Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    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.

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

    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


    CensoredScribe's categories

    This excruciatingly long-running dispute between two editors has ended due to both editing disruptively for too long and behaving too badly on a noticeboard for too long. Both have been blocked for 72 hours. CensoredScribe is additionally community sanctioned to only create new categories with appropriate consensus first. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


    Subsections dealt with. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Forgive me for not knowing the correct page to request assistance for wikihounding. Ryulong is reverting all of my recent edits; I have informed Jimmie Wales that Category:Slave owner is valid. It is an embarrassment to Wikipedia this wasn't already a category. They are also reverting my edits to terrorism; Category:Individuals designated as terrorist by the United Kingdom government is as valid as the one for the U.S. CensoredScribe (talk) 06:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    (I have moved this entry from the top of the page to the bottom, where new threads should go - it is unlikely to be noticed at the top)
    CensoredScribe, if you think a category is valid, argue the case for it properly. 'Informing Jimmie Wales' isn't the way to do it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    CensoredScribe has a history of creating categories that do not meet Wikipedia's standards, and in the past couple of days created and curated the following:
    He also saw fit to attempt to repopulate the long and repeatedly deleted category Category:Fictional terrorists. It seems that he decided to beat me to the punch about starting an ANI thread on him after I found out he tried to whine about me to Jimbo. What we need to do is prevent CensoredScribe from continuing to make bunk categories that are only populated based on his own personal interpretation of the work of fiction or history. How the hell is Optimus Prime a religious figure? Really.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Also Category:Fictional multidimensionals? Category:Homonculi in fiction? All this? CensoredScribe, really. And based on the thread I found on his talk page started by SummerPhD that this is not the first time CensoredScribe has been brought to ANI and that I am not the first person to have to clean up after him.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going to wait a bit on this, but I guess while we're here... Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive827#User:CensoredScribe_overcategorizing This has been an on-going problem. (Having not examined Ryulong's edits, I have no opinion on them specifically.) See also: User_talk:CensoredScribe#Category:Fictional_sexists, User_talk:CensoredScribe#Inappropriate_categories, User_talk:CensoredScribe#Category:Brain_transplant_in_fiction, User_talk:CensoredScribe#Category:Body_swapping_in_fiction, User_talk:CensoredScribe#Your_categories, User_talk:CensoredScribe#Category:Fictional_characters_with_radiation_abilities, User_talk:CensoredScribe#Categories. As most of Censored's categories were "created" merely by populating them and deleted by depopulating, we don't have as many deletion discussions as we would otherwise. Nevertheless, there seems to be an inordinate need to run around cleaning up some frankly absurd categories. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I missed a couple: User_talk:CensoredScribe#Category:Alternative_reproduction_in_fiction, User_talk:CensoredScribe#Category:Fictional_sexists, User_talk:CensoredScribe#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Category:Single-race_worlds. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've now unpopulated Category:Synthetic biology in fiction and Category:Fictional soulless. These categories are all ridiculous. This all reminds me of Tyciol (talk · contribs), too.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, in this edit to Jimbo's talk page, CensoredScribe claims he was blocked previously, when no blocks can be found on his account. This suggests that he is a sockpuppet of an editor we have previously banned.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Another relevant thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive822#CensoredScribe.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, it does seem that CensoredScribe misunderstands what Wikipedia is for: Category:Fictional headless - for "characters in fiction without heads"? Presumably including Thomas the Tank Engine, 'Thing' from the Addams Family TV series, and the sentient ocean in Stanislaw Lem's Solaris. Possibly usable as an addition to the existing classifications in Jorge Luis Borges' Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge, but of precisely zero encyclopaedic merit. While I could imagine that there might be a case for the first two categories listed above, the rest appear to be junk. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Try Levineps (talk · contribs): Levineps was blocked in December, and CensoredScribe (talk · contribs)'s sudden interest in creating oddball categories manifested itself in January. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Levineps/Archive. --Calton | Talk 06:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    CensoredScribe was active as early as March 2013, though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. And to repeat: "CensoredScribe (talk · contribs)'s sudden interest in creating oddball categories manifested itself in January". CensoredScribe category edits in 2013: zero (0).--Calton | Talk 07:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    People without hands is a category; religious figure should have been called fictional founders of religions and fictional subjects of prophecy. I admit that like alternative reproduction it is far too vague to be of use. Similarly sexist is too subjective; unlike the soul categories which are more akin to super powers; souls being more of a fictional physics issue than having anything to do with emotions like sexism. I think anyone who spent time looking for Osama Bin Laden would not contest he was considered a terrorist in the U.K. I think the U.S. terrorism category without a solid definition of terrorism is effectively a murder death killer list. CensoredScribe (talk) 07:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    You created Category:Mythological rapists, Category:Fictional telekenetics, and Category:Artificial uterus in fiction. What purpose do these categories serve?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Note: second category speedy moved to Category:Fictional telekinetics due to spelling error. — Scott • talk 22:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I am getting the sense from you that the main problem here was that he started categories about science fiction, and since science fiction is a fundamentally worthless genre and interest, he should be banned from adding anything more about it. But I think it is interesting to compare and contrast the myths and stories of mankind, and I hope these categories flourish. It is difficult to populate any category fully, but I think these have a fair chance of becoming relatively complete. Wnt (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wnt: Seeing as Ryulong edits actively in the manga, anime, and video game spaces, it has nothing to do with whether science fiction is fundamentally worthless. Please do not assume such. --Izno (talk) 13:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There's some serious overcategorization, no doubt, but (I've said this before, perhaps in another ANI thread?) that's not to say that all are worthless. Mythological rapists is a viable and important category, as is Mythological rape victims. Did I see someone say "science fiction is a fundamentally worthless genre"? I don't like to invoke IDONTLIKEIT or use profanity, but what the fuck? Drmies (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That was just me getting high on the dramatic atmosphere of this place; my intent was to criticize the way in which someone is being treated as if they actually did something wrong based on no tangible criterion that I can see here. Wnt (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright then. Come down from that cloud or my boss, an expert in science fiction, will egg your house--and he doesn't stop at $20,000. Drmies (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Formal proposal for a topic ban

    No consensus for the bare topic ban on CensoredScribe creating new categories. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    I think, given what we've seen here, and given the comments in the last ANI thread [1], that there are quite sufficient grounds to make a formal proposal that CensoredScribe be topic-banned from creating new categories. It is totally untenable to allow such time-wasting behaviour to continue.

    Policy? "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia". [2] The creation of arbitrary and nonsensical categories is incompatible with the stated objectives of the project. And of course its harmful - readers don't expect to be confronted with nonsense in articles, and such material distracts from useful content. As for the 'slave owner' category, if you think it is merited, argue the case for it properly. Come to that, a topic ban as I proposed it wouldn't actually prevent CensoredScribe doing the same thing. Which is exactly the point I made when CensoredScribe first posted on Jimbo's talk page - whining about 'censorship' before you've even put forward a rational argument isn't the way to achieve anything.AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "slave owner" one is a potentially valid category. "Mythological rapists", however, is most certainly not, nor is "Artificial uterus in fiction" - the last one being utterly bizarre, and there are no logical reasons for it that I can think of (and very few illogical ones either). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rape in mythology is a topic of serious scholarly research, as the most basic search of academic literature will show you. It stands to reason that a classification of mythological rapists could be encyclopedic. But you know what? This is a discussion that should be held at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, where those with interest in and knowledge of the subject matter are more likely to see it, not here at WP:ANI where content disputes have no place. This goes for many of the other categories mentioned here. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • As above - what possible purpose could "Artificial uterus in fiction" serve? None whatsoever. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you're familiar with the literature (or lack thereof) on the subject, then I defer to your judgment on this particular point. (For all I know artificial uteruses are a common enough theme in science fiction that a category might be useful here.) However, given your comments upthread I suspect your (and others') opposition is grounded less in subject-matter knowledge than it is in some personal disdain for the topic. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's ridiculous. What subject matter do people have a disdain for according to you? Fiction? Artificial uteri? Greek mythology? Sword fighters? That's a pretty disdainful person, that dislikes such a wide variety of subjects.--Atlan (talk) 13:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's probably a bad idea to risk siccing a pack of hounds on good content, but we actually have an extensive section of Artificial_uterus#In_fiction. Now of course, CensoredScribe's mistake was that he tried adding such articles to a category. Had he merely created a navbox template with a link to this article section at top and each of the thirty articles linked at bottom, so that anybody on Bing trying to look more about the artificial womb in a Philip K. Dick novel would get tons of hits about Dune and Star Wars, well that would be the way things are done around here. Wnt (talk) 14:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rather than trying to tar me with the "he doesn't think the category is valid, therefore he hates the subject area", a little research would show that I voted to delete one of the other rape-related categories. Artificial uteruses don't justify an infobox or a category, so you need to stop trolling, Wnt. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not specifically say that you are biased. I suspect bias, but how can I tell? The problem is, when you make a statement that they don't "justify" a category -- what is that based on? Is there some verifiable source, some policy test, that clarifies that it is a bad choice, or is it personal opinion only? Because if you could point to such a criterion and tell people to use it, you'd have something a lot more effective than a purely arbitrary topic ban on one editor. Wnt (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, deleted multiple times. To precise, a total of three votes for deletion at [3], which have been used to justify deleting the category three times. So there are as many people who saw fit to start the category on their own initiative as ever voted to delete it! I recognize that Category:terrorists may be problematic on account of partisan differences, BLP, etc., but fictional terrorists usually come with a clear label. Wnt (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know. The Shredder, Lex Luthor, Doctor Robotnik, and Sylar from Heroes don't seem to have much in common nor have they ever been explicitly called terrorists.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    These are per-article content decisions: add that article to the category or not. They shouldn't be made by having someone barely think about it and say, oh, it would be hard. I bet that if they are terrorists, the die-hard fans who frequent such articles could rattle off chapter and verse where there was an APB out on them for it. In any case, trying to add things to this category is in no way "bad behavior", it is just a content decision he made differently from you. It isn't right to say that you disagreed with somebody ten times, so you can block him. Either have a clear policy you can say he broke and which people making categories need to learn and be able to apply on their own, or else just accept he disagrees with you. Wnt (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Did he make these edits in good faith? Yes. Is he breaking things more than he's fixing them? Yes. Can we solve this by topic banning him from creating categories (without some sort of vetting service or someone to consult and ask "do you think this sounds like a good category idea? here are some pages I think will fit")? Yes. I don't see any loss here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    How does he go from edits in good faith to topic ban? How does he go from making edits you disagree with to "breaking" things? You seem to be implying that his editing on the point was hopelessly incompetent, yet I see no objective standard to support anything but that he had one opinion and you had another. I see no advice I could give for editors to become more "competent" at adding categories except to "do whatever ryulong says, and try to guess what he doesn't like, and preferably, never touch a category at all for any reason whatsoever." Wnt (talk) 05:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    AFAICT, no one is saying they are editing in bad faith, this seems to be entirely about competence. How to be more competent? They need to stop with the WP:SYN. A (the Emperor had "slaves") + B (Darth Vader killed the Emperor) = C (Darth Vader is a fictional abolitionist). A (Darth Vader used a Light Saber) + B (a Light Saber is kinda like a sword) = C (Darth Vader is a fictional swordsman). A (something like a religious "prophecy" in the prequals said a figure would balance the Force) + B (Darth Vader was maybe sorta kinda that figure) = C (Darth Vader is a fictional religious figure). There are plenty more in that one article. There are plenty of similar stories in other articles. It's clearly been a problem and will clearly continue to be one as they show no sign of stopping. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the thing is, all the categories involve some amount of SYN, even something as simple as "American abolitionist", because a source may not use those two words in a row. There are indeed huge problems with POV controversies, like the people who for a while had Islamophobia as a variety of Racism, at least on Commons. And even though Anakin Skywalker did say "I had a dream I was a Jedi. I came back and freed all the slaves...", listing him as an abolitionist is still pretty questionable. The thing is, I don't see why the "questioning" has to amount to a ban, rather than simply a contrary edit. I doubt the categories can live up to the same standard as other encyclopedic content, nor do they. Wnt (talk) 06:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support There's no reason to create utterly useless and nonsensical categories for us to waste time cleaning up. Time for CS to start doing something more constructive. Weak oppose Changed to weak oppose per not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Admiral Caius (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Some of the categories are bogus, no question, but some are borderline and a number of them seem perfectly valid to me. I also agree with the point that this is first and foremost essentially a content dispute that should be handled via Categories for Deletion. Matt Deres (talk) 17:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Without going on at great length, I find at least some of the categories to be creative and useful and I think the others should be handled through CfD rather than mass revert. In particular, I found myself defending "Fictional religious figures" (though I think needs clarification, perhaps "Figures in fictional religions"?) to Ryūlóng at Yoda before they mentioned this discussion to me. Dwpaul Talk 17:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose and instruct the editor that since there is an opposition to their activities, they must read carefully the rules about category creation and discuss with other wikipedians the proposed categories. Also (I didn't check myself) we probably have to clarify our rules about "fictional" categories. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support This editor has had plenty of opportunity to read the relevant policies but instead of trying to understand the policies they are now WP:FORUMSHOPPING for more inappropriate cats in threads like this one Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment#Categories about amputations and souls. There are so many ways to edit productively around here that a ban regarding cats may let CS become a better editor in the long run. MarnetteD | Talk 19:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, since this editor's activity is a timesink; reviving the SPI may not be a bad idea either. Miniapolis 22:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I agree with Drmies that there doesn't seem to be any bad faith on CensoredScribe's part, but also that he really doesn't seem to understand why what he's doing is disruptive. I'd say that there is a CIR problem here, and would suggest that he be given an "out" from the topic ban if he is taken on by a mentor well-versed in the intricacies of categories. That is, put the topic ban in place, with the standard 3 or 6 month time period, but allow him to petition for early release from the ban if he's found a mentor to tutor him. BMK (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - I'm glad someone finally mentioned that wikipedia has a page called categories for discussion; which during the last thread no one ever brought up. I kept wondering what that page was called. Googling categories for creation or category proposals does not bring up the right page, you have to use the word discussion. Thank you for directing me to the correct page to propose categories Psychonaut. I do not contest a block from editing fiction, wikipedia is not a place to rant about how bad the star wars prequels were on multiple levels; though most of the categories I added to starwars are still up there because they were correct. However I will oppose a block to any other topic; including mythology where I have contributed lasting well referenced material of use to others. Most of the worthlessly vague, obscure and subjective categories like fictional sexists alternative reproduction in fiction and single race planets I depopulated myself once I realized how few examples there were. Artificial reproduction in fiction became two definable categories however, artificial uterus and homonculi in fiction. I do suspect that half these categories involving souls is the reason such a fuss is being made; I have probably qualified for the goth cup preliminaries by now. The creation of Category:Slave owners being opposed strikes me as extremely disturbing, it's probably because it will be the single largest category on Wikipedia if made; given how recently slavery was made illegal. People considered terrorists by the UK government is as valid as the category for U.S. terrorists; by which I mean they are both worthless categories. Terrorist is as subjective as sexist; those terms describe emotions not actions. The category terrorist would have terrorists by country as a subcategory; otherwise Osama Bin Laden is going to be listed as being two dozen different categories of terrorists for each country that considered him as such. As the page Definitions of terrorism says, "There is neither an academic nor an international legal consensus regarding the definition of the term terrorism." That terrorism requires an extra page just for definitions should be the proof of how poorly thought out, extra legal and unencyclopedic the concept is. Wikipedia would not start listing people as thought criminals or murder death killers if that was the term being used in the media; because that's dumb; like the word terrorism. What other pages actually do this? It's even worse than the pages titled blank controversy. CensoredScribe (talk) 01:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment This guy strikes me as pretty reasonable. I am wondering whether anyone tried to discuss the issue with him before hitting with a sledgehammer? If yes, them why it is not mentioned here? If not, then someone needs a good slapping by a wet trout for not following the dispute resolution guideline. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Did you see that there are several threads on his talk page on this subject, to which he did not respond? BMK (talk) 02:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      There was also a previous AN/I thread he was notified of, but did not participate in . BMK (talk) 02:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Categories for discussion says the page is only for deletion, merging, and renaming it does not mention proposing new categories. Ryulong said oppose twice, also I did not say John Adams was a slave owner because he never was; he opposed slavery. CensoredScribe (talk) 02:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    And then there's this. While this discussion is on-going, we have a new category with one member. The category might make sense. However, the one entry does not, unless a "Mudokon" freeing other Mudokons can be said to be part of the movement to end the treatment of people as property. (Yes, I'm risking my creds to say that Mudokons are not people.) Heck, maybe we should add him as a fictional animal rights activist? - SummerPhD (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    On the plus side, at least he's discussing this one first. SMH - SummerPhD (talk) 04:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per MarnetteD and others. Previous warnings seem to have failed, and there were some rather odd categories created by CS. APerson (talk!) 03:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly support a topic ban or mandatory adoption (not it). Continuing to add WP:SYN categories while this discussion is on-going seals it for me. They simply do not see what the problem is. As a result, there is simply no way to not expect this to be an on-going problem. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unless Drmies' suggestion below gains traction. I wasn't paying any attention to this until I discovered the creation of Category:Mythological abolitionists with the editor adding this to Moses using the edit summary "Super best friends :0". Now at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 February 1. Dougweller (talk) 06:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I'd like to see some data on this concept that a ban will make some a better editor; it's seems more likely to me that a ban is likely to make someone a non-contributor. NE Ent 12:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why would you think that the purpose of a ban is to "make someone a better editor"? The purpose of a ban is to stop disruptive editing. Sure, it may, perhaps, have the secondary effect of making the banned editor think about their behavior, so that when the ban is lifted they're more apt to edit productively and harmoniously, but that's not the primary purpose. We don't get to the point of discussing a ban until disruption has continued despite efforts to halt it short of banning. Recall, please, that WP:Wikipedia is not therapy.

        In any case, if it's improvement of the editor that's wanted, either Drmies' proposal below, or my suggestion of linking the lifting of the ban to mandatory mentoring heads in that direction - but the primary purpose of both is to stop the disruption inherent in the editor's behavior. BMK (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose. I don't find the argument for a topic ban convincing. He created one WP:POINTY category, but several others which look plausible to some people. If he does something obviously pointy again, he will probably be blocked. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Some of the launched topics are stupid, others like "Slaveholder" unquestionably encyclopedic and "Terrorist(s)" at least highly arguable and very likely encyclopedic. No evidence of ill intent towards WP; certainly nothing to merit a topic ban. Carrite (talk) 05:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. User seems intent on categorising WP to his own (mostly) bizarre rationales & needs to desist. 94.194.24.46 (talk) 09:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. The user's inability to pause and review the utility and application of a new category before creating it has become disruptive to the community due to the volume, if nothing else, and needs to be managed if they cannot do it for themselves. I had assumed good faith on the user's part until I read this [4]. Clearly CensoredScribe is aware of what they have been doing regarding edit summaries; using them to either mislead other users regarding the contents of their edits or as a platform to justify those edits instead of engaging in debate on the relevant talk page. They are now attempting to use the promise of ceasing their abuse of edit summaries as a bargaining chip to obtain a lesser sanction than a topic ban. This does not instill confidence that they are approaching these discussions in an open way. Bowdenford (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose topic ban, it affronts sensibility to ban a user who's never been blocked for disrupting the topic where the ban is being sought. I may have supported a short term, preventative block, but a ban is way over the top at this point; in my opinion.—John Cline (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What are people's opinions about the creation of User:CensoredAssurity80 just this morning? TheStickMan[✆Talk] 15:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support – This sudden mass-editing of categories and disruption through this mass-editing is becoming too excessive. Epicgenius (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    A different tack

    Community edit restriction has consensus and is enacted. CensoredScribe is limited to creating categories that have met with consensus, at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion or another appropriate venue, be it a Project talk page or ____ (fill in the blank). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Preface: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion has been pointed at as a venue for discussion. Perhaps there's a better one, I don't know--certainly there's a better place than my talk page. Following some discussion on my talk page, "Administrators Noticeboard Incidents", and my questions about CensoredScribe's Category:Slave owners (where they, by the way, indicated they wish to continue their work), and considering that many editors here think that CS is of good faith and their contributions (possibly) valuable:

    • CensoredScribe is limited to creating categories that have met with consensus, at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion or another appropriate venue, be it a Project talk page or ____ (fill in the blank).

    In other words, prior approval is the name of the game, a restriction that will of necessity limit their work and thereby the disruption caused by creating all-too many categories (analogous with the injunctions we've placed on individual editors regarding mass-deletion nominations). That the mass creation is disruptive is agreed on by many editors, it seems to me, and limiting CensoredScribe in this way could forestall a topic ban, which many editors seem to agree is too draconian. Drmies (talk) 05:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Drmies, I think Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Categories is the venue you are grasping for. Ironically, several categories that have been labeled "disruptive" here, would likely have been created there! And before labeling CensoredScribe's categorization prowess "utterly inept", you should have a gander at some of the category and redirect suggestions posted there. Yet, to my knowledge, a total of zero topic bans have been issued to date. Frankly it's not as disruptive as some have implied to create poor categories. There's a cadre of gnomes out there who exist to improve poor categorization; and poor categorization is better than none at all.—John Cline (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I'd prefer this although I've voted for the topic ban as well, hope that's not too contradictory. But we really can't have silly categories such as Category:Mythological abolitionists and almost insulting edit summaries such as "Super best friends :0". Dougweller (talk) 06:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support this as well. It's essentially the same as the topic ban; they can't create a category without people agreeing that it is valid first. The only difference is that this allows them to create the category themselves, and not have to get someone else to do it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support That sounds quite fair. I'll stop abusing the edit summary as well. CensoredScribe (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Like Dougweller, I support this option as well as another way of curbing this behavior, but my support is contingent on the findings of the SPI. If it is determined that CS is Levineps, then my support for this option, as well as my suggestion for a mentoring "out" made above, are withdrawn. If an admin or the SPI should determine that Tranquility of Soul is CensoredScribe socking, same deal, whether or not the puppermaster is Levineps. BMK (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Barring solid proof, the Lewineps accusation seems unreasonable - aside from being someone else in hot water over categories, I see no similarity in the edits I looked at. Lewineps was splitting and combining other people's categories, stepping on some toes in the process. CensoredScribe by contrast seems genuinely interested in creating a useful classification of prominent themes in mythology and fiction that can be used as a sort of thesaurus by authors and humanities researchers looking for inspiration. Wnt (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I am afraid that it needs to be noted that, in spite of Censorscibe supporting this proposal, the editor made no attempt to discuss C posted at CFD and five minutes later (before any response could be made) created this Category:Teleportation in fiction. I can find no prior approval for this cat and, as it is a day after the editor agreed to these restrictions it is getting harder to AGF. If C can't follow the restrictions that C agreed to then I would suggest that the topic ban proposal above may be the only thing that will correct this situation. MarnetteD | Talk 21:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I did not think this would be a contested category as there was already a page teleportation in fiction. I have brought the discussion up at categories for discussion. I did not think DC and Marvel comics wizards would be contested as the counterpart to witches. Nor did I think that fictional zoos would be questioned given it has a clear definition and alien zoos was an accepted category that I created. I will propose all categories at the categories for discussion page; not just the more outlandish ones. I also think fictional gladiators and bio terrorists should be categories that should include alien arena fighters. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    As shown here Special:Contributions/CensoredScribe you posted at CFD and 5 minutes later you created the cat. There was no prior approval which is the restriction that you aupported. Per WP:OTHERSTUFF just because an article exists does not mean that a category should be created. More than one editor has pointed out that you continually ignore WP:OR and WP:SYNTH both in the creation of cats and in placing said cats in wikiP's article. I can only agree with Ryulong's assessment regarding your judgement. MarnetteD | Talk 22:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Many of the categories have been quite bad, but a couple have actually been useful. For instance, Category:Nanotechnology in fiction is a solid category, that could be easily populated without violating WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I therefore agree that pre-clearing categories is preferable to an outright topic ban. Monty845 23:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarification required - CensoredScribe, to assist with considering if the suggested course of action would be appropriate to the situation, based upon you comments above please clarify the following:
    1. Are you saying that unless there is agreement to your creation of categories being limited only to those that meet with consensus (as opposed to a topic ban) you will continue to abuse edit summaries?
    2. Would the type of categories which you would be asking users to spend their time considering in an attempt to build consensus include such things as "alien arena fighters" and similar? Bowdenford (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    No, I've already complained about the Starwars prequels, other franchises have weak entries; however I only made particular note of Starwars. I would not abuse the comments section to say that instead of four next generation movies it should have been 2 Deep Space Nine and Voyager films because the story of TNG was finished after 7 seasons. Nor would I be mentioning Alien 3's many other scripts. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Further clarification required - Your response regarding edit summary abuse is disingenuous at best and does not answer the questions.
    1. I am not asking for a particular example of how you might undertake not to abuse the edit summary for particular articles in a particular way (which would leave those articles in particular and all other articles open to continued edit summary abuse by you in countless other ways). The question is, are you prepared to stop edit summary abuse, period, without limitation and irrespective of the outcome of the proposal under discussion?
    2. I am hard pressed to determine from your reply to point 2 any way in which you might consider applying some sort of test or value judgement process to the potential worth of new categories you think of, prior to deluging users with a multitude of consensus enquiries/requests. Given your current, prodigious output, it seems reasonable to ask if the community would be treated to any restraint on your part at all or if you would continue using the shotgun principle, in that if one in ten applications obtains consensus that's good enough for you no matter how much work it creates for others sorting the silver from the dross.
    3. It seems reasonable to ask that if you wish users to give an opinion regarding the suitability of your potential new categories for inclusion on WP, then you should at least be prepared to provide them with a sensible, cogent rationale in each instance regarding why you think they would improve the project. As an example, then, would you say that this pro-argument of yours [5] would generally represent how you would approach this process? Bowdenford (talk) 09:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Because it's essentially the same thing as a topic ban. The only truly disruptive category he created is given as an example over and over. Given how the dramaz erupted over obvious ok stuff like the nanotech in fiction (see sub-section below), I think this proposal is likely to function simply as an excuse for some to hound and oppose him at every step, no matter how reasonable categories he may propose. Someone not using his real name (talk) 10:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    New account?

