemplating plastic surgery is likely to consult Wikipedia as a supposedly neutral reference source before making the decision to spend several thousand dollars on plastic surgery. They trust Wikipedia not to be written and illustrated by the same people who author and illustrate plastic surgeons' commercial websites and brochures (example: [34], [35], [36], [37]). Andreas JN466 05:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Also note the discussion section below on the apparent relationship between User:Otto Placik and User:Mhazard9. Andreas JN466 01:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Support ban

    Oppose ban

    I, the Editor Mhazard9, strongly oppose any ban of User:Otto Placik from Wikipedia, because no one has presented factual contradictions of his Labiaplasty contribution [[38], which is the editorial business matter discussed in the Discussion Page of the Labiaplasty article. Instead, you have used this Edit Conflict to concentrate upon the politics of personality conflict, character assassination, in effort to ban User: Otto Placik from Wikipedia, because you dislike his branch of medicine.

    With this very hurried ANI, you are acting in bad faith; despite his rules-and-regulations violations, no one here has bothered to counter, with facts, any of the claims, made against Dr. Placik and his contributions. In fact, Dr. Placik asked Slimvirgin to provide factual evidence of his editorial mistakes:

    So, let us meet half-way, and you begin the dialogue, by showing the specific sections, subsections, and sentences that are factually untrue. Playing games is conduct unbecoming a Wikipedia Administrator, the ethical onus is upon you, because it is you, Slimvirgin and cohort, who disagree with the medical facts of a medical article. The sources are listed, please explain where the article does not correspond to the facts cited."

    Slimvirgin ignored him, and did not practice BRD, the very violation of which Dr. Placik is accused; that the accused, Dr. Placik, abided the BRD, and that the accuser, Slimvirgin, did not abide the BRD, which she requested, confirms the witch-hunt nature of this ANI. So far, no one here has abided and practiced the BRD formula, instead, you have unwisely reached for the truncheon, the pitchfork, and the torch, to storm Castle Placik.

    By flouting the Wikipedia rules, and attacking the man rather than the the plastic-surgery-text, you are acting unwisely and emotionally, more from philosophic opposition than from factual dispute. After all, if Dr. Placik lied, can Slimvirgin and her cohort not SHOW it with evidence (from the Placik text) rather than with wiki-lawyering chicanery? Manipulating "the rules" to kill the messenger.

    Character assassination by spurious accusation

    Habeas corpus? Do you have the body of evidence, of bad faith malfeasance, from the Placik Labiaplasty text? Especially indicative of the witch-hunt nature of this ANI, convened with suspicion-inducing swiftness, are:

    • the Labiaplasty Discussion Page comment "I would rather use an educational image that is untainted by a commercial conflict of interest", by Andreas JN466 (19:25, 24 August 2013 UTC) is an illogical and emotional opinion meant to inflame the anti–Placik and anti–plastic-surgery passion . . . because only surgeons perform labiaplasty, therefore, from where might the opponent's of Dr. Placik find a politically correct labiaplasty image?
    In this matter, even Doc James recognises his limitations (medical, professional, and intellectual) about the subject, because he is an ER surgeon, so his opinion is just an opinion, not fact; likewise Slimvirgin's opinion and those of the other lay editors wrestling with medical matters beyond their ken; here intrudes unpleasant reality about medical articles, cf. Wikipedia: anti-elitism and Wikipedia:Competence is required.
    • Andreas JN466 said that Dr. Placik is pushing his numerical definition of labiaplasty. That is factually untrue, because he has chosen to ignore the supplied medical-source citations, specifically: Labiaplasty and Labia Minora Reduction, by Davison SP, West JE, Caputy G, Talavera Fco., Stadelmann WK, Slenkovich NG. (23 June 2008), at eMedicine.com; Clinical Techniques: Evaluation and Result of Reduction Labioplasty, by Rezzai A. and Jansson P., in The American Journal of Cosmetic Surgery. Volume 24, No. 2, 2007; Hypertrophy of Labia Minora — Pathomorphology and Surgical Treatment, by Kruk–Jeromin J, Zieliński T. in Ginekologia Polska. 2010 April;81 (4):298302. [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20476604]; and Labiaplasty of the Labia minora: Patients’ Indications for Pursuing Surgery, by Miklos JR, Moore RD, in the Journal of Sexual Medicine. 2008 June;5(6):1492–95. DOI: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2008.00813.x. E-pub 19 March 2008.
    These real-life doctors provided the clinical numbers, and the hypertrophy medical terms, that Dr. Placik published to substantiate "his version" of the Labiaplasty article; the data and the terms are factual realities, which exist outside of Wikipedia.
    • "Indeed. Disease-mongering is a terrible thing", said Adrian J. Hunter (01:32, 25 August 2013 UTC). Yes, but where in the Labiaplasty article does Dr. Placik do that?

    That I, User: Mhazard9, am mentioned here is flattering, but I am a Wikipedia Editor separate and apart from User: Otto Placik. That I have edited some of his pages means . . . that I have edited some of his pages, nothing more. Timing is irrelevant, because how soon I edit, after another editor, does not mean I am in cahoots with him or her; the same can be said and argued about the coincidental edits of the editors who proviked this ANI. After all, freedom to edit is the point of the publishing enterprise that is Wikipedia; or is that now contingent upon ideological interpretation?

    To speak of a subject is not to advocate it, merely to discuss it; yet, that once was the case with homosexuality, Communism, and the civil rights of coloured folk. To defend User: Otto Placik is not to agree with him, or to be him, or to be inherently evil, but, the open nature of Wikipedia, does allow me to edit any article, or is that not so?

    Recommendation

    Instead of banning User: Otto Placik, I recommend dropping this ANI, and that Slimvirgin and Prof. Dr. Placik workout her claims of factual dispute about the Labiaplasty article. After all, it is only a Wikipedia article.

    I shall provide more examples.

    Mhazard9 (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The key is a willingness to work with other editors and not to use additional accounts. None promotional images can be created and he has created some. Would be good to have a response from the user in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that there is an ongoing sockpuppet investigation concerning Mhazard9 and Otto Placik; Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mhazard9. Andreas JN466 20:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the fact that he refers to a Wikipedia article as "the Placik Labiaplasty text" is pretty telling in terms of WP:OWN. Mhazard9, you may wish to address the sock puppet allegations directly at the SPI. To address one of your concerns: You mention the open nature of Wikipedia, yet one of the reasons Placik is being discussed here is that he has been effectively closing Wikipedia articles to users other than himself. Also note that in the same sentence, you seem to have slipped into the first person, though I guess you could say you meant it figuratively.--Taylornate (talk) 21:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    GregJackP, as for the various single-purpose accounts, all of whose edits were related to Otto Placik, Sarahjjohnson123 (talk · contribs) and Emilymiller123 (talk · contribs) were indefinitely blocked; 75.63.221.230 (talk · contribs) was blocked for a week in 2009. As for the other Chicago-based IPs that have been active recently,

    • 64.107.183.186 (talk · contribs) has only one contribution in the last seven years, edit summary: "Reverted POV version by Slimvirgin, restored NPOV version by User Otto Placik."
    • 64.107.183.115 (talk · contribs) has only one article space contribution in the last seven years, edit summary: "Restored factual version by User:Otto Placik, Because Wikipedia is not censored, will the 'majority' of four editors please explain their bogus COI-censorship of Dr. Placik's contribution?" (plus one edit to Talk:Labiaplasty).

    The pattern, focus and geographical proximity are clear enough without troubling SPI. Andreas JN466 06:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes the potential use of sockpuppets or others closely tied to him to help him edit is of concern. Also the edit warring here [39] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • While many of his images are professional looking they are also a little spammy. Take a look at this before and afters [40] no makeup on the before, wearing on the after, [41] no suntan on the before suntan on the after, [42] no suntan on the before however suntan on the after, and same here [43] and [44]. There appears to be efforts to improve the after images in ways other than the surgery which makes them look like an infomercial. Other images however are not so bad [45] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well spotted on the images. It seems to me images like that (lipstick on "after", no lipstick on "before" etc.) are incompatible with Wikipedia's educational purpose, and should be nominated for deletion. Andreas JN466 16:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Jmh649, beyond the question of images and primary sourcing, there are subtle and not-so-subtle POV problems with the text. To give just one example, his version of the labiaplasty article makes dozens of references to "hypertrophy of the labia" and seeks to present labia that are entirely within the normal anatomical range as a "morphological condition" or "deformity", as "congenital defects" and "congenital abnormalities" ("caused by endocrine disease").
      • Phrases like "The clinical indications for labial hypertrophy" (2nd para of the lead) are bordering on mumbo-jumbo. In fact, there is no generally accepted definition for "hypertrophy of the labia minora", and it is certainly no "congenital defect" – it's simply normal anatomical variation of women's bodies, just like there are 5-inch and 8-inch penises in men.
      • To summarise, Dr. Placik's texts seem apt to make girls and women with entirely normal bodies feel that they have medical conditions requiring an investment of several thousand dollars in plastic surgery paid to someone like Dr Placik to "correct" their "congenital defect". Dr Placik's name and location are helpfully linked on the image pages in Commons, and there is his smiling face on his user page.
      • It should be obvious that Wikipedia is at great risk of being used here in a rather cynical way to drum up business for various types of plastic surgery (which is not without its health risks) in general, and plastic surgeons' private practices in particular, at the expense of providing our readers with neutral information. It's a recurring situation that has gone on literally for years, over many articles. Last year we had another plastic surgeon who created a Wikipedia article on the "mommy makeover" that mirrored his commercial website, and then put out an actual press release (!) about it: "Mommy Makeover Presented by San Francisco Plastic Surgeon Miguel Delgado, is a New and Exciting Addition to Wikipedia". The people intended to benefit from this are not the readers of these articles, who will include many young and impressionable teenagers, but the plastic surgery business. The labiaplasty article alone gets well over 300,000 page views per year. Wikipedia allows this at its peril. Andreas JN466 16:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes agree with this analysis. Yes remember the mommy makeover issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There seems to be an unusual unanimity on this incident. As long as notices have been placed on these editors Talk Pages (I haven't checked) is there any reason action on this issue can't be taken this weekend? Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I noticed this problem in June 2009 after a spam report. Wikipedia is a sitting duck for the rather clever adverts that plastic surgeons can insert since many people contemplating surgery would come here seeking information. Some quality photos are helpful, but the pictures in question are often promotional, and the editing is disruptive. I'm not expressing a view on how the matter should be handled atm; I guess I'm not sure it can be handled. Johnuniq (talk) 10:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not particularly involved in this, but I would just like to comment that I found another image uploaded by Otto Placik of a cosmetic procedure, with the characteristic lighting and make up differences in the "before" and "after" which are unencyclopedic representations of the cosmetic procedure that is depicted. I would therefore question whether selectively banning this user from labioplasty alone will stop the non NPOV, COI editing behavior. Lesion (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Possible relationship with User:Mhazard9

    See sockpuppet investigation. Note that both accounts, Mhazard9 and Otto Placik, have edited the same plastic surgery articles, in an alternating manner. Andreas JN466 03:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you have to call it an "edit war", implying a legitimate content dispute? I was one of the more persistent users removing essentially undisputed NFCC violations that Mhazard9 repeatedly inserted into articles. (Note the "picture is worth a thousand words" comment on Placik's user page, a sentiment Mhazard9 echoed). On another point related to sockpuppetry, note that Placik's standard edit summaries are very similar to Mhazard9's, almost never addressing the substance of their edits. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, there was no legitimate content dispute. Mhazard9 was edit-warring with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz to re-insert clear NFCC policy violations which Hullaballoo Wolfowitz had removed. Andreas JN466 01:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added one piece of evidence to the SPI that I feel is particularly damning. If you are of the opinion that a topic ban would be functionally equivalent to a community ban, please consider this alleged relationship.--Taylornate (talk) 07:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    All I'm seeing is more and more evidence that a topic ban is warranted. As long as the editor has been notified, is there anything preventing a topic ban? Liz Read! Talk! 19:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    A topic ban is insufficient if the link to Mhazard9 is confirmed. In June, Mhazard9 narrowly escaped an indef block here [46] (and note the warning in their unblock request here [47]. This defiance needs to be stopped. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • A total indefinite block is what is warranted for both accounts; this is the usual way we deal with persistently entirely promotional editors, and is usually applied without hesitation even by admins who are, like me, very reluctant to block. This will permit the use of G5 to deal with further attempts. DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur. GregJackP Boomer! 04:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I made some comments on Mhazard9's previous disruption and evasion of scrutiny through an IPsock at WP:SPI.[48] I would agree that on-wiki evidence makes the account indistinguishable from that of Otto Placik. Because of his recent editing history, including the comments here, I would support an indefinite block on both accounts. Mathsci (talk) 05:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent Vandalism & Edit Block Circumvention by User: 66.87.83.24

    Compromise achived, we're done here. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The User:66.87.83.24 is persistently vandalizing the WWOR-TV and WNYW Wikipedia articles, further they have circumvented a recent 31 hour edit ban as User:12.53.250.13 by forcing their ISP to change their IP address. The user insists on adding bogus information i.e. added channel 5.3 to the WWOR article and 9.2 to the WNYW article. Channel 5.3 is operated by WNYW as part of their Channel 5 signal and 9.2 is operated by WWOR as part of their Channel 9 signal not the reverse. See here, here, here and here for examples of their vandalism. I would like to recommend that this user have a longer ban instituted and that a temporary IP edit lock be added to the WNYW and WWOR-TV pages so that if they circumvent their ban again they cannot proceed to vandalize this pages again. IMHO these were NOT good faith edits but simply someone trying to take control of the article and its edits. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • I do not think there is enough vandalism to justify semi-protecttion of the articles at this point. Lets wait if the user would settle. Thanks for the good work, [User:TheGoofyGolfer|TheGoofyGolfer]]] and please report the user if vandalism continue Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • What about banning this user for their persistent vandalism, It's just gotten ridiculous because I revert their bad edits and they change it right back and after having their editing privileges temporarily suspended they circumvent it by changing their IP address and go back to making bad vandalizing edits. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The same problem, no edits after the last warning. Even assuming he is the same person as User:12.53.250.13 his prior last edit was on August 16. He is editing lass frequently than changes his IP. Quite possible he would start editing next week from a new IP and we would just inconvenience an innocent person who would get his old IP. Lets wait a little bit longer to see if there is enough vandalism to justify more drastic administrative actions Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Actually they are in good faith, please look at this source of a New York channel map, and under the entries for WWOR and WNYW here; the WNYW SD subchannel on WWOR's channel space maps to 5.3, while WWOR's SD subchannel maps to 9.2 using WNYW's space; also read the PSIP article for more about the issue of the transposing raised here (both stations air an SD form of the other station so viewers get them in some form if they can't get the regular versions). They both transmit over the channels the IP listed and there is no issue that I see here, and they should be listed in each article for full disclosure. What I'm seeing is TGG BITE-ing an IP for bringing good information to an article and the usual troubling ownership issues I see with a lot of NYC broadcasting articles, where I rarely tread because you better make sure your source is dead solid for a change. I have seen no vandalism with this and would suggest that TGG work with what the IP added and clarify the information about the subchannels rather than outright reverting. Also seven edits from different IP's among the WWOR and WNYW articles this month? Definitely not calling that socking, and absolutely not 'persistent' in any sense of the word; this is a case where semi-protection from IP editing isn't needed at all. Nate • (chatter) 03:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Additional Just looking over the IPs that edited this month; I hightly doubt there's socking at all. The WNYW IP edits came from Sprint, Comcast, and AT&T. The WWOR edits came from Suddenlink and a completely different Comcast node. Unless this 'sock' has two phone companies and two cable companies they're getting service from, it isn't going on. Nate • (chatter) 03:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • No your completely and totally WRONG, Channel 5.3 DOES NOT belong on the WWOR-TV article, It is not a WWOR channel and first off Channel 5.3 is simulcasting WWOR programming for and off of the Channel 5 signal not channel not the Channel 9 signal ergo it does not belong on the WWOR-TV article. This is becoming very frustrating for me because this person is clearly vandalizing and violating Wikipedia rules and nobody seems to care. So I will just leave it as it, If you want Wikipedia to be riddled with inaccuracies then so be it. As of now I am washing my hands of the whole thing. I am out. Oh and by the way they've changed their IP address to User:66.87.109.176 and reverted my edit again back to channel 5.3 while removing the legitimate Channel 9.2 which currently simulcast WNYW on Channel 9's signal. TheGoofyGolfer (talk)
    • And by the way the fact that they are using three different ISP doesn't mean that it isn't the same person I can switch my ISP connection from Verizon Fios to Bright House Networks, to AT&T to Verizon Wireless, hell I can make myself look like I'm in the United Kingdom or Canada or even Germany right now, It's call proxies, also I suspect that some of the edits are coming from mobile devices, so never say never. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a channel transmitting on that space, over that station. It counts, it is sourced, and should not be removed and the circumstances explained within the article. I am going to attempt a compromise edit on both articles in an attempt to ease your concerns (we used to show the actual channel in that template before a long-blocked user unilaterally removed them without discussion) and hopefully that works, but again, editing these articles for years; no sockpuppeteering is going on, this isn't persistent, and no need for any semi-protection. These were good faith IP's trying to restore information you removed that had been in the article for a long time without incident. And no, no normal IP can just 'switch connections'; it's hard to do, we pretty much easily catch open proxies on sight, and Suddenlink is in the Midwest and two different Comcast nodes were used. No socking existed, and please stop persisting in that claim. Nate • (chatter) 02:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have now applied the compromise edits and hope that your concerns have been addressed and that the IPs have also. Nate • (chatter) 02:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I'm fine with this compromise, Thank you Nate. I'm going to close this discussion now. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 03:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Topic ban for Esoglou