    not related. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Tranquility of Soul (talk · contribs) appeared in my watchlist today, having created several new categories and adding them to several pages. Examples include Category:Fictional characters with photographic reflexes, Category:Fictional gladiators, and Category:Fictional bio-terrorists.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    That does seem suspicious. There's some overlap in the category interests, and both accounts occasionally forget to pluralize (cf. Category:Slave owner and Category:Fictional botanist). From recent messages on CensoredScribe's talk page we can see that they're aware that sockpuppetry is prohibited, so if Tranquility of Soul is theirs then they can't plead good-faith ignorance. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    An SPI report is here. More evidence would be useful. BMK (talk) 09:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not tranquility of soul, though I can understand why you might think that. We have similarly unique names, forget to add an s, and create unique categories for fictional characters like fictional gladiators and fictional bio terrorists. If it had been me though after botanist would have come other academic disciplines, such as Category:Fictional translator for Uhura, Hoshi Sato, C3PO and HK-47 for example. However I don't believe tranquility of soul has made any edits to science or mythology have they; I didn't even edit fiction until recently. Also the first botanist I would have added would have been Poison Ivy (comics), like how she was one of the first people I added as an eco-terrorist. I would have listed wonder Superman, Mongul, Red Sonja, Wonder Woman, Mojo (comics), Samurai Jack, and Beta Ray Bill as gladiators as well because of war world and bills appearance in planet hulk. I also would have tried to get Darth Vader Obi-Wan, and Padme listed as gladiators because of the arena scene in episode II is clearly only in there because of Ridley Scotts Gladiator like Mr. Plinket says. Also I would have said in the inappropriate edit summary that Coroscaunt was L.A. from Blade Runner without Harrison Ford or interesting architecture. At that point I would have complained in the edit summary and suggested in a reboot Anakin was just a Luke aged gladiator when they first meet him; because a chariot race with pod racers would have made more sense than pod racing or an arena on there own. Probably add Ashoka as a slave Anakin meets, set the scene on Tattooine to make it look similar but not too much like Jabbas palace; and to quickly get that plot moving within the span of three films that have to work on their own and not as parasites. In addition I would have added a sub category to fictional gladiators for Soul Calibur characters who are all gladiators in the story mode. CensoredScribe (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    This doesn't actually help your case such that you shouldn't make categories like these.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Please remember that we categorise things by what they are defined by, not by what they were in one episode or issue. - The Bushranger One ping only 12:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    CensoredScribe hasn't stopped

    stopped now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    I just saw that he made Category:Teleportation in fiction and Category:Nanotechnology in fiction and he had populating several dozen pages in it that I'm currently in the process of removing. He has clearly not gotten the message from this discussion.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I posted on the categories for discussion page about this. I went through a list on this page Teleportation in fiction, this is a very common theme. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You are under discussion here and you continue to create categories that fall under this discussion. You have been told to stop but you continue. Do you not see a problem here?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It seemed to me most people thought I was doing an alright job. I didn't think teleportation and zoos would be contested as I didn't make up any new extra vague words like soul absorbing terrorist synthetic biological gangster multidimensional. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This whole thread concerns the fact that your judgement on these matters cannot be trusted. Not only that, but your judgement when it comes to pre-existing categories is questionable. You've added characters to categories based on single instances in their long history of being labeled something. Superman's a slave because of something that happens in a short storyline. You make a bunch of characters labeled "Fictional war veterans" because they are fictional characters involved in fictional wars. Frankly, all this is showing is that you should be banned from anything to do with categories whatsoever.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I see a problem -- Ryulong is being way too aggressive to an editor trying to contribute in a manner that is, at worst, harmless. Teleportation in fiction .. Star Trek, of course. One of the attractive young witches in Charmed -- probably some comic book characters? And that's just off the top of my head. Since we've had Category:Dungeons & Dragons character classes since 2006 (I know, i know, other stuff exists...) it's hard to see the real problem. NE Ent 22:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Ryulong, please stop tagging CensoredScribe's categories for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#C1. As has already been explained in this thread, that criterion does not apply since the categories have not been empty for four days. Nor is there any precedent for depopulating or deleting categories simply because the creator has violated some self-imposed topic ban. Your actions are coming across as very vindictive. —Psychonaut (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    How are they vindictive? He's being told to stop multiple times and he's not stopping. And you were the only one to bring up the CSD issue. No one else seems to note that. And two of the categories I tagged were never populated to start with.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, tagging a category that was JUST emptied with C1 is perfectly acceptable. An inteesting quirk of the C1 tag is that, even if you place it on a category that was just emptied, it won't actually appear in the "tagged for speedy deletion" log until four days have passed - it's a note that "this category is empty, delete in four days if it still is". - The Bushranger One ping only 02:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Honestly a lot of the editors involved in this come across as wikitalibans to me. Yes, offensive general insult on ANI, but I feel it's justified in this case. Category:Nanotechnology in fiction appears justified because there is real stuff in Category:Nanotechnology. Category:Teleportation doesn't exist (thankfully) but surely there are plenty of fictional representations and I can think of some Star Trek episodes where the entire plot relied on some teleporter accident. I thought it made no sense to have two categories for stuff like Category:Shapeshifting and Category:Shapeshifting in fiction (both created by editors not involved in this latest drama) but even in that case the consensus was against me. This kind of discussion belongs at CfD. I see a lot of needless personalization in who did what that goes in circles. A bunch of people really need to drop their WP:STICKs. Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      On top of the fact that CensoredScribe makes up categories for really trivial and niche things, he also populates existing categories with articles based on his own interpretation of the source material or his knowledge of instances of things in single episodes that do not define the article as a whole. Superman is a fictional slave because for a short storyline he was enslaved. Fry from Futurama is a fictional war veteran because he enlisted in the army for one episode. None of this makes sense and is why we need to reign his actions in.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    You have a valid point for Superman not being considered a slave. However the fictional veterns are correct, as are the categories for nanotechnology and teleportation. You just keep reverting them; I am going to ask you be blocked; as has been suggested to me. CensoredScribe (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    That was a sockpuppet and therefore the post should not have been made.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:CensoredAssurity80

    Bad Wiki-star (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), no inserting yourself into other people's disputes. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    This is bizarre, this person claims to be me an alternate account for me. I noticed this on User talk:X96lee15 where Ryulong has posted several times. The account is one day old; I'm guessing this is Ryulong. How exactly did CensoredAssurity80 make an alternate account in my name? Wouldn't they need access to my account to do that? Is this tied to when I wasn't blocked for a week but was unable to logon or post from my IP? CensoredScribe (talk) 15:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    This is related to this other thread. He did not "make an alternate account in your name". He impersonated you and just added {{alternate account}} to his user page. And I would not impersonate you or anyone. I have no use in reverting one of my own edits.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Ryulong is edit warring with CensoredScribe

    Mutual combat. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    I would appreciate it if the valid categories I add to are not reverted by Ryulong. May this user be given some kind of sanction or simply asked to stop? I don't particularly mind a free 100 edits to my edit count for edit warring however. CensoredScribe (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Would you stop making new threads when this is related to the last one? You made a bold edit adding a bunch of categories to pages where frankly they do not belong. I reverted you once. Then you began the edit war by reverting me back. Sonic the Hedgehog does not contain cyborgs. Superman and the Martian Manhunter are not "fictional slaves". If you believe that the categories (that you did not recently create) that you added to these pages are valid despite the fact you were reverted, begin a discussion on that article's talk page regarding the use of that category on the article instead of insisting that you are correct in your judgement when this entire thread has a dozen people who believe your judgement regarding categories is not up to par.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If I look at both of your contributions, it's clear that you two are spending today reverting each other on dozens of edits which could result in a block for either one of you or both. I urge you both not to stalk each other's edits and focus on the discussion here and making other positive contributions, not policing each other's behavior. Liz Read! Talk! 22:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    CensoredScribe is being investigated here for his improper creation and implimentation of categories that violate WP:SYN. I reverted him twice over a two day period because he reverted my initial revert.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I will stop the endless cycle of reverting Ryulong reversions; however Ryulong has started to remove more of my categories such as mythological rape victims. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    None of those pages had the word "rape" on it and those that did were using the archaic form of the word for kidnapping.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Ryulong is still reverting everything I add. What happens now? CensoredScribe (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    You get blocked because you continue to create categories despite most of the project believing you shouldn't be making them.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Ryulong has broken the 1RR they are on

    No 1RR sanction identified. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    I would like to not have my valid edits reverted. CensoredScribe (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Care to provide difs for the 1RR in place, and the instances he broke it? Sergecross73 msg me 16:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not under 1RR restrictions. CensoredScribe, you have been lied to by a sockpuppet of the user discussed in this other thread. Stop making new threads when they are related to the one about you.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Break

    Broken. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Seven subsections? This is really becoming ridiculous. And yet no one has moved a single inch since this discussion started... Epicgenius (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Three of these subsections are because CensoredScribe decided to make entirely new threads related to this issue rather than commenting within this thread and I moved them here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I thought this thread was only for discussing whether I should be blocked; or should have article category creation restrictions, not for discussing whether you should be blocked or have some kind of sanction. Yes seven is too many, this could have been 5 subsections, which is still a ridiculous number just not quite as ridiculous as 7. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Can someone please do something about Ryulong? I think teleportation in fiction, nano technology in fiction fictional giantesses and giantesses in fiction are all valid categories. CensoredScribe (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    No. Something needs to be done about you.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    This needs to end now

    Ended! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    As I was waiting for my block to expire, I discovered that CensoredScribe had created both Category:Giantesses in fiction and Category:Fictional giantesses because he added these to Mighty Morphin Power Rangers and Super Sentai, which are both on my watch list. I found that he made this post on Talk:Giantess then 10 minutes later, without any response, made the two aforementioned categories and began populating them. On this very page he agreed to a means of asking if a category is good and then making it but he clearly does not understand that what he is doing is disruptive and needs to stop. Throughout this whole discussion, it has frankly become clear that CensoredScribe does not have the competence to edit the English Wikipedia. He needs to be blocked before he proceeds in creating more categories that he applies to several pages without discussing them beforehand, particularly when they, as usual, do not define the whole article but just some aspect of the article, as he has been told multiple times that is what categories are supposed to be used for.

    And tl;dr, indefinitely block CensoredScribe because of WP:CIR.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    As a side note, he did the same with Category:High schools in comic books, except he created the category first, and then posted on a talk page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The recent examples seem like WP:OC#TRIVIAL to me with intersecting any general topic with "in fiction" -AngusWOOF (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    And as another note, he is now violating WP:POINT and WP:FORUMSHOPPING in order to validate his "Giantess" versions of Category:Fictional giants and Category:Giants in fiction. This has gone on for far too long. He needs to be blocked until he agrees that he will not make categories or add categories to pages without discussing either action first.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, as I point out below, he is continually trying to shift blame onto me and is trying to make new threads about this. This is going on for far too long and my patience has worn thin.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal to block Ryulong for editing other users talk pages destructively and reverting categories for discussion

    Those two things alone regardless of his edit warring with me should mandate a block. I would like to be able to add obviously appropriate categories again. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Stop this, CensoredScribe. Stop trying to shift blame. Stop making new threads related to the one about you. Stop making these threads in the completely wrong parts of the page. This really just shows that you lack the competence to work here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Your arguement that an idea being shown in one of three episodes of a series does not constitute that series being about that subject is a broken argument Ryulong. No show is 100% about a subject, a third is a pretty reasonable number. Whether one of thirteen episodes counts is another matter; however jungle de ikkou is clearly about a giantess; the same way Boccaccio '70 has a giantess and is less than two hours long. Also, my behavior does not excuse yours which is clearly malevolent towards other users user talk pages. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Simply being featured in one episode or one side story does not justify categorization. And I see nothing regarding a giantess on either Jungle de Ikou! or Boccaccio '70. If it's not mentioned on the article to begin with, then there's no point in adding a category for it. And my actions towards X96lee15 are currently under discussion. The fact I'm editing now means that there's no further threat from me doing whatever it is I was blocked for in the first place. My block does not invalidate my arguments. You have been told for 2 months now that your category creation is bad. And yet you do nothing to fix it. I've agreed not to edit X96lee15's talk page to remove a banned user's comments, again. You need to agree not to create more categories because the more you create the more disruption you cause.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There was certainly no reason for you to remove an article's defining category for one of your mismatched categories.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Ryolong is a user who delights in being verbally abusive against other editors. He should be banned permnanently., as per the following little "discussion" he engaged in some time ago: Message 1: Message 1 Answer 1Arildnordby (talk) 00:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not direct that message to you in any way shape or form and it's from a year ago. That is regarding this communication with Boneyard90. I haven't even heard of you before.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I depopulate the categories I create which are too limited. When a series is less than 13 episodes a single episode about a subject should be used for categorizations. I dream of Jeannie also features size change because she lives in a tiny bottle; which is shown to be her tiny apartment. She uses size changing every single episode. I suggest mythological giantesses also be a category to include Lilith as Karina. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    You removed the I Dream of Jeanie category from the I Dream of Jeanie page. Do you not see a problem with that? And you really need to read Wikipedia:Categorization because everything you are saying goes against it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow, Ryulong has reverted Category:Giants three times now, they really don't want the name to be discussed. 3 times is clearly some kind of violation. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    You are adding a malformed CFD tag to the page without ever setting up a valid CFD discussion on the topic. And this is all because of the actions taken here. This is you disrupting Wikipedia to make a point or trying to game me into violating a rule.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Break 2

    Despite all of this discussion, CensoredScribe persists in adding categories to pages where the category does not define the work as a whole. And he has begun to edit war over them after I remove them because he is fully aware that his ability to add these is under question.

    This has gone on for far too long. He needs to be blocked before he continues to cause problems.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Goku is more a monkey than he is un-dead, but he counts as both. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop changing the subject.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    CensoredScribe is insisting that Lilith be included in Category:Giantesses (deleted 7 years ago) because the figure Karina from Islamic lore was described as a giantess. I have objected to this in reverts and on the talk page but he obviously refuses to listen to me. This is going on for far too long. It is very clear that CensoredScribe does not understand WP:Categorization, and refuses to listen to anyone, and will try to disrupt to make a point and game the system to get his way. He clearly lacks the competence required to contribute to this project in a way that is constructive and accepted by the community and should be blocked until he understands the problems he is causing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    From what I've seen a) CensoredScribe doesn't have a good sense for WP:Categorization guidelines and what purposes they serve (to organize, not describe) and b) he/she ignores other people trying to educate them on category creation. They act as if there is a severe deficit of categories that need creating that has to happen immediately when categories are just a level of organization that gets continually refined over time. There is no urgency for a Category:Giantesses and if its creation is challenged, they should take the time to discuss it with other editors rather than insist he/she knows best.

    Don't get me wrong, I spend a lot of time working with categories and category organization. But only a tiny fraction of my category edits involve creating brand new categories that didn't exist before. It is quite an effort to delete or merge bad categories through CfD so it is better to be cautious about creating new ones that don't have some grounding in the existing category structure. Liz Read! Talk! 02:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I've just given both of them 3RR warnings for their edit warring. I'm tempted to block both of them for pure edit warring at this point. I've certainly had my issues with CensoredScribe's edits, I've reverted many of them myself and believe there are issues there, but this edit warring is getting out of hand.
    Since I've waded in again, I'll say my piece. Some of CensoredScribe's categories are good, some are bad. I have more of an issue with the categorization that the creation of the categories to be honest, a lot of the categorizations are just pure bad. Apparently Luke Skywalker was a fictional yogi, and because Batman has psychological profiles of people he's a psychiatrist. Canterbury Tail talk 03:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I thought category:fictional giantesses similar to category:fictional sword fighters; a way of making the categories more gender neutral. I thought this common policy; just as I tried to recomend DC and Marvel Wizards rather than delete the category for witches. I assume wikipedia is supposed to be worded as gender neutral as possible. CensoredScribe (talk) 03:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    There are like 4 wizards between DC and Marvel so there's no point in having a category. And there's no point in having a gendered divide and particularly when a character is not always a giant. And stop adding your malformed tags to Category:Fictional giants and Category:Giants in fiction. There is no discussion on WP:CFD for them. You just copied something from another page and you're expecting that a discussion will happen.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Wiki-star

    Wiki-star (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was originally blocked in July 2006. Since then, he has been harassing Zarbon by stalking him with multiple accounts, not only on the English Wikipedia but on the English Wikiquote, and in the past couple of months he has decided I am his new target, as is Kalki, when he began editing as Dragonron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). In 2008, Zarbon created this list based on his experience with Wiki-star on both en.wp and en.wq. The history of his talk page locally and at Wikiquote is full of sockpuppet accounts and IPs that very obviously are him sending taunting messages to Zarbon.

    In his actions towards me, he constantly informs users who I appear to be arguing with that I am not to be trusted ([6], [7], [8], [9]) and blindly reverts edits I have made ([10], [11]). And then there are just taunts he makes towards editors he is in disputes with ([12], [13]).

    Due to the fact that this abuse has been going on for 8 years and he certainly shows no signs of stopping (I've attempted to contact his most recent ISP, but I've been informed that as it is a mobile internet service there may be no action taken), and no one in their right mind would even contemplate unblocking him, can we formally consider him banned such that any edits he makes can be reverted on sight?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Has anything been opened at WP:SPI about this? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 18:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There have been old checkusers done as well as a few recent SPI cases with his recent incarnation but it was only today that I found the connection between old and new accounts.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    and what makes u think Dragonball1986 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is not behind the recient attacks?! OR maybe Zarbon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) himself is doing this for all the attention?! One things for sure, Sesshomaru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) isnt the one responsible! Not, Recoome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) either — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkRave728 (talk • contribs)
    New account Jesus! Im famous! posted at User talk:Zarbon trying to impersonate Kalki. Looks like more socking related to this thread. Ishdarian 10:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's something! highly doubt the troll-impersonator is related to this case — Preceding unsigned comment added by Well, that's something! (talk • contribs) 10:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And he's now disrupting this discussion.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    He also continues to harass X96lee15 but he will not allow his user talk page to be semiprotected, or apparently allow me to edit it, even if it's just a null edit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Obvious sock RangeRoverOver (talk · contribs) blocked. Acroterion (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Still have issues with X96lee15 restoring content by this user against the tenets of WP:BAN, and he still demands that his user talk not be protected despite the fact that the only activity it's gotten is because of Wiki-star/Dragonron and his socks.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, the only one that is harassing me is Ryulong. — X96lee15 (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I posted this same information on the English Wikiquote as I am trying to bring this to everyone's attention. I am very sick and tired of this person harassing me and following my contributions only to revert or vandalize much of my efforts. Additionally, this person attempts to impersonate my user name or generally pretend to come from my very inactive forum from about 7 years ago. This has been going on forever now, maybe over 10 years of pestering and gibberish and it's cross-wiki on all the sister projects. I have compiled a list of over 400 usernames attached to this person and apparently, this user has no intention of stopping. Any help halting this person's actions are greatly appreciated; please protect my talk page and the articles I contributed to and listed prior. If there is a way to track all IP's attached to this person; difficult as it may be, a permanent block is very useful. However, there is currently a discussion about this person and their multiple accounts on wikiquote and wikipedia and the attached information that may prove useful: Admin noticeboard for sock accounts. Any help halting this person's actions are greatly appreciated. - Zarbon (talk) 04:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk page protection

    I have twice gone to WP:RFPP to request that X96lee15's user talk page be semi-protected because Wiki-star's socks keep going back to it and he has refused to allow anyone to remove posts from his user talk page. Both times I've made this request, he has gone to RFPP to ask me to withdraw the request, and an uninvolved editor has made a comment saying that regardless of the fact that I am the one being harassed by the sockpuppets, I have no right in requesting that another user's talk page be protected to prevent further disruption by a banned user. The first request was closed because there was not enough activity. The second time around it was closed because "policy [needs] to be examined". It's clear that Wiki-star has been de facto banned because he's been blocked since 2006 and no one in their right mind would perform an unblock. Now why is this protection so contentious?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Please name me as the "uninvolved editor", because I think I have a right to voice exactly why I'm making those statements. You've also misquoted me slightly, but crucially; my comment has been that you have no right to request the protection when it is evident said user does not want it. Recently, I can see that they have been moderating their talkpage, and reasonably well. It is exactly this response to the trolling that is what keeps this IP hopper coming back to attack you. The easiest thing to do is to take X96Lee15's talk page off your watch list, particularly as they've stated they want nothing more to do with you at the moment. Do that, and simply follow WP:DENY by ignoring any comments the IP makes; if they start coming to your talk page, or resume interfering with any of your edits, then you have a case for protecting those areas. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      If I'm the one being attacked why do I not have a say in what happens on the user talk page of someone who has had no activity on his talk page in the past month except due to this guy? And it's not IPs. It's sockpuppet accounts. I'm not allowed to request protection? I'm not allowed to remove the content per WP:BAN? He should be allowed to make a special archive just for the three comments that I have voiced my opinion on how they should not be kept? It's nonsense. The best way to apply WP:DENY is to prevent him from doing what he's been doing and that's editing the user talks of X96lee15 and Zarbon. It should not matter if one of them does not want their talk page semi-protected. It should be done to prevent disruption.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This is really pointless, as even if we did protect the page, per protection policy, we would then create an unprotected subpage so that IP editors could still contact the editor... User talk page protection is to be used only for severe vandalism, and for short durations, and its clear that your not looking for a short duration protection. If this was an editor requesting protection of their own talk page, perhaps an admin would be willing to stretch the rule a bit to do a somewhat long protection, but I don't see that happening over the objection of the editor. Perhaps someone could craft an edit filter for you? Monty845 19:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well something needs to be done because X96lee15 doesn't have the ability to determine that he's talking to an obvious sock. No one has had any talk page contact with him outside of this circus since December 6, and the last IP that was unrelated to this case was in October. There is no loss if we semi-protect his talk page for a month.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Somebody asks me a question and I will answer it. I'm not concerned with who's a "sockpuppet" or not. I do not want my talk page protected; it doesn't matter how long it's been since someone left me a message. Actually, I'd love it if you would never edit it again. I don't want anything do to with you. I'm caught up in your drama for no reason.
    Please take my talk page off your watch list. If you did that and ignored any change to it, then your problem would go away. I've shown that I will revert any obvious trolling or any references to you from my talk page. The conversation you reverted was an innocent one that made no mention of you at all. I don't understand why you're so focused on removing every edit your "enemy" makes. Take a step back and breathe. — X96lee15 (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not on my watchlist. I discover a new sockpuppet today and he goes to your talk page impersonating another user and I remove it based on that. It does not matter if the conversation is innocent or not. Per WP:BAN no comment left by Wiki-star aka Dragonron is allowed to be left on the English Wikipedia. He has been disrupting this project for several years and been harassing multiple users across multiple sister projects. He has had several of his accounts globally blocked because of this. The scope of this issue is beyond you or I.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, then for every user contribution that says "User talk:X96lee15", just ignore it. Do that, and your troll will stop posting on my talk page and I will be left out of this (which is all I want). — X96lee15 (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Because per WP:BAN it has to be removed. There are so many solutions to this issue but it seems you will not allow any of them. You do not remove conversations from your talk page if they are by a banned editor's sockpuppet. You do not want me to remove the content. And you do not want your user talk page to be semi-protected, even if for let's say a week, such that a solution for this issue that does not require you can be found.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    All YOU have to do is ignore my talk page and this all goes away. YOU'RE the only one that cares. YOU'RE the only one this "dragonron" is bothering. YOU'RE the only one reverting their edits. YOU'RE "feeding the troll". They are only coming back to WP because YOU will not take a step back and not worry about controlling everything. — X96lee15 (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No. I am not this guy's only target. As you can see above, he has been harassing Zarbon since 2004. You and I are collateral damage.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Ryulong, you are clearly in the wrong here. Stop going to somone else's talk page and editing it against thier permission. The best real world example I can think of is if someone had a bulletin board posted in their house and you were offended by something somene else posted on that buliten board so you went into thier house and ripped it down. If I were X96lee15, I would probably try to have you blocked on WP:HARASS grounds. CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    My removals are allowed under WP:BAN. I should not be blocked for enforcing a Wikipedia policy just because it's on someone else's user talk page. I'm genuinely sorry that things have degenerated to the state they're in now, but I don't see how any of these options solves anything.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You might be enforcing a Wikipedia policy but I bet that X96lee15 can also find a policy that says you should not be editing their Talk Page. Moreover, I think that you should lighten up on being a Wikipedia policeman. If some editor is problematic, bring it up on their Talk Page or here on ANI, don't stalk them. Even if your point is right and they are a sock puppet, it borders on harassment and could backfire on you, Ryūlóng. Liz Read! Talk! 22:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no policy that says that, Liz. But there is a policy that says

    Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule.

    —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Policy also says that a user gets to choose how they manage their talk page, and they've categorically told you that your presence is no longer welcome there. Continuing to follow their talkpage, and editing it/reverting edits on it could lead to you being blocked - so it's best not to let the troll keep goading you. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I gave him an alternate option involving the use of an edit filter that would minimize my presence but he refused it because I would still possibly edit the page if the edit filter was bypassed. I think the policy to forbid a banned editor's edits is higher up on the scale of importance than talk page editing etiquette.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Goodness Ryulong, you're even more stubborn than I am. The crux of the matter is that if you stop feeding that troll on that talk page, it won't bother you there. Now, I'm not suggesting they'll go away altogether, because that's obviously fake, but they're quite likely to just stop editing X96lee's talkpage if you do. And if the page is not on your watchlist, unless you get Echo-pinged, you wouldn't know about it anyway! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I would eventually find out because I will have discovered some new sockpuppet account elsewhere on the project and I will see that that sockpuppet had edited X96lee15's user talk page. That's how I discovered pretty much every edit that was made to his talk page. I've only added it to my watchlist recently because of the ongoing discussion I'm having with him.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Ryulong, per your link here, the admin said "so that the community can make a judgement.", it seems pretty clear to me that the community considers you wrong here. I would stop and try a different approach (or even better Wikipedia:Do not feed the trolls) before someone gets annoyed at you for disruptive editing. CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah but that doesn't mean there can't be any alternate solutions that solve both our problems, particularly because he can't ID socks.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverting talk page edits

    Over the past two months, I've somehow been included as collateral damage in a talk page edit war with Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and various sockpuppets of Dragonron (I believe – there may be more than one user involved on that end). Initially, Ryulong and I had a disagreement on whether or not a reference should be included on an article ([14]).

    When Ryulong would revert my change to the article, the sock would post to my page informing me of the revision. Typically I ignore talk page messages such as those, but I do not delete them because I'm a firm believer in anti-censorship. Ryulong would notice those posts on my page (I assume by looking at all the sock's contributions) and revert them. I took offense to those revisions per WP:TPO, specifically "Editing—or even removing—others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection." I have clearly objected to Ryulong editing my talk page and have told him so (via edit comments and through talk pages) but he continues to revert the original posts ([15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]).

    Discussed compromises

    We've discussed this on my talk page and cannot come to a compromise. Ryulong initially tried (twice) to get my talk page semi-protected (first, second) which I don't agree to because of my views on anti-censorship and the fact that any IP or new user wouldn't be able to contact me.

    My original compromise was to regularly archive my talk page (typically I do it once per year) to remove the posts. This lets me keep my anti-censorship views and doesn't make Ryulong have to see any sock posts. In response to that, Ryulong blanked by archive page and put it up to a WP:MFD (currently ongoing).

    Ryulong's compromise was to semi-protect my talk page based on an IP range. I disagreed to this because I don't want my talk page protected PLUS he said he will still edit my talk page if the sock gets through.

    My compromise currently is for me to moderate my talk page to remove any posts that reference him from a confirmed sockpuppet if he promises to not revert my talk page anymore (he's welcome to post there on new/existing topics). As good-faith gestures, I've already remove posts that were obviously trolling ([23]).

    Conclusion

    I'm kind of stuck here. I don't want to be stuck in an edit war, especially since Ryulong is saying he is backed by WP:BAN, which says he can revert without regards to the 3RR. There's really nothing I can do. Through no fault of my own, I'm stuck in the middle of this which has taken more time than I thought. IMO, if Ryulong would stop with his reverting of socks then this problem would have ended itself months ago. He continues to feed the trolls by reverting my talk page continuously. There really isn't any reason to revert my talk page (a tiny corner of Wikipedia that <1% of the Internet sees) except for Ryulong to spite the sock.

    Note: Pardon me for the format of this ANI, I'm not sure the best way to present things. I also tried to find a different avenue for this discussion, but DR and RFC don't seem to apply to talk pages.