    I would like to propose a topic ban for User:Esoglou from the subject of homosexuality. The user has demonstrated a persistent intent to push a political agenda (and, having been topic-banned from abortion on two separate occasions for POV-pushing, isn't a stranger to this concept). Most recently, this has manifested itself in adding, three times in the past two days ([49] [50] [51]), the claim that homosexuality poses a "widespread threat to life and health". However, the problem goes back much further and indicates that Esoglou's primary goal is not to follow WP policy or improve articles but rather to promote his personal opinions about homosexuality and to make the Catholic Church look good (see eg. this edit, where he wrote a lovely little speech about the real reason the Holy See opposed a particular resolution). He has a persistent habit of doing his own "analysis" of reliable sources when they contradict his personal views ([52] convoluted language which he explained here is intended to undermine the sources, [53] "a word that does not appear in the document"), of otherwise engaging in original research (eg. [54]), and of adding frivolous citation tags for reliably sourced facts with which he personally disagrees (eg. [55], [56], [57]). I used to think that he was not a native English speaker and that his misrepresentation of sources proc eeded from a non-native speaker's misreading, but since he states he does speak English, I have to conclude that edits like this are deliberate misrepresentation rather than accidental. This is only a small selection in a long pattern; I would be happy to provide more examples or to explain anything here that is unclear (since some of it isn't immediately obvious if you haven't looked at the sources). As well, some of these edits were made repeatedly; I've mostly provided only one instance. Esoglou's reliance on agenda-based sources and promoting them over neutral scholarly ones almost goes without saying, and he also has a problem with plagiarism (which may extend beyond this topic area, I haven't looked at his other edits), which he has outright declared isn't a reason to revert his edits.

    I warned the user yesterday that this had gone on for far too long and that with the next disruptive edit he made, I would report him to ANI. (I had previously warned him in March. What can I say, I'm nice.) He then restored his statement about homosexuality posing a "widespread threat to life and health." The user is clearly not interested in following policy where to do so conflicts with his desire to push his personal agenda, and a topic ban to end this disruption is long overdue. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Just seeking some clarification after reading the diffs, is his comment about "widespread threat to life and health" his own addition or is he quoting a Catholic text?--v/r - TP 22:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    See my comment to TenOfAllTrades below. My version of the text was intended to show what the church's position was without stating in Wikipedia's voice that these claims about homosexuality were factually true. Esoglou's edit deliberately sought to say that the church's claims were true. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahh okay, I understand now.--v/r - TP 00:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's sourced to "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, 1986, point 9, para. 2".--Bbb23 (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) The paragraph is online, and it states: "There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil-statutes and laws. This is done in order to conform to these pressure groups' concept that homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an entirely good, thing. Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved."--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    While this might be a legitimate reference, the understanding of homosexuality has evolved, yes, even at the Vatican, in the 27 years since this letter was issued. In 1986, there was a high rate of AIDS in some American cities which received an enormous amount of media coverage. I imagine that is part of the subtext behind "threaten the lives" comment.
    If I was working on this article, I'd ask for a more recent reference (say, from 2000-2013) and also insist that this comment reflects an official position of the Vatican, not that it is a unambiguous fact and is true. That's just basic referencing knowledge which should be obvious to anyone who's edited for more than a few months. Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    (ec) I'm getting stuck with the first diffs, there. It doesn't appear, on its face, that it is Esoglou saying that homosexuality poses "widespread threat to life and health", but rather reporting that that is the position – however bigoted, wrongheaded, and offensive – of the Roman Catholic church on the matter. Given that the article is Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism, it is not immediately obvious that we shouldn't summarize or report on the church's statements and opinions on this topic—as long as we are careful to ensure they are properly representative (per WP:WEIGHT, etc.) and as long as we are careful not to endorse those views in Wikipedia's voice. (Far from making the Catholic church "look good", adding in this type of material ought to be embarrassing.) I'm not saying that a topic ban is or is not warranted, but I'm a bit concerned that the commentary offered here is not well supported by the diffs provided.
    Looking at the most recent thread on Talk:Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism#Alleged campaigning against decriminalization, it appears that Esoglou is engaged in a fairly calm, reasonable discussion about a point of contention. Esoglou offered a frank and apparently sincere apology regarding an error he made, and the discussion resulted in a reasonable compromise edit satisfactory to all parties, including Roscelese, which seemed to best reflect the sources at hand.
    Honestly, quickly glancing at the article's talk page, it's a bit difficult to untangle who is (most) worthy of trouting. In bickering between Roscelese, Esoglou, and Contaldo80 last week at Talk:Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism#"Inhuman", the question about whether or not the Holy See described gay sex as "inhuman" got bumped over to RSN: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Holy See document. It appears that the only two independent editors to comment on the issue came down more on the side of Esoglou's interpretation of the sources. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    With regard to your first point, you will note in the edits in question that I specifically addressed this concern: to convey the church position without promoting factual inaccuracies, I wrote "what the church claims are risks" and "may supposedly constitute a widespread threat." Esoglou removed this text. There is no way to read this as just conveying the church position. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am looking at the first three diffs that you presented above: [58] [59] [60]. In all three cases, it is quite clear that the claims about homosexuality are attributed to the church, and are not in Wikipedia's voice. In every case, the sentence at issue opens with "The Catholic Church has said that...". Are you saying that Esoglou's edits aren't a factual representation of what the Catholic church has said?
    It's neither necessary nor productive to insert multiple hedging statements inside every sentence where we talk about religious beliefs or dogma. In our article on Jesus, we write "Christians believe that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of a virgin, performed miracles, founded the Church, died by crucifixion as a sacrifice to achieve atonement, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven, from which he will return." We don't say – and we don't need to say – "Christians believe that Jesus was conceived by a purported Holy Spirit, born of a woman who claimed to be a virgin, performed acts that Christians claim were miracles, founded the Church, died by crucifixion, rose from a poorly-documented death, and ascended into a supposed heaven..."
    Above, Liz raises a much more pertinent point, in that the material cited is some decades old, and may not reflect current Roman Catholic beliefs. As such, it may be worthwhile to review the content in that light, and consider whether Wikipedia should address it in the context of historical or current Catholic doctrine—particularly given that it is prominently placed in the lede of the article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems obvious to me that there is a difference between non-falsifiable religious beliefs and demonstrably false scientific claims that happen to be located in a religious article, but this is not really the venue for that discussion and I won't waste your time or my own with breaking that down. The statements about the "harm" of homosexuality aren't the only false claims that Esoglou has inserted, and I've also documented a selection of instances of original research and frivolous tagging intended to make the articles conform to his own personal beliefs rather than to reliable sources. If it were only the first three diffs, I would not have brought the issue to ANI. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I will be extremely honest and frank here by saying that both Roscelese and Esoglou are intractable POV-pushers bent on shaping articles to their world view. The only way the integrity of Wikipedia is maintained is by both of them canceling each other out. Therefore I will only support a topic-ban for Esoglou if one is also enacted for Roscelese as well. AN/I is a poor venue to bring this kind of content dispute, it is more of an attempt to summon a lynch-mob to remove your competition from the article so that you can steamroll it. If Roscelese truly seeks relief then she will take the time and file a WP:RFCU which would be the best venue for discipline. Elizium23 (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Alternately, if you have any evidence of my inserting insulting factual inaccuracy, deliberately misrepresenting sources, engaging in original research, or wasting everyone's time with frivolous tags, you could start a thread to present those diffs, as I have done. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have evidence of your consistently condescending attitude which always hovers at the twilight edge of WP:CIVIL, and there is clear evidence of your tendency to edit-war in the last two years' worth of block log, which Esoglou does not have. He is admittedly disingenuous and hard to reason with at times, but I personally feel that his abortion topic-ban was an unfortunate casualty as a result of his indelicacy around such a contentious topic which has had its share of trips to WP:ARBCOM. Esoglou should be commended and awarded a Purple Heart for his ability and willingness to step into contentious topics such as homosexuality and defend the alternative viewpoint, which is one that is vanishingly rare around these parts, and probably always has been. Wikipedia needs both of you, but there are more of you than there are of him and me, which is what concerns me the most with these frequent trips to WP:ANI and other drama-venues in search of a lynch mob. Elizium23 (talk) 06:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm curious, and I'm simultaneously too lazy to look at your contribs for this, so I'll ask you for testimony on this. What dispute resolution venues did you attempt before coming here? You've mentioned two warnings to his user talk page. Apparently this article went to WP:RSN previously, which clearly wasn't too satisfying for you. Did you try WP:DRN? Did you try WP:RFC? WikiProject talk pages? Anything else which would befit a content dispute before zooming straight into ANI looking for a drama fest? Elizium23 (talk) 06:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    RSN is not a venue for user behavior. (Nor is DR or RFC.) As should be obvious, when consensus at RSN disagreed with me, I went with consensus rather than continuing to try to undermine the sources. If the community here thinks ANI isn't the right venue, I'd be happy to try RFC/U instead. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't understand Roscelese's objection to my changing Contaldo's "The Catholic Church also sets out a number of minor arguments against homosexuality ... is detrimental to health" to something closer to what is in the source (here) and finally to a quotation of the exact words used in the source (here). Nor do I understand her objection to this well-sourced edit, which replaced her POV text that presented the Holy See as "claiming" that a proposed resolution would lead to "discrimination against heterosexuals" (in reality against states that upheld the view that marriage by definition is between a woman and a man) and that the Holy See's representative "compared homosexuality to pedophilia and incest" (it took a consultation at RSN to get her to accept that this last phrase was POV). Nor could I understand fully her objection to my changing from her deprecated expression "he points out" because, as is her custom, instead of removing whatever part of my edit she found objectionable, she immediately reverted the whole of it, including other material that is undoubtedly well sourced. I do not understand her objection above to my saying that a journalist's attribution to a document of the Holy See of an expression not in fact found in the document should be reported as the journalist's account, not as plain fact, a question that I also brought to RSN, where agreement has been expressed with my view. Nor do I understand why she sees as mere original research an edit that attributed to its author the idea (which Roscelese insists should be presented as plain fact) that the word παῖς "almost always had a sexual connotation", an idea contradicted by the account given by all dictionaries of ancient Greek, including the one that Roscelese allowed to stay in the article, but only in a footnote. Nor do I understand why she called frivolous my request for a citation in support of the idea that historically the word ἀρσενοκοίτης was not used to refer to homosexuality: this too had to be brought to RSN, where there was consensus that the source that Roscelese claimed as the basis for this statement did not in fact support it. With regard to her habitual use of "frivolous" as a pretext for not responding to such requests, I must add that, a few hours before she brought her complaint against me here, I sincerely thanked her for implicitly admitting, by actually attending to the matter I raised, that "frivolous" was not a fair description of one such request. However, she attended to it only after another editor had intervened in support of my questioning of her text.

    It is not worth while raising here questions about Roscelese's own edits, such as her removal of a surely relevant statement by the Holy See's New York representative that: "The Holy See continues to advocate that every sign of unjust discrimination towards homosexual persons should be avoided and urges States to do away with criminal penalties against them", followed immediately by her insertion of the claim that "The church hierarchy campaigns against the decriminalization of homosexuality", her presentation of the Holy See's representative in Geneva in 2011 as "opposing efforts at the 16th session of the UN Human Rights Council to work towards ending violence and criminal sanction based on sexual orientation", when in fact he did not oppose adoption of the draft resolution and, even if he did, this was scarcely an NPOV way of presenting such opposition, and her insistence that, although the Irish bishops clearly wrote that, if the definition of "marriage" were changed in a certain way, they "could not" carry out certain functions, they really stated in that document, according to Roscelese, that they "would not" carry them out - until yet another consultation at RSN settled that. To her credit I must say that, after I challenged her interpretation of a Reuters account of hostile comments on Italian media concerning a statement by the Holy See's New York representative, she did not insist when presented with the full text of what the representative said.

    I recognize that Roscelese is annoyed at my poor attempts to ensure balance in Wikipedia articles. Even if I sometimes wonder if her declared sexual preference may underlie her annoyance, I in no way question her good faith in describing me as incompetent, unable to read or write English, and so on. Instead of annoying me, these descriptions now amuse me, although I suppose I reacted differently before I got used to them. I have suggested to another editor who was annoyed by the epithets she threw at him that he should take the same attitude, but this he found too difficult. As I confessed to him, too often I fail to hide my amusement. It is hard to hide it in cases like this. Esoglou (talk) 06:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I think I'll let this comment, particularly the beginning of the last paragraph, speak for itself. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if I sometimes wonder if her declared sexual preference may underlie her annoyance That is totally out of line, Esoglou. Just unacceptable. Liz Read! Talk! 19:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur. Roscelese and I very rarely agree on content, but the comments made about her personal life and preferences is completely over the line and unacceptable. GregJackP Boomer! 19:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize to Liz and GregJackP and to anybody else offended, for saying that this is an idea that sometimes comes to my mind but that I cast aside, believing instead that Roscelese is acting in good faith. Roscelese herself has not objected to my mentioning my rejection of this idea, perhaps because she explicitly says that I do not act in good faith but am out to advance an agenda. Not even here have I said that her personal beliefs are what inspires her editing. Esoglou (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry you were offended is very different from I'm sorry I said something offensive. It's the same as the difference between I'm sorry I did wrong, and I'm sorry I got caught. There's no excuse – none – to pull another editor's sexual orientation (openly declared or not) into a content dispute. If this were really an idea that crossed your mind and then was immediately discarded, there would be no reason at all to mention it.
    I gave you the benefit of the doubt before, as purely on the merits of the diffs presented here I felt that Roscelese was reading too much into your edits. Now, however, you have clearly crossed into personalizing the dispute. Drawing attention to the other party's sexual orientation as if it were in any way relevant to this discussion strongly suggests that you aren't capable of approaching LGBT-related topics calmly and neutrally, and indicates that a topic ban may be warranted after all. Frankly, Roscelese didn't do a very persuasive job of selling the topic ban; you damned yourself. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you suggesting that it is shameful to be "queer", the term Roscelese herself uses? There is nothing shameful about one's sexual orientation No more than about one's religious beliefs. I think you should apologize to Roscelese for thus insulting her. Unlike you, she doesn't think it offensive to describe herself in that way, and I presume you don't think she is saying something offensive when she refers to my religious beliefs. Esoglou (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    ....just...gobsmacked. Support topic ban, support block for trolling. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. Support topic ban and block per TenOfAllTrades. Esoglou, it isn't about me being offended, it is about inappropriate comments as TOAT explained above. GregJackP Boomer! 23:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well then, if the community judges that Wikipedians should be banned for admitting they had wondered whether an editor's edits on the topic of red hair were influenced by the fact of having red hair, I presume that, along with banning me for admitting such a thought but at the same time declaring my belief that the editor's edits were nonetheless honest and good-faith, it will also ban Roscelese for actually declaring that my religious beliefs are the reason for my edits. Is that the community's judgement? Esoglou (talk) 06:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think that you understand what the issue is. The comment on Roscelese's sexual preferences being a basis for her edit's are not acceptable under any conditions. Period. I do not doubt that I would disagree with her on the content, there is not much that we have agreed on. If she has made comments about your religious beliefs it is also inappropriate, and I would not hesitate to tell her that. The issue I saw is that you were confronted by it and either don't hear it or don't understand. I haven't seen the same response from her. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 11:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    You misread. What I said was that Roscelese's sexual preferences were not a basis for her edits, in spite of my sometimes wondering whether it was so. Roscelese on the contrary has accused me of editing on the basis of my religious beliefs. Esoglou (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You're only digging yourself in. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I've gone over this thread two or three times now, and, honestly, I see no clear and obvious reason for a proposed ban. On that basis, I would have to say that I cannot support one, and that, honestly, without such evidence being presented, there would be and is little reason for any additional commentary from Roscelese or others. If you have good, solid evidence to support the call for a ban, please present it. Otherwise, if it is not presented, I think the thread should probably be closed. John Carter (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you clarify whether you mean that you would like more diffs or explanation of the existing diffs (as I said, this is merely a selection, and sometimes the fact that Esoglou is eg. outright fabricating things isn't obvious if you haven't read the sources), or that you disagree that this behavior is disruptive? In your opinion, would an RFC/U be a better format? (Not that ANI is an improper venue for topic ban proposals, see elsewhere on the page, but RFC/U better lends itself to explanations of why edits are bad, perhaps.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    As a new editor on this article ~ and as someone who isn't a Roman Catholic or a homosexual ~ who is concerned about non-neutral editors pushing their own agendas, my impression so far is that it is actually Roscelese rather than Esoglou who is pushing a personal political agenda in the article. I am familiar with Esoglou on the Catholic Church and some other church-related articles. I actually consider him to be particularly fastidious, sometimes even to a fault, when it comes to articles using and reflecting reliable sources. I have not so far noticed any evidence of him pushing a personal agenda on the Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism article. The same, however, cannot be said for Roscelese who has repeatedly edited the article in ways which distort the facts by making universal generalisations based on particular examples. I have at least twice asked that Roscelene stop editing the article in this way. Afterwriting (talk) 08:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Is it the community's opinion that RFC/U would be a better venue for this than AN/I? I would be able to explain Esoglou's insertion of original research and factual inaccuracy in a little clearer detail by referencing the sources which don't contain the claims he inserted. Obviously his attributing my disagreement with him to my sexual orientation would also come up. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Jerry Pepsi

    USer Jerry Pepsi is playing God and keeps undoing edits that are factual and based on accurate information. He is abusing me and harrassing me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvfanatics (talk • contribs) 05:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I suppose you're talking about Polyamory: Married & Dating? This looks very much like a content dispute, and while Jerry Pepsi has posted on the article's talk page, I don't see any discussion there from you. I also don't see where either of you have provided citations from reliable sources to support the material you're trying to add to the article. My suggestion would be to start talking with each other before an admin decides to ding someone - possibly even the both of you - for edit warring, and for you both to start acting like collaborators rather than competitors -- after all, you have something in common, you both seem to be interested in what looks like a truly wretched and sensationalistic reality show we'd probably be better off forgetting. But then, what do I know? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm perfectly happy to discuss on the talk page how the last names that the participants in this show have plastered all over the Internet are "false information" but repeated requests that valid information not be removed have fallen on deaf ears. There is also an apparent conflict of interest here since the editor in question has stated that he's "revising on behalf of the show". If reliable sources will shut this editor up and stop him from removing the information then great, I'll track them down.
    • Beyond My Ken, should we find ourselves connected by Wikipedia circumstances in future, I will thank you to remain civil and not hurl curve ball insults about others' tastes in entertainment. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe User:Jerry Pepsi was referring to you saying "a truly wretched and sensationalistic reality show". Howicus (talk) 22:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake, clearly Polyamory: Married & Dating ranks right up there with Shakespeare, Stanley Kubrick and Mad Men as among the best our culture has to offer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I have filed a cross-complaint further down the page and have stepped away from the article temporarily. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 00:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tvfanatics

    This user reported me further up the page regarding Polyamory: Married & Dating and refuses to engage in conversation at that report, on the article's talk page or my talk page beyond advising me that I'm not the "boss of the page" and accusing me of being a troll. I added the known last names of the participants in this series to the page. Tvfanatics continually removes them, first claiming they are privacy violations and then claiming they are false. I have since attempted to add reliable sources for the names and Tvfanatics has removed them again along with the source. We are each at three edits in 24 hours so I will not revert to add the sourced material at this time.

    There is also evidence of a conflict of interest since the editor, who has made no edits outside this article (except talk pages), has stated that he is editing the page "on behalf of the show".

    This may also be a case of sock puppetry, based on the account Swingerlove whose only edits were to the same page to remove the same information. I realize this is not the right forum for sock puppet discussions but if an administrator wanted to check anyway I wouldn't say no.

    It is also clear that Tvfanatics does not understand the conventions of writing about television series based on hir changing the number of episodes incorrectly and removing the participants from the infobox on the grounds that they are not the "stars".

    I request that Tvfanatics be asked by an administrator to refrain from removing reliably sourced information from this or any other page and be put on notice that if it continues to happen s/he will be blocked. Thanks. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 00:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Fyunck vs. diacritics

    In octu oculi canvassed the Serbian WikiProject so I noticed this. I'm not sure if they should be sanctioned for that, but anway. The more egregious piece of flamebaiting is Fyunck(click)'s edits to random articles about Serbia referring to Ana Ivanović just to remove the diacritic from the surname: at "Grobari" last night and at "Serbian culture" two weeks ago. I've brought up the latter recently at WT:UE#diacritics flamefest, and there's a bit more detailed description of the general problem there, including a link to two extended discussions.

    IMO Fyunck's behavior is now well beyond the normal content disputes - they seem to have been on what appears to be a crusade against even the most trivial of the diacritics. This has been going on for over a year now - I think I first noticed this at Talk:Saša Hiršzon in February 2012, but it could be earlier.

    We've all seen it escalate in two other cases of the anti-diacritics clique - User:LittleBenW and User:Kauffner. Harping and harping on the same point until they hit a wall.

    This pattern of editing Wikipedia just to prove a point needs to stop. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd support an indefinite TBAN on diacritics for Fyunck, similar to the one on his friend LBW. Continuing to fan these flames after what has already happened (including to LBW) is just plain suicidal. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • How many different RFCs and other discussions have there been over the last couple of years? How many more will it take before Fyunck(click) gives up their crusade and recognises the consensus? Edits like this and this change spelling "per wiki consensus and wiki tennis project"; surely Fyunck(click) is the only editor who interprets the result of this RfC and this one as anything other than "stop removing diacritics". bobrayner (talk) 11:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually didn't know until just now that one of the ringleaders of the clique was also community-banned recently. Does Fyunck still not see where this is going? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually wouldn't go so far to say that we have complete consensus on the matter of diacritics. For example, Herostratus' comments in the Fontang RFC have some decent counter points to what is the organic consensus. At a minimum, it is a worthwhile discussion to have. I do however think that we have a consensus that this kind of behavior is grounds for an indefinite topic ban. IOW Fyunck(click)'s disruptive behavior is not doing anything to aid this discussion. Heck, it may be argued that it should stop because it will prejudice people against any argument that he supports! --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd agree with that; good points. bobrayner (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree too. But I should point out that Joy's op left out arguably the single worst case (see here and here), although it centered around macrons in romanized Japanese rather than diacritics in general. Just aside that if you're gonna include Kauffner you should probably include JS as well. ;-) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Wait a minute. It's not like I'm doing this to all kinds of articles... I'm putting in direct links to Ana Ivanovic, an article that by consensus is sitting at Ana Ivanovic. And why? It was brought to my attention that editor Colonies Chris was direct linking "thousands" of articles. Every time I turned around another one popped up on my watch list. Did Joy or In ictu oculi complain about all those direct links? They knew of them since I kept pointing them out. But no, so I direct link "only" the Ana Ivanovic articles and an ani is called for? Wow. We even had this the last time IIO complained where others chimed in with "We should list it here the way we have it in our article" and "you know very well that this question has been bandied about on Talk:Ana Ivanovic and the current consensus is not to use the accent." Why am I being singled out by User:Joy? You'll note I'm not reverting diacritic articles left and right, you can check the stream of complaints to administrators I have had to make against IIO, so his stuff is meaningless to me. Joy on the other hand should know better and should bring up something recent other than "consensus established" Ana Ivanovic. My behavior is not disruptive, I am simply doing what others are doing but in this case it seems to be against what Joy likes, and because he's an administrator his bias on the situation is showing it's colors. That's really unfair. I have no problem talking about this situation but it would sure be nice to see some different folks, away from the fray, willing to discuss it here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I've no idea what you're talking about with Colonies Chris. I reverted your edit to Serbian culture pointing you to WP:NOTBROKEN two weeks ago. Nevertheless, you proceeded to make these kinds of glaringly contentious and pointless edits, despite the year and a half of history of disagreement in the exact same topic area. Did you seriously expect someone to more explicitly notify you of how this is wrong? Or were you just doing drive-by edits with no regard to what happens next? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually you are referring to a post made by an editor who happened to find an edit I made, reverted it and I reverted it back. Then he posted this exchange where you saw it. If you have no idea about Colonies Chris (CC) then you aren't reading all the back and forth and problems I'm having with IIO and his disruptions, and you are being biased against me because it's something you don't like. Otherwise you wouldn't be bringing items up from years ago. Did you or will you issue warnings to all others who do thousands of direct links on a regular basis or is this because it was brought to your attention by an editor with a huge history against me? Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    One other thing of note. Administrator User:Joy states that I have "been on what appears to be a crusade against even the most trivial of the diacritics." I don't know what he means about that. If he means I !vote a particular way when I see a rm or rfc, then I see nothing wrong with that at wikipedia. If he means I now revert any and every diacritic I see, then he would be lying. If he means that when rm's conclude with an article name change, that I revert that article name, that would also now be a fabrication. But as an administrator, if he's going to pick on direct linking, just because he doesn't like it, and do nothing about direct linking by other editors because he does like it, then that is biased and unfair to me, and unbecoming his administrative badge. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    JFTR I don't "dislike direct linking", doing such a thing is simply a violation of WP:NOTBROKEN. Doing it en masse is suspect of WP:NOTHERE, doing it en masse in a topic area where you know that it is likely to annoy people is WP:POINT. Even if we all somehow disregard all history, and take your being oblivious to these issues now at face value, it's still a disruptive act that one should apologize for, but instead you resort to trying to throw mud at others (straw man, ad hominem). I think you've merely proven my point that there's no apparent benefit in the community continuing to tolerate you in this matter. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am really not liking the tone you are setting in this conversation. I'm "throwing mud" at others because I see an extreme bias of you to this situation. You seem to be willing to apply rules but only if it fits your liking. At least as far as Ana Ivanovic is concerned. Did you read those other posts agreeing with me that they should be directly linked. Did you check to make sure how many were created since Ana was moved to her present location and that needed to be corrected for a long time now that I finally got around to fixing? Certainly I can apologize and certainly I can say I won't change any more en masse to their direct links. But on the obverse if I see even one person change multiple instances of direct links in the future I would expect that if I reported it to you that you would come down with the same thunder and lightning that you are doing to me now. I would expect you to be even-handed. I would expect the same warnings on their talk pages regardless of which direction the diacritics took. I would expect up to date diffs. That would show me good and fair intentions instead of one-sidedness. Go ahead and ask me all my views on diacritics and see just how much of a "crusade" I'm on to verify that ridiculous statement. I'm an open book for queries from all, except one or two editors who I have been told to stay away from. It's not like I have something to hide or that I act hypocritically from one situation to the next. I try to be fair in accessing things and I try do do what many others do on a regular basis with no repercussions. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    An article can be moved from one title to another, but that never means that all references to the old title should be replaced with the new one. I don't know who you discussed this with, but it wasn't anyone with an actual knowledge of WP:R. That you would endeavour on such a replacement, without reading the generic rules, and regardless of the specific circumstances (contentious topic area), because some undetermined people told you so or because some other undetermined people are doing something else "with no repercussions", is proof enough that you lack the judgement to be editing in a contentious topic area. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said I was perfect. But your statement can work both ways. A particular editor has been told over and over that he is failing to apply the same standards to all articles and that he is singling me out for his complaints (we are talking 1000's of making sure links are direct vs my 100s), and that same editor comes running to you or to places you frequent to complain (and make no mistake, that is why you are here). We have other editors agreeing that my direct links are how it should be (and i gave you that diff).
    — Fyunck(click) — continues after insertion below
    I found no diffs in what you wrote earlier, but I did find a piped link to Talk:Serbia at the 2012 Summer Olympics where I found no agreement that would give you carte blanche to go about your disruptive stripping of diacritics. Exactly one person's opinion there, GRuban's, was strictly in agreement with this approach, and a few more could be interpreted like that, but on the whole it's moot at best because several opinions there are predicated on matters of consistency - and Ana Ivanovic is indeed currently inconsistent with the rest of the encyclopedia! Heck, the mere fact that it's the middle of the summer in the northern hemisphere, and that number of respondents there was smaller than the number of respondents to other RfCs, should have given you at least a trivial bit of pause. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet, I probably shouldn't expect much attention to the spirit of quorum given Talk:Ana_Ivanovic/Archive_6#Requested_move_2012_.231... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't take all that into consideration before bringing this to an/i, then perhaps you lack the judgement to be administrating this. Because I'm being judged on an unlevel playing field. I don't know where this tone of contempt is coming from, rather than trying to understand what this particular situation is, but it is unfair. You come up with wording like "his friend LBW"... he's not my friend...and why would you bring that up? Do you have disdain of anyone who disagrees with you? I notice you go right to asking for a ban, you don't come to my talk page and ask the reasons why something is being done. I disagree with you on !votes so I must be banned. I do what some others are doing with impunity and I must be banned. Seemingly most unfair. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You're ranting at the wrong person here. Please read more carefully who wrote those comments. (If I was cynical, I'd ask you whether you are trying to reinforce the impression of yourself as careless...) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You know it's really easy to get into a judgement "tit for tat" thing. I can honestly say I don't like doing this as it makes me uneasy accusing fellow editors. There are many many wiki guidelines that are ignored every day. Some are contested and some are not. We all know this to be true. What is policy one day changes the next. I truly believe that if an article changes to its diacritic form, and editors start changing all the direct links to conform to that, that no one would care; that that editor would never see the inkling of an an/i. Why, because I have seen it and it's what made me figure, to be fair it should work both ways. I didn't do direct linking until I started seeing all the changes to other articles. If things are done fairly and openly I tend to abide by results. I'm not quite sure what's happening here with this whirlpool. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I fundamentally disagree with your notion of tit for tat - we shouldn't support the idea that things change arbitrarily at a whim of any partial choice. We shouldn't have groups of tag teams at each others' throats all over the place. That's the definition of disruptive behavior. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Groups of tag-teams? I'm not sure what this means? Both sides of the issue have a few editors that get involved more than others to be sure. Fyunck(click) (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Folks, Fyunck actually has a "full house"; WP:OWN, WP:POINTY, WP:IDHT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT, on his hand, ultimately adding up to WP:GAMING. He has been at odds with the greater community of editors for a long time now, and has only been saved from lengthier blocks or bans by being smarter (more soft-spoken and sophisticated) than for instance currently banned/blocked editors GoodDay and LittleBenW. Overall, though, his behaviour is a nuisance to the project. He has been waging a retreating (edit) war to the brink of being blocked for edit-warring over individual articles, but stopped just short of it, for instance on:

    Dozens of editors have reverted Fyunck over time, dismissing the additions as trivialities and insults to readers, but he keeps re-adding it. Fyunck has, possibly worried about being blocked for edit-warring, given up the above articles, and is now – as far as I know – only "protecting" the article on Ana Ivanovic (history) from diacritics; the latest altercation there was with Mareklug on 28 July 2013. (This is the one article that In ictu oculi has referred to several times in this context.)

    I think it's time to seriously discuss whether a topic ban on diacritics would be appropriate.