    An WP:IBAN seems appropriate here. CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    An IBAN? That would solve nothing, because Ryulong believes that his crusade overrides everything. (Unless you simply mean a ban on Ryulong editing that talk page.) I've asked him to stop and warned him that further actions on X96 talk page would lead to a block--I haven't blocked him yet because X96 is a pretty friendly person who keeps continuing to discuss things with Ruylong. The proposal to (semi-)protect the talk page is a bunch of nonsense: that's up to X96, and there is no need for someone's talk page to be protected just to satisfy Ryulong's desire to prevent one little troll from posting--unless this is what X96 wants. Well, X96 doesn't want it. So, as far as I'm concerned, Ryulong simply needs to stay the hell away from that talk page and let others deal with it. I could say more, more about what this persistent badgering of X96 says about Ryulong, and how all that crusading against a little dragon just feeds the troll, but I think this is pretty clear. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or not policy supports Ryulong here or not his actions in this case have been totally inappropriate and very combative. Rather than continuing to do something they knew to be seriously irritating another user they should have stopped doing it and discussed it and if unable to reach an agreement sought an outside opinion on whether their actions were justified especially as the harm caused by leaving the edits is at most very minor. I strongly suggest Ryulong refrain from making any similar edits until a way forward is found else they are likely to find themselves blocked for disruption. Dpmuk (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Procedural comment I don't believe this should have been moved under an existing ANI. I took great care to explain the issue to ensure it stood on its own. I do not feel this ANI is related to any existing ANI. — X96lee15 (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, this is related to an existing thread on this page and I've moved it accordingly. It cannot stand on its own because there's already been discussion about this issue.
    Second, this is not censorship. My removals are in line with WP:BAN, rather than WP:TPO. I suggested semi-protection. X96lee15 refuses. I suggest an edit filter. X96lee15 refuses because I mention that if the filter is ever bypassed I will revert the content added. He simply wants me to never edit his talk page again but Wiki-star/Dragonron keeps registering new accounts and X96lee15 keeps humoring him by responding. No one is dealing with the edits but me. It's unfortunate that X96lee15 and I got off on the wrong foot because of this user, but things should not have been exacerbated to this extent. Am I seriously expected that when I find a new sockpuppet of the banned user that I just ignore whatever he's done on X96lee15's user talk because of this souring? That's just ridiculous. In the past two months no one has edited X96lee15's talk page except for myself, Drmies, and the dozen or so sockpuppet accounts and IPs. And Dpmuk, the only way forward that X96lee15 has stated that he will accept is if I never go to his user talk again and essentially allow him to hold discussions with a banned user.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The main reason I'd like to keep this separate is that it's my goal to have this resolved as soon as possible. I'd rather not wait for the other aspects of this to be resolved before this can be resolved (although I don't know if that's necessarily the case). BUT moving this thread is another example of Ryulong changing things to fit the way he thinks things should be. In reality, there is no reason for my original ANI to be moved. — X96lee15 (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a related matter because it's all due to Wiki-star/Dragonron. And you don't call these things "ANIs". This whole page is WP:ANI. You made a new thread on WP:ANI.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Ryulong, Drmies is right and you should stop reverting on that talk page. Reverting edits of banned users is generally acceptable, but reverting any sort of edits is never mandatory except for specific types of BLP vios and I guess copyvios. And while people theoretically don't WP:OWN user/usertalk pages, they do get quite a bit of deference about them in practice nowadays, enough that if X96 says you should stop reverting there, then you should. Absolutism about anything on Wikipedia is generally unhelpful. X96 also doesn't appear to be "holding discussions" with the user (which when it comes down to it, they could do by email without your ever knowing, if that was what was really going on). The edits themselves look like low level nonsense and griping, not likely to provoke serious drama just by their content, and the page is of relatively low visibility (except for the temporary increased attention due to your setting off this ANI), so if the edits stay on the page, whoop de do. There are far more worthwhile things to worry about. 50.0.121.102 (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Banning policy states "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule." While it does go onto say "This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert." There has not been one message left on X96lee15's talk page that has fallen under this "obviously helpful changes" category and there is no exception made for comments left on user talk pages. And X96lee15 is indeed conversing with the editor ([24], [25]). He does not realize that this is the banned editor, but at this point he should expect that any brand new account or IP that comes to his page is a sockpuppet, particularly if the IP is in the same range as every one before it. He may want to assume good faith, but when it comes to someone who has apparently been harassing one of our users for 8 years there's no real good faith to have anymore.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And still you need to leave that talk page alone, whether you like it or not. You are seriously getting on X96's nerves (that seems obvious to me, anyway), and that's a kind of harassment. No one is being harassed by X96 leaving those messages on their talk page. Drmies (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Half of them were to attack me. And we are supposed to collectively ignore policy and allow a banned user to edit simply because the act of removing those comments bothers a peripheral user? That's ridiculous.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've said (and have) I will revert any talk page comment that references you on my talk page. I don't believe any of the talk page comments "attacked" you either (although I admit "attack" is a subjective term). — X96lee15 (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment FWIW, Ryulong continues to revert changes to my talk page ([26]), even while this discussion is going on. A WP:IBAN is the only thing that will keep him from reverting my talk page, I believe. Although I have my doubts even that will stop this behavior. — X96lee15 (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Wiki-star/Dragonron is not allowed on this website anymore. Why do you have such a problem with me enforcing WP:BAN on your user talk page? Why do you have a problem with measures I have proposed to stop it? For fucks sake, that IP was already blocked a week ago and I bet you actually believe that it's his schoolmates making him look bad. He's been at this for 8 years and everything that's been done in the past hasn't stopped him then and I doubt me being forbidden from editing your user talk page is going to stop him now.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The only thing keeping him posting to my talk page is you reverting it every time. And please stop swearing during your arguments. — X96lee15 (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    He was doing that long before we identified him as a banned user's sock and before I removed the text.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether it's policy appropriate is irrelevant. X96 has asked asked you multiple times to stay off his talkpage and you should honor his request. KonveyorBelt 23:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked Ryulong for 24 hours for continuing to revert on X96lee15's user talk despite several editors advising him here that he was going about this the wrong way and at least two admins advising him here that he was heading for a block for disruption if he continued to revert. Regardless of the right and wrong of the underlying situation - and what ever consensus develops here on that - to continue to do so after such advice is clearly disruptive.

    On the issue of the underlying problem I note that policies, with the exception of a couple of legal or WMF mandated policies, are meant to reflect underlying community consensus. Given the discussion above it seems that consensus may not support Ryulong in their actions. Their interpretation of the policy was reasonable to begin with but having seen the above they should have been aware that the community may not support them and so relying on the policy was not within the spirit of our policies. The policy may need changing, or this may be considered a one of case of IAR, but Ryulong should not carry on reverting in such a situation based on their interpretation of policy. Dpmuk (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Policy is fine. An 8 year Wikipedia should understand the consensus model of operation. NE Ent 00:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ryulong is correct: WP:DENY is the only remedy against long-term abuse. What should happen is that people put their energy into explaining how DENY helps the encyclopedia to X96lee15, and any blocks should be for WP:POINT violations that encourage the banned user to keep going—the excitement that user has generated from the recent back-and-forth has given them momentum to continue for another few months, and they now know that if they ever get bored they can post at User talk:X96lee15 to poke anyone who cares about the effect of long term abusers. Johnuniq (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right principle, wrong conclusion. Totally ignoring edits, that is, not reverting them, is greater denial than reverting. Note the focus of WP:DENY is implicitly mainspace; if I user wants to deal with ban evading trolls by not reverting them on their user talk page that's greater denial than playing whack-a-mole reverting. NE Ent 02:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • But X96lee15 is doing the opposite of ignoring the edits—X96lee15 is choosing to revert the good editor while restoring the banned user, a classic WP:POINT problem. Ryulong may have overdone it because if X96lee15 did not understand the first time, they are unlikely to understand the second time, but the actual problem is that someone believes their talk page is sacrosanct and the owner can choose to provide a safe haven for banned users if they want. Wikipedia is not a place to promote even worthy campaigns such as anti-censorship. Johnuniq (talk) 03:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. This entire issue was caused by Ryulong. His reverting of the sock's edits on my talk page caused the sock to come by more often. Had he never reverted the sock, the sock would never continue posting, as I never responded to any of the posts. Once Ryulong got involved, I was seeing a "you have messages" notification every time I logged in. I'd have to look at my talk page history to see what in the world was going on. It was very annoying to myself. My only recourse at the time was revert him or that would have gone on forever, since Ryulong is hell-bent on reverting and banning every sock post within minutes of a post. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I was being affected. When you say Ryulong is the "good editor" and the sock is the "bad", I'm not so sure it's that black and white.
    Had Ryulong heeded my initial request to let me moderate my talk page, the sock would have stopped posting because they were not getting a response from me. HE'S the one that was misapplying WP:DENY. I'm not trying to provide a safe-haven for trolls. I'm trying to edit Wikipedia without getting into all this drama. Only when Ryulong got involved did this situation escalate. — X96lee15 (talk) 04:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Johnuniq, it had to happen--disagreement. IMO, Ryulong's overzealous actions have the opposite effect that DENY aims for. Here we are at ANI, disagreeing over a couple of talk page messages, while we're trying to figure out, possibly, what weighs more heavily, policy or another policy. I don't really think X96 thinks their own talk page is sacrosanct, but given Ryulong's rather obnoxious behavior is enough to make anything they want to mess with sacrosanct. I do agree that "anti-censorship" is overreaching, but hey, I've also had the occasional contact with blocked/banned socks though, admittedly, they were of a slightly different caliber. But if Ryulong had just said "sure" a day or two ago, all of this would not have gotten top billing on the top dramahboard. Drmies (talk) 04:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't disagree as much as you might think because I participated in another case, much more difficult than this, where a good editor ran off the rails pursuing a banned editor with frequent reverts and sockpuppet tagging. I strongly advised that his involvement was exciting the banned user, and should stop.

      In this case, X96lee15 has explained the central issue: "I do not delete them because I'm a firm believer in anti-censorship" (diff). It's fine for people here to tell Ryulong to stop, but X96lee15 needs to be told that no page is owned or controlled by any user, and no page is available for the pursuit of noble causes, such as welcoming banned users in the name of anti-censorship. Ryulong is not taking advice, but X96lee15 has not been given any accurate advice that I can see. The first time that X96lee15 restored the banned user's comment was on 9 December 2013 (diff)—that set the tone for what followed because a completely useless comment attacking Ryulong was restored for no reason other than "Shouldn't remove user's talk page edits". An admin should semiprotect X96lee15's talk for a month and unblock Ryulong on condition that they leave X96lee15's talk alone. Johnuniq (talk) 06:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • I understand that I do not own my talk page. I think I have a pretty good grasp of Wikipedia policies and guidelines (I've definitely read them much more this past week due to this issue). And I also know that had an admin or consensus told me to stop reverting Ryulong I would have. That's the difference between Ryulong and myself. In fact, I did stop reverting his reverts the past few days because I knew that tact wasn't working and Ryulong would not be stopped. Everything I did, I did in order to get my involvement in this situation to stop. Maybe "pursuit of anti-censorship" was a bit of hyperbole on my part...lol.
    And for the record, I still disagree with semi-protection for my talk page. Censorship aside, I received messages from an IP and a new user yesterday that would not have been able to be posted concerning a potential BLP issue. — X96lee15 (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The block is ok on general disruption and POINT grounds independently of the underlying issue with the edits and X96's possibly unwise restorations. Drmies's take on the talk page's sarcrosanctness is again astute. Talk pages aren't sarcrosanct and Johnuniq's points are well taken, but Ryulong's right to edit war on someone else's talk page isn't sarcrosanct either. I think the current situation (including the block, and the presence of some unreverted Wiki-star edits on X96's usertalk) reflects some reasonable judgment calls.

      I'm also uncomfortable with Ryulong's contacting Wiki-star's ISP about Wiki-star.[27] While that approach is sometimes legitimate for dealing with long-term or very serious abuse, Ryulong should not be the one doing it, as it's in some tension with (though maybe not directly violating) the spirit of his arbcom restriction against seeking users' real-life identities.[28] He also seems too WP:INVOLVED to be doing such actions in this particular case regardless. I'm not versed on current WP practices for that type of intervention but because of the hazard it creates for spreading battles off-wiki, my first reaction is it should probably be reserved for checkusers (maybe with some formal process, plus CU'ing for more socks) and/or the WMF. I'm fine with Ryulong suggesting such measures to others, but doing them himself doesn't seem wise.

      Admins and CU's might want to block the different known Wiki-star socks that have been active recently, if any are still loose.50.0.121.102 (talk) 06:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure where to put this but I agree with User:NE Ent, "Totally ignoring edits, that is, not reverting them ..." User:Ryulong has been feeding the troll exactly what it wants, attention, whereas as far as I can tell USer:X96lee15 was WP:AGF but once he realised what was happening took a more standofish approach (which I think is more valuble). Policy issues aside ignoring a troll or at least treating it like a new user is much better than trying to stop all of their actions in user space(WP:IMHO). CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So what? My block now sets an example that "Oh, if I piss off this editor, and I happen to be banned for several years, I should just post on someone else's talk page and hope that the first person gets blocked because they get on this neutral person's nerves". If material is removed because it is written by a banned editor, restoring it is proxying for that editor. We remove content in that fashion from this page all the time. In fact, there were instances of it on this page while I was blocked. I should heed a user's request to not edit his or her talk page, but at the same time if it's a banned editor who's been at this nonsense for 8 years should we allow him to be humored? Aside from the one IP editor/new user that approached X96lee15 in the past couple of days, there has been nothing but this banned user posting to his talk page and me reverting that editor, and X96lee15 reverting me. If this hadn't happened, then there would have been zero edits to his talk page between December 6 and February 5. I know X96lee15 is tired of me and I'm tired of having to clean up after Wiki-star. Someone helped code up an WP:edit filter for me and it's ready to be deployed, and it should block just Wiki-star from posting on several places on the project, not limited to X96lee15's user talk.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Your block should have set the example of how much you can get on the community's nerves before you get blocked. I mean, cheese, H, and rice, look at your name all over this page. Don't you ever stop? Your dramatics are funny to only one person--that dope you keep trying to revert, who's probably pissing in his panties watching you remonstrate here again and again and again. Let's hope someone sets up that filter, let's hope CensoredScribe finds better things to do, let's hope that all this gets closed up and boxed up and thrown into an archive. TLDNR and GMAFH. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's because I started the two of them and I was highly involved with them. And all I need is someone to say "I'l make the filter" and I can give them the code I have, but we really need to stop CensoredScribe from making more categories. He means well, but holy cow is he ever wrong.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Ryulong, one way to look at it is that you yourself are also a banned editor, not from the whole site but just from X96lee15's talk page. So what happens if banned user A makes an edit, and banned user B reverts A's edit under WP:BAN? If you undo B's revert, you've let A's edit stand; but if you don't, you've let B's edit stand, an infinite regress. A completely inflexible "revert all banned edits" approach might even result in the whole site melting down, like the computers on Star Trek used to do when presented with illogical propositions. Here, instead of inflexible rules, there is human judgment to apply, with various people weighing in on the particulars.

    In this case, based on a balancing of factors involving the content of the edits, the nature of the targeted page, the wishes of the user (X96lee15) associated with the page, the hassles caused by editor B's conduct, and the remedies (blocking) already being taken against editor A, a reasonable discussion resulted in action taken against editor B, and some of A's edits were left standing. I'd urge you to accept the outcome: you should stop editing X96lee15's talk page, and leave dealing with it to X96lee15. I'm sure that if serious disruption results from sock activity there and X96lee15 doesn't do anything about it, then others will intervene. For now, the issues don't seem to rise to that level and X96lee15's DNFTT approach is is a reasonable use of discretion. 50.0.121.102 (talk) 02:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Two editors, an IBAN, and a possible case of hounding/baiting

    At the advice of policy wonks Johnuniq, Bbb23, and DangerousPanda I am bringing this matter to ANI rather than to AN. The case, involving Skyring (goes by Pete) and HiLo48, is this.

    On 4 November 2013 I closed a lengthy ANI discussion and logged an interaction ban between the two. The particulars of that discussion are on the record: it was painful, and there was considerable doubt about Skyring's editing and ways of interacting. At any rate, the ban was logged. Since then each has complained to me about the other: I warned Skyring once and then blocked him briefly, a month later I think; recently I warned HiLo but stopped short of blocking him.

    But now disruption has risen again, with a thread started by Pete on Talk:Soccer in Australia. HiLo argues, in a nutshell, that Pete has followed him there, and with some reason. Pete has only one single edit in the article, a revert of HiLo (from August 2013, before the IBAN), against 40 by HiLo, going back to 2010. The talk page is similar: 24 edits for Pete, going back to August 2013, and 375 by HiLo.

    So, the question is, is the section Talk:Soccer_in_Australia#About_time_we_talked_about_the_name_again, started by Pete on 1 February, to be taken as indicative of him following (hounding) HiLo to one of the latter's favorite haunts, and thus perhaps of baiting him? It should be noted that the section discusses the whole soccer/football naming controversy, in which HiLo has been outspoken and on the record. In other words, one could expect that this important matter would attract HiLo's attention, and an IBAN preventing him from participating in that thread takes one of the longstanding voices in that debate out of the equation.

    Let it be noted, but I need to wrap this up, that NE Ent left Pete a note on his talk page that supports the notion that this was inappropriate on Pete's part (correct me if I'm wrong, Ent), and that Johnuniq and DangerousPanda subscribe to that idea too. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the effort, Drmies. Just let me clarify there. My interest is not in the sport, so I'm not active on the article page. Rather, the question of the terminology is what arouses my interest, and that is confined to the talk page. In fact it is pretty much what the talk page is all about, and I urge editors to take a look for themselves. It is painful.
    My contributions there have been ongoing for some time. August 2013, going by the page history and this diff. There may be earlier edits, but that one predates the IBAN. Further discussion on the RFC for name change, where I supported the current title. After doing a little research I find that "Soccer" is now deprecated amongst media and sports organisations, accordingly I now support a name change to reflect the changed reality.
    This seems to be a majority position amongst editors, going by the !vote taken. There are some points raised in the discussion immediately preceding, where my position is made quite clear: we should set aside our own personal opinions and look for good sources. My feeling is that whatever I might have called the game fifty years ago as a schoolchild in Victoria, the name has changed, especially over the last few years,
    Do we have any guidance on where to proceed? My understanding is that both participants to an IBAN are able to participate in !votes for RfCs and so on so long as there is no interaction. I think every editor involved is entitled to a voice in that sort of discussion, and if any editor were to lodge a !vote in the ongoing "Gauge Support" discussion I would not seek to have it removed on a spurious technicality. It is a matter of fairness and commonsense. --Pete (talk) 00:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Pete's response here is effectively the same as it was on Drmies's talk page. I find it disingenuous at best. I think there are several of us in agreement that what Pete did was "wrong". The harder question is what's the remedy, and we may find significantly more disagreement there. Not being a policy wonk (no matter what Drmies says), my view is that Pete violated the WP:IBAN, either its spirit or by implication. If HiLo had responded directly, he would obviously have violated the ban, and I think Pete was goading him to do so. (BTW, I have no history with either editor that I'm aware of, or at least remember.) It reminds me of the I Love Lucy episode (everything does) in which Lucy bets with Ricky that he can't lose his temper for 24 hours and he bets that she can't not buy a new hat for the same period of time. During the next 24 hours, Lucy keeps doing things to try to make Ricky lose his temper. He comes close but always pulls back. I heartily recommend this episode for anyone interested in implied IBAN violations.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict × 2)Skyring's contributions on Soccer in Australia are within the allowed activities of WP:IBAN. However, given their lack of prior interest in the subject, as documented by Drmies with the cool tool, the strong opinions at the ANI discussion which lead to ban, the vast size of both Australia and English Wikipedia, in which to engage in questions of terminology, the number of editors already having a robust discussion of the issue, I would say it's of minimal benefit to the Encyclopedia to focus their efforts there; given the potential for conflict between two editors who just don't get along I requested they strike their comments and disengage. NE Ent 00:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • If anyone wants to take the trouble, they might review Special:Contributions/Skyring and see if there is a net benefit from Skyring/Pete's presence—I suspect the answer is no. At a minimum, I support an indefinite topic ban for Skyring regarding soccer/football and its naming controversy. At Drmies' archived talk, I noted (at 1 January 2014) that, checking the entire history of Talk:Soccer in Australia showed that:
      • HiLo48 made a total of 303 edits starting in October 2009, with 111 in December 2013 and none in 2014. In the December edits, 19 mention "soccer" in the edit summary.
      • Skyring made 3 edits in January 2014, 3 edits in December 2013, and 5 edits in August 2013, and no other.
    I have seen enough of Skyring's style to know that his recent interest in the topic of soccer is almost certainly gaming the system to irritate his opponent—HiLo48 always participates in a new outbreak of the soccer/football battle, but he cannot participate at the moment because the section was started by Skyring. Of course no one can prove that this is an intentional tactic by Skyring, however proof is not needed since all the community wants is drama reduction and productive editing, and anything that might be baiting should be stopped. The great soccer/football debate will continue without Skyring's participation. Skyring will use any opportunity as seen at User talk:Drmies#Sorry to bother you again where Skyring just happened to have noticed that his opponent has commented at User talk:Spinrad (which has a total of five edits in its history)—in the comment, HiLo48 has technically breached the IBAN, but it is such a harmless explanation that only someone going for blood would seize on it. Johnuniq (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Drmies is well aware that we monitor each other's contributions. As for "going for blood", in the section linked, I requested a gentle reminder and that no further action be taken. I don't want to see anyone in trouble, but I do want the personal attacks to cease. That's why I supported the IBAN in the first place. --Pete (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    checking the entire history of Talk:Soccer in Australia showed that: HiLo48 made a total of 303 edits starting in October 2009, with 111 in December 2013 and none in 2014.
    Well, It's interesting that you should bring those contributions up. For starters, you say "none in 2014", but I count 76. Perhaps I could ask an independent editor to check my figures?
    Looking at some of those contributions makes for interesting reading, coming from someone who claims they don't make personal attacks. --Pete (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    HiLo pointed out, on his talk page and here, that no evidence is given of personal attacks, and I think it's important to point out, for the new readers, that I see no personal attacks by HiLo on Pete since the IBAN. (That's the issue--not whether HiLo has been rude or whatever to other editors--that's unproven, you cannot make that case under your IBAN, and it's not of interest to this discussion--note after edit conflict and Pete's contribution.) It's not even really relevant here, nor is it relevant how exciting or important discussions on the Australian soccer nomenclature are. Indeed, I'm beginning to think that the lengthy commentary by Pete on this matter is intended to draw attention away from the actual matter at heart: whether we should see their interest in the Soccer in Australia article and its talk page as a kind of hounding/baiting. Drmies (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've noticed a number of personal attacks directed against me since the IBAN began. Specifically on HiLo's talk page. I've drawn your attention to them, Drmies, asking that they stop, but you are a busy person, and doubtless have other matters on your mind.
    I've commented on the baiting already. Where are the diffs? --Pete (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The diffs are given: edit counts by both of you in the article and the talk page, and your starting that section on the naming issue: first sentence, fourth paragraph of my initial posting. You have left a "What's going on" section on my talk page, the answer to which (if there was a question) is this very ANI report. You also posted "Sorry to bother you again", where you pointed to this diff, and I responded, as did Johnuniq in this very thread. You pointed at a possible IBAN violation (archived, I believe, on my talk page) and I warned HiLo. I do have other matters on my mind, one of which is that I'm getting kind of tired of this thread and responding to your lawyerish comments. And no, I do not believe you have responded in any kind of substance to the baiting issue. Drmies (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    My point was made before: There is nothing in an IBAN preventing either of us from participating in discussion. The key point is to avoid the other party. Editors do not "own" articles or talk pages, regardless of how many edits they make or who was first. In this case, both of us were active on the relevant talk page before the ban was applied and we have since confined ourselves to different threads. Call it lawyerish, if you must, but that's just a commonsense reading of the relevant policy: "Although the editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other in any way."
    So where, precisely, is the hounding? Can you - or anyone else - provide a diff that is one party baiting the other?
    If it is your contention that HiLo48 "owns" the article and its talk page, then I find that very problematic indeed. So do you, apparently. --Pete (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not contend that, but I am becoming more and more convinced that you posted on that talk page, seeking to overturn consensus on a topic where you had earlier sought confrontation with HiLo (your one edit to the article), in order to pull them out and violate the IBAN--yes, to bait them. And you're doing the same thing here: you know that HiLo is itching to rebut, and it's a good thing they're keeping their cool. You know, in this battle between the two of you I used to think there was equal blame, more or less. I don't think that anymore. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at that talk page, it is quite clear that there is no consensus to be overturned - it is one long argument. My posts there are aimed at finding and presenting reliable sources showing that the name of the sport has changed. As I noted earlier - did you even read it? - there is no point to baiting the other party in an IBAN and then running to AN/I claiming a breach. That sort of tactic is easily seen through and would boomerang if either party tried it. You raised this AN/I discussion, requiring me to come here to rebut the charges made against me. I have stated my case, I have been honest, I have pointed to the relevant policy and asked for evidence. And nothing concrete is forthcoming but irritation. Which I share.
    This comes down to a simple point. If the other party "owns" the article and talk page, then say so, and I will refrain from posting there any more. If not, then I am perfectly within my rights to take part in discussion on a topic which attracts me through my interest in language and popular culture. The mere act of posting is not baiting. I didn't mention the other party in any way, I didn't respond, I didn't interact at all. Go me. Go both of us.
    And finally, yes, I very much prefer that all parties keep their cool. That's what this whole thing is about. That's exactly what I want. HiLo48 deserves praise for keeping calm and biting his tongue. May he ever continue to do so, and may we all of us continue to be civil in our dealings with one another. Thank you. --Pete (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I may be someone who is regularly opposed to HiLo's way of dealing with things, but even when I'm on the opposite side, this is one of the clearest gaming of the system attempts that I've seen in a while - as Johnuniq notes, it is hard to prove that this is intentional, but it is still obviously intentional. Skyring has contributed a miniscule amount to any association football/soccer article, whereas HiLo is far more regularly involved. Skyring being topic banned from anything to do with association football/soccer would be entirely appropriate. And yes, HiLo, you can comment here, since this is an ANI discussion about the interaction ban. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • HiLo48 has a perfect right to present his side of the story in his own words and he shall have no interference from me.

      To those whose mind is made up, there is no point arguing. Think what you will. For my part, I am perfectly within my rights under the limitations of an IBAN to participate in Wikipedia discussions on those topics which interest me, and while football does not, popular culture and language has been my fascination from university, and the question of what a particular sport might be called is an important and intriguing one. The name is changing within Australia and it affects not just the one article, but many others. If an Australian player moves to the European leagues during the offseason, does he play Soccer or Association Football and how do we describe him?

      It is not in my heart to goad or bait HiLo48 into breaking the ban and then pounce around and crow over it. Anyone who knows how Wikipedia works also knows exactly how that would play out here. It would be a pointless exercise and it would boomerang badly. If it happens, then it can be dealt with, but it also seems pointless to discuss something that hasn't happened, especially when other editors are projecting thoughts and motivations into my mind that do not, in fact, exist. "It is hard to prove that this is intentional, but it is still obviously intentional," one editor claims. Well, it's not. I know what's in my mind, and it is not that.