    HandsomeFella (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This edit and edit summary on Gérard Solvès is rather telling: no reason for changing name throughout.
    HandsomeFella (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Note, this is one of two editors (mentioned above) who has been blocked for edit warring on the same issue (both long ago). He has been talked to by multiple administrators for harassing me. And these diffs for a year, year and a half ago are ridiculous. You'll note many had nothing to do with diacritics but whether censorship could take place on wikipedia when items are heavily sourced. A recent rfc decided we could censor here so there's not much to say on that anymore other than items that go against tennis project consensus and additions that the project feels is important to add. I'm not at all surprised to see him post here. In fact I would have been shocked if he didn't. As far as being a nuisance to the Tennis Project I guess you'd have to ask there among my peers... I can't speak for them. I simply try to do my best. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh, you conveniently forgot to mention that the other one was you. I have not been "talked to" by multiple administrators. I was asked – once – by an administrator, and I responded that I had mislabeled my report on you as 3rr instead of edit-warring. It did indeed have everything to do with diacritics, only you tried to disguise it as – don't laugh now, folks – "censorship". You know, it's strange that so many editors have "a huge history" with you. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The statement "it's strange that so many editors have "a huge history" with you" is untrue. I only claim to have a history on this with two people...and you are numero uno. I talk to anyone and everyone on my talkpage to come to compromises or change my mind. It happens a lot. But two of you have lost that right because of harassment and lies. Only two I can think of. One of which is extremely vocal and I know influences a lot of editors. There's nothing I can do about that except plod on doing whatever I can and trying to ignore attacks and such. There are plenty of editors I don't agree with 100% of the time but we almost always work through our differences with compromise and an agenda of improving tennis and other articles. Sadly, with two of you that won't work anymore. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Citation needed. Editors coming to your talkpage and asking you why you're carrying out changes against consensus is not harassment, it's how we communicate, although you obviously dont want to listen. It may ultimately lead to warnings to report you – although you label that as "intimidation" and "threats". Comply with consensus, and you'll have no such "trouble". Also, it's not the first time you are accusing others of lying. Can you provide diffs? HandsomeFella (talk) 11:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Fyunck, there is a veritable United Nations Security Council-worth of editors who have found your crusade against diacriticals both wearisome and destructive of the project. Tennis players cannot become a walled garden of articles where the sanctity of the diacritical-free Modern English version of the Roman alphabet is preserved against "foreign" influences. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Orangemike. Seriously, you use this term crusade and I'm wondering if in the last 6 months you're basing this crusade on fact or heresy heresay. Please ask me what my stances are and what I intend to do about them and I think you'll better understand me. I don't recall interacting with you before so I'll take you as fair and balanced in your assessment. You can ask on my talk page to save room here if you like and I'll try to be clear in my answers. You also have to remember that things weren't so clear 18 months ago so my actions on what I do on wikipedia may have changed substantially. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume you mean "hearsay", not "heresy". HandsomeFella (talk) 11:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    oops, yes, thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    New spelling is also wrong. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I notice Fyunck's userpage flaunts a quotation from WP:DIACRITICS: "follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language". I wonder, therefore, if he has consistently followed usage in English-language reliable sources, regardless of which way it goes? Has he ever supported an RM toward a diacriticized spelling because that is how all the English reliable sources spell it? I'll admit I generally prefer diacritics to none, but I have a consistent, systematic philosophy on this matter: for living people, spell their names the way they spell their own names; for dead people, spell their names according to reliable sources (read: university presses first, personal blogs last, and everything in between defined in order). I'd challenge Fyunck to show up at Talk:Empress Jingu where I recently opened an RM, and where almost all the RSs favour the diacritic spelling, and !vote in favour of the move. Or don't: I'd be happy with evidence that Fyunck has ever supported a single RM in favour of using diacritics. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Seeking topic ban for Hgrosser

    I am seeking a topic ban for Hgrosser (talk · contribs) from further edits related to the non-notable individual Nicole Hamilton, author of Hamilton C shell, also mentioned in C shell#Influence. His sole objective appears confined to calling unnecessary attention to Ms. Hamilton's private life and to her gender transition, contrary to our guidelines.

    Edit history:

    C shell: 10 edits, beginning 6 March 2013 with this result, and 4 edits beginning 26 August 2013
    Hamilton C shell: 2 edits, beginning 25 August 2013
    User talk:Hgrosser: Warnings 9 March 2013 and 25 August 2013
    User talk:Msnicki: Hgrosser's response 26 August 2013

    Though Ms. Hamilton's product appears notable based on multiple print sources, no such sources appear to exist to establish notability for Ms. Hamilton. Further, notability is not inherited nor is there evidence Ms. Hamilton might be notable for other reasons as might apply under WP:ANYBIO. Most of the available sources are Usenet posts and online blogs by her and her friends. All are clearly WP:QUESTIONABLE. The only possibly WP:RELIABLE source is an iTunes recording released by Stanford University of a panel discussion held at Stanford in 2007. But all of the content pertaining to Ms. Hamilton is her speaking about her own life in her own words, making it unmistakably WP:PRIMARY. Ms. Hamilton is simply not notable.

    Nonetheless, Hgrosser insists on calling attention to the private matter of her gender transition in the late 90s by inserting her former name in unnecessarily prominent ways into these two articles, doubly so when the main subject isn't even her software. This information is irrelevant to any discussion of her software product and the inclusion is unnecessarily intrusive into a non-notable individual's private life, disrespectful and contrary to our guidelines. Further, he's been warned twice.

    From Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, "Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material."

    And from Wikipedia:LGBT#Guidelines, "The Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidelines on identity indicate to refer to transgender individuals according to the names and pronouns they use to identify themselves. ... In cases where a gender variant person was not notable under their prior name, but has subsequently confirmed a different gender identity, the prior name should be limited to the main article. There is likely no need to bring attention to this by adding to the lede or an infobox. (See Do No Harm.)" In this particular case, there is no main article on Ms. Hamilton and no need whatsoever to call attention.

    Our guidelines notwithstanding, I'm aware there is always a tabloid fascination among some with the private lives of others, especially when there's a titillating sexual aspect. Hgrosser is not the first editor to have discovered, by comparing early and current documents describing her C shell, that Ms. Hamilton must have changed her name and gender. He's also not the first to decide this fact needed to be shared with the widest possible audience. To avoid having the information come and go in very likely completely inappropriate ways, which by itself would call unnecessary attention, my solution was a footnote to the author's name in the lede of the Hamilton C shell article, stating that she's discussed her transition at the Stanford panel discussion and giving the iTunes citation. If you really, really think you need to know more, you can go listen to her tell her story in her own words.

    Hgrosser was the first to insert her former name into the C shell article as well, where it truly is peripheral and completely inappropriate. This resulted in his first warning. But recognizing that if he had tried to insert it into that article as well, others might try also, I chose the more discreet approach of citing only the footnote contained in the Hamilton C shell article in the C shell article. I believe both articles now contain absolutely all that needs to be said on this private matter of this private individual's private life and probably more.

    Hgrosser has been warned twice, the second time that if he did this again, I would take it to WP:ANI. Here we are. After the second warning, he decided my citing only the footnote in the C shell article wasn't good enough, and that the whole thing, including the mention of the old name had to go into the C shell article as well. In his defense, Hgrosser argues that the name change is "confusing" and needs to be clarified. But (a) it obviously wasn't too confusing for too long to Hgrosser and (b) we are often confused by the things other people do in their private lives but that does not entitle us to find the answers on Wikipedia.

    There is simply no valid encyclopedic purpose to Hgrosser's behavior and it is contrary to our guidelines. The only edits Hgrosser has made to the C shell and to the Hamilton C shell articles have been for the sole purpose calling undue attention to Ms. Hamilton's personal life.

    I have no objection to Hgrosser editing either of these articles (or any other) for any other encyclopedic purpose should he ever have one, but I am seeking a topic ban on the subject of the non-notable individual, Nicole Hamilton. Msnicki (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Sheesh. The issue is, as Hgrosser describes, that our sources for Hamilton Shell say that it was written by Douglas Hamilton. Our Manual of Style, as expounded ad infinitum above, says we need to say it was written by Nicole Hamilton. There is no way around writing "Nicole Hamilton was, at the time, Douglas Hamilton," and backing this with a reliable reference. We don't have to go into long details about the transition but we absolutely have to write this, otherwise we have an article that says A and a source that says B. And it looks like this is all Hgrosser has done, one sentence, one ref. Far, far less than the wall of text just above. --GRuban (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC) While I appreciate this is a very sensitive area, I don't see the need for a topic ban at this time, the number of edits are small and it seems clear Hgrosser is fully willing to discuss it. Problems can and should be resolved via discussion and WP:Dispute resolution (probably WP:BLP/N) with recognition that given the sensitivity and WP:BLP issues involved, consensus should be reached before any changes are made rather than following BRD. While I agree we should not draw unnecessary attention to the subjects personal life, I think Hgrosser has a point that there is merit to mention the name change in one or both articles in some way since the limited notability which results in the subject being mentioned in the articles comes from the shell and as I understand it, she was involved in the shell before the name change and so people may recognise the older name and be confused, in addition to the fact that other documents including ones written by the subject herself may use her older name. I would note both articles currently use sources which are cited under each name, whether or not these sources are useful I have not looked at. And I am not saying we definitely need to mention both names in both article, simply that it seems to be a valid thing to discuss and we should WP:AGF that Hgrosser wants to make the change not to bring undue attention to the subjects personal life but because they feel not mentioning it causes unnecessary confusion. Whether or not it is necessary to mention and how is of course ultimately something that should be resolved via discussion. Personally, I would agree a footnote is probably best although I would note that the footnote which you seem to support where the transition is explicitly mentioned seems more intrusitive than simply mentioning the name change, but that's neither here nor there at ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh wow, I just noticed the footnote to a footnote of another article inside the huge wall of text: <ref>[[Hamilton C shell#cite note-3]]</ref> . Msnicki, you absolutely can not do that. One article can not cite another Wikipedia article as a reference. Our articles are not reliable sources - they can change at any moment, they are written by anonymous editors, and it is a non-trivial effort to find who wrote any given line. Since Nicole formerly Douglas Hamilton is neither crucial to C Shell nor, as you write, notable enough for her own article, I'm just going to elide her name from the C Shell article and hopefully reduce the field of conflict by half. --GRuban (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Nil Einne, it is not really that I "support" the footnote I've written but the edit history of the article that tells me other editors will be satisfied with nothing less. Case in point, why we are here.
    GRuban, the reference in one article to a footnote in the other is certainly not being offered as evidence of anything. It's only at best a "see also" on a minor detail that certainly doesn't need to go into C shell#See also. But to the extent it matters, if you click the link, you learn there is an apparently WP:RELIABLE source. If there is a better way of coding that, I am all for it. Hgrosser raises the concern that a cite note might be renumbered; I tried inserting an template:anchor instead but while wikilinking to it will scroll the page, it will not highlight citation. I am happy to promise to monitor the articles and fix the link if it does get broken. Msnicki (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Followup to GRuban: I just saw this edit. This is an excellent choice. Thank you. Msnicki (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    69.255.133.105

    69.255.133.105 has made a few edits recently to Santonio Holmes. In their first edit, they state they are "posting facts" however, writing "Since signing the extension, his tenure with the Jets has been nothing short of disastorous" seems a tad out of place for an encyclopedia. As a side note, I'm not sure how the community views the quotes in that edit and because they came from an anonymous teammate (WP:Alleged?) so some advice on that would be appreciated. Previously they had made this edit which I later cleaned-up prior to their August 25 edits.

    And this isn't the first time I've encountered this user. We also had a blowout at Bart Scott which spilled over into our talk pages. The short version of that story is the user has a poor attitude and accused me of apparently being the next coming of Kim Jong-un (similar comments have been made about other users in the past) and "protecting" Scott (you can read a large portion of the rant here) which is ironic given that the current version of the article notes the incidents that took place without any undo bias. I was trying to following the policies in place for the project which the user violated on multiple occasions, particularly WP:NPOV: here they included: "he never apologized to fans who paid hundreds of dollars for those seats". There was also this where they included a writer's opinion. This pattern of behavior dates back to 2011 and shows no sign of stopping given their recent edits. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 18:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Quoting is fine, but I don't know that I'd give this kind of sniping any prominence. Compare the lead for Mark Sanchez, which is quite neutral and limits itself to "[t]he next two seasons would be a regression for both the team and Sanchez as they failed to reach the playoffs. Fans and media critics called for a struggling Sanchez to be benched." I'll watchlist the article for a while. Mackensen (talk) 03:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Another sock puppet of 67.87.140.155 suspected [in fact, two of them]

    67.87.140.155 has returned with two more sock puppets: 72.223.114.14 and 24.146.199.41. These are the puppets that made a Yellow volume to Disney's Greatest Hits and Classic Disney: 60 Years of Musical Magic. Here's the evidence: [73] [74] ACMEWikiNet (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Please refer to WP:SPI. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just protected those two articles for a month since even if it's not technically socking it's still clearly disruptive. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    user:Cyberbot II is out of control

    Tagging hundreds of articles with massive templates and blacklisting websites like Nytimes and Theglobeandmail. Th4n3r (talk) 02:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Examples, please? Never mind, the links are examples...doah! Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an approved bot trial. The bot does NOT add links to the spam blacklist (only admins can), it only tags articles that contain blacklisted links. I haven't checked whether these links are actually blacklisted. MER-C 02:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The correct solution here is to fix the blacklist and not the bot. -- KTC (talk) 07:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Freeboard (skateboard) (again)

    Sock blocked, SPI updated. DMacks (talk) 08:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    We got a nice holiday but the the sock-puppets are back causing trouble at Freeboard (skateboard) again. User:Unotretre has a history of creating new accounts (all with the same features) so that he can "correct the record" with regard to the history of the Freeboard and it's various commercial variants and related companies. He started by making particularly grandiose (but unsourced) claims about his own company, Gravitis, but was blocked for sock-puppetry, NLT and NPA. Various subsequent socks have also been blocked for NLT and/or obvious sock-puppetry.

    Having failed to use WP to sell his products, his latest claim is that a particular person (for whom he tried to create a BLP a couple of times) "invented" the board and that our account is inaccurate. He has urged the WP community to engage in WP:OR and use patent documents to "verify" his various claims (even if we did, they don't). Unfortunately, his version of history is completely unsupported by reliable sources, most of which actually contradict his claims.

    He appeared again this morning with two new accounts and exactly the same unsourced claims as the other 9 confirmed sock-puppets. I referred everything to SPI here but there's a backlog. Can someone please block the new socks and semi-protect the article? (Protection ran out some time ago). Stalwart111 05:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    By way of history, see this talk page and this one. Stalwart111 05:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Your request is funny, on a side you keep the patents history hidden EVEN in the talk-page, on the other side you ask for verifying: start removing the hidden box in talk page so that people can see that Strand invented a "sliding roller board" and not a "freeboard", NEVER mentioned in his patent, term used indeed by Grippaldi in Europe from 2007 by involving more brands to it and spreading the freeboard word of sport worldwide. Show the patents history out of the box to public, now mention a previous patent, precisely https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=171464563010143&set=a.171464559676810.1073741828.127129214110345&type=1&theater To say, Strand invented a "laterally sliding roller board" not a "freeboard", the term freeboard is used since 2007 in Europe, period. I suggest to change the title of the article as Freeboard (roller board), more appropriate than (skateboard). The paragraph "The Freebord brand" looks like advertising today, why not including all other brands? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profano (talk • contribs) 06:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    read also the comment I did in the bottom here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Profano--Profano (talk) 06:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not keeping anything "hidden". You made silly demands and then got blocked and your demands were hatted. They are still there in case anyone wanted to take your claims seriously.
    Patents (that require original research to extrapolate meaning) are not reliable sources. This has been explained to you many, many, many times. Other companies, brands and products are not included because they are not notable (which is also why they don't have articles of their own). This has also been explained to you many, many, many times. Your editing (with various accounts) has had exactly the same pattern -
    1. Start a new account because your others have been blocked;
    2. Make bold claims about the great things Gravitis/Grippaldi have done;
    3. Deminish the claims made in the article that are supported by reliable sources;
    4. Issue legal threats when you edits are reverted;
    5. Get blocked.
    You need a new strategy - may I suggest you start by apologising for your dishonest behaviour and seek recourse via the standard offer. Stalwart111 07:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I will persecute the legal threats for sure, you just deleted Profano account where you publically wrote this (somebody urged to hide it??), printed in copy:

    Freeboard (skateboard)

    It's pretty obvious that this is yet another Unotretre account (what with the talk of patents, inability to understand WP:RS, and broken English). You'll soon be blocked (again) and the company you are trying to advertise (Gravitis) will continue to maintain an absolutely atrocious reputation here because of your actions. 9 of your accounts have been blocked so far for disruptive editing, making legal threats, username violations and for sock puppetry. The two from this morning will make it 11. When will you understand that you have only yourself to blame and that your campaign of dishonesty and disruption is pathetically transparent? Stalwart111 06:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

    Stalwart your comment is pathetic, the source was given, there's a list of patents you intentionally kept hidden EVEN in the talk page, there's a further patent mentioned today, previous to those I indicated and put in sequential order, why you keep publicizing the Freebord brand, and do not download the Strand patent and search for the missing "freeboard" word? You are only damaging another brand (Gravitis) in particular here and indirectly the other ones, find that word in the patent, no?! So you understand why I canceled that you wrote "Strand did a University ... about his freeboard?" He did a "laterally sliding roller board" is it clear what I mean? You are writing the FALSE.

    Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Profano&oldid=570361886" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profano (talk • contribs) 07:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC) --Profano (talk) 07:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Not only the socking and legal threats but WP:CIR as well, as no account has been "deleted" and the claimed deleted comments are still right there on his talk page. Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, that's all still there - haven't removed anything. Stalwart111 07:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Deleting reliable source of Turkish/Muslim civilians deaths

    Please look here [[75]]. The source for the number of Turkish/Muslim civilians deaths in western anatolia during Greek occupation 1919-1921 is being deleted. The deleting users do original research on the talk page [[76]] and claim the death toll exceeds total muslim number. They claim muslim pop was 1.1 mil but they only use a statistic of 1893 for Aydın Vilayet. But the source refers to all areas occupied by Greece. (Aydin Vilayet Hudavendigar Vilayet Biga Vilayet Kocaeli Vilayet parts of Ankara Vilayet. In those areas 3-4 million Muslims were living before Greek occupation.

    In Aydın, Muslim population was 1.4 million in 1914 but the deleting users use a census of 1893 which is 20 years earlier! The Ottoman census of 1914 here [[77]]. They add sources which states at least 15.000 Turks were massacred however those sources call this a minimum number and do not exclude at all that the death toll was hıgher. As it is known from many sources Greek troops burned many villages and towns during occupation and muslim death toll was very high.

    The source comes from Cambridge University and the author is Dawn Chatty. Still they deleted the source by doing original research, can you please correct this or inform admins? Thanks88.250.208.19 (talk) 12:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Chatty is using McCarty as a source but now they claim McCarty is unreliable because he denies Armeniam genocide. Correction he does not deny massacres or death toll but only questions the terminology of Genocide, still vague criticism towards him by some in that case is unrelated to the present topic of the Greco Turkish war, his books are used by mainstream academics. They also remove J. Rummel because they claim the issue is too comlex to be added in footnotes. The argument makes no sense as all other genocide death tolls are added in footnotes. They could brimg new sources to the casualty list however they chose to delete all sources which the they do not like, to make it clear all sources which mention Turkish/Muslim casualties.

    McCarty uses historical sources to calculate the Muslim and Christian population before the war period and after, the result of his extensive shows the dissapearence of nearly 1,2 million Muslims and 0,3 million Greeks. His figure for Greek casualties is close to that of Rummel 0.26 million. However Rummel gives no total number but mentions that at least 15,000 Turks were massacred by Greeks.

    Furthermore they claim McCarty uses deaths earlier then the Greco Turkish War 1919-1922, from 1913 till 1922, howevere this is again wp:or, the reason 1913 is chosen is because that was the moment before the wars. The Muslim death toll from 1913 till 1919 was very small im comparison to the Greek occupation when hundreds of villages and dozens of towns were burned down and massacred by Greek troops, this is confirmed by contemporary western sources. Still they claim that 1,2 million is too vague and is not for the Greco Turkish war period, they base this on nothing, as it is clear almost all Muslim deaths ocurred during the Greek occupation.


    These are the sources: Notes: According to research by R. J. Rummel, during the war (1919-1922) nearly 264,000 Greeks and at least 15,000 Muslim Turks had died.[1][2] According to McCarthy's estimates, nearly 1.2 million Muslims in western Anatolia and 313,000 Anatolian Greeks had died in the period ranging from 1913 to 1922.[3][4]

    In short they are searching for excuses to censor the Muslim casualties or minimise them towards a very small number.

    Blatant pov pushing and denial of Muslim casualties is the case in this article and has beimg goimg on for a long time. Admins have to look at this case, and stop this behaviour without warnings or sanctions it encourages them to do even more pov pushing, source distortion and original research. This is like denial of the Holocaust, but in this case only because the victims were Turkish Muslims they are allowed to censor it and no admin is interested to stop this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.250.208.19 (talk) 12:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This is an ongoing content dispute, which is in the middle of a recently started discussion at Talk:List of massacres in Turkey (and, I note, the OP has not yet participated in). This going through the normal process for a content dispute, and I am recommending no admin action at this time, and a suggestion that the OP particpate in the talk page discussion). Singularity42 (talk) 13:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    O.K obvious pov pushing, deleting academic sources, doing original research, source distortion, wk:canvass, false accusations against authors/books is allowed when the victims are Turks. It is clear why Turkish topic articles are so shit when retarded anti Turkish nationalists can do whatever they please by encouragement and ignorance from equally retarded admins.

    Note: The above unlogged user, is obviously (according to the tone of his language) perma banned in such topics user:DragonTiger23, per wp:ae [[78]]. He insists to restore, in a desperate attempt, his pov versions in the specific articles, but no wonder he received a perma ban due to problematic behavior.Alexikoua (talk) 10:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I sumbled across several entries with external links to domains that are owned by cybersquatters. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=hugedomains

    I'm assuming there are more of the likes to find. Any chance of automating removals? How is this happening in the first place?

    --Thrau (talk) 14:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I had a look at the first page that the search you linked came up with, Moshe Czerniak. That title "HugeDomains.com – ChessMile.com is for Sale" was added to the ref at 10:23 on 8 November 2012‎ when an editor used the Reflinks tool to automatically fill in bare URLs. I imagine that between the time the website was used as a source and then, it has become available for sale. Someone forgot to pay their domain registration fees perhaps! Therefore there is nothing 'malicious' going on here. Editors just need perhaps to check the result of using Reflinks before saving the page. ('Only' $1,695 for Chessmile.com. Only?)--220 of Borg 15:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC) (edited my post --220 of Borg 15:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

    User Heteren

    User:Heteren possibly added fictitious references to the articles Beggars Banquet and Sticky Fingers to support his edits after they had been reverted initially for being unsourced. One of the book sources they have cited is available at Amazon.com's preview here; the editor used page 512 from the book to cite this change to Sticky Fingers (as well as in a synthesis of various book sources here to Beggars Banquet). Using Amazon's preview and typing in "Wild Horses" shows no reference to page 512 (actually leads to the book's index, which shows what pages the phrase "Wild Horses" appears in, and none of the pages are 512). I was suspicious of the editor's addition to Beggars Banquet, where they added a slew of dubious book citations to replace what was already appropriately cited material. Now soon after being reverted for an unsourced change, they add one of the exact same citations for a completely different article. Dan56 (talk) 14:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    In the references used I have stated the total pages of the book, not the exact page the reference was pointing at. I thought I created a new reference name, which can be used further in the text. I will fix this mistake. --Heteren (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Mutual complaints M.H. and Hijiri 88

    Closing this as there is nothing else actionable. Everyone has made their points and it's time to AGF and move on. I think Michael now understands the limits of canvassing, and hopefully Hijiri 88 can take a deep breath and tone down his comments. Both of you need to just disengage from each other a little bit and let the AFD work itself out. --Errant (chat!) 23:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Regarding Michael.haephrati

    Editor is the author of Amiga wordprocessor Rashumon. Article is currently up for AFD (I !voted delete, but I think result is leaning keep). Editor was previously blocked (by User:Canterbury Tail and User:Ohnoitsjamie) for canvassing off-wiki including posting for keep !votes on an amiga forum, and after being blocked emailing many of the editors who !voted in an effort to have them change their votes. In addition to the very obvious meatpuppetry caused by this canvassing, the article/editor in question has a history of socking, most relevant here is User:Haephrati (Master User:Photopinka is ifdeffed). Two separate editors (one being myself, other User:Hijiri88) opened new SPI investigations simultaneously [79] [80] which have yet to receive attention . However, the straw that broke the camels back for me here is now the very blatant repeated removal of comments on the AFD by MH. [81] [82] [83] Gaijin42 (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Depending on whether you count the first removal, he's now at 5/6 reverts in the last few hours, and I'm at 4. Apparently he also snuck a comment into one of his reverts, so while trying to protect my own edits I accidentally removed one of his. It was a bad-faith dismissal of my !vote, and he has since demanded on my talk page that I withdraw said !vote, but still. I'm not sure if I should be sanctioned for violating 3RR while attempting to defend my own AFD comments from being removed. Also, as I said on AN, I can't revert the removal of my comments without reverting every other edit in between. Could someone (doesn't have to be an admin) please help me with this? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Michael.heaphrati has removed several comments that aren't his own from an AFD and (effectively) hidden them on the talk page where the closer is less likely to notice them. I noticed the most recent one and reverted, but he has now reverted me three times. I'm not asking for sanctions against him, but I need help reverting the first removal. My own intermediate edit prevents me from just reverting back. I'm on a phone so I can't copy-paste more than one word at a time. MH appears not to understand why he isn't allowed remove other users' comments from the AFD. An admin explaining this to him would also be helpful. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to report that no announcement was posted in my Talk page.--M. H. 14:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.haephrati (talk • contribs)
    Following this ANI I have placed back ALL comments (including my replies) back to the main page. Hope now everyone is happy.M. H. 15:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.haephrati (talk • contribs)
    Why did you remove them in the first place? And are you canvassing for votes at the AFD? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly he was, and was blocked for it. (off-wiki, and wiki-email) (I believe there is a WP:CIR issue here, as he maintains that he did nothing wrong. File:Haephrati canvsassing.png Gaijin42 (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    1. I still think this the more appropriate place for them is the Talk page, especially as they became more personal and the AfD is about an article not about me in person. 2. Regarding canvassing, I am not canvassing and what I did at start, was in good faith. I published a post which I then altered to be neutral and then removed it completely. The screenshot that is shown is the first version after which I was blocked. I have changed it a short while BEFORE being blocked and apologized. I then alerted the text and only asked anyone who is interested to join the debate and "vote for deleting or keeping the article". Following more complaints, even though, the new text seems to be OK, I have removed it just to be on the safe side. My mistake has nothing to do with this AfD as it is clear that all voters are genuine, most of them have a long editing history.

    M. H. 15:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

    Yes, after the page was protected, editors with long edit history did come to !vote. But How about [84] [85] Gaijin42 (talk) 15:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding Hijiri88

    Hijiri 88 has been harassing me and using bad language. See these pages ([[86]] and [page]). He published my personal email address onsite. He used cursing and bad language. An example would be:

    "MH, with all due respect, you can take your goddamn personal attacks and accusations about things you know nothing about, and shove them up your ass. The parenthetical statement clearly shows you edited the message after the page was protected. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)" (taken from the talk page).

    He is complaining that I am removing his comments to the Talk page but in fact, I moved them and replied to him there (on the talk page), which seems to be more appropriate, especially as his attacks against me are becoming more and more personal. I have no problem moving them back but what Hijiri 88 did was moving his own comments back and deleting my replies to his comments. He also posted what seems to be a non genuine vote, where he attacked me, while the debate is not about me. It is about the article. I have commented bellow and he then deleting my comments. Please look into it. Just ask him to calm down. To avoid such offensive language. I don't have anything against him. I just sent him a personal message suggesting that he stops this fight. Looking forward for your help.M. H. 14:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: Hijiri 88 continues to delete my comments. I don't know if he is doing it deliberately. He tries to place his comments back to the main AfD page. Even if he is right, he can't do that and at the same time delete my own comments (responses to his). Please advise. M. H. M. H. 15:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)14:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.haephrati (talk • contribs) [reply]

    Note that MH provides no diff to demonstrate that I published his email address. This is because he made this little tidbit up. He also carefully omits the context of my above somewhat-vulgar response to a comment in which he made a ridiculous and highly offensive accusation against me. He has not admitted that he was wrong and that, given the context of my previously having been stalked in the real world based on my Wikipedia activity, I am justified in being touchy about him attempting to present a revisionist history of said events. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    For all the claims of no socking going on, I have to be skeptical. There was originally a misposted canvasing post made to the AfD here. However yesterday Michael made a posting to an Amiga forum canvassing again, and coincidentally used the exact same wording as that other user as per the image posted above. Canterbury Tail talk 15:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    [[User talk:Canterbury Tail|, Excuse me but I did not publish any post related to Wikipedia or the article yesterday or since I wrote that I will remove these. --Michael Haephrati (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Canterbury Tail Indeed, interestingly, the AFD mispost you diffed there was posted 2 minutes BEFORE the post on the Amiga forums. Certainly there could be clock differences fixing this, but it seems somewhat incredible that if it isn't a sock, he noticed a post and came here to !vote within mere minutes of the post being made. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    RE: 'He published my personal email address onsite. ' - You posted it on wikipedia yourself, on your user page. I think the cows had already left the barn. - MrOllie (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    ... and yet, you can't publish mine and I can't published yours.M. H. 15:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.haephrati (talk • contribs)
    QuotingWP:OUTING, "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information". - MrOllie (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As MrOllie notes; as you've already published it on Wikipedia, re-posting it is not a violation of the outing policy, nor any other policy here. --Errant (chat!) 16:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, I didn't mean to publish the email of a Wikipedia editor. I copy-pasted part of a posting on an external forum in which MH asked people to help him with the AFD (something he has consistently denied doing more than once). I just forgot to delete the part of the quotation where he published his own email. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The email address was not published ever in Wikipedia, which is why it IS a breach. It was taken from the Amiga forum post. Michael Haephrati 16:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.haephrati (talk • contribs)
    To be honest; because it was a good faith mistake, and because you've publicly published it elsewhere on the internet, the usual response here would be to remind Hijiri88 take care in future. Which I am sure he will. However it's also worth noting that the email address appears on your user page here on Wikipedia in the Contact me section. --Errant (chat!) 17:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is a SECOND (made also on the 22nd) off-wiki post by Haephrati canvassing for !votes. [87] (The other message has since been gutted [88]Gaijin42 (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Note for Uninvolved - since the link above was posted, Michael has deleted the post so it no longer exists, but for reference was a duplicate of the same canvasing wording mentioned above. Canterbury Tail talk 16:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed the first one as well. BUT this is not canvassing for votes! This is a natural invitation to express an opinion in a debate. M. H. 16:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.haephrati (talk • contribs)
    It absolutely is canvassing. Offwiki post, on a forum full of sympathetic Amiga-philes. It is clear WP:VOTESTACKING. and stealth (not to mention your email canvassing which is also covered by stealth). And the messages as originally posted were not neutral, and were campaigning. It is a violation of almost every portion of WP:CANVASSING. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael; I read the original message. Firstly I did see the post before I deleted the image - that was definitely inappropriate canvassing. You are welcome to recruit more people to comment on an AFD, but the message must be neutral, you can't only notify people sympathetic to your cause and ideally you should only be notifying those with an knowledge of Wikipedia policy who are able to contribute. Your post failed on all those three points; you notified a forum sympathetic to your views and directed them to post in support of keeping the article. Posting off-wiki in general only serves to scupper your viewpoint, incidentally, because what happens is exactly what happened here; the AFD gets stuffed with redlinked on-edit contributors.. and the closing admin immediately discounts great swathes of !votes. I'm trying to get my head round this timeline but it looks like you were blocked on the 23rd for a post on the 22nd which canvassed support? And this morning you posted an additional canvassing post on that forum? If that's the case is it now clear to you what our canvassing rules are? And will you undertake not to violate them a further time? To the others, lets tone it down a bit please - some of the rhetoric in that AFD thread is disappointing to say the least --Errant (chat!) 17:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I confirm that I have posted offsite invitations to visit the AdF. I did that one time onsite (the Amiga Software talk page) and was then warranted, but did it also offsite (the screenshot), and in good faith, asking people to vote to keep the article. I was then explained that canvassing, even if done off site, is against the rules. I was then blocked by just before being blocked I already apologized and moderated my post to a more natural voice, just asking people to participate in the debate and to vote either for keeping or to deleting the article.
    I was then asked to remove it, and had long discussions and debate which in my opinion became very emotional and personal. However, I removed the moderated version as well, just to be on the safe site. I also understand the other point you have listed here which is addressing audience which by nature might be in favor of my side of the debate. For example, calling employees of a certain company to vote (to keep or to delete) an article about this company. Obviously, this is canvassing because naturally, these employees will vote in favor. Just for the sake of the argument, the forum (Amiga.org) is not a forum of Rashumon user, nor a Rashumon user group but a forum of Amiga users. So can't one invite Amiga users to an AfD of an Amiga software product?
    But, as I said, I removed the 2nd version. I definitely DID NOT post anything today or yesterday or since I announced that to be on the safe side I am deleting my forum message. Just to clear the table, I have deleted today an identical post message which had the old title but the body was just a call to send sources about Rashumon without mentioning Wikipedia at all. I changed the title.
    Please address my own ANI here (which was united with the ones against me. My complaint is about using bad language and cursing.
    In a nutshell, Hijiri 88 wrote the following in the AfD page: ""MH, with all due respect, you can take your goddamn personal attacks and accusations about things you know nothing about, and shove them up your ass. The parenthetical statement clearly shows you edited the message after the page was protected." :Should I post it again separately? Michael Haephrati 17:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Updated: Michael Haephrati 17:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Updated: Michael Haephrati 17:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

    I also wish to add the following text: "Ugh. So we've found ONE thing he technically wasn't lying about, although I did just accidentally copy-paste too much of his public forum post, and he did lie to me a bunch of times by claiming he wasn't still canvassing".