      I have looked carefully at the restrictions and exemptions of an IBAN and I see nothing there to prevent me from continuing my ongoing participation. Looking at the discussion page and archives for that topic, likewise. In fact it seems to me to be a good deal less restrictive than recent interpretations and if it is going to be enforced in a different manner to the words of the policy, then perhaps it is time to reword the policy.

      If anyone thinks that there is any baiting or goading going on, then let them put forward diffs. I'm prepared to stand by my statements. All I ask is that policy be followed, evidence presented, and that fairness prevail. For all parties. --Pete (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Perfect! You've got a convincing air of innocence gently blended with the wikilawyer's prove it! However, this is Wikipedia where the purpose is to build an encyclopedia, not to endlessly debate whether something looking like a turd really is a turd. Is there any reason to imagine that Skyring/Pete's continuing presence in soccer/football issues is required for the encyclopedia? Johnuniq (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      From my perspective the answer is no. I am quite familiar with the events leading up to this case. In the past I have been extremely critical of HiLo48, but more recently I have come around to seeing matters differently. To be brief, in my view if Skyring/Pete gets off with a soccer/football topic ban he will be getting off easy. Jusdafax 06:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm reminded of a little kid who stands just 3 inches beyond where a dog's chain end, and, when reminded they were told not to tease the animal, says but you said I could play anywhere in the yard if I stand outside the dog's circle! Earlier in the thread [29] Skyring claims HiLo is monitoring their edits (they know that how?) and they "want the attacks to stop." These are violations of the ban. But the important thing isn't the letter of "the law" (WP:NOJUSTICE), but the spirit, and Skyring is clearly violating it. My first thought was along the lines of topic ban from Soccer in Australia, but I'm concerned that's just kicking the can down the road. Perhaps the interaction ban could be amended to include That means stay the heck away from HiLo48, cause the next time it looks like you're edging anywhere close to him we'll skip the three days of discussion and just jump to the point where we block you, for however long it takes you to get the hint. NE Ent 10:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll make a comment about process here. I'm looking at several editors using language related to their assessment of my motives and thoughts. The comment above is a good one "I'm reminded of a little kid..." Well, I'm not a little kid, I'm well into my fifties, and I'm not as naiïve as those assessments assume. Baiting the other party in an iban and then running to an admin or ANI with a complaint is not a winning strategy on Wikipedia, as I trust everyone here is aware. I certainly am, because I've now mentioned it three times.
    I'm seeing guesses from editors here about my motivations and intentions that project "that little kid" onto me, and that's quite revealing. It's quite incorrect, because it's not in my mind to annoy or harass the other party, and I've asked for diffs to show the baiting. which have not been provided. Standing just beyond the angry dog's reach is a lovely image, but not really applicable here, where both parties are editors of many years experience and presumably able to control themselves. HiLo48, if I may mention him one more time in this thread, is not a barking dog and has in fact demonstrated considerable pride in his ability to NOT react. Those of you with experience will know that this is quite something, but some editors are treating him as if he were on the verge of snapping, and me as if I know this and am goading him that last little bit.
    Neither of us are barking dogs or mischievous children. We are people of some maturity and we have both demonstrated restraint over the course of this iban. Sure, there have been some minor breaches, but at least on my part all I've ever sought has been a reminder of the rules rather than any sort of penalty.
    So, instead of evidence - a deliberately provocative post, weasel wording, actual baiting or trolling or goading - I'm seeing statements based on emotional projection, revolving around little kids and barking dogs. These are actually quite insulting to both parties, and when I compare these imagined motivations against what is in my own mind, they are quite wrong.
    Now, having said that, I can see where this is heading, and I'm obviously not going to change hearts and minds here and now, but I will flag my intention to appeal to whatever step is next. Presumably the Arbcom, and in that forum, we will be dealing more with procedure and evidence and less with emotion and gut feelings. There are some questions in my mind about the limits of interaction bans and "spirit of the law", mentioned above. That is intended - and worded - not to be pettifoggingly precise, but to minimise disruption, and I think it has worked very well in this case. Apart from presuming upon the good nature of Drmies with questions and minor complaints, and this current little dramafest, which in my opinion is quite unneccessary and irritating to all concerned apart from those habitual attendees here who cheerfully chuck in their five cents worth of psychiatric assessment. --Pete (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of my comments have been a bit over-excited, but the essential problem remains—there is an IBAN between two users, and one of those users is widely known as supporting a particular outcome in the soccer/football debate, and has over 300 edits to the talk page, starting in October 2009. By comparison, the other editor has had a very minor involvement, but would now like to take a role that happens to oppose the first user. The community is mostly concerned with minimizing disruption and maximizing benefit to the encyclopedia, and following that principle suggests that the best outcome would result from the second user avoiding soccer/football. Johnuniq (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So. Where's the disruption that you want to minimise? Not trying to be snarky here, just curious if you can point to any at all. Apart from this unnecessary thread, of course. --Pete (talk) 03:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been following this thread and your previous interactions with HiLo48 for some time but have not felt the need to get involved. However, this post just leaves me speechless. In the vernacular the only appropriate response is to say "don't come the raw prawn here, mate". You are well aware of what you have been trying to do and have been called out for it. Pretending to be all innocent is just not going to cut it. I would suggest that admitting your error and giving sincere undertakings not to repeat them is your only hope of avoiding an enforced Wiki-holiday. - Nick Thorne talk 04:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I am certainly well aware of what I am trying to do. I know what is in my own heart. And you are wrong. Simple as that. But I ask again. Where is the disruption? In your imagination, it seems. Can you point to anything that has actually occurred? Something outside whatever fantasy you are imagining? Seriously now. Where is the evidence?
    That's why I mentioned process above. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and evidence. We check our facts. We don't speculate, imagine, fantasise and pretend. Apart from AN/I, it seems. --Pete (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban proposal

    Would people please specify a preferred outcome because the advice offered above has not been accepted, and this section is getting too long. A couple of us have hinted that more than a topic ban may be helpful—it might be more realistic to apply an indefinite block until it is clear there will be no further exploratory incursions. However let's just examine whether Skyring/Pete should be indefinitely topic banned from all soccer/football topics and discussions, broadly construed. Is the following correct (not including the views of the two editors concerned):

    Please make any corrections or updates required, and I hope others join the discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 11:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support ban and/or block. NE Ent 12:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban for Skyring from soccer/football, because I find NE Ent's analogy cogent: "but you said I could play anywhere in the yard if I stand outside the dog's circle!"[30] The next time Skyring applies his wikilawyering and timewasting skills to this IBAN ("exploratory incursions"), I support a swift indef block. Bishonen | talk 12:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

    Given that the discussion has progressed to this point, I boldly went and created a section for it. So to lay it out:-

    1. Skyring, who signs as Pete, is hereby indefinitely topic banned from all articles relating to soccer/football. Attempts to skirt/wikilawyer around the topic ban will be met with escalating blocks.
    2. Any future attempts to skirt the interaction ban, as viewed by the community, will be met with an indefinite block. The usual exceptions to IBAN's still apply but attempts to game those exceptions will also be met with an indefinite block

    Does that about sum it up? Blackmane (talk) 13:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • It's strict but I think it's the only solution. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a general comment, it seems like the general understanding of IBan (outside of this case) is that 1) both editors can edit the same article, but not interact with each other. and 2) commenting in a thread started by the other is interaction 2a) commenting in any thread the other has commented in is interaction and 3) that includes RFCs or other "official" discussions. Would not just establishing that commenting on official proposals, without mentioning the other person or their argument is acceptable resolve the issue, and let HiLo comment on the RFC? Other ways of interpreting IBan seem to be subject to easy gaming - if you can predict which articles/discussions someone will like get their first and its locked out. Yes we can handle that with topic/community bans, but why not just drop the king of the hill game and make IBan deal with actual interaction? I suppose that does makes it a bit more subjective to enforce... Gaijin42 (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    IBAN's are notoriously difficult to deal with. Just last week there was a rather lengthy discussion about an IBAN that is in force and whether there has been violations and/or gaming of it (not going to name parties, but regulars at ANI will know who I mean). I added in the condition "as viewed by the community" for obvious reasons. What one editor sees as an IBAN violation may/will not appear so to the violator. This condition solidifies the burden on a community consensus that a violation has occurred. Against a community consensus that the IBAN has been violated there is no wriggle room to wikilawyer around. Blackmane (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban and warning - lets do this quickly and move on. Distasteful, but probably for the best. Jusdafax 01:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support For clarity, I had better sign here although I have supported above. Johnuniq (talk) 02:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Skyring's edits here and here indicate that they just don't get it. Consequently I support a block, but if consensus is for a topic ban and warning I will support that, but I rather think that if we choose to go down that route we'll just be back here once again pretty soon, since Skyring has shown that they are either unable or unwilling to understand that it is not just the letter of the law that matters but its spirit. - Nick Thorne talk 09:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Emphasize support of topic ban - Best case scenario: Skyring backs off HiLo altogether, HiLo is therefore able to relax a bit in discussions, Wikipedia gets improved. Worst case scenario: Skyring violates the topic ban or continues to try and skirt around the interaction ban, and gets an indefinite block. Either way, the disruption should pretty much end here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • What disruption are you talking about? Apart from this ANI thread, which I didn't start. Seriously now, if nobody can provide diffs or evidence of disruption, then this thing is going to be appealed to a more reliable forum. I posted on a talk page, continuing my pre-iban participation, and I did it without the intention of baiting or trolling. Feel free to compare the tone of discussion in that thread with others on the page. Be fair, please. --Pete (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    *comment I saw this coming from a mile away and the position that this would put User:Skyring|Pete in. However, I don't see any interruption of an IBAN going on here, neither Pete or the parties involved parties are interacting with each other directly. Where is the IBAN actually being broken here? What is actually going on? I don't see a "quick and dirty" fix as resolving anything in this case. No disruptive behaviour has resulted from either of the two open discussions and they have their own direction flow, in fact they are two completely different discussions. I wont bring the other user into this discussion because it's not about them, I just don't see what Pete is doing wrong here by having an open discussion thread. If I've missed anything in particular in the difs for this please enlighten me where this is the case. --Orestes1984 (talk) 01:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're not seeing the violation, then either you've not read the thread carefully enough, or you're just not looking properly. HiLo is well known to be a regular contributor to Australian soccer/association football articles, whereas Skyring is well known not to be. Beyond that, HiLo is actively discussing (in multiple places) the possibility of various name changes involving the articles. However, the real nail in the coffin is that HiLo supports things remaining at soccer (not that I'm saying he actively wants to move it, just that he is questioning various changes of the term); Skyring is very deliberately setting himself up in entirely the opposite position, by opening a thread that suggests that a move to "association football" is enacted, knowing full well that HiLo is prevented from posting there by the terms of the IBAN. This is a blatant violation of the spirit of the ban, as well as a deliberate attempt at gaming the system. Skyring knows it full well, and you can see the smug undertones in some of his posts as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "Smug undertones"? I have to laugh at some of the things being said here. Dead wrong, Lukeno94. Rattling chains is not what I'm about. That's mean, juvenile fun, and it's rather disappointing that so many are projecting their fantasy onto me. "Smug"? Geez. Spit on me a bit more, will ya? --Pete (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Meh - as an Australian editor I've had positive interactions with both (my little exchange with Pete during the original IBAN discussion probably not being among them). Like then, Pete seems determined to dig himself into a hole and not see what everyone else is seeing. If it was unintentional, starting a football discussion while under an IBAN with one of Australian-football-editing's most vocal participants is pretty dumb. If intentional, it's deliberately baiting and antagonistic, but I don't think that's what Pete is about. The simple course of action would be for Pete to accept it was pretty dumb and commit to editing in completely different areas. If he can do that then further action shouldn't be necessary. I'd only support action if he can't or won't - I don't think further action is justified at this stage. Stalwart111 20:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I read the original IBAN thread when I inadvertently breached it myself... I could not have expected to have been across that one, particularly when I spent a long spell out with not editing here. No offense to Pete, he seems pretty reasonable. HiLo on the other hand seems less so reasonable... BUT, Pete... SERIOUSLY man... Sometimes it seems you like to dig yourself a good hole. I have my issues with HiLo... But I also know exactly when to shut up and do what the administrators tell me to do.
    Inadvertent or not I see both sides of this issue:
    1) HiLo has A LOT of cheerleaders for the position he takes up and I could see them deliberately bringing issues to AN/I just to rattle those that oppose his position
    on the other hand
    2) Either deliberately, or not so opening up a discussion topic in an area where HiLo likes to patrol was more than a little silly... I saw what was going on as soon as the thread was opened. I just have a little faith that Pete didn't do this deliberately. Just my two cents worth...
    I don't think Pete deserves a complete topic ban, but I think he should be more wary of inadvertently opening up discussions that he knows full well HiLo cannot contribute to. I'd also loath to see the position put forward here either by interpretation or otherwise that administrators are giving sway to one side of this polemic debate or another... There is already enough accusations flying around and we should all have a little more respect, particularly for admins, which HiLo in particular has at times been in open descent of. I think the current IBAN is enough with a warning that doing something like this again WILL result in a topic ban. I would not like to see a potential voice, one way or another on this matter removed completely and could see how topic banning Pete could be interpreted as giving sway to one particular side of the Soccer in Australia debate. --Orestes1984 (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm grumpy because I don't like being railroaded, but I fully appreciate about digging myself an ever-deeper hole. Story of my life. Stalwart, you've come closer than anyone else here to saying something that resonates with me. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    In your defence Pete, the last time I was dragged up here before AN/I similiar attempts at character assassination were tried on me with incorrect difs which resulted in HiLo48 running away from a boomerang. You should know as well as I do the types of things that go on with HiLo48 and his supporters and you should by now know better to walk into a situation where you can have your pants pulled down like this... Unfortunately, it's just a waiting game to see how the administrators here interpret this one. --Orestes1984 (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If I may offer some advice in my turn? I'd appreciate it if we kept the other party out of this as much as possible. It's my actions under the telescope here, not anyone else's unless they contributed in some way. --Pete (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    A good idea, both in the context of this discussion and in your wider approach to the IBAN and editing in general (which, for each of you, really shouldn't be defined by the IBAN anyway). HiLo has a long history in particular topic areas and you have a long history in other topic areas. The areas where you naturally overlap seem few and far between. I'm all for expanding your horizons but as long as you can each expand them to areas the other has little interest in, you should be fine. In this instance you stumbled across one, probably should have left it alone but didn't. As I said before: meh. Dumb, not intentionally disruptive. Stalwart111 05:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, dumb but not intentional, or at least I don't believe so, I believe Pete seems more reasonable than to throw stones at barking dogs --Orestes1984 (talk) 09:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Alternative Proposal

    I propose that the existing IBAN is modified as follows: The interaction ban currently in force between Skyring (talk · contribs) and HiLo48 (talk · contribs) is modified to exclude all articles related to association football, broadly construed. This exception also applies to all deletion-discussions related to such articles. This modification would allow Skyring to edit articles that HiLo48 have been editing without hindering HiLo48's ability to edit those articles. It's the least restrictive modification I can think of. (P.S. My proposal basically allows Skyring and HiLo48 to interact on articles related to association football (= soccer) as if the IBAN wasn't in place, and exceptions would apply to XfD/DR as those are not exactly on article/article talk namespace.) - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 02:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • No An IBAN was enacted to avoid pointless drama. What is the point of bending over backwards to provide a mechanism so the two users can snarl at each other in a topic where the issue will not be resolved for a another few years (I gather that "soccer" is slowly being replaced with "football" in some places in Australia, or some would like that—don't know which, and when/if that happens, the articles here will be renamed). A comment above includes "HiLo48 made a total of 303 edits starting in October 2009...", and that shows that Skyring's interest is recent and minor, and need not be accommodated. Johnuniq (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I proposed this because we cannot assume (and probably shouldn't assume) that Skyring is doing it on purpose, on the basis of WP:AGF. Besides, if we take Skyring's initial response to the original request, we can safely assume that it probably would not re-introduce mess, if Skyring indeed only has passing interest. I do not see the harm of doing this. (Besides, remember, just as consensus can change, so can people's interests. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 05:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Incompetent editor who pushes fringe views

    This is a complaint about User:Ret.Prof.

    He repeats ad nauseam that same information about the Gospel of Matthew having originally been written in Hebrew, which multiple editors repeatedly told him it is WP:FRINGE.

    Misunderstanding of basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines: at [31] does not understand that primary sources cannot be used to establish facts for Wikipedia, since it means indulging in original research, and he said that even after I explained him this official Wikipedia policy.

    A case of WP:COMPETENCE: his ability to find, evaluate and render the viewpoints of reliable sources make me think that he does not have great scholarly abilities. I do not want to be offensive, but this is my sincere impression when confronted with his edits. There are some things which scholars consider as poor academic performance and one of them is misquoting the viewpoints of other scholars. If one consequently fails to render the viewpoints of the sources he is quoting, it smells either like poor academic performance or as academic fraud (like in trying to game other editors, who are required to assume good faith in citing sources). Proof: at [32] he misrepresents several sources, which specifically affirm the following information which severely undermines his own case:

    Hence the quite confused tradition that it was originally written in Aramaic or even in Hebrew.

    — Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching, 2010, p. 89

    http://books.google.de/books?id=lXK0auknD0YC&pg=PA89&lpg=PA88&focus=viewport&dq=it+is+genuinely+true+that+the+apostle+Matthew+compiled

    If this interpretation of Papias is correct, there are several historical problems. First, modern specialists in language hold that the author of Matthew wrote in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic. Second, most scholars accept the Two-Source theory (see Chapter 15, "The Synoptic Problem," in this volume). This theory requires that the author of Matthew knew and used Greek versions of Mark and Greek Q as sources. Third, the gospel contains sayings and sayings collections, but is itself not a collection of sayings such as Proverbs or The Gospel of Thomas. In short, Papias' description does not correspond well with the New Testament.

    — Dennis C. Duling, p. 302 in David E. Aune, The Blackwell Companion to the New Testament, 2010

    See http://books.google.de/books?id=ygcgn8h-jo4C&pg=PA302&lpg=PA301&focus=viewport&dq=%22Matthew+comes+from+Papias%22+Eusebius+trustworthy

    In any event, Papias does not seem to provide us with the kind of information we can place a lot of confidence in. I should point out, in this connection, that scholars have almost uniformly rejected just about everything else that Papias is recorded to have said in the surviving references to his work.

    ...

    If scholars are inclined to discount what Papias says in virtually every other instance, why is it that they sometimes appeal to his witness in order to show that we have an early tradition that links Matthew to one of our Gospels, and Mark to another? Why do these scholars accept some of what Papias said but not all of what he said? I suspect it is because they want to have support for their own points of view (Matthew really wrote Matthew) and have decided to trust Papias when he confirms their views, and not trust him when he does not.

    The result of this quick examination of Papias is, I think, that he passes on stories that he has heard, and he attributes them to people who knew other people who said so. But when he can be checked, he appears to be wrong. Can he be trusted in the places that he cannot be checked? If you have a friend who is consistently wrong when he gives directions to places you are familiar with, do you trust him when he gives directions for someplace you’ve never been?

    Papias is not recorded as having said anything about either Luke or John. I’m not sure why. But the bottom line is this: we do not have any solid reference to the authors of our four Gospels in which we can trust (for example, that the author is actually referring to our Matthew and our Mark) until closer to the end of the second century—nearly a full hundred years after these books had been anonymously placed in circulation.

    — Bart Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted, pp. 107-110

    He could have himself found out that these sources undermine his own case if he bothered to read more than one page shown by Google Books.

    I wrote on Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_36#Gospel of Matthew:

    As far as Ehrman's book is concerned, the quote starts with "Many conservative Christian scholars use this statement to prove that what Papias says is historically accurate (especially about Mark and Matthew), but that is going beyond what the evidence gives us." So, Ehrman does not claim that Papias would be accurate in his reports, except for reporting the fact that he knew people who knew the apostles or their companions. As shown from another source, Ehrman believes that almost everything else Papias told is inaccurate and there is no indication that Ehrman has changed his mind about Papias's reliability. So, you cannot make Ehrman say that what Papias reports about a Hebrew Gospel written by Matthew would be a reliable report. What Ehrman stressed is that Papias is not a reliable source for the authorship of the Gospel of Matthew and it could be even be inferred that Ehrman affirms that Papias is historically inaccurate (with the exception of knowing those people). Just read the quote above ignoring the parenthesis and you will see what I mean. So, using Ehrman to establish the historical reliability of Papias's report fails verification, it is using partial quotations to justify an idea that Ehrman rejects. So, I was at least right about misrepresenting Ehrman's view. That's why I said that I cannot assume a fair rendering of the viewpoints of those sources, either you have failed to understand Ehrman's point or you have willfully misrepresented it. At least you could concede that you have misread what Ehrman has to say.

    — User:Tgeorgescu
    The above allegations are simply false. Yes I am an old guy who sometimes gets confused but if you read my sources in their context you will see my references are solid. If I do make a mistake, I promptly apologize and fix the mistake. I enjoy scholarly debate and enjoy it when I "learn" something new. My edit history will support me. I am not perfect but neither do I fit the caricature presented above! - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have a problem with:

    It is important to note that these sources are NOT saying that "Matthew's collection sayings in a Hebrew dialect" and the Gospel of Matthew are the same work. Indeed there is clear evidence that "Matthew's Hebrew Gospel" was NOT translated into what we call the Gospel of Matthew.

    — Ret.Prof
    I have a problem with:

    Now, it has to be admitted that not everyone agrees. There are still some Christian scholars who believe that the Gospel of Matthew is a direct translation of Matthew's Hebrew Gospel.

    — Ret.Prof
    Namely, you did not say who disagrees and where. And, please, no sources older than 50 years.
    I also have a problem with User_talk:Davidbena#Reliable Sources (there are sources from when my grandmother was a child or even before she was born). Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And I find it disturbing that after more than five years of editing you still don't acknowledge the meaning of {{religious text primary}}. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    E.g., you still seem to think that Jerome and Eusebius wrote reliable sources, which could be used by Wikipedia in order to establish historical facts. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Coming back to your sources, their authors either say that Papias was mostly unreliable (as Ehrman said) or that Papias didn't speak of what we now call the Gospel of Matthew. Therefore, his testimony about the Gospel of Matthew is either unreliable or inapplicable (irrelevant). Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Some other users have already suggested a topic ban for this user, see Talk:Gospel of Matthew#Solicit a topic ban?. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: The problem has been going on since 2010 on multiple related articles and is intractable. There are chronic issues with misunderstanding (or misuse) of sources and behavioral problems as well. I would like to ask for the guidance of the community as to whether this complex dispute belongs in arbitration. Ignocrates (talk) 02:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As an uninvolved editor who has had nothing to do with that controversy, after reading the above, I would say yes, it sure sounds like a good candidate for arbitrating. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that arbitration is the way to go. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "As an uninvolved editor who has had nothing to do with that controversy," - other than that two threads about use of WP:FRINGE sources and WP:UNDUE content in Bible topics are happening on the same ANI page at the same time. One editor accuses the unanimity of New Testament textual scholars of German anti-Hebrew bias, another editor accuses the unanimity of Hebrew Bible palaeo-botanists of anti-cannabis bias. But these are exactly the issues WP:RS, WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE are meant to cover. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Complaints about the FTN crowd pulling allegations of FRINGE out of their chutzpah to stigmatize entire bookshelves they don't like and "win" centuries-old debates the easy way has become a regularly recurring pattern, how many more instances will it take before FTN itself gets the scrutinizing case study it deserves? (especially in religion topics where FRINGE = a barely disguised euphemism for HERESY... For the first years of its existence, I remember when FTN would steer clear of asserting who the fringe and non-fringe was in religious debates, but lately it has been acquiring a new role for itself as the Arbiter of All Truth (TM)) Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There are indeed century-old theological debates about some issues and we cannot claim that mainstream history would require that theologians revise their doctrines (while historical evidence may be important for apologetics, theology does not require historical evidence; all history books in the world cannot prove or disprove that Jesus is God, since that isn't a historical fact). But this does not imply that mainstream historians did not settle those issues as far as the secular academia cares. I don't deny that there are fundamentalist faculties who teach that "Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew", but for everyone else than fundamentalists and very conservative evangelicals the debate has been definitively settled. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's been "settled" with perfect "unanimity", because all those saying different aren't even allowed at the table - such is the nature of achieving "unanimity" these days. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    People who hold that historical criticism was birthed in hell and continues to be a Satanic plot are generally not allowed at the discussion table establishing the consensus in historical criticism. As User:Ian.thomson said, "If it does not walk like a duck, does not talk like a duck, and avoids ducks like the plague, there is little reason to assume its a duck. Or scientist, in this case." Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as orthodoxy on all Biblical controversies hereafter being a matter to be ascertained only by "scientists" - so, exactly how many of the competing hypotheses have got past the experimentation phase in this case? Are we using real "scientific method" to determine which scholars are correct / incorrect, or just the same ol' same ol' "appeal to authority"? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if this view isn't unanimous, history is regarded as a science. Affirming biblical inerrancy as historical scholarship is beyond ludicrous. The mass of evidence that the Bible has errors (from minor copying mistakes to big theological contradictions) is simply too vast for biblical inerrancy to be considered true by mainstream scholars. Besides, scientists/scholars don't decide upon theological orthodoxy, since theological orthodoxy is in the eye of the beholder. So I do not say that Biblical inerrancy would be a problem theologically, I just say that history does not work that way. Wikipedia does not employ the scientific method, it is all the way for proper appeals to authority (i.e. reliable sources policy). Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "history is regarded as science." Really? Funny, what I learned in school was that there are differing views of history. That different countries have differing views of history. That different scientists in the different countries are paid by their governments to research different hypotheses. And I learned that true "science" mainly applies to things where the "scientific method" is of any use to establish conclusions, although it is true that "science" in some eastern European countries has more taken the route of "appeal to authority" on other matters as well. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a red herring, I did not deny above that there are other views of history. East European scholarship is a red herring, too. Nothing of what you replied immediately above is germane to Ret.Prof's behavior. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Response to the POV Railroad

    The "Anti-Fringe" POV Railroad is made up of two admins, six user accounts and an undetermined number of alternate accounts. (See WP:POV Railroad) It formed about 10 years ago and their stated purpose is to remove “fringe” (ie anything Hebrew or Jewish from Christianity). The most up to date reliable sources do not support their position. Nor does their definition of "fringe" line up with that of Wikipedia. They are in serious violation of WP:RS and WP:NPOV. See also Arbitration

    Issue
    I raised a concern that the following editas it was not properly sourced and explained edits at Wikipedia must be supported by reliable sources. I referred them to the first 15 pages of Throckmorton's the Gospel Parallels (All editions from 1957 to present) which give an excellent overview along the following sources.

    I offered to provide further references if required. This would be no problem as every Biblical scholar is aware of the attestations to the early MSS (ie Matthew "wrote his Gospel in Hebrew in Palestine"). NOTE I did not revert the unsourced edit for I have voluntarily stepped back from editing this article last year because of the edit warring. This request on the talk page for a reliable source has given rise to the allegations that I am a time waster who is an incompetent editor who pushes fringe views. However there is much more to this 10 year old conflict than meets the eye.

    Abuse of this noticeboard

    • It is an abuse of the Administrators' noticeboard for a POV Railroad to act as 1)Accuser, 2)Judge & 3) Executioner
    • It is an abuse of the Administrators' noticeboard to use it for the intimidation of other editors.
    • It is an abuse of the Administrators' noticeboard to use cherry pick edits from a good faith use's history and take these edits out of context in order to deceive or trick others into thinking he is a problem user.
    • It is an abuse of the Administrators' noticeboard to use it as a tool for POV pushing See User:Davidbena, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive235#Requesting a topic ban for User:BruceGrubb etc
    • It is an abuse of the Administrators' noticeboard to use cherry pick edits from a good faith use's ancient history in order to deceive or trick others into thinking he is a problem user. Generally speaking accusations should be restricted to edits within the last twelve months.
    • It is an abuse of the Administrators' noticeboard to use it to facilitate false personal attacks against fellow editors.
    • Finally when an admin warns an editor about some behavior and the editor complies, it is an abuse of the Administrators' noticeboard to then use it as a basis for a ban.

    WP:CBAN reads, "If an editor has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia, the community may engage in a discussion to site ban, topic ban, or place an interaction ban or editing restriction via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute."

    Arbitration
    Because the POV Railroad has abused this notice board in the past I request that the conflict be taken to arbitration and the ban against User:CheeseDreams, User:-Ril-, User:Cheese -dreams and User:John Carter be extended to include all remaining User Accounts from the Anti-Hebrew POV Railroad. I also request that present bans be strictly enforced.

    Re vague allegations against me

    During my break I asked a number of Bureaucrats and Administers to review my edit history to see if I had done anything to warrant being banned from Wikipedia. None of them could find any edits to justify the allegations of rudeness etc brought against me over the past year. Michael Q Schmidt looked into the situation and his response was “Your only "sin" has been to be calm and reasonable in the face of negativity." And “your edits based upon existing policy and guidelines are sound. Your stepping back from areas of drama is to be applauded.” User:Liz went so far as to describe me as a "mild-mannered user". However the POV railroad has become so very powerful that being "innocent of any wrongdoing" does not make much difference. Many editors have let themselves be intimidated! (see my talk page) I will give the last word to User:llywrch who best summed up the situation:. "There are gangs of editors who protect themselves & their friends, & I don't know what can be done about them. I wish these groups didn't exist, but they do & there is little interest in controlling them." - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The Blackwell source on natural theology has been evaluated at Talk:Gospel of Matthew#Clarification re Early Attestations. Otherwise, there is nothing anti-Semitic or anti-Judaizing about the sources used by the editors who challenge your views. The scholarly consensus is that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek, and the contrary view does not even qualify for a minority view. The users who oppose such fringe view don't do that for ideological reasons. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Again that is not true. I never got a source to support your edit that the attestations did not exist! Also, the most basic right of every editor is to be able to a request a source to back up an edit. To respond to such a request with a T-Ban is soooooo wrong! - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    What isn't true? The early church writers got their information from Papias, and as you have yourself admitted, most reliable sources tell that Papias does not speak of our Gospel of Matthew, besides Ehrman tells that Papias is unreliable except for the statement that he knew people who knew people associated with the apostles. You should at least quote some sources saying that Matthew did write the Gospel of Matthew, I guess there are fundamentalists who make such claims. I do not say that such sources would be mainstream, but at least you would make clear where you got your information from. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. It is easy to claim that a certain view is "fringe" when it does not agree with one's own hypothesis. My suggestion in this particular contentious issue and which might give the editors involved a greater propensity to be honest and impartial in their reporting, is for User:Tgeorgescu and User:Ret.Prof to go before one of the Administrator heads (bureaucrats) with their respective arguments outlined on paper using reliable secondary sources and showing why the Gospel of Matthew was or wasn't first penned in the Hebrew or Aramaic tongue. Clearly, the man observing these scholarly arguments will come to the conclusion that neither view should be considered a "fringe view," but each view has its own merits on which to stand, based on solid arguments. The end result of which being that Wikipedia will then be left with no other choice but to take a neutral stand in this particular issue, in accordance with its own policy WP:NPOV, rather than mislead its readership into thinking that there is some consensus amongst scholars as to the original work of Matthew. Davidbena (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. I believe my references are strong and will stand the test of scholarly scrutiny. (See below) Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    (Note: I refactored the multitude of level-3 headings in Ret.Prof's response above, because they made it difficult to tell that they were all part of a single comment. BMK (talk) 04:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]

    No problem. You just made an old guy run and get his glasses. LOL Cheers Ret.Prof (talk) 04:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I am very concerned that User:Ret.Prof wants topics bans to be "extended to include all remaining User Accounts from the Anti-Hebrew POV Railroad" and mentions "two admins, six user accounts and an undetermined number of alternate accounts" without actually naming these users. These accusations should be properly documented, and the users in question named and notified of this discussion. StAnselm (talk) 05:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    A good point. That is why I believe this case should be moved to arbitration. A lot of work and care is needed with serious accusations. One mistake and I could be banned as an incompetent time waster who is "Judaizing" the faith. I think we both know that this is not simply about my request for references to back up an unsourced edit. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 05:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me add one thing that is very important. I am mainly concerned about Wikipedia's accuracy and I apologize if such a concern inadvertently offended others... as offending or conflict was never my intention. My intention was only to ensure accuracy and better the reputation of Wikipedia. Also editors now working in groups or as some call them gangs can grow to be a real problem for Wikipedia. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 06:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    About that unsourced edit: it is common knowledge for everyone who has read anything recent in historical scholarship about the Gospel of Matthew. Besides at the WP:FTN discussion which I have previously mentioned here I had offered a list of sources which support that viewpoint. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • If RFAR is going to be filed, then this thread needs to be closed as it won't get anything done. (But I don't want to do that without further input.) - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 07:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose any WP:RFAR - Ret.Prof wants "arbitration" but that is asking a lot/too much of the half dozen exhausted editors who have been reverting these additions and fork article creations at roughly six-month intervals since 2010. A particular problem with a WP:RFAR for other editors is the enormous number of bytes - often reposts of same material can be seen today - which Ret.Prof posts. WP:RFC/U might be more appropriate, but all that is really needed is a simple small targeted topic ban - simply please stop adding lost Hebrew Matthew theories to New Testament articles. WP:FRINGE theories can still be added in pages on any notable individual author BLPs/churches which advocate the theory but is WP:UNDUE for major articles on the New Testament which need to be objective and represent the consensus of academic scholarship. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, you can surely advise ArbCom of your opinion, but whether they start a RFAR or not (once someone actually submits a request) is not something that can be voted down by the peanut gallery. I think the Igniocrates(sp?) vs. John Carter ArbCom was on narrow behavioral issues. Most areas of Wikipedia suffer from having fewer editors than some years bacj; at least that's my subjective impression. That's probably a good argument (in the opposite direction, i.e.) for not letting POV pushers own any area because one or two of them seem to have a much greater impact now than they had before. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    User talk:Someone not using his real name then I am mistaken, I thought there was a point at the request for arbitration where others could voice an opinion against arbitration as too much hassle. Is there no way to prevent repeat insertion of a WP:FRINGE (see definition) view into articles without the drama of "arbitration"? Isn't WP:FRINGE sufficient to stop these edits? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you sure you want binding arbitration? The collateral damage is often serious. What other dispute resolution methods have the various editors attempted? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    As said, there was a WP:FTN discussion about inserting fringe views. And editors tried to convince him (through using talk pages) to desist from inserting fringe views. The new research he means is mostly Dunn. While Dunn is not fringe, he does not represent the majority view either. And I doubt that Dunn goes so far as to say that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew or Aramaic. Other sources were simply misquoted to defend a view that the authors are known to have rejected it previously and no proof has been offered that they changed their mind. Also, quotations used by him were too selective and just quoting stuff at distance of some paragraphs or pages shows that those authors don't say what they are purported to say, therefore his synthesis fails verification. It's like people misquote Obama trying to show that he is a Socialist. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    This paragraph is typical of the problem. Although it is all over the place, (See WP:POV Railroad) it makes me sound really, really bad!

    • I do not believe Obama is a Socialist for the 401(k) of the average person is doing well. I am a Christian but I am not a "Waco bird"! See the box on the top of my talk page.
    • The statement (further above) about primary sources is also wrong and is not supported by my edit history. WP:SOURCES states "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia." Also, it has been my policy to back up a primary source with a secondary source.
    • The statement above that Dunn "does not represent the majority view" is also wrong. Indeed it can be fairly said that Dunn is one of the foremost scholars in the world today.

    And so on, and so, and so on. Trying to answer all the allegations leaves one chasing ones tail and looking guilty of being an incompetent time wasting editor who pushes fringe views and therefore should be banned. (See WP:POV Railroad for more information.) The only fair way to deal with this problem this problem is at arbitration. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I was referring to your use of sources in order to show that Papias would be quite reliable (especially in respect to the Gospel of Matthew or whatever gospel he was referring to). Ehrman said that many scholars do not hold Papias to be very reliable. So, you were misquoting sources in order to boost Papias's reliability. Besides, judgment in respect to the relevance of what Eusebius and Jerome prove should be left to contemporary mainstream historians. You cannot cite some 1500 years old texts and expect them to pass for contemporary scholarship. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I don't think James Dunn has ever supported the idea of a Hebrew/Aramaic original behind Matthew - at least I can't find any such on making a quick search. When RetProf refers to Dunn it's in reference to Dunn's ideas on the oral tradition. RetProf's talk about "new research" sometimes means Dunn's work on oral tradition, but in this case he's talking about superscriptions to ancient mss of the Gospel of Matthew that say in essence that the Apostle Matthew wrote it. The superscriptions are real enough, but there's nothing "new" about scholarly knowledge of them. What RetProf is doing is ignoring the existing consensus, which is that the superscriptions aren't reliable. Note that what he calls "new scholarship" includes works from 1801!" PiCo (talk) 12:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Dunn definitely does not say that the canonical Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew/Aramaic, he says explicitly that it was written in Greek (he even goes further, saying that Matthew only used Greek sources!), this is from his most recent book in 2013, strengthening his assertions from 2011 JP&G: "It will not do, for example, to argue that Matthew and Luke drew their non-Markan material from an Aramaic source, each making his own translation into Greek. That in such a case they would have ended up with more or less identical Greek for their independent translations is almost impossible to envisage. Much the more obvious solution is either that Matthew copied Luke, or Luke copied Matthew, or the source they drew on was already in Greek. Here the case for a Q document already in Greek becomes very strong" —Oral Gospel Tradition (Eerdmans, 2013), p. 295. The only "scholars" who say the sort of thing pushed here are those who teach at places like Wheaton College (Illinois) (where, for example, people who convert to Roman Catholicism are fired for not being Christian enough), although maybe someone could find an exception (no one has done that yet). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 00:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: A concern I have had about this long-running edit conflict is that not enough has been done to resolve the conduct issues. Rather than bring it to ANI in the past, Ret.Prof has simply been overwhelmed by a number of determined editors from WikiProject Christianity. Also, it's likely that the arbs would have rejected a RFAR as not ripe for arbitration. Now that this dispute has finally reached ANI, the community can weigh in with a recommendation. A targeted T-ban by the community assumes the problem is due to Ret.Prof alone and all the other parties have clean hands. I'll leave that to others to decide. I think the arbs would take the case if the community decides that is the best course of action. Ignocrates (talk) 14:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the kind words. And let me be the first to acknowledge I have much to learn. But neither am I the caricature described above! I too think the arbs would take this case if the community decides that it is the best course of action. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, one's patience has limits. This user has been told lots of times that the Gospel of Matthew being originally written in Hebrew is a fringe idea (and he has himself recently quoted scholars who also imply this), but does not want to learn and still pushes such fringe views at [33]. This edit is not even one month old, let alone over an year old. When users are confronted with people who just do not want to desist and do not seem to get the point even after it has been patiently and repeatedly explained to them, they could get angry and lambaste the offender. It's comparable to a troll eliciting angry responses. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "has been told" - love it. The reason it's generally hard to find actual sources in scholarship calling something "fringe" is exactly because, true scholarship is rather hesitant to be reckless in tossing that pejorative around. If wikipedia reflected anything like true scholarship, it would not do so either. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Ret.Prof said he was a professor whose main area of expertise is biblical scholarship. Any such professor would be expected to distinguish by himself between fringe and mainstream and to know when to stop making baseless claims. To this I add that he has employed quotes from Ehrman in order to defend viewpoints which Ehrman overtly rejects. His allegations that a superscript would prove that Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew makes me wonder if he is capable of understanding how historical criticism works. If this isn't due to fideism, it is due to incompetence. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The Big Question: I think things have moved beyond the request I made in January at the talk page on the Gospel of Matthew for further references re an unsourced edit. Some have wondered why I just don't quit Wikipedia. I think the answer has to do with when I was researching the "POV railroad". Back in 2005 User:Melissadolbeer (a new user who left Wikipedia that year) said "This is so wrong; I feel as though I have been violated by Wikipedia." It is still on her user page. I believe editors at Wikipedia should never be made to feel this way. I look at the way User:Davidbena was treated his first month at Wikipedia. It was so very wrong! In my heart and soul I feel something must be done. I will probably be banned from Wikipedia, but quit...never! And I believe that if this goes to arbitration, the Arbs will be shocked and outraged and take strong action. Wikipedia should be a safe place for us all! - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone who does not agree with WP:VER, WP:SOURCES, WP:OR, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE is not welcome as a Wikipedia editor. This isn't a personal attack, it's just saying that Wikipedians aren't going to like such editor and such editors ain't going to like Wikipedians. This explains Davidbena's experience. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Again what you say is not true! User:Davidbena was new to Wikipedia. He joined Wikipedia Aug 22 2013 and you brought proceedings to ban him at ANI Aug 27! I believe this is an abuse of this notice board. I also reviewed your comments about him. WOW If you were not protected by the POV Railroad you would have a T-Ban by now. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    He submitted some articles at Wikipedia:Articles for creation, but some independent editors (unrelated to your accusations of cabal-forming) rejected his attempts to create articles because of his overindulgence in using primary sources. And this was the very reason he was reported here. In fact, I have nothing against a newbie who did not know the rules, made a mistake, was told what the rules are, learned the rules and obeyed them and the same applies to his own case. I do not hate him, I just insisted that the policy on original research isn't optional. If he wants to edit Wikipedia he has to obey this policy, if he does not obey this policy he should not edit Wikipedia. I don't force him to leave, he has to make his own choice, but he cannot eat his cake and still have it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Fringe:This ANI is all over the place now! Once again I sound really really bad:

    • "NPOV means keeping fringe material out of a major article like Gospel Matthew - none of your material has any place in this article. Yourself and previous advocates of "Original Matthew" theories have tried repeatedly to insert the theory into this article and it has been repeatedly removed. And yet here you are filling the Talk page with more advocacy for this theory. What will it take to stop this? Are you ever going to accept that this fringe theory does not deserve a prominent place in major New Testament articles on en.wp?" In ictu oculi (talk) 22:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
    • "So we're back at this game are we? What has changed since the last time we reviewed the question at hand (see the archive for relevant discussion? Are we doing the old, look at all these wonderful WP:RS which exempts the material from the WP:FRINGE requirement again? That dog won't hunt and since we have been over this extensively before, rehashing old arguments is a variant of WP:ICANTHEARYOU, which is in turn a form of WP:DISRUPT, which leads us all traipsing over to WP:ANI to ask for a topic or article ban. OTOH, if there has been a shift in the scholarly consensus that now accepts the Hebrew hypothesis (of which I am unaware), then the article should incorporate the theory." Eusebeus (talk) 10:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment re POV Railroad:"User:Eusebeus, exactly. Unfortunately with User:PiCo semi-retired, User:History2007 retired, User:DougWeller on leave, I'm not sure how we can do this. One thing is clear, RetProf's firm conviction that the WP:TRUTH is that the "real" Gospel of the "real" Matthew is lurking in Hebrew fragments is just not going to go away. This is more than adequately covered in the article on the fringe theory, a single link is sufficient, but will RetProf accept not making a case for the theory in Gospel of Matthew article itself?" In ictu oculi (talk) 02:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    • "So let me say this. Wasting editors time with this kind of cavilling nonsense is disruptive and uncivil. If you would like to craft a nice paragraph that notes how scholars have come to reject Papias' claims of a Hebrew original while mentioning that there is some scholarship that has tried to maintain the theory is fine. Statements like "Virtually every piece of external evidence we have from the first few centuries regarding the authorship of the Gospels concurs that Matthew's Gospel was first written in a Hebrew dialect" is, however, FRINGE-laden OR."
    "Do we really need an RfC to determine that scholarly consensus rejects the idea of an original Hebrew Matthew gospel? No, because we can read. What we do need is a way to prevent disruptive editing from consuming the time of editors who, having committed to engage in good faith, are forced to take time to note that citing material that explicitly rejects the idea an editor is trying to promote, and having this advanced as a "shift in consensus", is nonsensical to the point of incomprehensibility.
    In other words: you're being rude. So stop." Eusebeus (talk) 09:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC
    • More recently (see above) "Well, one's patience has limits. This user has been told lots of times that the Gospel of Matthew being originally written in Hebrew is a fringe idea (and he has himself recently quoted scholars who also imply this), but does not want to learn and still pushes such fringe views at [1]. This edit is not even one month old, let alone over an year old. When users are confronted with people who just do not want to desist and do not seem to get the point even after it has been patiently and repeatedly explained to them, they could get angry and lambaste the offender. It's comparable to a troll eliciting angry responses." Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

    This bashing re fringe went on and on! It was both abusive and dishonest for it did not conform to WP:FRINGE. The WP:FTN was quite actually quite supportive of my position re fringe. I have found the discussion very helpful. I agreed with User:Shii that a "fringe theory" is one that is outside of the responsible literature entirely. If Ehrman et al. cover it, that is at least grounds to mention it, as the question is one of WEIGHT, not FRINGE. (See PiCo, and IRWolfie ) Secondly, we I have come to the conclusion that Ehrman is a reliable source per User:Smeat75. Indeed Ehrman is a leading source. Although it looked to me as though Papias' statement that Matthew wrote his Gospel in a Hebrew was not fringe, I have volontarily chosen not to bring up Papias or edit the Gospel of Matthew. (Note * I did not surrender my right to make comments on the talk page re the "attestations".) The POV Railroad saw this good faith gesture as a weakness and "Here I am". I now request that this be brought to arbitration.

    Consensus I have just read through all this verbiage. WOW!!! The consensus seems to be that even a dim witted old man has the right to 'waste' people's time by requesting a reliable source for an unsourced edit without fearing a T ban. As to my request for arbitration re the POV Railroad close but not quite there yet! - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I've checked the first five results from the link you made you think that it wouldn't be fringe. The results are:

    "We must concede," he wrote, "that the report that Mt was written by Matthew 'in the Hebrew language' is utterly false, however it may have arisen." W.G. Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament, rev. ed., trans. Howard Clark Kee (Nashville: Abingdon, 1975) 49, 120-21.

    But Papias' statement involves more problems than it resolves. ... At any rate, the canonical text of Matthew is and always has been the Greek version. Our commentary proceeds on the assumption that the Gospel was composed in Greek. ... But no responsible scholar claims that we now have access to the original Hebrew of Matthew's Gospel.

    It is questionable, however, whether Papias is to be interpreted in this way and, even if so, whether Papias can be trusted regarding this information. ... (1) our Greek Gospel of Matthew is not the translation of a Hebrew or Aramaic original;

    Thus even for the most of the more conservative scholarly commentators, while varying in their views of Matthean authorship or influence, acknowledge that the matter is uncertain (Carson 1984b: 19; France, 1985: 34; Blomberg 1992a: 43-44; McKnight 1992: 528). Likewise, some scholars who reject Matthean authorship are troubled by the antiquity of the Gospel titles and the tradition of authorship; Luz complains that too many scholars simply ignore these difficulties (1989: 94-95).

    The fathers, from Papias to Eusebius, who perpetuated the old tradition regarding the Hebrew Gospel, themselves rest their assertion on tradition, i.e., on reports that they had heard. And none of these fathers, not even Papias himself, was able to name a single person who had seen — not to say handled — this alleged Hebrew Matthew. The reports of the fathers regarding a Hebrew "Gospel" must be considered as hearsay, unsupported by a tangible fact and contradicted by all the probabilities involved as well as by several uncontested facts.

    Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are going to quote me out of context, please inform me of it. I was asking a question in the diff because I am not informed on these issues. I was not asserting there was no fringe element. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Next step: mediation, arbitration, or what?

    I haven't read every single comment but from past familiarity with this dispute, this seems like a content dispute, about reliable sources and interpretation of sources. This isn't a disciplinary matter that should involve the big admin stick. It is complex, involves a variety of editors and viewpoints, it should head to mediation (preferably) or arbitration, not ANI.

    Bottom line: I don't see "blockable" behavior here and most actions coming out of ANI cases result in blocks, editing restrictions or are a stalemate with no consensus. The charges brought up against Ret.Prof by Tgeorgescu are layered and complex and I don't think the blunt tools of administrators is the best solution for this impasse. Liz Read! Talk! 03:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree. So that means mediation I guess, either informal or formal. Maybe I should take the initiative, since RetProf began by objecting to a specific reversion I made of one of his edits. Before I do, any other views? (If you agree with the idea of mediation, do you tink it shld be formal or informal?) PiCo (talk) 03:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking for venues to carry this forward, came across the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. It's apparently for deciding on questions of due weight, which is what I personally think is at stake here. The step after that is formal mediation: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. This involves a formal committee with binding results, and is the last stage of content dispute resolution, when all else fails - so I think the time for this has not yet come. If there aren't any persuasive arguments to the contrary by tomorrow my time (AEST), I'll start a mediation process. That gives RetProf in particular time to respond here. PiCo (talk) 04:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    All this time, and I never realised you were in my time zone... StAnselm (talk) 05:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Us old guys sleep all the time. Keeps us from being Incompetent ! - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Leave it to Liz to come to our rescue. I think what she says makes a lot of sense. I would prefer formal mediation for three reasons:

    1. This dispute has been going on for a very long time
    2. Besides this notice board, our dispute has gone to several other notice boards (See excerpt from Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard above)
    3. The result shall be binding and will bring this to an end.

    Finally I would prefer LIZ to oversee the start of the mediation process. No offense to PiCo but she is neutral. She also has a great intellect and a kind heart! - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: The discussion at FTN brought out some important points. One of them was a suggestion made by Til Eulenspiegel to create a new article on the historiography of scholarship on the Gospel of Matthew. Such an article would be a valuable addition to the encyclopedia, and it might satisfy both sides of the dispute. With respect to formal mediation, I think it's a great idea, and I suggest contacting Keilana to act as the mediator. She is one of the most accomplished mediators we have here, and if anyone can mediate this complex dispute, it is her. Ignocrates (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Formal mediation is preferable to informal mediation in a complex case like this one because it is privileged communication. Therefore, it can't be used as a soapbox to pile up "points" that can be used later as evidence in arbitration. While formal mediation is technically non-binding, every participant is supposed to make a good-faith commitment to achieve a result as though it were binding. If it becomes obvious to the mediator that one or more of the parties are unable to do that, the mediator will simply stop the process. Declaring that one of the parties is incapable of or unwilling to accept a mediated solution before even trying is a statement of bad faith. Ignocrates (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I object to the statement that this is a content dispute. It is not. One determined editor who consistently appears promoting the same discredited viewpoint is not engaged in a content dispute. One determined editor who uses walls of text to obfuscate and prevaricate is not a content dispute. One determined editor who engages repeatedly in ICANTHEARTHAT and similar kinds of behaviour when presented with overwhelming evidence to refute his contentions and whose capacity for passive-aggressive querulousness is apparently tireless is not a content dispute. This is disruptive editing of the kind that makes it difficult for other editors to continue. Ret. Prof. has been repeatedly engaged in good faith on the questions he has raised. You are not allowed to game the system by simply stating the same thing over and over again every six months by gussying it up as a content dispute. It is not. Repeated patterns of disruptive behaviour are exhausting for other editors and detrimental to the aims of the project. This is clearly blockable behaviour and I suggest that as such, a topic ban with sanctions be enacted here at AN/I as a result. Eusebeus (talk) 15:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    This simply is not true. Please look at:
    1. Excerpt from Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard above
    2. My edit history
    3. The WP:POV Railroad
    But if you want to take this to arbitration, that is still ok with me. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban Ret. Prof. as a POV pusher and cherry-picker of sources Ret. Prof usage of sources is truly disgusting, the cherry-picking is atrocious. In the RS/N thread above, he quotes only those paragraphs that support his POV. He "forgets" to include paragraphs that say the theory is a minority:

    • The Blackwell Companion to The New Testament cites pages 301-303, but he forgets to quote from page 302 several sentences that contradict very strongly his position: "First, modern specialists in language hold that the author of Matthew wrote in Greek, not hebrw or Aramain. Second, most scholars accept the Two-Source theory (...) This theory requires that the author of Matthew knew and used Greek version of Mark and Greek Q as sources. (...) In short, Papias' description does not correspond well with the New Testament. (...) [The author of Mathew] wrote very good Greek."
    • The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology Ret. Prof. cites page 602 to support his theory, but on the same page it says that the opinion has a lot of problems and is held only by a minority of scholars.
    • James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. pp 2-3 states in the introduction that he is holding a minority opinion, and mentors told him that he could ruin his career by publishing his book
    • Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching he cites pages 86 and 87, but in page 87 "When applied to our Gospel of Matthew, this tradition is complete nonsense, as most scholars have recognized. Our Gospel is not only written in perfectly decent Greek, it was partly written by an author who was revising our Greek Mark into better Greek (...) It was therefore written in Greek. (...) How could such a grossly confunsed view of our Gospel of Matthew have arisen"

    formal mediation is not binding and doesn't address editor's behaviour. This is no longer a content dispute, Ret Prof has failed many times to make a content-based argument. He is just resorting to WP:ICANTHEARTHAT, refusing to read sources provided by others, cherry-picking sources, cherry-picking new sources when the old ones are debunked, incorrectly claiming that his position is clearly supported by sources, eroding other editors' patience, and re-inserting his edits again and again until everyone gets tired of reverting his incorrect edits. This tendentious editing is a blockable behaviour, and worthy of a topic-ban.