    I would like to provide diffs for my original claim and add a new claim (as this personal attack continues): See this diff. Despite the fact that I did not post anything new, canvas or not canvas, that isn't the issue here. The issue is using bad language and personal attacks. Calling another editor a liar, for example, writing ("... he did lie to me a bunch of times ...") is inappropriate. So does using cynical tone, such as ("So we've found ONE thing he technically wasn't lying about..") is also a personal attack and should be stopped. Michael Haephrati (talk) 19:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Haephrati (talk) 19:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    As asked here is the diff for publishing my personal email address. He got my email from an offsite blog post even though the same address aparantly was listed by me when I created my personal page (I completely forgot about it). so this address was never published in Wikipedia before.Michael Haephrati (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Haephrati (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Your email address is published, by you, directly on your user page, so there is no violation. You are repeatedly lying about your behavior, or the behavior of others. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    YOU are repeatedly lying about things you claim I have done. I will not tolerate you or anyone calling me a layer. You are creating a personal attack against me. The email was copied from a forum post and I don't think the fact that the same address is published in my talk page has anything to do with that. Michael Haephrati (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Move to close

    This thread has gone in circles, and doesn't show any signs of leaving that. I suggest that both users are warned about refactoring comments, accidentally or deliberately, Michael is given a final WP:CANVASS-warning (which means not posting anything about AfD debates on fansites or fan forums, regardless of the wording - the audience is never going to be neutral) and we all move on from this. Also, Michael, there is absolutely nothing wrong with using profanity, being cynical, or making factually correct statements on Wikipedia; some of the things you are complaining about fit these categories, although not all do. Please read WP:NOTCENSORED. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    These are two different claims. I would like my claim about the bad language (which continues) to be dealt. Calling someone a lair or indicating that someone "is lying" is inappropriate. There are more moderate ways to express a disagreement.
    About the canvasing issue, even though I did not post anything new, not yesterday, not today and not before (with the exception of what was already dealt here again and again), "fan forums" indeed create the risk of canvasing as all the participators or the audience are having an orientation towards the subject (such as a product). In my case, an Amiga forum is a wider and neutral audience, same as Microsoft Windows users (which is - all of us) are. They can be considered to be objective audience when it comes to a product that runs on Windows. Michael Haephrati (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe by using 'proof by contradiction', it might be easier to understand if you provide some examples of neutral audience that an invitation to join an AfD debate would be appropriate for them. Sorry for repeating this point but I would really like to learn from my mistake. --Michael Haephrati (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Michael; you;ll notice I made a general comment about toning down the conversation above. So hopefully that will take effect. But in general the comments made do not rise to a sanctionable level. We offer a strong warning to everyone and hope that you take the time to disengage. Thanks for clarifying the sequence of events, that is fine. As an example of who might be worth notifying - Wikproject Computing perhaps. Or if there is a Retro Computing Wiki Project, that would also be a useful place to put a neutral notification. As I understand it the accusations of lying relate to you saying you have not canvassed and them saying that is untrue. Now, I definitely agree that could have been worded better, but does it not seem to be the case? What I prpose to do is go and hat the conversation in that AFD and then you all move on to more pleasant interactions. --Errant (chat!) 20:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks!!! regarding my claim about calling my a liar, I was referring to the claims that I have continue canvasing which was not true. I did not continue, and forum users tend to duplicate such messages and re-post them, but I was not able to locate the user who has done that. Please remember that everything must be assumed as good faith. 5 minutes ago I realized that my own personal Wikipedia page has my email and I put it there and completely forgot! Why would I lie about that? Thanks again. I really appreciate how this ANI was handled. Michael Haephrati (talk) 20:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    persistent unconstructive edits/vandalism by 216.159.47.253

    there is a long history of this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:216.159.47.253 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/216.159.47.253 --Penbat (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    For reference, 14 warnings and a block of 6 weeks since November 2009. See IP's Talk. MM (Report findings) (Past espionage) 21:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Warned the school IP. Reblock if disruption continues. Toddst1 (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated violations of NFCC

    JoBrLa (talk · contribs) has repeatedly added multiple non-free covers to Revised Standard Version, which clearly violate WP:NFCC. Ive warned the user several times about this but the user is ignoring both me and policy. Werieth (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    These covers are fair use. There is no reason to take them down. I'm tired of people taking the articles I have worked so hard to improve and wrecking them. --JoBrLa (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of them may be {{PD-text}}. Maybe get input from Wikipedia:Fair_use_review? Some key ideas seem to be images of multiple printings or releases of what looks like the same one topic of the article and/or multiple images of the same item itself. DMacks (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Its just multiple releases of the same book, which isnt allowed. Werieth (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hijiri88

    Michael, I already advised you at your talk page not to open multiple threads on this matter! Already being dealt with above... GiantSnowman 19:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hijiri88 wrote the following in this AfD talk page: "MH, with all due respect, you can take your goddamn personal attacks and accusations about things you know nothing about, and shove them up your ass. The parenthetical statement clearly shows you edited the message after the page was protected"

    I don't think such tone of voice should be tolerated. Michael Haephrati (talk) 19:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Please stop spawning so many threads here, or you may get hit with a WP:BOOMERANG. You have already complained about that utterance a few times in the thread above #Regarding_Hijiri88. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Religious POV-pusher engaged in disruptive edits

    User:Davidbena has been confronted by multiple users with the basic Wikipedia policies, guidelines and essays and still attempts to push the religious POV that Bible is infallible and thus supersedes every contemporary historical scholarship. I even warned him that he will be reported here for disruptive edits and this has not stopped him from pushing his POV. Basically, he persisted in violating WP:NOR, WP:NOT#FORUM, WP:Advocacy and has shown contempt for WP:SOURCES and WP:PRIMARY. As you can see from the evidence shown below, he even scorns the possibility of getting a ban.

    Evidence: [89], [90], [91], [92], and [93]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    No. The complaint is worded in an exceedingly non-neutral manner suggesting a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. This is a clear case of WP:BITE. Ignocrates (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you point to which guideline or policy says that complaints about other users must be neutral?--v/r - TP 00:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right of course; a complaint doesn't have to be worded in a neutral manner. However, it makes the possibility of WP:BOOMERANG less likely if we stick to the objective facts. Ignocrates (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What's so complicated about finding secondary sources? He does not want to do it and he scorns at it. I have nothing against his religion, since I have warned someone seemingly atheist in precisely the same terms, see [94]. So, I warned a religious POV-pusher and an atheist POV-pusher, I am not biased for or against religion. If he would have chosen to obey Wikipedia policies after being warned, I would not have had anything against him. The matter has been settled once and for all by WP:RNPOV and all editors have to obey this policy. And even more the basic policies of WP:SOURCES and WP:PRIMARY, which apply to all articles. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And I do not have to be neutral in respect to someone violating basic Wikipedia policies. I am very much biased in favor of all users obeying them. This is a case wherein being non-neutral does not violate WP:NPOV. No editor is required to be neutral from applying basic Wikipedia policies. All editors are encouraged to apply them and correct those who fail to apply them. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry you are having such a bad experience, but I have found Davidbena to be very reasonable when not being threatened. I note that he received a warning on his user page before having WP:TPG explained to him. Ignocrates (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not hold against him his error, I hold against him persisting in error. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, let's try some creative problem-solving here. I advised Davidbena to read up on Wiki policies and guidelines and find a quiet place to work to develop his editing skills. I think he will be fine if he does that. All of this talk page verbosity aside, he has had very little real impact on any articles. A temporary 1RR might be considered until he gets up to speed. He can't engage in an edit war by definition with a 1RR. Would that satisfy your objections? Ignocrates (talk) 23:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I do not object to this solution. But, you are not an admin and here is the admin noticeboard, they decide what's to be done. Non-admins may only report problems here, they do not decide solutions. If it will eventually end in a ban, it is better that the ban is applied sooner rather than later. He has expressed the idea that the fact that he studied at an Yeshiva and that he employs "Jewish logic" (sic) gives him a blank permit to engage in original research, in copiously citing primary sources and an exemption from using secondary sources. Until he reforms such attitude, nothing good is to come from him as a Wikipedia editor, except perhaps spell-checking articles. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not exactly true. Anyone can determine solutions. This is a collaborative project and admins are not 'leaders' in any fashion. We merely are trusted with the tools. If you and Ignocrates can devise a solution, then take it and let's close this thread.--v/r - TP 00:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone is free to make suggestions for how to resolve disputes. Rather than meting out sanctions to a new editor, I propose that Davidbena abide by a voluntary 1RR restriction for the next two weeks until he gets up to speed. Ignocrates (talk) 00:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I have seen the abovementioned comments, and I can explain my behavior. I was speaking strictly to co-editors and trying to sway their opinion through logic. I have meanwhile submitted a new article below to Wikipedia which I have, both, written and translated from the original Aramaic. Davidbena (talk) 00:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:TLDR by Davidbena--v/r - TP 00:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    The Yemenite Ketubba (Marriage Contract)

    [Yemenite Jews]

    Introduction

    The ketubba was enacted by Šimon b. Šaṭaḥ (TB Šabbat 14b) so that it might not be a light thing for a man to divorce his wife.[5] The enactment provides for a man's wife to receive a fixed sum of money, usually accruing from his property, in the event of his divorcing her or of his predeceasing her. R. Šim‘on b. Gamli’el, however, held the view that the ketubba was a teaching derived from the Law (TB Ketubbot 10a). Whatever its origins, the practice has spread itself since ancient times amongst all the communities of Israel, the law prescribing that the ketubba be drawn up before the night of the wedding, and read aloud during the ceremony. In Yemen, the custom was to read the ketubba before the actual betrothals took place, so that if the bridegroom wished to back down, he could still do so. The reading was performed by the mori (rabbi) who read the contract while standing. When the mori concluded its reading, he would roll it up and hand the ketubba to the bridegroom, at which time the bridegroom stood up and commenced to make the benedictions and the actual betrothals.[6]

    As in most contracts made between two parties, there are mutual obligations, conditions and terms of reciprocity for such a contract to hold up as good. Thus said R. Yannai: The conditions written in a ketubba, [when breached], are tantamount to [forfeiture of] the ketubba.[7] A woman who denied coitus unto her husband, a condition of the ketubba, was considered legal grounds for forfeiture of her marriage contract, with the principal and additional jointure being written off.[8] (See translated text of ketubba for a broader understanding of these terms.) In former times, they would deduct seven denarii per week from the dower's price of her ketubba, for as long as she persisted in her state of rebellion against her husband by denying him to cohabit with her. The seven denarii were fixed in accordance with the number of unwritten obligations a woman was seen as having towards her husband: to grind, to bake, to cook, to launder, to breastfeed her son, to make-up his bed, and to spin wool.[9] A man, likewise, if he denied coitus unto his wife, was formerly compelled to add an additional three denarii per week unto the dower's price of her ketubba, until at last he acquiesced to his wife's desires. These three denarii were fixed in accordance with the three major responsibilities a man was seen as having towards his wife from the standpoint of the Law (Ex. 21:10): to provide food, to provide clothing and jewellery, and to cohabit with his wife.[10]

    In Yemen, the financial obligations pledged by a man to his wife were never seen as fictitious, as they are often viewed today. Rather, all obligations were legally binding and enforced by the courts. If a man divorced his wife without due cause, the court would oblige him to pay his wife the monies pledged in her ketubba.[11] However, in cases where the woman sued for a divorce, it was sometimes seen as a breach of contract, and the husband was not always compelled in such cases to pay her ketubba. One such case had arisen in Ṣan‘ā’ where the daughter of the Chief Rabbi and President of the Court, Yiḥye Yiṣḥāq Halevi (1867–1932), was married to Yiḥye b. Nissim Manṣūra, and their marriage had fallen apart. The woman returned to live in her father's house, without receiving a divorce. Her father soon began to appeal to his fellow jurists to force the husband to dissolve their marriage by giving the estranged wife a bill of divorce, as also to make good all payments in her ketubba. The Rabbi's daughter claimed that she found her husband intolerable, or what is known in Hebrew as me’is ‛alay.[12] The fellow jurists, R. Yiḥye Qafiḥ and R. Yiḥye Abyaḏ, contended that he ought, indeed, to divorce his wife, but not be compelled to pay her ketubba, citing that a woman was not to be believed when saying that her husband was intolerable, lest perhaps she laid eyes upon some other man. Now there arose a great dispute over this matter, dividing the community. Some said that he ought to divorce his wife and to pay her ketubba, while others said that he ought to divorce her, yet not pay her ketubba. At length, after much coercive speech and prodding, the husband divorced his wife, yet was she not entitled to any settlement. He eventually went off and was married to a different woman.[13]

    The actual payment of a woman's ketubba is regulated by Jewish law. Maran (Rabbi Yosef Karo) wrote: A widow does not exact her ketubba, the principal (‛iqar) and the additional jointure (tosefeth), except by being administered a sworn oath.[14] The purpose of the oath was to ensure that, when the widow came to exact the pledges made by her hus-band in the ketubba, she had not taken away, prior to the Court's dispensing of her husband's property, any of her husband's goods, or had forfeited her ketubba, or sold it to her husband.[15] Even so, in Yemen, the custom was different. According to a responsum written by the Court at Ṣan‘ā’ in 1911 to R. Avraham Kook, Chief Rabbi of Jaffa: "...they (the Court) would, for the most part, strive to make a com-promise between them (i.e., the widow and the heirs to their father's pro-perty), while forgoing the necessity of bringing her under an oath. In most cases, her sons are the heirs, and are quick to exonerate their mother. But those heirs who stand on the letter of the law, they bring her under oath."

    The ketubba which we have selected is unique in that it bears the signature of one of the greatest Rabbis ever produced by Yemen, viz., R. Yiḥye b. Yosef Ṣāliḥ, known by the acronym Mahriṣ. Today, it is found in the Ketubba collections at the library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of New York, collection no. JTS KET 412, written on paper and measuring 32.8 x 22.1 cm. The handwriting is believed to be that of Mahriṣ. The year in which the ketubba was written was 1747 CE (corresponding with the year 2058 of the Seleucid Era, or what is also known as the year of Alexander, or the Era of Contracts), written in the city of Ṣan‘ā’, some sixty-seven years after the community's return from their Exile to Mawza‛. The old Jewish Quarter (al-Sā’ila) had been demised of its former status, while the new quarter had just been built without the walls of the old city. During that same year, the community would lose their respected and beloved Rabbi, David b. Yiḥye Ḥoṭer, who served as President of the Court at Ṣan‘ā’. So, too, the secretary of the Court, R. Yosef b. Sa‛adia Bešārī, a man responsible for making a written record of all deeds transacted in the Court, had ceased to work in this profession.

    בשם רחמן בְּשֵׁם אֲשֶׁר לוֹ הַגְּדוּלָּה / וּמרוֹמָם עַל כָּל בְּרָכָה וּתהִלָּה / בְּשָׁעָה מְעוּלָּה וְעוֹנָה מְהוּלָּלָה / וְיָד וְשֵׁם וּתהִלָּה / וְדִיצָה וְצַהֲלָה / וְחֵן וְחֶסֶד וְחֶמלָה / וּמִלּוּי כָּל שְׁאָלָה / לֶחָתָן וְלַכַּלָּה / וּלכָל הַקְּהִלָּה הַנִּקהָלָה / זֶרַע יִשׂרָאֵל הַסְּגֻלָּה / יָשִׂישׂוּ וְיִשׂמָחוּ / וְכַשּׁוֹשָׁן יַפרִיחוּ / וְכַבֹּשֶׂם יָפִיחוּ / וְיִבָּנוּ וְיַצלִיחוּ / כְּוַיִּבנוּ וַיַּצלִיחוּ / מָצָא אִשָּׁה מָצָא טוֹב וַיָּפֶק רָצוֹן מֵיְיָ / בַּיִת וָהוֹן נַחֲלַת אָבוֹת וּמֵיְיָ אִשָּׁה מַשׂכָּלֶת

    בְּמַעֲלֵי שַׁבָּא דְּהוּא תִּשׁעָה יוֹמִין לְחֹדֶשׁ שְׁבָט שְׁנַת תְּרֵין אַלפִין וְחַמשִׁין וְתַמנֵי שְׁנִין לִשׁטַרֵי בְּמַאתָּא קַאע בִּיר אַלעֲזַבּ דְּעַל בֵּירִין דְּמַיִין נָבעִין דִּילַהּ מוֹתְבַהּ בְּיוֹמָא דְּנָן בִּזכוּת אַברָהָם אֲבוּנָא אֵיך יוֹסֵף ןׂ סַאלִם ןׂ סְלַימַאן אלהשׁאשׁ אלמְכֻנָּא אלפְתַיחִי חַתנָא אֲמַר לַהּ לגַזאל בִּנתּ יוסף ןׂ סַאלִם צַאלִח הַמְּכֻנָּא אלחַידַּאנִי כַּלְּתָא בְּתוּלְתָא הֲוִי לִי לְאִנתּוּ כְּדָת מֹשֶׁה וְיִשׂרָאֵל וַאֲנָא בְּמֵימְרָא דִּשׁמַיָּא אֶפלַח וְאוֹקֵיר וַאֲסוֹבַר וַאֲזוּן וַאֲפַרנֵיס וַאֲכַסֵּי יָתִיכִי כְּהִלכָּת גּוּברִין יְהוּדָאִין דְּפָלְחִין וּמוֹקְרִין וּמסוֹבְרִין וְזָנִין וּמפַרנְסִין וּמכַסִּין יָת נְשֵׁיהוֹן בִּקשׁוֹט וִיהֵבנָא לִיכִי מוֹהַר בְּתוּלִיכִי כֶּסֶף זוּזֵי מָאתַן דְּאִנּוּן מִזּוּזֵי כַּספָּא דָּכיָא עַסרִין זוּזִין וְחַמשָׁה זוּזֵי דְּחַאזוּ לִיכִי וּמזוֹנִיכִי וּכסוּתִיכִי וְסוּפקִיכִי וּמֵיעַל לְוָתִיכִי כְּאוֹרַח כָּל אַרעָא וּצבִיאַת כַּלתָא דָּא וַהֲוָת לֵיהּ לְאִנתּוּ וְדָא נְדּוּניָא דְּהַנעֵילַת לֵיהּ מִאיַה' קַפלֵה פֻצַׂה הַכֹּל נִתקַבַּל חָתָן זֶה וּבָא לְיָדוֹ וְנַעֲשָׂה בִּרשׁוּתוֹ וְזָקַף הַכֹּל עַל עַצמוֹ בְּמִלוָה וּרשׁוּ וְדִי יָהֵב לַהּ בַּעלַהּ חַתנָא דְּנָן בְּמַתַּנתָּא קַמַּייתָּא מִאיַה' קַפלֵה פֻצַׂה וְדָרְתָא בִּמדוֹר יְהוּדָאֵי בְּמַפְּקָנַהּ וּמַעֲלָנַה וְכָל צוּרכָּהּ דְּחַאזוּ לַהּ מֵאַרעִית תְּהוֹמָא וְעַד רוּם רְקִיעָא וְרָצָה וְהוֹסִיף לָהּ תּוֹסֶפֶת בְּסוֹף מוּהרָהּ מִאיַה' קַפלֵה פֻצַׂה אַלכֻּל מִן הַדֵׂה אלקִפַאל אלפֻצַׂה אלמַדׂכּוּרַה פַוק אלַּדִׂי יַצִח פִי כֻּל מִאיַה' קַפלֵה מִנְּהַא אתׂנַין וְעִשׁרִין קַפלֵה פֻצַׂה טַיְּיבַּה כׂאלִצַה בִּוַזן אלצאגַה אלצַנעאנִי אלמַערוּף לִאלפֻצׂה פִי מְדִינַה' צַנעַא פִי סוּק אלצֻוַוג וְכָּך אֲמַר לַנָא חַתנָא דְּנָן אַחרָיוּת כְּתוּבָּה דָא כּוּלַּהּ עִיקָר וּנדּוּניָא וּמַתַּנתָּא קַמַּייתָּא וְדָרְתָא וְתוֹסֶפתָּא עִם כָּל שְׁאָר תְּנַאיֵי כְּתוּבָּה קַבֵּילִית עֲלַאי וְעַל יָרְתאי בַּתרַאי וְעַל כָּל שְׁפַר אֲרַג נִכסִין וְקִניָינִין דְּאִית לִי תְּחוֹת כָּל שְׁמַיָּא דִּקנֵיתִי וְדַעֲתִיד אֲנָא לְמִקנֵי מִקַּרקְעֵי וּמִטַּלטְלֵי מִטַּלטְלֵי אַגַּב מְקַרקְעֵי כּוּלְּהוֹן יְהוֹן אַחרָאִין וְעַרבָּאִין לִכתוּבָּה דָּא כּוּלַּהּ עִיקָר וּנדּוּניָא וּמַתַּנתָּא קַמַּייתָּא וְדָרְתָא וְתוֹסֶפתָּא לְאִתפְּרָעָא מִנְּהוֹן בְּחַיַּאי וּבָתַר מָוֶת וְאַפִילּוּ מִגְּלִימָא דְּאַכִּתפַּאי וְקָנִינוּ מִן יוֹסֵף חַתנָא דְּנָן לכַלתָא גַזאל דָּא עַל כָּל מַאי דְּכַתִיב וּמפָרַשׁ לְעֵיל קִניָן שָׁלֵם חָמוּר גָּמוּר מֵעַכשָׁו בִּכְלִי הַכָּשֵׁר לִקנוֹת בּוֹ בְּבִיטּוּל כָּל מוּדַעֵי וּתנַאיֵי עַד סוֹפְהוֹן וּשׁטָר כְּתוּבָּה דָּא לָא כְּאַסמַכתָּא וְלָא כְּטוּפסֵי דִּשׁטַרֵי אֵלָא כְּחוֹמֶר חוֹזֶק כָּל שִׁטרֵי כְּתוּבּוֹת הַנּוֹהֲגוֹת בְּיִשׂרָאֵל וְכַהוֹגֶן וּכתִקּוּן רִזִ"לִ וְהַכֹּל שְׁרִיר וְקַיָּים. דוד ןׂ יחיא יש"ל הצעיר יחיא בן כמה"ר יוסף נע"ג

    English Translation

    [We bear witness] this day, on the Sabbath eve (Friday), corresponding to the ninth day of the month of Ševaṭ, [in] the year two-thousand and fifty-eight of the Year of Alexander, in the town wherein lies the quarter known as 'The Single's Well' (Bīr al-'Azab), [a city] situate upon her wells of flowing water, by the merit of Abraham our forefather, how that Yosef, the son of Sālim, the son of Slaymān al-Hišāš, who is called [also] by the name al-Ftayḥī, being the bridegroom, said to the virgin bride, Ghazāl, the daughter of Yosef, the son of Sālīm Ṣāliḥ, who is called [also] by the name al-Ḥaydānī, being the virgin bride, "Be my wife, in keeping with the religion of Moses and Israel, and I shall, with God's help, work, and honour, and sustain, and nourish, and support, and invest you with clothing, according to the manner of Jewish men who work, and honour, and sustain, and nourish, and support, and clothe their wives in good faith, for which I have proffered you the dower's price of your virginity, two-hundred silver denarii,[16] in which [sum] there are twenty-five denarii of pure silver coin in specie [of that kind which was formerly used in the Holy Šeqel], of which things you are most worthy, as also your sustenance, and your apparel, and your conjugal rights, that I might come upon you according to the way of the whole world." Now this bride consented [to such matters], and she has become unto him a wife. Now this largess (dowry)[17] which she brought into him [upon wedlock] is valued at one-hundred silver-[alloyed] qaflas.[18] All has been received by this bridegroom, and has come into his hand, and has become his possession, and he has incurred every-thing upon himself as it were a loan [given unto him], and a debt. That which the husband, the said bridegroom, has vouchsafed unto her as an initial gift is valued at one-hundred silver-[alloyed] qaflas,[19] and a courtyard (dwelling place) amongst those places inhabited by Jews, allowing her to go out and to come him,[20] and supplying her with all that which she might stand in need of,[21] which are but fitting unto her, from the depths of the earth [below] unto the height of heaven [above]. And he has desired, moreover, to confer upon her an additional jointure[22] subsequent to that which is prescribed of the dower's price, the value of which [jointure] is one-hundred silver-[alloyed] qaflas. All are comprised of those silver-[alloyed] qaflas mentioned above, which in every one-hundred qaflas of those calculated are twenty-two pure and unalloyed silver qaflas, based after the weight of the Ṣan‘ānī, jewelers, and which same [standard] is recognized as silver in the city of Ṣan‘ā’, in the Silversmiths' Marketplace.

    And thus did the said bridegroom say unto us, that "the guarantee given for this marriage contract, in its entirety [viz.], the principal,[23] and the largesse, and the initial gift, and the courtyard, and the additional jointure, with all the other conditions [written down] in the marriage contract, I have taken [them] upon myself and upon my heirs that shall come after me, and have made subject [to the conditions of this contract] the choicest of property and acquisitions acquired by me beneath the whole of heaven, whether those things which I have [already] purchased or that which I stand to purchase in the future, whether it be of estates or of chattels, or the appurtenances which lie upon lands of estate; all of them shall become the collateral and security for [payment of] this marriage contract in its entirety – the principal, and the largesse, and the initial gift, and the courtyard, and the additional jointure – for the reimbursement thereof, whether in my lifetime or after death, and even if it entails being stripped of the robe upon my shoulder." Now we have purchased from Yosef, the said bridegroom, for this bride, Ghazāl, concerning all that which is written or expressly stated above, what is considered a most complete act of purchase, having the full force and validity [of all other legal transactions], taking effect from this very moment by virtue of [his taking hold onto] a decent piece of clothing[24] with which he disavows all declarations and stipulations [that he might have made to the effect of his being compelled against his will to marry the said bride], even unto the very last statements [that were made by him].[25] Moreover, [the terms of] this marriage contract are not [misconstrued as] a mere 'assumption' [of things which are to be], neither like unto those pre-drafted forms used in [some] contracts, but rather like unto those which have the severity and force of all marriage contracts practised in Israel, as which is right, and in accordance with what was enacted by the Rabbis, of blessed memory. Now all [that which is herein written] has our assurances of being firm and established

    [In witness whereof we have affixed our names and seals:] 

    David, the son of Yiḥye,[26]  may his name live forever

    The Younger, Yiḥye the son of our honourable teacher, the Rabbi, Yosef, whose inheritance is in the Garden of Eden.[27]

    Bibliography text

    Yuda Levi Nahum, Misefunoth Yehudei Teiman. Tel-Aviv 1986

    Yehudah Nini (editor), al-Misawwadeh: Court ledger of Ṣan‘ā’'s Jewish community in the 18th century; Hebrew Translation by Nissim Benyamin Gamli’eli. Tel-Aviv 2001.

    Yosef Qāfiḥ, Halikhot Teiman. Jerusalem 1961.

    Ketavim. Jerusalem 1989.

    Amram Qoraḥ, Sa‘arat Teiman. Jerusalem 1954.

    Yosef Tobi, Anecdotes on the Jews of Yemen from Responsa. A Tribe and Nation, VII (1973), pp. 271-291.

    Shimon Tzalach (Ṣāliḥ) – editor, Tiklal ‘Eṣ Ḥayyim Hashalem. Jerusalem 1971.

    Shemu’el Yavne’eli, Masa‘ Teiman. Tel-Aviv 1952.

    This is an example of a rookie mistake. Davidbena, AN/I only deals with matters of conduct, not article content. Please respond to my draft proposal above and indicate whether you would be willing to abide by a voluntary 1RR restriction for the next two weeks. Ignocrates (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You were attempting to persuade multiple veteran editors to renounce to basic Wikipedia policies in order to accept your fringe view as valid. You have been warned multiple times that it is fringe and that you need to make verifiable edits through citing secondary sources. If you have no sources, no amount of "logic" is going to convince other editors to accept your content as valid. Wikipedia policies are mandatory for all editors. If you want to discuss Wikipedia policies the first step would be to learn them, apply them, appreciate them, understand their purpose and only then try to improve them. You cannot claim that as a Yeshiva graduate you are exempted from what is mandatory for all editors. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Tgeorgescu, I came to this talk forum on "Matthew's Gospel" hoping to build a consensus in support of "corrections," as I see them, being made to the main article, Gospel of Matthew. I'm sorry if I offended anybody by my behavior or comments. The truth is, I have much to learn. In fact, I do not even know what a voluntary 1RR restriction entails. (lol). Still, while you are well-versed in the Wikipedia rules and guidelines, I reiterate that certain "Prime Sources" which I have tried to promote should not be viewed as negating Wikipedia policy. And, yes, if you wish that I refrain from posting anything for 2 weeks, I can agree to that. Is that what 1RR means? When I come back, will I be free to express myself in these inner circles? Davidbena (talk) 01:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Davidbena, I'm sorry if I was not sufficiently clear. A 1RR editing restriction means you are limited to one reversion on a given article page within a 24 hour period. There is no reason to refrain from editing completely; otherwise, you will have no way to continue to improve your skills. The point is to improve your skills without causing conflict in the process. So, now that I have clarified what 1RR means, are you willing to abide by a voluntary 1RR restriction for the next two weeks? Ignocrates (talk) 01:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    A 1RR editing restriction would apply only to article pages. You are free to express your opinions on talk pages and in forums like any other editor, as long as you continue to do so in a respectful manner that is consistent with WP:Wikiquette guidelines. Ignocrates (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    So, if I understand correctly, it means that I will be permitted to make only one comment per 24 hours on an "article page," for a restrictive period of two-weeks, on the condition that I abide by the rules of politeness (civility). Yes, if that is what it takes for me to learn and to become a better editor, I will agree to such strictures. Davidbena (talk) 01:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    No, not exactly. You may make as much changes to the article page as you wish. However, if another editor undoes one of your changes, you may only change it back once. If it's undone a second time, you're restricted from changing it back a 2nd time. Scenario: You add into an article about Bob that "Bob likes bananas". EditorABC comes along and changes it to "Bob likes Oranges". You 'revert' back to "Bob likes Bananas." Up to now, everyone is A-Okay. However, EditorABC comes back and, once again, changes the article to "Bob likes Oranges". If you change it back to "Bob likes Bananas" again, then you'll be blocked from editing.--v/r - TP 02:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. This self-imposed editing restriction is really quite modest compared to the sanctions often handed out here, and it applies for only a short period. However, because it applies to all articles, you will effectively be prevented from edit warring anywhere on Wikipedia during your two week training period. If you find yourself right back here in two weeks for the same reasons, I think you can anticipate a different outcome. Ignocrates (talk) 03:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    In summation, I assume since Davidbena said "yes" to what he thought was a restriction of one edit per article page in 24 hours, he is therefore fine with a restriction of one revert per article page in 24 hours. Is everyone ok with this suggested compromise? Going once, going twice,... Ignocrates (talk) 04:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, now I understand what you are saying, and I will abide by it. Davidbena (talk) 05:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This proposed solution does not appear to address an important issue. In the first diff cited by Tgeorgescu[95], Davidbena said "the Hebrew Bible, is an accurate historical record of events that transpired long ago." There needs to be evidence that Davidbena understands that is not a valid premise for making article content decisions in Wikipedia. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I think David gets the idea that his editing was problematic. We don't need to beat and mold him into the perfect editor in 1 ANI thread. He's being receptive to criticism right now so let's see how Ignocrates guidance goes and leave him to it.--v/r - TP 11:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    For a Bible thumper it may be very difficult to understand that the Bible is not wholly and objectively true. But as long as he keeps his faith in the infallibility of the Bible completely separate from his Wikipedia activities, he could be a good editor. Some years ago I did not know that one has to use reliable sources in order to edit Wikipedia, but when asked to consider it, I understood this is required from everybody and I complied with this request. For me, the decision was between complying and continuing to edit and quitting in protest; I was not willing to create problems through my edits. This does not imply that I lost faith in the truth of my contributions, but I have understood that they are required to be encyclopedically verifiable. And verifiable means having reliable sources.
    Now, I did not say that theology isn't allowed on Wikipedia, what I said is that theology does not trump history and that history does not trump theology (that's the gist of WP:RNPOV: theology and history are distinct and compartmentalized, even when in dialog with each other). If he could find some theological source saying the Gospel of Mattew was written in Aramaic, he could affirm something like "Evangelicals believe as a matter of true faith that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Aramaic, while Catholics and Eastern Orthodox don't believe it that way." But I am afraid that today such view is fringe even among the Evangelicals, while in Judaism it is a non-issue. That's why he could not find sources: there is scarcely any scholar worth his salt which would put that in a book or article, i.e. in other ways than opinion hold in the past but now abandoned by scholars. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. We all have private POVs. Hopefully, with practice, he will learn to edit from a neutral point of view and no one will be able to tell what they are. Let's give this a few more weeks and see how it goes. Ignocrates (talk) 13:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure 1RR on the article is the restriction most called for here, considering that Davidbena hasn't edited Gospel of Matthew since 22 August. Since then, he has been writing on the talkpage only. Of course that's a better place for it; but the current problem is surely db's bloating-up the talkpage with repetitious, overlong, multitudinous posts and his certainty that he understands wikipedia policy better than experienced editors, assuring the people who explain policy to him that it is they who "misunderstand the rules of Wikipedia".[96] There's nothing quite like such confident wikilawyering from a new editor for wearing everybody out, especially when it's coupled with calls for special consideration for being new. Davidbena, please read WP:REHASH: "If your arguments are rejected, bring better arguments, don’t simply repeat the same ones. And most importantly, examine your argument carefully, in light of what others have said.". Some restriction regarding use of the talkpage seems to be called for here, since Davidbena has ignored sensible appeals like In ictu ocoli's "Now, please do not quote the Bible or the Talmud on this Talk page again" or "Please please please please stop posting WP:PRIMARYSOURCES". (Davidbena's response to that was "Why are you so antagonistic?") Nobody minds giving extra time to teaching newbies, but constructive, experienced editors should enjoy some protection from having their time and energy wasted on those who will not hear. I agree we can start by hoping that this ANI discussion has had a good effect, but if there's no improvement shown soon, we shouldn't wait long to institute a topic ban. In view of Davidbena's recent edit on Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews, perhaps it needs to be for more than just the Gospel of Matthew. Bishonen | talk 13:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
    AfD courtsey blanked, one edit suppressed, looks like we're done here. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I apologize if (1) I am in the wrong place or (2) this does not warrant your attention. I noticed this edit and this edit that appear to be a legal threat, or something akin to it. I felt it best to bring it to your attention. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a WP:DOLT moment right here. Let's keep WP:BLP in mind and remove anything that isn't necessary; including anything from an WP:AFD.--v/r - TP 02:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed with this edit. We should be done here.--v/r - TP 02:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for attending to this. Being new here, I was unaware of WP:DOLT but remember it in the future. Cheers. EvergreenFir (talk) 10:13 am, Today (UTC+8)