    After this disgusting show of cherry-picking, I wouldn't trust Ret. Prof with interpretation of any source. If he is a good-faith editor, then he is completely unable to read sources without filtering everything through his bias. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    That simply is not true. My interpretation of the sources is solid. Look at them as a whole! In any event I have little doubt that I would prevail at either mediation or arbitration. I suspect that is why the POV Railroad wants me banned NOW. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The facts speak by themselves. You imply refuse to accept what sources say. Count me as part of that mythical "POV railroad" that wants you banned from wikipedia. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Confused: If you feel strongly that "your interpretation" of the sources is the only right one, why are you so concerned about going to mediation or arbitration. If my understanding of the reliable sources (or lack there of) is as bad as you say, then you will prevail... and I can leave Wikipedia secure in the knowledge that I was fairly judged an "incompetent" who used "fringe". Seems reasonable??? - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    And please bring Ret. Prof. to arbitration. He has filled this thread with such walls of text and excuses that we are unlikely to get anything done here. It's obvious that the community can't handle this guy. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems we had an edit conflict. (Both writing at the same time). I am glad you support arbitration. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Mediation would be good if you agree to respect the decision. (i.e. if the mediator said that the Hebrew version of Matthew is held by a minority of scholars, would you respect that decision?) --Enric Naval (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: With respect to editor conduct, I would like to ask a rhetorical question, as a thought-starter. Is it appropriate conduct for a small group of editors to follow an editor around Wikipedia and delete everything they write? Just wondering. Maybe some of the arbs reading this would like to ponder that question as well. There seems to be a reluctance on the part of the WPC crowd to engage in arbitration, and I think I can understand why. If one of the hard-asses on the committee becomes the drafting arb and chooses to dig into the root causes of this dispute, very few of them will be left standing. Ignocrates (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Propose closure

    • I proposed this be closed as it's a majority of the same editors arguing their content POV to be correct and the other to be fringe. Don't care if it goes to Mediation or Arbitration, it just doesn't belong here. This is a content dispute and administrator's do not have any authority to determine content beyond what any regular editor might. This dispute takes a deep understanding and knowledge of thousands of years of historical and theological issues that need structure. Attempts by the subject of the thread to argue their point are unfairly criticized as "walls of text" despite them only being a few short paragraphs. Not sure when a pony wall started counting for 'walls'. Arbitration rarely decided who is 'right' and more often decides who behaved 'wrong'. By my count, Ret.Prof. wouldn't be singled out by Arbcom. With all of that in mind, and with consideration for the 0 progress this thread has made so far, I propose this simply be closed.--v/r - TP 20:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose closure, propose topic ban for 12 months for User Ret.Prof on content related to a supposed lost Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. It's clearly WP:FRINGE as the above shows. This has been going on for 4 years now and now it is finally here at ANI can easily be dealt with. The only reason for prolonging this is if someone actually wants fringe views in Gospel of Matthew and related articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the box below proves that this is not "clearly fringe". It proves the allegations against me ie "I am an Incompetent ignoring the overwhelming consensus that Papias was fringe" are false. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "The only reason for prolonging this is if someone actually wants fringe views in Gospel of Matthew and related articles." These types of comments are the problem and not the solution. Please do not infer the motivations of others. Content disputes cannot be solved by admins. Therefore, ANI cannot solve this 'easily' nor at all. This needs mediation for the content dispute or arbitration for the behavioral issues. If your method of arguing is exactly the sentence I've quoted, then I'm positive you will not want this to go to Arbitration because the quoted sentence is the very definition of what a battleground mentality is. This needs to close before you make anymore comments which might boomerang. Bottom line: WP:AGF.--v/r - TP 02:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, that statement was intended to be merely predictive not to infer motivations, it's merely fatigue - the content issue, the weighing of WP:RS/WP:FRINGE/WP:UNDUE has been gone over again and again and again and again by multiple editors over 4 years. But whatever... In ictu oculi (talk) 06:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support closure: Tom, formal mediation is the best opportunity to reach an agreement where all parties can feel they contributed something positive to improve the encyclopedia; as such, it represents the carrot in this dispute. Failing that, the stick is arbitration, where "breaking the back" of this dispute won't be a pleasant experience. Ignocrates (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support closure and everything else Ignocrates just said, which is very sensible and I can't improve on. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support closure and formal mediation. One element of the formal mediation agreement should be that mediator has discretion to issue a binding directive on the behaviour of all parties and that the parties agree to go to arbitration if it isn't abided by. (This is an expansion of Ignicrates' comment above - frankly I don't think Arbcom would accept this case at the present stage). PiCo (talk) 00:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree; however, if this ANI report is closed without an action and formal mediation is rejected or fails, the arbs will take the request for arbitration. Ignocrates (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support closure As previously stated, I think this should go to Mediation. While I'm flattered to be asked and be considered a neutral party, I'm comfortable offering my editor's opinion but I don't have the experience to guide a formal mediation.
    I also recommend against relying on the Fringe Noticeboard. From what I've seen, there is a zealousness there by a small group of editors in labeling points of view and specific editors as representing "fringe" which then leads to them being targeted and driven from Wikipedia. While I agree that pseudoscience should not masquerade as science, I don't believe every minority viewpoint is fringe and needs to be eliminated from WP. IMO. Liz Read! Talk! 01:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support closure and mediation. I always thought the Apocalypse was a Hebrew book. I asked Dr. Elaine Pagles about this and she said one of her students wrote a dissertation, which is now a book, entitled, "Parables of War: Reading John's Jewish Apocalypse," John W. Marshall, 2001. On page 2 of that book, Marshall writes, "Putting it bluntly, I argue that the Apocalypse is a Jewish and not a Christian document." Raquel Baranow (talk) 03:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support closure: The sooner the better per Tom P above. Then we all take some time to heal from the wounds we inflicted on each other. Finally, we work through the mediation, not with a view of "winning", but with the goal of doing what is best for Wikipedia. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note I've asked RetProf (on his talk page) to pick a mediator from the list. This will avoid him feeling that he's being railroaded (an expression he's used above). I've also asked him to collaborate with myself and Ignocrates on the wording of the approach. PiCo (talk) 06:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Or he can simply request mediation and the mediators will select someone from among themselves. I'm happy to assist with the details (saw your note), and I agree that Ret.Prof should be the one to initiate the request for mediation. Ignocrates (talk) 14:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This is actually a very good point! The Hebrew Gospel is seen as trap in some circles. I have received a simular warning, which nearly came true this week here at Wikipedia!!! Yet it also landed Edwards a generous invitation to pursue the project as a Member at the Center of Theological Inquiry in Princeton. Many scholars have now bravely come out in support of Edwards, including Markus Brockmuehl of Oxford and Loren T Stuckenbruck of Princeton. Then in 2010 for the world's leading non Christian Biblical scholar made this Statement! At that point the existence of the Hebrew Gospel ceased to be the minority position. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The rest of the Story

    Now you have seen how the POV Railroad works. I have been accused over and over and over again of being Incompetent and ignoring the overwhelming consensus that Papias was fringe. Now please take a few minutes to open the box below. Please note this is just an excerpt. Going to the source ie Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard would be good - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC) [reply]

    Gospel of Matthew

    Re the Gospel of Matthew, most Biblical commentaries, dictionaries, encyclopedias, even study Bibles have a section on the Papias tradition which says that Matthew first wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. Google Books However there is a dispute as to whether this is fringe?

    The views of Papias were preserved by the early Christian historian, "Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 260–ca. 339 CE), generally held by modern scholars to be fairly trustworthy." Blackwell (2010) p 301 Papias meant that it is "genuinely true that the apostle Matthew compiled the sayings of Jesus" in a Hebrew dialect, (Casey 2010. pp 87-88) and the testimony of Papias explicitly and credibly traces its own lineage “directly back to the disciples of Jesus themselves.” (Ehrman 2012 pp 98-101) & (Edwards 2009 pp 2-3) The historical data is both "striking and incontestable". Virtually every piece of external evidence we have from the first few centuries regarding the authorship of the Gospels concurs that Matthew's Gospel was first written in a Hebrew dialect. The widespread agreement of early sources on a number of points is truly remarkable and "cannot be brushed aside, particularly since the discrepancies among these sources regarding other points strongly suggest that they are not, for the most part, simply copying one another." (Blackwell Companion 2009. p 602) In total there are more than 75 ancient witnesses who testified to the fact that this Hebrew Gospel was in wide circulation. Twelve of the Early Church Fathers testified that it was written by the Apostle Matthew. No ancient writer either Christian or Non Christian challenged these facts. (Edwards 2009 p 259, p 102 & p 117)


    See most up to date sources:

    See also older sources


    Issue

    Does the aforementioned scholarship on the authorship of the Gospel of Matthew fall under the category of WP:Fringe theories?


    Importance

    Although most scholars no longer believe that the Gospel of Matthew was a translation of Matthew's Hebrew Gospel, many do believe the Hebrew Gospel was the fountainhead or source of the Canonical Gospel of Matthew (hence the name). (See composite authorship)

    - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    What are the grounds given by those suggesting that this is fringe? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmmm My honest answer is there are not any. A NPOV discussion of the topic should have both those who support the Papias tradition and those who oppose. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If nobody has suggested that this is fringe, why are you asking here? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The above material was deleted from the Gospel of Matthew and on the talk page it was said to be fringe. Best you look at it directly for I would hate to be accused of misrepresenting their position. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So, in a nutshell, the question is: is the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis fringe, or not? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that would be off topic. The above scholars are talking about the origins of the Gospel of Matthew, that it was of composite scholarship of which Matthew was the fountainhead! Most most Biblical commentaries, dictionaries, encyclopedias, even study Bibles have a section in their article devoted to the Papias tradition in their articles on the Gospel of Matthew. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ret.Prof, please do not edit your posts after people have responded to them. It makes understanding the flow of discussion difficult. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Sorry I forgot the link and to sign - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the Gospel of Matthew talk page it appears that grounds have been given for the suggestion that this is fringe. As to whether this is correct or not, I am in no position to respond, and I suspect that few other WP:FTN regulars are likely to be able to either - Biblical scholarship is rather outside the scope of the sort of issues usually raised here. Evaluating sources regarding a specialist subject such as this may well be beyond most of us, and I suspect that you might do better to take this to dispute resolution, rather than expecting any sort of 'yes' or 'no' answer here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct. They seem to agree the matter is clear, has been resolved and is a dog that won't hunt! I remember Casey, Ehrman etc being debated "as fringe" in Oral Gospel traditions, the heated discussion on the talk page as well as the fringe notice board discussion (consensus Ehrman not fringe) and I even remember some discussion with User:Smeat75, User:Paul Barlow User:Salimfadhley, User:IRWolfie-, User:Eric Kvaalen, User:Shii and User:Stephan Schulz, BUT I have no recollection of a "Fringe debate" on Ehrman, Casey, Blackwell etc re the Gospel of Matthew?? Nor was it ever brought to Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard ?? Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    After a somewhat confused start due to my typing skills, we must look at Wikipedia:Fringe theories and see if they apply here. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Allow me to jump in here and offer an independent perspective. There needs to be a call by neutral third party observers on whether the topic Ret.Prof describes, i.e. the content, is fringe. Taking this to dispute resolution implies there is a conduct problem. That is beside the point here. I believe an RfC was tried previously, but it was dominated by the very same people arguing strenuously for removal of the material. Ignocrates (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said and thanks for getting us back on track! - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DRN deals with issues where there is no conduct problem. Someone should probably notify wikiproject Christianity, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a complex textual problem with a long history. It may well be beyond the scope of FTN. I agree that DRN would be a good next step to deal with the content part of this dispute. Ignocrates (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct. I will notify wikiproject Christianity now. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    On the Google Scholar search Ehrman states in Jesus Interrupted that Papias was rendering fourth-hand information and that there are multiple credibility issues with this information. The Hebrew Gospel hypothesis#20th century article states the 20th century consensus: there was no Hebrew original for the Gospel of Matthew. So, Ehrman isn't fringe, but he does not pretend that there were a Hebrew original for the Gospel of Matthew. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but what needs to be accounted for, speculative conjectures of modern scholars aside, is why Church Fathers from the earliest times right up to scholars at the end of the 19th century all thought there was a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. There is an abundance of primary literature attesting to that fact and many reliable secondary sources analyzing and summarizing that primary literature. Therefore, this should be discussed as a problem of WEIGHT rather than FRINGE. Ignocrates (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, the term for that is historiography, and it is not only encyclopedic, but the stuff encyclopedias are made of: outlining the history of what people have thought, not only what some people say today. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There are multiple issues here. There is a difference between the claim that "there was a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew" and the "canonical Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew". No one has presented any relevant scholar who believes that the canonical Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew; probably because no relevant scholar actually believes that. The problem is that the material that is sought to be added [34] is so misleading as to leave that impression. Even the different claim that the gospel to which Papias was referring existed and was written in Hebrew is a minority opinion (Casey's). Ask yourself: What is the Casey- and Edwards-sourced material even doing there? Is it illuminating the topic of the article (the canonical Hebrew of Gospel)? Or is it talking about the separate topic of the Hebrew gospel, and just muddying the waters?
    The view of McGrew and McGrew that all the early external evidence agrees that the canonical Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew is completely fringe. Luckily, their view is not one of relevant scholars. They are not established critics of the New Testament. These remarks are merely incidental to their building of an Argument from Miracles (the subject of the paper). Neither are the editors of the volume (Craig and Moreland) established critics of the New Testament. And neither is the volume meant to be a source for New Testament criticism. The endeavour is metaphysical/theological in focus, not historical; and it is even one-sided at that (see Patrick Arnold's and Glenn M. Harden's reviews).
    What was said above that "The above scholars are talking about the origins of the Gospel of Matthew, that it was of composite scholarship of which Matthew was the fountainhead!" is just plain wrong. Only McGrew and McGrew are. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree. For something to be a fringe theory, it must be A) FRINGE and B) a THEORY

    A) FRINGE

    Matthew's Hebrew Gospel is not fringe as its existence is supported, not only by the above contested sources but also by older sources from Lessing to Ehrman.

    Davidson, (1848) p xii,

    Just a quick comment: Of all these books, only 3 date from the last half-century, which indicates that they're not quite the current state of play. The most recent is Jeffrey Butz, whose most recent book, The Secret Legacy of Jesus, "offers the thesis that the Judaistic teachings of Jesus were passed in underground fashion from groups such as the Nazarenes and Ebionites to the Founding Fathers of the United States of America, via the Cathars and Freemasons" (that's from his Wikipedia entry). I have doubts that Professor Butz is quite within the academic mainstream. PiCo (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    How can you claim that a formerly standard theory is now fringe? I'd understand if it were geocentrism but this is literary theory, not hard science. It is at least a "former standard theory". Shii (tock) 06:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    A theory is fringe if it has no significant backing by reliable sources. Many theories which were previously standard (or even still are in the sense that many people subscribe to them) now have no backing in reliable sources for New Testament scholarship. For example, it was a standard view that Matthew the disciple of Jesus wrote the Gospel of Matthew. Now no reliable source supports that theory; so how could it not be fringe? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 07:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree fully, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    B) Theory

    Matthew's Hebrew gospel is not a theory but a "statement of fact". Virtually every piece of external evidence we have from the first few centuries regarding the authorship of the Gospels concurs that Matthew's Gospel was first written in a Hebrew dialect. The widespread agreement of early sources on a number of points is truly remarkable and "cannot be brushed aside, particularly since the discrepancies among these sources regarding other points strongly suggest that they are not, for the most part, simply copying one another." (Blackwell Companion 2009. p 602) In total there are more than 75 ancient witnesses who testified to the fact that this Hebrew Gospel was in wide circulation. Twelve of the Early Church Fathers testified that it was written by the Apostle Matthew. No ancient writer either Christian or Non Christian challenged these facts. (Edwards 2009 p 259, p 102 & p 117)

    This "statement of fact" may be contested. Scholars can debate whether or nor the "Gospel of Matthew" was a translation of the "Hebrew Gospel". They may argue that the Hebrew Gospel is the Fountainhead but they cannot say Matthew's Hebrew Gospel is theoretical.

    Therefore WP Fringe Theory cannot apply. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, not quite. The "fact" is not that the Hebrew Gospel existed; rather, it is that the Church believed it existed for 1700 years. Simply put, if the "mainstream" conjecture of modern scholarship is right, then 1700 years of Church history is wrong. Our job as an encyclopedia is not to elucidate the TRUTH of these two positions; it is to document the ongoing debate. Ignocrates (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I stand corrected. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a broad consensus that Matthew did not write the Gospel of Matthew. So whether Matthew's Hebrew Gospel actually existed (as in minority view), or not (as in majority view) is irrelevant in an article about what is now called the Gospel of Matthew, since if it ever existed it has nothing to do with what is called the Gospel of Matthew. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that there is broad consensus that the Gospel of Matthew is not a a translation of Matthew's Hebrew Gospel. Casey, Ehrman & Edwards all state this. They further state that Matthew composed his Gospel in Hebrew and then Casey argues that Hebrew Matthew was the fountainhead or source for the Canonical Gospel of Matthew. Can you name any sources that disagree with Casey.
    Most Biblical commentaries, dictionaries, encyclopedias, even study Bibles have a section on the Papias tradition which says that Matthew first wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. They present both those who support and oppose Papias. We should follow the reliable sources and also write our article from NPOV Google Books - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what Casey 2010 argues. Casey argues that Matthew the apostle collected sayings in either Hebrew or Aramaic to which Papias was referring and which were a fountainhead for some traditions, and these traditions were in turn sources for the canonical Gospel of Matthew. He is not saying that Matthew wrote a gospel or some such work in Hebrew and the author of the canonical Gospel of Matthew used this as a fountainhead or source. Such implies that what the apostle wrote was like Q or the Gospel of Mark, which is not what Casey is saying at all (in fact, he suggests that some of these traditions from Matthew the apostle made their way into Q [p. 89]!) But even this view of Casey has reliable sources that disagree with it, including sources which you have been citing: Duling 2010 (p. 302), Edwards 2009 (pp. 260–262). Try asking instead: What reliable sources agree with Casey on these points? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 09:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This discussion has become about SCOPE and WEIGHT, which can only be decided by consensus. Therefore, it should be ended here and continued on the article talk page or in DRN. Ignocrates (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that the question is WEIGHT, not FRINGE - the meaning of Papias' statement is indeed discussed by just about every important scholar who writes about the composition of this gospel, but the important thing is that the overwhelming majority (and it really is overwhelming) don't see an Aramaic or Hebrew original behind it. We do discuss this in our article - we have a whole paragraph about it - and that's enough. PiCo (talk) 03:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see no specific editor that asserts any fringe content. Is that correct? Is the discussion over as far as this noticeboard is concerned? I'm not sure how much this noticeboard can help rather than wikiproject christianity/religion. IRWolfie- (talk) 03:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I too agree that the question is WEIGHT, not FRINGE and I see no specific editor that asserts any fringe content. Still, we should keep the discussion open a little longer to make sure nobody is left out and that everyone who is interested has been notified. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a simpler point to be made: you have quoted some reliable sources in order to prove exactly what these sources disagree with. So, you made a misleading summary of what these sources actually say. Do you expect such edits to pass as good faith edits? You were either unable or unwilling to render the actual viewpoints of the sources and posited your own view as if it were the view of the sources. So, this is not a case of weight vs. fringe, it is a case of something made up against something verifiable. The point which you have made up is not supported by the sources, except by the fundamentalist Christian apologist. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    In fairness to Ret.Prof, he brought this question to FTN because of a lot of loose talk on the article talk page about the fringiness of the topic of a Hebrew Gospel as a justification for the deletion of reliably-sourced content. I think we are in general agreement that this dispute is not, and never was, about FRINGE. The beginning of personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith signals the end of rational discussion, so I propose this emotive dialogue stay on the article talk page and we finish up here. Ignocrates (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    @ Tgeorgescu - I just finished reading your comments, and I think I found the problem. You were reading from an older version of Ehrman. Please look at the following quotes, but sure to follow the links to see their context! Feel free to point out any errors, add any important material you feel was left out and of course add more up to date sources. Thanks for taking the time to join our discussion.


    Taken from David E. Aune (Ed), The Blackwell Companion to The New Testament, John Wiley & Sons, 2010. pp 301 - 303

    • Author and Setting The earliest surviving tradition about Matthew comes from Papias of Hierapolis in Asia Minor (modern Turkey) about 125–50 CE. His views were preserved by the early Christian historian, Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 260– ca. 339 CE), generally held by modern scholars to be fairly trustworthy. The “Papias tradition” says, “Then Matthew put together [text variant “wrote”] the sayings [logia] in Matthew the Hebrew [Hebraiois] dialect [dialecto ̄] and each one translated [he ̄rme ̄neusen] them as he was able” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.16). By “Matthew” it is very likely that Papias had in mind Jesus' disciple (Mark 3:18; Matt. 10:3; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). In Matthew – and only in Matthew – “Matthew” is identified as “the toll collector” (Matt. 10:3: ), the one previously said to have been sitting at the “toll booth” (Matt. 9:9:) near Capernaum (the northwest corner of the Lake of Galilee). The parallels in Mark 2:14 and Luke 5:27 call this toll collector “Levi,” not Matthew, but Levi is not in the disciple lists. Modern scholars usually interpret the Papias tradition to mean that Papias thought that Jesus' disciple Matthew the toll collector had assembled a collection of Jesus' sayings in Hebrew (or Aramaic, cf. John 20:16) and then others translated them. (quote from p 302)

    Taken from William Lane Craig & J. P. Moreland (Ed)' The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, John Wiley & Sons, 2009. p 602

    • We encounter a striking and incontestable fact. Virtually every piece of external evidence we have from the first few centuries regarding the authorship and composition of the Gospels concurs that Matthew's Gospel was the first written, that it was written in the Hebrew language...the widespread agreement of early sources on a number of points is remarkable and cannot be brushed aside, particularly since discrepancies among these sources regarding other points strongly suggest that they are not, for the most part, simply copying one another. (quote from p 602)

    Taken from Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, HarperCollins 2012. pp 98-101 After quoting the Papias tradition which states "Matthew composed the sayings in the Hebrew tongue"

    • Still, on one point there can be no doubt. Papias may pass on some legendary traditions about Jesus, but he is quite speciflc—and there is no reason to think he is telling a bald-faced lie—that he knows people who knew the apostles (or the apostles' companions). This is not eyewitness testimony to the life of Jesus, but it is getting very close to that. Where conservative scholars go astray is in thinking that Papias gives us reliable information about the origins of our Gospels of Matthew and Mark. The problem is that even though he “knows” that there was an account of Jesus's life written by Mark and a collection of Jesus's sayings made by Matthew, there is no reason to think that he is referring to the books that we call Mark and Matthew. In fact, what he says about these books does not coincide with what we ourselves know about the canonical Gospels. He appears to be referring to other writings, and only later did Christians (wrongly) assume that he was referring to the two books that eventually came to be included in Scripture. This then is testimony that is independent of the Gospels themselves. It is yet one more independent line of testimony among the many we have seen so far. And this time it is a testimony that explicitly and credibly traces its own lineage directly to the disciples of Jesus themselves. (quote from pp 100-101)

    Taken from James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. pp 2-3

    • This is corroborated in Ecclesiastical History 3.39.7 and 14, where Eusebius says that Papias confessed to having received the words of the apostles from their followers. Of course, if John the Elder was in fact John the Apostle — although this seems unlikely — then Papias's testimony comes directly from the apostolic fountainhead. It is in any case very early, within living memory of the apostolic age. Eusebius records Papias's relevant testimony: “Matthew organized the oracles (of Jesus) in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as he was able.”8 This testimony does not specifically identify the Hebrew work of Matthew as the Hebrew Gospel, but it is reasonable to equate the two.9 Papias's primary intent seems to have been to emphasize the Hebrew composition of the work. (quote from p 3)

    Taken from Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010. pp 86-88

    • Papias attributed the collection of some Gospel traditions to the apostle Matthew, one of the Twelve, who wrote them down in Aramaic and everyone 'translated/interpreted (hērmēneusen)' them as well as they were able. There is every reason to believe this. It explains the high proportion of literally accurate traditions, mostly of sayings of Jesus, in the 'Q' material and in material unique to the Gospel of Matthew. It also explains the lack of common order, as well as the inadequate translations of some passages into Greek. (quote from p 86)
    • It follows that this is what Papias meant! It is genuinely true that the apostle Matthew 'compiled the sayings/oracles in a Hebrew language, but each (person) translated/ interpreted them as he was able.' Moreover, the Greek word logia, which I have translated 'sayings/oracles', has a somewhat broader range of meaning than this, and could well be used of collections which consisted mostly, but not entirely, of sayings. It would not however have been a sensible word to use of the whole Gospel of Matthew.It was later Church Fathers who confused Matthew's collections of sayings of Jesus with our Greek Gospel of Matthew. (quote from p 87)

    It is upon this basis, that Casey after studying composite authorship in the Second Temple period comes to his scholarly conclusion. The Gospel of Matthew is the product of composite authorship of which Matthew's Hebrew Gospel was the fountainhead. Hence the name Gospel of Matthew as Matthew was probably a major source. Now I hope this clears up the confusion. Thanks for being patient with an old guy who was clearly overwhelmed! Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    @ Ignocrates Thanks for restoring sanity when needed! - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I've removed the box below containing the humongeous copypaste from another noticeboard, Prof. It appears above as well! (Also collapsed.) Did you really mean to add it twice? Bishonen | talk 22:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
    You are right, we do not need it twice. I deleted the top one. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This lengthy excerpt shows why this dispute is complex and shouldn't be addressed in AN/I. Liz Read! Talk! 01:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Quick overview of content issues in lay terms

    This is actually sort of straightforward. That said, I hope this doesn't over-simplify things.

    In the 2004 film The Passion of the Christ, the characters spoke in Aramaic (as was historically correct) and Latin (for artistic reasons). In that time and place, the vernacular language was Aramaic, but the lingua franca was actually Koine Greek. So:

    • Jesus would have preached in Aramaic; but,
    • Someone who wanted to write something that would be intelligible to the greatest number of people would have written in Greek.

    Today some of works written at that time in that place are very well known to us: they include the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Of these four, the first three "include many of the same stories, often in a similar sequence and in similar wording".

    There is a tradition that Matthew was the first Gospel written. That's why in they are are in that order in the Christian bible. It is now broadly accepted that the Gospel of Mark was the first one written. (Mark was written first. The writers of Matthew and Luke used Mark as a starting point, a shared source of the sayings of Jesus that the writer of Mark did not have access to, and their own independent sources.)

    There is a tradition that that the Gospel of Matthew was first written in Aramaic (or, even less plausibly, in Hebrew). There is nothing controversial about asserting that Q and the independent sources for Matthew included material in Aramaic. It is a huge step go from this and then to claim that Matthew was originally written in any language other than Greek. The scholarly consensus is that Matthew was written in Greek. There's also a common sense test. Why would the writer of Matthew
    - read Mark in Greek;
    - translate Mark into Aramaic;
    - add their own independent and Q sources;
    - write their Gospel in Aramaic; then,
    - translate the text back into Greek?

    To summarise the summary:

    • There is a tradition that Matthew was written in Aramaic, then translated into Greek.
    • The scholarly consensus is Matthew was written in Greek.

    Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 13:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    That is an accurate summary of the modern scholarly consensus. However, accepting that consensus also means that 1700 years of Church history and scholarship up to the end of the 19th century was a mistake. That is what Davidbena and Ret.Prof are reacting to. Nowhere in Wikipedia (that I know of) is this change in thinking documented. That is why Til suggested we need a new article describing the historiography of scholarship on this question. Does that make sense to everyone? Ignocrates (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to see a section in the article Gospel of Matthew about it. Raquel Baranow (talk) 14:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    But a contingent of WPC editors adamantly do not want that and have deleted every attempt to include that section in the article. That is the point of the dispute. Ignocrates (talk) 14:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Instead, it was decided by WPC localconsensus to restrict the WP:SCOPE of the Gospel of Matthew article to the modern consensus. Thus the need for a second article on the historiography of scholarship. However, several attempts have been made to create a second article on a Aramaic/Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, and all of them have been merge-deleted (railroaded) by redirect. Ignocrates (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Some editors tried to add a section on Gospel of Matthew. Unfortunately, Davidbena's attempt seems to be unsourced original research, and Ret. Prof.'s attempt says "some modern scholars" instead of "a minority of scholars" (and it cherry-picks sources, as I showed in my comment above). Understandably, these attempts were nuked as soon as other editors saw them.
    I think that Ret. Prof.'s intent is good, but his approach isn't likely to result in any improvement to the article.
    I think that the efforts of editors should be oriented to a more productive approach: taking Ret. Prof.'s attempt and rewriting it. Make clear that it's held a minority of scholars, fix the selective quoting, explain it was the majority belief for many centuries, list the problems with Papia's version.
    That could result in one or two rounded paragraphs. The history section would be greatly improved, I think. Readers would be informed about how the theories on the origin of the gospel have evolved over the centuries, and why. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Eric Kvaalen's contribution was also nuked, and therein lies the problem. The various efforts which included reliable sources (like Eric's) should have been retained and improved per WP:PRESERVE rather than being summarily deleted. I expressed my thoughts about this deletionism on the talk page at the time, so I won't do it again here. Anyway, mediation would be the perfect vehicle to implement what you are suggesting in a controlled environment. Ignocrates (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is sufficiently complex (and requires familiarity with a rather technically recondite secondary literature) to warrant its own article. Once you start to get down to specifics in a short section of the Gospel of Matthew, those complexities, which go down to individual scholars challenging each other esp. over the last decades, get very subjective, and inevitably would flow over the natural limits. Just glance for example at one of the most recent surveys, Sang-Il Lee's, Jesus and Gospel Traditions in Bilingual Context: A Study in the Interdirectionality of Language, de Gruyter 2012, and you can get a quick idea of the fact that every position is contested, and has multiple angles. Ret. Prof. has perhaps his heart in the right place, but he works by indiscriminate aggregation, not by conceptual concision and winnowing. Barring fresh archeological/papyric/inscriptional evidence we will never know the truth, and must therefore limit ourselves to describing scholarly positions, as the various theories ebb and flow in popularity.Nishidani (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Indiscriminate aggregation? I like it! See Dunning–Kruger effect for insight into the tendency to weight all sources equally irrespective of age or quality of scholarship. (Please don't take this as a WP:PA; it's just background information.) Ignocrates (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (re PA) Of course not. It is, by the way, curious that so little attention in this context is paid to the implications of Paul's letters, written in Greek perhaps even 2 decades, and almost certainly at least ten years, before Mark. Whoever JC was, word about him was spreading through the Jewish diaspora and among gentiles via Greek long before the Gospel versions achieved literary form, and during Paul's early missions, much of the Aramaic-Galilean tradition must have circulated, given literacy was at 30%, via the usual form in such societies (which were, like Palestine, bilingual in Greek and Aramaic), oral transmission of memorized tales. Consider these two points and much of this fascinating niggling about what came first becomes moot (or indeterminate methodologically). The assumption is, first Hebrew hence a Jewish teaching (disliked by the millenial hermeneutic antisemitic tradition we are shrugging off). But since Jews in the diaspora were bilingual, getting at a 'Hebrew' original to prove the obvious (Christ was, like most if not all of the early leadership, born and died as a believing Jew) is, in my view, unnecessary. Blame Paul, then, he was an avatar of the JS-H, I suspect. CheersNishidani (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Allow me to digress with a brief example of Aramaic underlying the Greek text - consider the miracle story of Jesus cleansing a leper in the Gospel of Mark, where Jesus is either "compassionate" (Alexandrian/Byzantine text-types) or "angry" (Western text-type). (It's hard to be both.) These are very different words in Greek but very similar words in Aramaic, see diff. I contributed this bit of insight in Jan 2008, and of course it was rapidly deleted. Wouldn't want anyone getting upset. Ignocrates (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    OK. We've identified the problem, and there are behavioral issues as well as content issues here. So now, lets look for a solution.

    I propose that:

    • The article Gospel of Matthew be kept as it is. It reflects the current scholarly consensus. It is simply a given that Wikipedia follows current scholarly consensus.
    • The article Historical and alternative views of Gospel of Matthew (or a similar title) be written. "The issue is sufficiently complex (and requires familiarity with a rather technically recondite secondary literature) to warrant its own article" (per Nishidani)

    This article would include:

    - reliably sourced content about Matthew in "1700 years of Church history and scholarship up to the end of the 19th century" that was the previous scholarly view (per Ignocrates). "Readers would be informed about how the theories on the origin of the gospel have evolved over the centuries" (per Enric Naval)
    - reliably sourced content about modern alternative views (Per Davidbena and Ret. Prof.,) with recognition that they do not reflect current scholarly consensus (per everyone else, including me)

    How does that sound as a solution?--Shirt58 (talk) 09:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Support, not necessarily with that title, but those who wish for expansion should supply a title that explains exactly what they propose to do on the new page, since they will be working it. An indication of meta-sources that deal precisely with the genealogy of interpretations of Matthew with regard to the Hebrew theory would be useful, also, to assure everyone WP:OR is to be avoided.
    To give an added reason for this split, to enable the technical issues to be addressed adequately in a proposed Historical and alternative views of Gospel of Matthew, let me illustrate by responding to my friend Ignocrates's slight digression above on Mark 1:41, where the manuscripts provide two readings (ὀργισθείς /σπλαγχνισθείς), and some argue this is evidence for an Aramaic substrate (strictly speaking, the evidence is not from Aramaic but a dialect of that, Syriac:ethraham/ethra'em). This is one of several hypotheses. Bart D. Ehrman, Studies in the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, 2006 pp.120-141, roundly dismisses what you take to be a fact ("a brief example of Aramaic underlying the Greek text.") and even then appears to slightly misreport Bruce Metzger by the way, unless his entry in A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament,2nd ed.1994 p.65, differs from his entry in the Ist edition 1971 p.76):'I have to say that arguments like this have always struck me as completely mystifying; I have never heard anyone explain how exctly they are supposed to work. Why, that is, would a Greek scribe proficient in Greek and copying a Greek text be confused by two words that look alike in Aramaic?' (p.128). That is one solid reason why the deletion of your edit here would be technically justified, whatever the original deleter's reason. In short, general overview articles simply cannot get bogged down in nittygritty details that provide ostensible factual evidence for what are disputed theories - they must stick to a general survey of the main conjectures and interpretations using high quality RS that deal with a synthesis of the state of the art for each argument. If complex controversies on details demand attention, a fork is required. Nishidani (talk) 12:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I should have said "putative example". Sorry about that, I let my private POV slip there for a second. I try hard not to do that. Anyway, it's a moot point for me because I will never touch that article again. Ignocrates (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I got a notice that someone had mentioned me here, so I took a look. I see that Ignocrates mentioned the fact that my edit was "nuked" back in May. That's true, and I complained at the time that PiCo had simply reverted my whole edit just because he didn't like one particular thing – he thought I was givin' too much weight to the theories about earlier versions. But Ret_Prof came to my aid and restored my work. Later I put back some edits that had been done after mine, and the version is this: [35]. I think it does a decent job of presenting the theories about a Hebrew/Aramaic version. A little better than the present version. But I guess that's a topic for the Talk page of the article. By the way, Ignocrates, that's an interesting point you made about Mark 1:41. One of us should put it back in! Eric Kvaalen (talk) 12:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    At this point, the conversation has gone way beyond an argument for admin action and into the nuances of textual criticism which seems better placed in mediation or a WikiProject Talk Page discussion. Time to close this case before it doubles in length again? Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Liz, since it appears that no action is going to be taken, it can just age off into the sunset. There is no reason to spend anymore time on this including admin time. Cheers. Ignocrates (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Malfunctioning bot

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

    Resolved

    Legobot is going bonkers, removing and re-adding a single GAN like clockwork every ten minutes since 9 this morning. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem appears to be at Wikipedia:Good article nominations. See also User talk:Legobot#Odd edits. Johnuniq (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So basically this happens whenever someone screws up the {{GA}} template. It can be easily fixed by fixing the template, like was done here. Legoktm (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Can someone link to where this got fixed? I'm not seeing what's preventing the bot from continuing to go, but it seems to have stopped. Nyttend backup (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    [36]. Legoktm (talk) 23:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Ryulong's attempted cover-up of his edit warring reported by AKB48 fans

    This has been overcome by events as Ryulong has been blocked 72h for an entirely different matter. The SPI on the other side of the issue is here, so it seems there's nothing left for ANI at the moment here. - The Bushranger One ping only 14:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Dear admins, Ryulong is edit warring at AKB48. Well he or she has been asked to stop many times by many users and refuses to and wants to do as he likes in everything and continues under false pretenses and annoys good people. Don't believe him. He will say he wants to improve the page, but he just reorders the list of AKB48 members over and over again. An online friend of mine who is a fan of AKB48 reported him for 3RR yesterday, but Ryulong deleted the request and blocked my friend in an attempt to cover up his actions and avoid a block. Ryulong must not be allowed to do that even though he is an admin of Wikipedia.

    Yet again he raped the page and began on a new one.

    Diffs of the cover-up:

    Read yesterday's report at 3RR (cut and pasted for your convenience).

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1 January

    5 January

    13 January

    14 January

    30 January

    31 January

    1 February

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ryulong&oldid=593249962

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:AKB48#Member_list

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:AKB48#History_section

    3RR on 13-14 January and 30-31 January. Ryulong's last edit war block was in December for 14 days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miichan110 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    congrats on finding ANI on your first ever edit :-) DP 01:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Fairly easy actually. Just navigate our way through some 500 project pages and swim across a river of rabid admins. It is also interesting this user knew how to present diffs and know such policies as 3RR. KonveyorBelt 01:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
     Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me. MercenaryHoplite (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Three steps NE Ent 10:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Very interesting, how this report has exactly the same structure as ANEW reports. Epicgenius (talk) 01:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's because this looks to be word for word what Beautyfrisco (talk · contribs) posted to WP:AN3 the other day.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a fan of R right now but I can't take seriously someone who throws around "rape" so casually. Liz Read! Talk! 02:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The only two editors in conflict with Ryulong at the article are Rka001 (talk · contribs) and Moscow Connection (talk · contribs). Rka001 is effectively a single-purpose account for that band, but other than potential OWN issues here not obviously abusive. Moscow Connection seems to have a broader base of interest. I am going to file a SPI to try and clear up if the editor who filed this is associated with either of the above or any other known troublemakers in the band article space. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    MoscowConnection's edits are, from my point of view, problematic enough (K-pop fan talk), but I have never seen them resort to sneaky tactics. An SPI is very welcome, but if we really want to tackle the ____ that is K-pop coverage on Wikipedia you'll need a meat grinder (rather than a sock detector) the size of, well, something big. Drmies (talk) 04:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Rka001 is the only editor who referred to my actions on attempting to bring AKB48 up to standards as "rape" when it was removing a trivial table and re-ordering a couple of sections. I hope the SPI brings something up.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Ram Charitra Dwivedi

    They came, they spammed, they were blocked for 72 hours. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Ram Charitra Dwivedi account has existed for two days. Of the 5 total edits that it has made, 4 were vandalism (two large scale) including [37]and the 5th was creating a user subpage which the Wikipedia software has put a warning on which I don't understand but which seems to say has malicious code. North8000 (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey, just want to say I know what that page is. User:Ram Charitra Dwivedi/EditCounterOptIn.js is that user opting in to the monthly edit count for the edit count tool at labs. I have one of these pages too. They can be created with any text, and creating it causes the month count bars to appear here. The warning was just added because there's Javascript on the page. So not malicious in and of itself, though the user's other edits are still problematic. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 18:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! So that that dials the concern a level back. That's still 4 of 4 edits outside of their user space being vandalism. "No action" would be fine but I wanted to do due diligence given that I don't plan to watch their activities after my review. They just happened to vandalize a page (Computer vision) that I edit and watch. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    They are now blocked for creating spam pages. Flat Out let's discuss it 09:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Woozle effect

    Some eyes on this:

    Woozle effect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    would be appreciated, as it's been discussed on reddit and is attracting weirdness and an associated AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woozle effect. Thanks. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've semi-protected: too much IP disruption. Perhaps someone can check to see if the current version is the best, or if perhaps some unverified content should be deemed trivial and not of encyclopedic value. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Eyes on this would be good.

    What I want to say is that it is difficult if not impossible for any average Wikipedia user to navigate the enormous numbers of policies that guide Wiki adding. AND YET, I learned a long time ago, that Wikipedias were called to IMPROVE and ASSUME GOOD FAITH not just REVERT.

    THE WORLD CANNOT BEGIN TO TELL WIKI how obnoxious your REVERT HAPPY editors are. OR HOW THEY VIOLATE "IMPROVE" and "ASSUME GOOD FAITH".

    Nevertheless, the truth is that the page for Woozle Effect is FINE. Google Scholar lists 440 examples of it being used in academic papers. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=woozle&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C3

    IT is on it's face notable in academia.

    BUT the best exact specific precise accurate correct strict rigorous particular methodical categorical rigid way to express that to make every wikipedia editor happy is WAY BEYOND ME.

    What I note is that long time wikipedia editors LOVELOVELOVE their revert skills, and then their threatening people with various bans who disagree with that.

    So eyes on this page please, because it is clear that the AFD is feminist inspired reddit brigaded vandalism.

    And yes, I assume that any edit I place at wiki anywhere imncluding this one will result in a deletions and a threatened ban. Because that's how wiki rolls.

    184.101.115.101 (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:SNOW on Woozle Effect AFD ?

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woozle effect has had 8 straight Keeps & no Deletes so looks like WP:SNOW.--Penbat (talk) 11:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    No. ES&L 12:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why in the world would anyone want to close this AfD early? It was a good faith nomination and civil and productive conversation is ongoing. There's no need whatsoever to rush this process.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because (as much as it might look like otherwise sometimes) Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and when there is (as WP:SNOW is defined) not a snowball's chance in Hades of there being anything other than a Keep result (which, with everybody there !voting Keep is blatantly obvious) leaving the AfD open for the full week 'because it's supposed to run for a full week' is, in fact, following bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. At this point the 'civil and productive discussion', no matter how civil and productive it is, is in fact discussion about the article - which is not what AfD is for, it's what the article talk page is for. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing by User:AH999

    Over the past couple of months, AH999 has been causing problems throughout the encyclopedia and has ignored repeated warnings to the contrary. This user first came to my attention through WP:SPER after having placed edit request templates on multiple non-protected pages. While that's a common mistake I've seen from new users, the behavior has continued despite repeated advice and warnings. In addition, this user has repeatedly attempted to create autobiographical and self-promotional articles (directly in mainspace, through AFC, and misplaced within a Wikiproject - see the numerous speedy tags throughout their talk page). A summary of some of the other issues that this user has caused and have had to be corrected can be found at User talk:AH999#Vandalism warning here (courtesy of User:Redrose64). More warnings from editors like me aren't going to do any good here. (Especially when this user's only two edits to their own talk page have been [38] and [39].) --ElHef (Meep?) 01:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment)Odd, I see some good edits mixed in with some subtle, unglamorous vandalism. Lots of WP: PROMO and WP: AUTOBIO, and their talkpage is a perfect example of WP: IDHT. Nevertheless, they seem like a net negative. MercenaryHoplite (talk) 01:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) Concur with the above. User has been given numerous friendly, explanatory, warnings and guidance, as well as standard templates, but continued to add semi-protection templates e.g. this edit after 4 warnings on his Talk page and this one on his User page, as he doesn't seem to read his talk page. Tends to edit intermittently so any sanction would need to be about a week to ensure it is even noticed. - Arjayay (talk) 09:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like a need for a WP:CLUE block. Also, they've posted up birthdates of themselves and their partner in "business". Unless that was explicitly permitted by the other part, that should be revdelled. Blackmane (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Personalizing by User:Heracletus

    User:Heracletus has been providing a running commentary of his opinion of me as a person for over a year now ([40], [41]). I've requested that the user refrain from personalizing disputes and focus on the content many times ([42]), but that just seems to encourage the user. I try to be friendly and deal with the user in a professional manner, even when the user is condescending (ie the first paragraph here), but it's quite difficult when they invariably descend into these PA. It has gotten to the point were the user has recently suggested that I am "sick" (3 times!) and a "diva" due to a content dispute on Talk:European Fiscal Compact. I attempted to hat the personal attacks as per WP:RPA, but Heracletus reverted claiming it was "vandalism".

    Note that the entire premise of the user's argument that I am attempting to "provoke [Heracletus] into repeating my position time after time" is quite ridiculous. Recently on the very same page I've more than once agreed with the user. User:L.tak shares my opinion on the content dispute, as do all the available sources. (Basically the dispute comes down to WP:NOR. Heracletus rejects the policy and criticizes me whenever I cite it. Heracletus' has come up with an alternative and dubious interpretation of the WP:PRIMARY source treaty text and claims that the official depositary source (who's professional responsibility includes interpreting treaties) is "failing" when they interpret it differently.)

    This issue isn't restricted to me. See for example: "retarded", "vandalism", "get some common sense", "expert in illiteracy and bad spelling". Would some kind admin please hat the PA (feel free to hat any of my comments that may have crossed the line) and explain to Heracletus why suggesting that other good faith users are "sick" is not appropriate? TDL (talk) 03:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, other than WP:RFC/U territory, is there a RECENT one that would lead us to the conclusion that immediate protection is needed? DP 09:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've got a better idea: TDL can knock off their own personalizing of the argument e.g. when one doesn't have an intelligent argument to make. "trolling". The talk page is whole bunch of content discussion mixed in with mudslinging between TDL & Heracletus (kudos to L.tak for staying on topic in the midst of all that). If you can't come to argreement on the content, try some of the content dispute resolution resources (e.g. WP:DRN). NE Ent 11:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @DP: One recent comments is "Again, you act the same. It's sick." Protection isn't necessary, I'm simply requesting that any personal attacks (including any that I'm deemed to have made) be removed to refocus the discussion, because when I attempted this I was reverted.
    @NE Ent: Yes, I've suggested DR several times now. I certainly could have responded better to being called names, (and if you click some of the historic examples linked above you'll see that I've been ignoring the user's commentary for over a year) but that's why I hatted my own comments as well as those by Heracletus. And I'm not sure that stating that ad hominems are the "standard fallback when one doesn't have an intelligent argument to make" is quite the same as suggesting that someone has mental health issues. The former is a comment on the merits, or lack there of, of an argument, while the latter crosses the line into purely an attack of me as a person. TDL (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how calling someone's behaviour "sick" as being a personal attack? DP 20:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, where should one start? If any one wants to be serious, he/she would have to take a look at TDL's, mine, L.tak's and Danish Expert's contributions for over a year to really address the whole situation and what has happened exactly. There, one would find accusations of stalking, TDL accusing Danish Expert of original research, mentioning quite a few other wikipedia policies, then opening an AN/I on him, and more recently, TDL mentioning that my opinion is original research, mentioning another 1-2 wikipedia policies and opening an AN/I on me.
    Apart from all this, this user claims to have been friendly, by thanking me for something L.tak asked me to do, i.e. fix the bare references on some EU treaties articles as I posted most of them, whereas in the recent -recent for him apparenty by his first comment here- past he had accused me of stalking him, because I intervened in some of his many debates -in again these EU-related articles- with Danish Expert and although I disagreed with Danish Expert, didn't take his side on how Danish Expert is posting original research and needs to get a mentor (at least at first). Then, he proceeded to actually stalk me, after looking up even my block log.
    It is however not the only claim he has made: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AL.tak&diff=593993280&oldid=593968317
    He apparently opened this AN/I to "try and make [me] calm down a bit". As far as I can tell, opening an AN/I on someone is not a friendly action or something that will not invoke bad feelings.
    This user also states that he finds this paragraph:
    "The reference data would be the same for all countries, though. I mean the reference values in the criteria. So, the reference values in Template:Euro convergence criteria (2013) should be the same as the ones in the general template... I mean, the reference values, i.e. criteria are the same for everyone, even if it was only checked if Latvia fulfills them. I think this is obvious."
    patronising, condescending, even though my comment on whether this statement was obvious or not was not disputing what he had written or was disputed by him later on...
    He also somehow kept being unable to understand my points on our last discussion here: Talk:European_Fiscal_Compact#Bulgaria, even though he accused me of writing walls of text, by writing: "PS: if you'd like to shorten debates I'd suggest looking in the mirror. You've generated more posts and almost twice the kb that everyone else in the discussion has combined. Epic walls of text don't help move the discussion along." He didn't merely disagree with my point, but went on to state: "So your interpretation is still not logically possible. I can't believe this has descended into a logic101 lesson..." and "That is inconsistent with Heracletus' interpretation and obviously doesn't make any sense.", which made me repeat and try to define better my position.
    This user wrote more recently: "And I certainly was never "acting as you didn't understand my arguments". I understood your argument perfectly well from the very start, but your interpretation is illogical. You've repeatedly (whether intentionally or not) not comprehended what I've said."
    I guess calling my interpretation illogical is not personal, it's just an objective comment.
    Furthermore, he kept debating and saying these things, while he intended to open an AN/I on me, as can be clearly seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEuropean_Fiscal_Compact&diff=593991470&oldid=593962056 . He first debates what I wrote and then writes:
    "As for the rest of your nonsense, keep an eye on ANI." I do understand this is not personal, he's just disengaging and after having the final word, he opens an AN/I. Then, of course, he wonders why I tell him he keeps doing the same thing (i.e. pretending he doesn't understand my point, by having written " If we write the article as [(all the provisions of Title III OR part of the provisions of Title III) AND (all the provisions of Title IV OR part of the provisions of Title IV)] the statement would be true if a state declared any PART of III AND PART of IV (ie Article 3 and Article 9), and hence the entire treaty (including the undeclared parts of Title III and Title IV) would necessarily apply. That is inconsistent with Heracletus' interpretation and obviously doesn't make any sense.",
    even though I had explained just above "Obviously by opting in to certain articles in certain Titles, the rest of the articles in those Titles do not apply to this party. (Which is my reasoning as to why while the whole other treaty would apply, these articles, of these specific Titles, to which the state has not opted in wouldn't apply.)"
    That of course is done despite having indicated I find the whole issue moot and that I do not wish to engage in further discussion with him and of course having indicated I don't want to feed the diva. But, why do I call him diva? Let's see, from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_feed_the_divas#Spotting_divas.
    Argumentative in petty disputes
    There is no issue too small for a diva; disputes are more about getting their way than getting it right. They are known to bully their way over "inferior" editors with a panache that befits their status as a diva.
    Rudeness to the helpers
    Divas can't be bothered by the "little people" and are known to be extremely uncivil to those who are beneath them. If you can't fully conform to the diva's view, you may find yourself cast as a less valuable member of the community.
    An entourage
    A truly successful diva has a loyal (and usually large) following. Editors who question a diva's behavior often find themselves attacked by a group fervent supporters. Administrator pals are most valued, and threats to block those that step on a diva's toes are effective tools in the enabling process. A diva may often be regarded as literally "the best" editor on the project for certain tasks; and they know it.
    Long memory
    Repeatedly brings up "grievances" from the past. Doesn't let go of grudges. Nothing is too old to bring up repeatedly. (also known as "User:Heracletus has been providing a running commentary of his opinion of me as a person for over a year now" and then includes the "bad boys" comment and completely "forgets" there's an apology below.)
    Hypocrisy
    A diva rarely, if ever, admits to engaging in: edit-warring, assuming bad faith, disruptive editing, battling, harassment, making personal attacks, or owning things. Only their opponents do this, and they do it constantly. A diva is so rarely wrong that their extraordinary "specialness" means that no fault could possibly lie with them in a dispute. (TDL and hypocrisy?? No... Just, he writes "I've requested that the user refrain from personalizing disputes and focus on the content many times" and links to this: ([43]), where one may read "And I often wonder if you have ever managed to debate anything on wikipedia with personalizing and attacking." and then, in the same post in a completely objective and impersonal tone, always focusing on the content, "I understand you don't like hearing such criticism, but the solution is to either back up your arguments with reliable sources rather than personal opinions or go write a blog." and " Yes it can be frustrating to be involved in content disputes, but it is quite childish to resort to personalizing disputes just because people disagree with you.". Of course, then, he proceeds: " Back to the content:").
    The same unprovocative friendly user commented that my opinion, on the wrinkles he wanted some input on (original: "So there are a couple wrinkles with Bulgaria's ratification that I'd like some input on:") is original research, even though he knows only too well that:
    A. He is the one who first questioned the depositary in the very first post ("Could this be an error, as the declaration doesn't mention anything about applying the full treaty from 1 Jan 2014?")
    B. That his position about provisional application is also unsourced.
    C. That there is no source, other than the primary one, the depositary.
    When I confronted him over the term original search, he just completely naturally started stating more wikipedia policies... Suddenly I was too personal and this was not a forum... The same person who questioned the depositary and asked for input, then, wrote this: "Perhaps you're right and I'm wrong, but I have read it over and over again and I just can't see how a reasonable person would interpret the text the way that you do. Even if you are correct, we still must follow what sources say (WP:VNT). Even if the depository is wrong, we still need to report what the depository says because the depository is reliable while you and I are not." Contradiction? Not when it is about stating that every input given (after he asked for it) is original research.
    When I confronted him for stating more wikipedia policies and acting in the same fashion (as with Danish Expert, for example), we got into ad hominems and mirrors...
    Of course, this contradiction and hypocrisy backed with what he has written is not personal or provocative. In the same fashion that opening an AN/I on some user is not an act against him or his actions. He after all stated that protection is not necessary AFTER the administrators didn't take any measures against me. Should I say I'm deeply moved by this?
    Should I mention his hatting the section with the title of trolling? And, then, when confronted about this on his talk page, he turns to AN/I... and he states that he has agreed with me. As if I had accused him of acting when we agree as he does when we don't agree. Then, he accuses me of not accepting WP:OR, while I have always criticised HIS use of wikipedia policies, which usually belongs to this category:
    Rudeness to the helpers
    Divas can't be bothered by the "little people" and are known to be extremely uncivil to those who are beneath them. If you can't fully conform to the diva's view, you may find yourself cast as a less valuable member of the community.
    because he just starts stating wikipedia policies in an attempt to suppress the opposite opinion as going against the rules. When this does not happen, the "less valuable members of the community" (per the essay) find themselves in AN/I. One needs to only search the archives to see this. And my issue is this, yes, a lot of users fail to follow wikipedia's rules, but, it's about the content, the quality of the content, it's not about the rules and just burying the editors into rules.
    When someone asks for input and receives a personal opinion based on some arguments, this is not just OR and should not just be dismissed, especially by the same person who questioned the source and started the discussion. I never imposed my opinion on the article without consensus or said we should not follow the sources. But, for this very reason, I hate to be told by the person originally questioning the source and asking for input, that my input is OR. It's input for discussion. If this person wanted sources, he could provide them himself or ask for them. On the contrary, we were having a quite theoretical discussion, on which, even though his writings prove otherwise, he claims no provocation.
    In the end, he uses a source I found and posted on the neutral entity of this discussion, L.tak's talk page, even though it invalidates my own argument, to continue the debate and provocation, by writing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEuropean_Fiscal_Compact&diff=593991470&oldid=593962056 .
    Even though L.tak himself found that the new source follows the primary source, the depositary, and even though, I replied to L.tak that I was willing to accept it, despite this, TDL, used the depositary he had questioned in his very first post to initiate this discussion and the source I provided myself to state: "I provided a source (the depositary). Another source that is "dependent on written and/or electronic notifications supplied by the depositaries" doesn't change anything." Furthermore, sources are but a means to his ways, as clearly indicated in the score keeping attitude here: "We're at 1-2 sources for my interpretation, and 0 for yours, hence why I asked for a source." This very attitude proves my point on "Rudeness to the helpers".
    All these are reasons why I wrote to him that I find his attitude sick.
    Furthermore, based on what I have written, I believe that TDL is gaming the system. It is clear from his post that he intented to open this AN/I and yet, he kept posting in a provocative manner.
    Finally, I feel I should address my stated incivility, even though, it considers completely irrelevant issues (apart from L.tak and retarded) and on which TDL had no involvement.
    "Retarded" was referring to the format L.tak used to phrase that FAQ number 4 which states that the new source just follows verbatim the depositary, and is probably a really bad expression. "Completely unhelpful way of formatting" would have been a better one. If only all this hadn't happened, I would have probably used something milder.
    "vandalism" was "vandalism", as L.tak had removed sources and changed the results of two votes, although by accident as he wrote. However, his edit summary read "spec on consent" which can be read as speculation on consent... He meant specification, probably.
    "get some common sense" was about indeed getting some common sense and stop removing a vote's date, as it had been scheduled for that date. and well the German parliament keeps its schedule.
    "expert in illiteracy and bad spelling" was when Figureskating after having reverted me twice wrote on my page "Heracletus, I understand that you're a Greek-language expert", which I never claimed myself and which of course I perceived as ironic... I think I pretty much explained this to her, as she also explained to me she didn't mean it that way.
    Is there some term for users who keep constant track of even your edit summaries and log them (even when they read "get some common sense") to use them against you on an (irrelevant) AN/I? Isn't this wikistalking? Personally, I have already stated how I find it...
    For example, my account is on the line here, and I still cannot be bothered to go through a year's discussions to identify exactly the order of what had happened. I like editing wikipedia on my free time. I like it. I also state my opinion on things I find interesting (sometimes, in a too open or uncivil way). However, I do not accuse people of not following the rules when we disagree and I also don't open AN/I's. This is why I ever got blocked by a certain administrator acting proactively... Even so, TDL has also felt free to use my having been blocked 6 years ago as an argument against me in the past... Heracletus (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Heracletus, all I want is for you to stop badgering with your personal opinions of me every time we get into a content dispute. I get it, you don't think very highly of me. You've made that point loud and clear, no need to repeat it because I really don't care what you think, and reiterating your narrative ad nauseum is neither going to make it true nor make me care. Trust me, I could make a very compelling case for you fitting the definition of WP:DIVA (starting with the hypocrisy of accusing another of being a diva when it was you who initiated this petty dispute by rudely attacking me due to your long memory of a year old grudge (I don't recall even mention NOR to you since last summer)) but aside from trying to score cheap WP:BATTLE points, what exactly is it that you're trying to accomplish with such an accusation?
    I've asked you numerous times to stop personalizing things because it's unhelpful to building an encyclopedia and it just drives our discussions off a cliff, but as that hasn't worked I couldn't think of any other options than ANI. I fully admit that I often retaliate when you personalize things and have contributed to the escalation, but almost invariably it is you who initiates. The comment that caused the latest dispute was "I really do wonder if you have ever managed to debate anything on wikipedia without accusing the other person (and yourself) of original research." Prior to that, I was under the impression that, though we weren't agreeing on everything, we were having an amicable conversation. I hadn't said anything even mildly uncivil. Sure I should have just ignored this shot, but when the same sort of crap comes from the same person repeatedly, seemingly without any sort of provocation, and in spite of requests to stop, at some point a reaction is inevitable.
    It seems based on your post above that "I don't see much benefit in continuing a conversation on our personal interpretations of the treaty, as this has ventured well into the realm of WP:OR" is what upset you. For the life of me I can't understand what it is about this that could possibly have set you off to the point of taking a personal shot at me. Can you explain what it was about this particular statement that upset you, so I can try to avoid it in the future? I certainly wasn't suggesting that your opinion was unimportant or trying dismiss or suppress your view, just that it's a waste of both of our time to debate things that can't impact the article. By that point we had spent five days discussing it, L.tak and I had tried in vain to explain why the official depositary source was correct, no one had found any secondary sources to clarify the situation, and there was no reasonable prospect of us agreeing. Thus, I didn't want to commit further time to a futile discussion when there was more productive things I could be doing to actually build the encyclopedia.
    You keep saying things like "accusing me of original research". It isn't an accusation, nor is it a personal attack, to suggest that an unsourced argument is original research. That is a policy based reason and an entirely legitimate debating point. NOR is "a widely accepted standard that all editors must normally follow." I honestly don't understand what it is that upsets you so much about me citing it. You say it's about "the quality of the content, it's not about the rules", which I agree with 100%. But that is precisely my point: OR is never quality content. Likewise, if you try to make a formal logic based argument, and I prove a contradiction in your logic and hence conclude that it was a logically flawed argument, that's not provocative nor is it personalizing because it has nothing to do with you as a person. Just like if I said 1+1=3 and you replied that this was mathematically flawed addition, that isn't personalizing because it has to do with there being an error in the argument which has been put forward. Poking holes in the arguments of others is fundamental to a debate, but it seems every time I disagree with you, you take it very personally, get upset, and retaliate by making derogatory comments about me and I respond in kind.
    Would you be willing to voluntarily agree to stop making personal comments about me during content disputes? If you think I've made a mistake in my argument then great, point it out! Like you, I'm trying to make the article as accurate as possible, so if I've made an error then I want to know. But unprovoked comments like "I really do wonder if you have ever managed..." or "...please don't argue again..." don't help make the article more accurate. They just inflame the discussion and lead us here. Of course, I'll commit myself to the same thing. I'm sure everyone (especially L.tak) would appreciate it if we could stay on the subject of improving the encyclopedia. TDL (talk) 06:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I see charges and counter-charges and I doubt many Admins want to weigh all of these arguments to come to some definitive solution (if one exists). It seems like a situation that is better handled at a Dispute Resolution or Mediation process than AN/I as that is a better forum where you can put forth all the nuances of your "case". That is, if you actually want to resolve this situation and not just try to get the other editor sanctioned. Liz Read! Talk! 03:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Be aware Feminist Spam arriving soon in masses! Maybe you should block College IPs for that day.