    Extra question: Should the two edits I linked be removed as they are a legal threat? They also contain personal info. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Another edit has occurred related to this. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I took the matter straight to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Spam mail IP? and his posts were scrubbed. I have absolutely no idea who he was, what he was talking about, or why he picked one of my pages from all the users on Wiki. Nor am I interested. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 04:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Need help dealing with SPA

    The user Catiiitv (talk · contribs) has been on Wikipedia since September 2012. In that time, he/she has created an article about a non-notable band which as been A7ed three times [97], and then subsequently inserted the name of the band into the Outsider music article. The account has made no other edits except to my talk page yesterday and today. I have twice cleared the Outsider music article of redlinked, non-notable bands, yet this editor continues to sneakily try to reinsert this one band in amongst other edits [98]. I warned them about their seeming attempts to promote this non-notable band and their failure to provide a reliable source establishing that this band is notable. Although they responded on my talk page that they would read the guidelines I provided, they again tried to insert the band into the article amongst other edits [99]. The editor seems unwilling to establish notability first and appears intent that this non-notable band be listed on the Outsider music article. A warning and subsequent attempt to discuss the matter with them has failed, so the next step appears to be a block. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 03:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The article was A7ed three times nearly a year ago, and the editor tried to work with you on your talk page. If the article is recreated without meeting policy and those edits continue, a warning is in place but for now, no block as its clearly a new editor you are dealing with WP:BITE. Secret account 03:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Bite? They're deliberately sneaking the band's name back into the article by hiding it with other noncontroversial edits, and even did so AFTER I told them about what policies they needed to read and AFTER they were "working with me on my talk page". I do not think this is a new editor. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 03:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Unapproved BOT Activity

    See Wikipedia:Help_desk#Lists_being_broken_into_individual_articles_for_no_reason The user seems to be set on mass creating pages. While the Solar eclipse pages have since been deleted, a quick look at the user's contribs shows they're still doing the same activity. They claim they're not running a bot, however it seems clear there's no human way possible for the mass creation of pages. In fact right after claiming not running a bot, it shows they ran one to fix the problem that was pointed out with another mass creation. Account was linked to darafshbot which currently shows unapproved and blocked, but is where the templates he's using are being stored. Caffeyw (talk) 10:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Also just for reference Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/DarafshBot Caffeyw (talk) 10:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't run bot! i use this template and creat article manually. this is illicited? Darafsh Kaviyani (Talk)‍ 10:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no way to have multiple pages changed/created within the same minute that is humanly possible that I'm aware of. Even if it's not an actual bot and just a tool, there's no way each and every change/creation is being approved by you. This would make whatever tool being used fall under the bot policy. Also mass creations are prohibited under the policy without approval. While I'm assuming good faith on your part the closing reason for denying approval of your darafshbot seems to be coming to mind. WP:COMPETENCE Caffeyw (talk) 11:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I repeat again: "I dont run bot or use tool, i creat this article manually". but if is illicited, i don't creat more pages. Darafsh Kaviyani (Talk)‍ 12:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that the edits could have been done manually. But they are so so fast and so regular that they are indistinguishable from a bot (specially 24 August). Consequently, they fall under bot policy even if they are done manually, and they are "illicited" (you mean "illicit"). I would like others to give an opinion:

    edits per minute when creating new pages
    22 August edits-per-minute

13:29 4
13:28 2
13:27 2
...
...
03:49 3
03:48 6
03:47 4
03:46 4
03:45 8
03:44 4
03:42 3
03:41 9
03:40 2
03:39
03:38
03:37 2
03:36 2
03:35
03:34 4
03:33 3
03:32 3
03:31 1
03:30 8
03:29 1
03:28
03:27
03:26 1
03:25 4
03:24 1
03:23
03:22 3
03:21
03:19 2
03:18 2
03:17 1
03:16 4
03:15 3
03:14 3
03:13 1
03:12
03:11
03:10
03:09 5
03:08 2
03:07 6
03:96 4
03:05 1
03:04 2
03:03 2
03:01 1

24 August edits-per-minute
06:07 1
06:08
06:09
06:10
06:11 1
06:12 1
06:13 1
06:14 1
06:15 1
06:16 1
06:17 1
06:18 1
06:19 1
06:20 1
06:21 1
06:22 1
06:23 1
...
...
07:22 2
07:23 3
07:24 4
07:25 2
...
07:37 1
...
07:45 1
...
07:56 1
07:57 2
07:58 1



27 August edits-per-minute
11:19 1
11:20 
11:21 4
11:22 3
11:23 6
11:24 3
11:25 1
11:26 2
11:27 4
11:28 4
11:29 4
11:30 4
11:31 4
11:32 4
11:33 4
11:34 1
11:35 1
11:36
11:37 2
11:38
11:39
11:40 1
11:41 3
11:42 3
11:43 3
11:44 3
11:45 3
11:46 3
11:47 3
11:48 2
...
...
23:11 2
23:12 5
23:13 2
23:15 2
23:16 3
23:18 1
23:21 3
23:22 4
23:23 2
23:24 5
23:25 4
23:26 2
23:30 1
23:31 4
23:32 3
23:33 6
23:34 2
23:36 4
23:43 5
23:44 5
23:45 5
23:46 6
23:47 1

    (The articles on solar eclipses are not here because they were all deleted). --Enric Naval (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    P.D.: See also what Caffeyw says about reviewing each edit and approval for mass creation. Post in Wikiproject Iran about mass-creating the village articles, they may like the idea or they may tell you not to do it. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Close thread The user has gone through 4 bot requests officially and had 2 approved. If they wanted to run a bot, they know exactly how. Which means, there is no competence issue and WP:AGF says we take the editor's word that he's not lying if we cannot prove he is. As far as the multiple edits in the span of a few minutes, we have no idea if he's got tabs open in his browser. He could have tabs open with the template, copying and pasting the words in the right boxes. Tough to know for sure.--v/r - TP 12:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Look at the section on the jamoats in the HelpDesk conversation. You can see the template he used has numbers in them. When it was pointed out that he reversed the final two fill-ins, (numbers 11 and 12 if I remember) he went revised the template and ran it again. All where reversed not just one or two. (ie Originally the line was reading there where 13 people, in 133 families instead of 133 people in 13 families.) No matter what the BOT policy applies. Caffeyw (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Question: if he's running an approved bot then why is he claiming to not run one at all? MM (Report findings) (Past espionage) 15:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Harassing an administrator?

    I noticed something strange. User:99.119.130.219 has been on Wikipedia less than a day, yet in his first five hours he reverted administrator User:Arthur Rubin 22 times.[100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112][113][114][115][116][117][118][119][120][121]

    On a totally unrelated note, did you ever notice that sometimes a new set of socks has a distinctive duck-like smell? Weird, huh? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like quacking to me. See User:Arthur Rubin/IP list for others, although this one seemed to start with reverting my reversions of those socks. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not all socks smell bad. Jauersockdude?/dude. 15:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    He's right you know, they don't smell bad after they've been blocked. heh heh. MM (Report findings) (Past espionage) 15:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Ahn Sahng-hong and World Mission Society Church of God

    Hi,

    I've been tracking two pages in particular the past couple of weeks. The pages are Ahn Sahng-hong and World Mission Society Church of God. Pretty much every day without fail the user Nancyinthehouse or people who appear affiliated with her revert almost any edits made that quote third party sources critical of beliefs involving the World Mission Society Church of God. Even after experienced editors like MarkMiller stepped in tried to make some of the articles more neutral sounding, the edits were eventually reverted. This has been happening since March. If you look at the Talk section of either page what ends up happening is users like Nancyinthehouse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Watts9595 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Galemw2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) revert the page to a state that has information either incorrectly cited from sources or cite almost entirely to the World Mission Society Church of God Website. It's really absurd that this is allowed to continue--right now neither page has an objective, third-party view--both are a complete mess. Numerous attempts at discussion are seen in the Talk pages but nothing ever gets settled because these users refer to the cited sources as "lies" and then revert the page.

    For example, after Galemw2 was done editing one page: Diff 1 After Watts9595 was done editing the page: Diff 2 After Nancyinthehouse was done editing the page: Diff 3

    Here's another diff from the WMSCOG page Diff 4.

    If you look further back in the history of the page edits you see that such users have been consistently making massive edits to both pages for the past few months. Please help get this under control, it's just deteriorating the information on Wikipedia.

    75.72.176.22 (talk) 13:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs have been supplied, very good. Now please notify the other users as described in the large, bright orange information bar at the top of the page. JanetteDoe (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    1. ^ Rummel, Rudolph J. (1996). Death By Government. Transaction Publishers. p. 234. ISBN 1412821290.
    2. ^ Rummel, Rudolph J. (1998). Statistics of democide : genocide and mass murder since 1900. Münster: Lit. p. 85. ISBN 3825840107.
    3. ^ Justin McCarthy (1983). Muslims and Minorities: The Population of Ottoman Anatolia and the End of the Empire. New York University Press. ISBN 978-0-8147-5390-3. Retrieved 24 August 2013.
    4. ^ Chatty, Dawn (2010). Displacement and Dispossession in the Modern Middle East. Cambridge University Press. p. 86. ISBN 9780521817929. At the end of the war, nearly 1.2 million Muslims in western Anatolia had died. Of the Anatolian Greeks, more than 3 13,000 died.
    5. ^ Maimonides, Hilkoth Išuth 10:7. Compare TB Ketubbot 11a; 82b
    6. ^ Qāfiḥ 1961, pp. 140‒141.
    7. ^ TB Ketubbot 54b.
    8. ^ According to Numbers Rabba 9:8, as well as Mishnah Ketubbot 7:6, whenever a married woman goes out publicly with her head uncovered, it is an act tantamount to exposing herself in public while naked, or what the Torah calls "erwah" (Heb. ערוה), and such an act would constitute grounds for a divorce without a settlement, as it is written: "…for he found in her a thing of nakedness" – (Heb. כי מצא בה ערות דבר) – Deut. 24:1.
    9. ^ Berešit Rabba 52:13.
    10. ^ Berešit Rabba, ibid.
    11. ^ So was I told by the late Rabbi Yosef Qāfiḥ, of blessed memory. Still, it was often that the woman would voluntarily waiver her rights to payment in order that her husband becomes willing to give her a divorce. In such cases, a court document was drawn up to that effect. For examples of this, see: Yehudah Nini (editor), al-Misawwadeh: Court ledger of Ṣan‘ā’'s Jewish community in the 18th century; Hebrew Translation by Nissim Benyamin Gamli’eli. Tel-Aviv 2001.
    12. ^ On the use of this term in Yemenite tradition, see: Yosef Tobi, Anecdotes on the Jews of Yemen from Responsa. A Tribe and Nation, VII (1973), pp. 271-291.
    13. ^ The above episode was relayed to me by R. Šalom b. Slaymān Cohen, born in Ṣan‘ā’ 1912.
    14. ^ Šulḥan Arukh, Even Ha-‛Ezer, 95:1
    15. ^ Maimonides, Hilkoth Išuth 16:4
    16. ^ According to the Talmud (Qiddušin 11b), as also explained by Maimonides (Hilkoth Išuth 10:8), the denarii mentioned here are coins having each the silver content of 1/8 that of the Holy Šeqel. Mahriṣ writes in his Tiklāl ‘Eṣ Ḥayyim, vol. I, p. 291b (the Redemption of the Firstborn), that the Holy Šeqel had, after the 20 % surcharge for redeeming one's son, the silver content of 20.16 grammes. This puts the weight of the Holy Šeqel at the time of Moses at only 16.128 grammes. This would mean that each denarius had the silver content of only 2.016 grammes. Maimonides adds that in addition to silver, these coins also had a copper alloy which amounted to seven times more than the volume made-up by the silver. The total aggregate of silver in two-hundred denarii amounts to 403.2 grammes, or what is the equivalent of twenty-five Holy Šeqels. (The silver content found in thirty-two U.S. Kennedy half-dollars of the 1964 mint, along with a little more than one-fourth of yet another U.S. Kennedy half-dollar, are the equivalent of the same. Each U.S. Kennedy half dollar of that mint weighs 12.5 grammes, and is of pure, unalloyed silver.) Needless to say, formerly, the purchasing power of this sum of money was greater than what it is today.
    17. ^ The Hebrew word used here is nedunya, or what is sometimes translated as 'the bride's outfit' (trousseau). The word is more correctly translated as 'largess,' or 'dowry,' since it is traditionally bestowed upon a man's daughter by her father before she marries, and she brings the same money and items into the marriage (whether it be money, jewellery or household effects), and which, if her husband takes responsibility over them, are deemed as merely a loan unto him, which he is able to freely make use of while married to her, but must return them unto her father in the event of his wife's early death. If the woman's father were a liberal man, he would not demand the return of such items. See: Maimonides, Hilkoth Išuth 16:1.
    18. ^ In Ṣan‘ā’ the custom was to write a fixed sum of one-hundred silver-[alloyed] qaflas in the ketubba of all virgins as the value of the nedunya (dowry). In the case of all widows or divorced women, the fixed sum was fifty silver-[alloyed] qaflas. The qafla was a weight equivalent to about 3.2 grammes. Mahriṣ writes in ‘Eṣ Ḥayyim (the Ketubba Version) that in the days of R. Yiḥye al-Bašīrī they made an enactment in the city of Ṣan‘ā’, that all financial obligations pledged by the husband to his wife should be written out in the local currency of those days. For example, for every 'one-hundred qaflas' of that ancient coin, there were actually only twenty-two qaflas of a pure and unalloyed silver content, while the rest was copper. This means that one-hundred qaflas was equal to 70.4 grammes of silver, excluding the copper content
    19. ^ In Ṣan‘ā’, this, too, was a fixed sum, written in the ketubba of every virgin. Widows and divorced women were given a fixed sum of half this price.
    20. ^ Meaning, the exit way from her house, as also the entranceway, should be facing the road or main street that is used by the Jews (‘Eṣ Ḥayyim).
    21. ^ By this is understood that the husband is obligated to provide his wife with household effects, such as a well, a millstone, toilet facilities, etc. It also implies providing her with a decent burial, and all other obsequies (‘Eṣ Ḥayyim).
    22. ^ The Hebrew word employed here is tosefeth, or what is translated by some as 'the increment.' This, too, was a fixed sum subscribed by all grooms in Ṣan‘ā’ and given to their espoused virgins, along with the principal (or dower's price), in the event of their divorcing their wives, or in the event of death. This sum was traditionally made out to be half of that of the principal. For example, if a virgin's ketubba was valued at 200 zuz, the increment was made out at one-hundred. If a widow's ketubba was valued at 100 zuz, the increment was made out at fifty. The custom in Yemen was not to consolidate these different financial obligations, or pledges, into one single, aggregate sum as is practised by some communities. Rather, all financial obligations were written out as individual components, and had the same fixed sums for all persons.
    23. ^ The Hebrew word used here is ‘iqar, or what is known as the 'principal liability' (i.e., two-hundred zuz or dinarius if he had married a virgin, or one-hundred if he had married a widow), to be paid unto the bride from her husband's property, in the event of her husbands' death, or of her being divorced by her husband.
    24. ^ The sense here is to the "kinyan sudar" (lit. "habit purchase"), which, in Yemen was always done by the bridegroom holding on to the corner of the Rabbi's talith (Prayer Shawl) which had been fitted with tzitzith (tassels). That is to say, the Rabbi who officiates over the betrothals allows the groom to hold on to the end of his mantle, with the tassel, at which time the Rabbi says to the groom, "Purchase by this fit [piece of] clothing," etc. (see: "Ketavim," vol. i, pp. 16-17, note 6, by Rabbi Yosef Qafiḥ. See also Yuda Levi Nahum, 1986, p. 162).
    25. ^ The Act of Purchase, or what is also called 'the cancellation of any statement' (biṭṭul muda‘a), is a ceremony that was also practised in divorces.
    26. ^ This co-signature on the Marriage Contract is believed to be that of R. David b. Yiḥye Ḥoṭer who served as President of the Court at Ṣan‛ā’ until the very year in which this deed was written.
    27. ^ "Whose inheritance is in the Garden of Eden," was an expression for someone who is already deceased.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=570550616"