    As noted on Jimbo's talk, the edit-a-thon happened days ago and this is just belated reporting of it. No administrative action is needed.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Feminism is as neutral as masculinism - that means BOTH ARE NOT NEUTRAL. Therefore such edits are not allowed since Wikipedia should be neutral. Unfortunately these feminists don't care and want to insert their ideology in Wikipedia. STOP IT BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE. Feminists announce edit flood --92.205.83.106 (talk) 11:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's hope they stick around and edit everyday. Sepsis II (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, hopefully some of them will enjoy it and stay (others probably will have different experiences). In any case we shouldn't get excited about it and aren't going to block anyone in advance (not that we could block them all anyway). 14:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)
    (Daily Caller is a satire site.) 172.56.19.115 (talk) 14:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    NE Ent, you were saying? Drmies (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Block them all, and let God sort them out. StAnselm (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Considering that something like 10% of WP editors are female, I don't think it's necessary to build barricades to prevent hordes of feminists from entering the sanctuary that is Wikipedia. Besides, you know, 92.205.83.106, there are some that are already here. I've spotted glimpses of them. So, it's far too late to totally prevent their unholy influence. But up against the bulwark of "masculinists" (is that a real word?) here, they are far outnumbered. Liz Read! Talk! 03:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    According to the OED it was first attested to in English with your intended meaning in 1912. Reminds me of an old Wikipedia riddle that I just made up: Why is there no WP:WikiProject Masculinism?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Topic Ban Request

    There's been an ongoing issue with User:Smauritius. I will start off by saying that I believe that there is some sort of COI here but whether it's just extreme fandom or paid editing I don't know, otherwise the user is trying in good faith to improve the encyclopedia. Shraddha Kapoor has had problems with this user for some few months now . There have been blocks issued but I don't think that one is nec. in this case, however a topic or article restriction may be. We have issues that the information being added is slanted towards peacock coverage. a look over the last contribs [[44]] will show that multiple people have came in and fixed issues with the article or have tried to explain to the user but they just don't understand [[45]]. I've personally went through this article once already and did a source by source review and removed what wasn't there but a lot has re-snuck back in. I strongly suspect that a great deal of the issue is that English is not this user's first language but it raises the problem of WP:COMPETENCE because the amount of time other editors spend cleaning up is not really justifying itself here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Personally I think this user should be banned from editing in article space based on WP:CIR alone. Their grasp on the English language is not such that they should be editing anything. --Laser brain (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Relatively recent sockpuppetry is bad (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Smauritius/Archive. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    To give you background the sockpuppet was used to pass the article we are discussing to GA sts. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Before I knew this thread existed, I left a comment on the article talk page that I didn't think Smauritius was capable of editing the article neutrally. My experience with Smauritius is they push the envelope repeatedly until they finally cave on a particular narrow issue. Then, they repeat the same process on another issue. At the same time, the theme is the same, puffery, not that, unfortunately, that isn't typical on Indian entertainment-related articles. I have no problem supporting an article ban (including the talk page), but I'm not sure if there's enough cited evidence for users who are unfamiliar with Smauritius's MO, although the sock puppetry is almost enough standing by itself. Sure, we often give socks another opportunity to redeem themselves, but it makes little sense for them to go back to the article that triggered the socking.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I can understand, the problem I had when writing this thread is that there is SO MUCH to show I didn't really know how to proceed. I did look over their userpage and I didn't understand that this is a person that according to their userboxes is still in High School so that may be part of the issue too. I would encourage anyone to look over the last 500 contribs on the SK page if they have the time it will help them understand the scope of why it's difficult to manage due to the large amount of edits being made. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So, you guys are actually discussing to ban me from editing in Wikipedia, may know why & for what reason?? --- Smauritius diR mWa!! 12:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are asking that question after reading the thread above, then there are indeed WP:COMPETENCE issues. And if you asked it without reading, then the WP:COMPETENCE issues are even more severe. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not to ban you from wikipedia. This was to restrict you from writing at Shradda K. I will say again that I do not see that you are here for bad reasons but your [command] is causing a lot of problems here. It's pretty obvious that English isn't your first language, you may want to try and contribute on in your own language as it may have a better result. The problem as noted above is that you don't understand why the edits are the problem and we have explained it a few times. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And what about who contribute to the article, what about i was the major contributor, who almost update half the content available. --- Smauritius diR mWa!! 13:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Somebody else would handle it; the article isn't yours - and regardless it's that content you've put in the article that is the problem here. - The Bushranger One ping only 14:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Exactly, no one own Wikipedia here, this is what i am trying to say? OK, admitted if i got banned from article and simultaneously block from editing in Wiki, who take the guarantee the article will updated automatically and will reach from B-class to a Featured one, half of editors who are actually opposing to ban me, will disappear? Agree, English is not my first-language, but if you guys provide me creole Wikipedia, i will agree to ban from editing Kapoor. And BTW why ban me from Kapoor (highest edition i made so far), why not from wikipedia itself, if really i'm such a bad editor, why this discrimination stand for. --- Smauritius diR mWa!! 14:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you're missing the main point here: Your English is not good enough to edit articles here. Please stop editing articles. --Laser brain (talk) 14:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, i'm immature, agree, i had try show ownership on the page, agree, English is not my first language, agree, i had contributed with personal attribution. I am not denying it, i will never deny it also. What was the most shocking thing, is that no one came to help/guide me, rather prefer to ban me. --- Smauritius diR mWa!! 14:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that you can still offer decent input on the talkpages, the actual writing the article part is the issue. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This is also one example where i personally tried to explain what some of the issues are [[46]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The lynch-mob never rests. The request contains a single diff, and it is a diff of a request for help made on a Talk page. No wonder Laser Brain wants to ban. Minorview (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    That is my fault User:Minorview, it is a lot of small edits and the history of the situation why I requested it. This is not a lynch mob atmosphere you can read the English and a look at the talkpage of the article and the article history will show multiple attempts to clean this up. This isn't a situation where you have a really BAD vandal editor, quite the contrary we do have a motivated contributor but the mechanics behind it just aren't there yet. This is a great area where I still think that they can contribute here on the talkpage and give us good references. It also gives them a chance to practice their English (invaluable for ESL learners) writing and comprehension skills without causing readability issues for the article. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Flow needs to be stopped NOW!

    I accidentally came across a major bug in Flow, which has caused the near-complete destruction of the "Echo" functionality of a large number of editors, despite the fact that they never have edited a Flow-enabled talk page. It would be very easy for vandals to duplicate and extend this, so that Echo is broken for most regular editors ("broken" meaning that neither the red numbers nor the "you've got messages" can be reset to zero/read).

    There is for the moment no possibility I know of to either delete or protect the three pages Flow hsa been enabled on (Deletion was deemed unnecessary by the Flow devs, and Protection is believed by them to be enabled here, despite my assurances that it isn't), and there is also no possibility that I know of to disable Flow on these pages (despite it being opt-in on an individual page-base only).

    Please raise this at the appropriate pages or with the people we need here. This is urgent. Fram (talk) 15:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    It's being trialled at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Breakfast. I'm concerned about not being able to see the history, to delete or rev/del (although someone did suppress something, see my comment on the page), etc. Obviously we have to be able to do all of this. Dougweller (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yes, there are general reasons why this isn't ready for even a limited rollout, but the argument was that it only could cause problems at these pages. Now it turns out that it causes bigger problems than expected by the Devs, and at totally unrelated places, and that there is nothing we can do about it (and I'll gladly be proven wrong here!). So instead of a principled stance against this deployment (for very valid reasons, like you say), this is now an actual and necessary plea to get it removed ASAP. I love being right, but I didn't want it to be in such a dramatic fashion ;-) Fram (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait, does this mean that anyone can add any statement (say, Jack is a dull boy), and then no one can delete it per WP:CSD#G10, WP:CSD#G12 or whatever? This looks like a serious problem. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • OMG! OMG! Beta software! Sky is falling! Since WMF is asking for feedback at Wikipedia talk:Flow, perhaps we should give it to them there instead of this here "Dramaboard"?? NE Ent 15:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • ? And your point is? I have raised the issue there as well, but this needs urgent intervention, which I am not certain to get there. Fram (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • You raise a legitimate concern into what I understand is one day into a two to four week trial at 8 am and at 10:18 am open an ANI thread. Not urgent. Quiddity (WMF) said at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Breakfast Please remember that this is early-stage beta software, and the intent of this trial is to get your feedback on what's missing and what needs to be changed. We urge you to give Flow a good-faith try – it can only become as good as you help us make it! – but if you find things not working out, we can stop the trial and return your conversations to a talk page. We'll be asking directly in 2/4 weeks whether you're happy to continue testing, but will greatly appreciate all the feedback you can give in the meantime. Thanks again! (Apologies for not posting a diff, but that "Flow" software has some issues). NE Ent 16:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • So we should let a vulnerability remain open for weeks because it is only a trial? I really don't understand your objection here. This was not something that only affected users of these few pages, but every user of Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • How is that? I didn't even know the trial had started until this thread was opened. NE Ent 20:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • If someone would have transcluded (not substituted) e.g. this page, WP:ANI, to one of the Flow pages, then you would have gotten a notification and Echo would have been broken for you (and many of our admins and experienced editors). So yes, this bug potentially affects every user now, and especially the most prolific (or at least the most talkative) ones. I am not supposed to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, but it is tempting sometimes... Fram (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • So, in other words:
                • No editors were actually affected.
                • No mainspace articles could have been affected.
                • You found a glitch which could have affected many editors that no one on English Wikipedia could actually fix and thought it appropriate to post on a noticeboard with 6000 watchers, rather than the Wikipedia talk:Flow page that you knew was being monitored by the appropriate WMF folk or perhaps, even more discretely, just quietly email them?NE Ent 03:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                  • NE Ent, are you actually reading the same discussion? "No editors were actually affected."? And I posted here and at WT:FLOW, which I already said here and you could have checked for yourself. basically, the only thing correct in yuor statement is "no mainspace articles could have been affected", which I never claimed and is hardly the only reason something may be a problem. Please reread the actual discussions and my actual statements, instead of making things up. Fram (talk) 10:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fram, if you think asking the community to fix bugs will lead to faster action than asking the software engineers to fix bugs, you're mistaken. It's 8am PST; I'll be talking to people about the bug as soon as they're actually in the office. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Letting the WMF people know at MediaWiki that protection didn't work certainly didn't have the desired effect at all, on the contrary. I have not the best experiences with the speed that bugs are fixed. Many of the major bugs with Flow were noted before it was implemented here, that didn't speed up their fixing or delay the introduction here, did it? Fram (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • The one you're complaining about and bringing to AN/I certainly wasn't. The lack of response at mediawiki.org was probably linked to you being so rude to a fellow volunteer that you got blocked. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • If I had been clearly able to protect the three pages, I wouldn't have brought it to ANI. But that problem was and is roundly ignored by the WMF and my "fellow volunteer" who was being rather rude (if your response boils down to "I can't check what you claim, but I know it is wrong no matter what you say", it can hardly be considered civil or coöperative). Of course, being deliberately unhelpful and obstructive is not a problem at WMF / MediaWiki. And ignoring problems because the one bringing hem to light is rude? Yeah, that's a very productive approach. Fram (talk) 10:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm slightly confused by the protection thing. Can't you just protect the pages the way you did for Wikipedia talk:Flow/Developer test page [47] (which seems to be working)? Is there something special about the developer test page that makes it work there but not the other talk pages? Nil Einne (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Protection works. I am no longer able to add any comments to Wikipedia talk:Flow/Developer test page. Unfortunately, I am not informed that I can't add comments to the page until after I have written a comment and clicked on "reply", when a red message appears: "An error occurred. The error message received was: Insufficient permissions to execute this action." Ideally, you should be informed in advance so that you won't waste time on writing a comment that you can't post in the end. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems sensible; I'll throw a bug in. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, did the Twinkle protection work? I have no way to see this, I don't get a protection log, no pink "you are editing a fully protected page", and so on. I'm glad that it worked after all, and that I had Twinkle enabled (standard protection implementation was not possible). Are the other two pages protected yet? I'll take a look... Fram (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    3 quick notes and 1 request: The Notifications bug-fix is now live (details below). The protection-warning message request, was submitted as bugzilla:60909. The protection log message is displaying correctly in my watchlist feed and the other relevant logs (eg). Please unprotect the Wikipedia talk:Flow/Developer test page so that non-admins may resume testing there. Thank you! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Please provide the "delete - protect - move" dropdown menu (and functionalities) on Flow pages. Fram (talk) 10:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, you state that you can see the protection in my log, so that I could know that it had worked. But please check my log now: yuo will see that I jave moved Wikipedia talk:Flow/Test over Wikipedia talk:Flow/Developer test page (which I deleted through the move menu). I got no errors, the log claims I have moved the page, the source page is now a move-result redirect, but the target is unchanged (and doesn't display the redirect source when you follow the redirect). If move doesn't work dspite the log claiming it does, how could I know that protect did or didn't work despite the log claiming it did? Opens possibilities to delete pages beyond all chances of recovery though :-) Fram (talk) 10:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Again perhaps I'm missing something but I still don't get why this protection thing is such a big deal. If you wanted to test protection, can't you just do what me and Stefan2 and possibly others did to test it and try and edit the protected page? (In my case after I saw it in your edit log.) Since you're an admin, it won't work from your main account and perhaps you don't want to run the risk of exposing your IP in case the protection doesn't work but you're free to create a new account which be fully in line with WP:SOCK as a legitimate alternative account. With most modern browsers having a 'private window' or similar option, you probably don't even have to log out of your current account to do so and yet can stick to a single browser.
    If you really don't want to spend the 20 or so seconds to create a new account which is always going to be useful for tests particularly when you're an admin, even if you're willing to spend than many minutes writing replies here and elsewhere complaining about the protection thing and otherstuff are also planning to run potentially risky tests which could cause major breakage; you're free to ask people here or elsewhere to help you test the protection.
    In other words to be blunt, unless I'm missing some and given that it sounds like I wasn't above, I'm guessing I'm not here, the whole 'protection' saga seems to be a much ado over nothing. Yes there were mistakes in the interface but the protection worked, it was easy to test it worked and at least 2 people did so, so it was really no big deal.
    Nil Einne (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi folks. The devs deployed some fixes for this. The problematic notification from the large Flow post is still there, it's just being hidden in Special:Notifications, so your Echo notification counter may stick at [1]. They're working on that too, and offer these comments:
    To fix it, you can either: 1) Temporarily uncheck the Flow notifications (web) in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo (as Favre1fan93 explains above); or 2) Ignore the [1] for 9 days (a week from Thursday) when we'll get the next version of mediawiki code deployed to Enwiki;
    or 3) Copy & paste this code to Special:MyPage/common.js:
    importScript('User:Mlitn/MarkAllRead.js');
    press 'save', and a dialog will pop-up asking if you want to mark all Notifications as read. Accept that, and it will be fixed. You can then remove the line of code from your common.js again.
    Sorry again for the confusion and distraction. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    As requested by Quiddity above, I have removed protection from. Wikipedia talk:Flow/Developer test page. I have no idea or proof that it is related, but almost immediately, I got a red "1" in the Echo notifications, and when I use that, I receive the standard "Wikimedia Foundation Error: Our servers are currently experiencing a technical problem." page. Coincidence? Flow / Echo combination problem not really solved?

    Anyone else having trouble, and anyone with an idea of the cause and solution? Fram (talk) 11:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I was one of those whose notifications were screwed up by the consequences of Fram's test. I eventually worked around it by disabling Flow notifications, but it was a serious impediment to collaborative working. I don't know how many editors were effected in this way, but it is bad news that a software test can have such a wide impact on a live platform.
    As noted on my talk page, I think that Fram's test was ill-conceived and should not have been done. However, there seems little good about Flow, and its hassles outweigh the benefits of testing it further. Please can it just be turned off here, and tested in some less critical environment? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume you mean WMF's test, instead of Fram's, as Fram was just the messenger here. Unfortunatly as we've seen time and time again (I'm looking at you, VisualEditor), when the Newest, Brightest Idea gets prematurely rolled out, the WMF expects the community to hail it as the Best Idea Ever, and when the community pulls out the torches and pitchforks over the Wikipedia-breaking bugs, it's somehow the community's fault. (Nothing aimed at Quiddity here, who did his best ASAP to fix the problem! But it's the overall culture the WMF projects that is distressing.) - The Bushranger One ping only 14:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Bushranger: No, I meant Fram's test, which was ill-considered. See my comments on my talk page.
    It was also an ill-considered test of software in a premature beta test, but two wrongs don't make a right. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    (For the record, Echo works again for me now, had gone up to "5" in the meantime: no idea what caused this or who or what solved this, if it was the WMF person I emailed, thanks!) Fram (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC) Fram at 11:22 on 6th Feb. Having seen such errors myself at 16:37 on 6th Feb, methinks these are unrelated and most likely coincidental. As an anon, I cannot get echo-stuff, and furthermore I have not visited any of the WP:FLOWie betatest pages. The error-messages are HTTP 503 Service Unavailable and have some Varnish cache networking-stuff attached; they are prolly server-sysadmin-stuff, not admin-stuff. Also worth noting, there were some similar proxy-caching-type errors back in December. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:APZ982 BLP vios

    User blocked one week for BLP violations. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    APZ982 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has edited Thom Loverro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) repeatedly to insert inappropriate commentary about the subject's own articles, despite repeated warnings to stop. The article's subject contacted OTRS to notify us about this. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Everything I posted on Thom Loverro's page was accurate and sourced. Every single thing came right from the articles I sourced. I wrote 5 lines with 5 sources that could all be very easily verified. How is it inappropriate to say exactly what he wrote and link a source to what he wrote. Every source goes directly to his own writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by APZ982 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    If an admin can look at this, I'd be grateful. I'm well over 3RR at this point, so I'm hoping that the BLP exceptions apply in this case. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This is similar to actions that the editor took on Goldie Taylor, removing a lot of biographical information to focus the article on his criticism of one of her columns. These are the only two articles currently in the editor's record. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    APZ982 is still restoring that material, which is a clear BLP violation. They claim above that the material they added was sourced, but I don't see any source for edits like this. Concur with Freerangefrog that admin action is definitely needed there. Valenciano (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked APZ982 for one week based on the WP:BLP violations and the edit warring (report also filed at WP:AN3).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that I've revdel'd the revisions in question per RD2 as BLP violations. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Armbrust (talk · contribs) and disruptive WP:OWNing of WP:ANRFC

    I have been updating a post at WP:ANRFC which provides a single concise list of WP:NFCR's that are long overdue for closing. Armbrust Has made it a point to disrupt that process, he has hidden the section, attempted to remove it, and blocked updates to it on several occasions. The user has demonstrated that he has a lack of understanding in regards to WP:NFCC and zero understanding of how WP:NFCR functions. Can we please stop him from interfering with NFCR? Werieth (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    And he tends to hide discussions that are raised on his talk page that make him look bad. Werieth (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's nonsense. You disrupt the WP:ANRFC noticeboard by using it to report the WP:NFCR backlog, and you didn't even realise it. In this edit You undone the archiving of closed sections. If you don't know how ANRFC works, than you don't need to post there. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Again you make false statements, I did not revert any closed sections, rather I reverted your butchering of the NFCR section. Werieth (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The nonsense continues. I archived the closed sections; than ordered the requests the same way they are on WP:NFCR (makes checking whether they're closed easier), and than moved it to the bottom of the page (as essentially a new request). Armbrust The Homunculus 19:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You where told to stop editing my comments, and screwing with the WP:NFCR request, I would have removed the closed NFCRs myself, but last time I did that you complained about that. You need to stop editing my comments and leave the NFCR section alone. Werieth (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong again. That list is not part of your comment, that's just "is the current list". Also "removed the closed NFCRs" isn't the same as archiving them. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:BLANKING I could even remove them, so closing sections isn't an issue. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I didnt stay you couldnt, I just made a note of your behavior that hides your disruptive behavior. Werieth (talk) 19:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's your opinion. I didn't hide anything. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)Two servings of trout. It's good that ya'll tried to discuss this on Armbrust's page, but at some point one (preferably both) of you should have figured out that you just weren't going to agree. (I've read the conversation but fell like Abbott in Who's on first? "I don't even know what I talking about!") Please go to Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure and try to neutrally frame the issue and get some additional opinions. NE Ent 19:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • First off, seeing two respectable Wikipedians bicker like this is a bit upsetting. Second, I'm not sure that this dispute warrants the level of heat you two are letting off. Now, down to the dispute. I'm not sure that WP:ANRFC is for things like NFCC. ANRFC is really for discussions which are not on any kind of centralized discussion board already. NFCC has it's own centralized discussions. The discussions on ANRFC are generally on talk pages or Wikiprojects where admins who patrol such discussions for closure wouldn't normally look. What we need is more NFCC admins (since Fastily was driven off) and so I think we need to look at some of the users in that area for possible RfA noms.--v/r - TP 21:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a regular contributor to both WP:NFCR and WP:ANRFC, and in working with both parties, I can see both sides of the argument. There is not enough administrator activity at WP:NFCR, and the hope is that by posting at WP:ANRFC (something that I have done before) would attract more closers. It is my current opinion that this doesn't actually work and that is why we consistently have over 100 open discussions. I would also like to point out that Armbrust does not show any symptoms of WP:OWN, but rather does a fantastic job of keeping WP:ANRFC clean through being an unofficial clerk on that board, doing the thankless job of maintaining that space. I would also further point out that there are also not enough admins willing to make closures listed at WP:ANRFC, although there has been some constant back and forth discussion about how many discussions should be listed there. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You meant to say editors will to make closures listed at WP:ANFRC, right? NE Ent 23:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That is mostly correct, there is not, in my opinion, enough editors (admins included) willing to make closures. Therefore the board is always heavily bogged down with closure requests. A good many discussions are not well defined enough for a Non-Admin Closure and therefore do require admins, of which there are not enough willing to make closures, in my opinion. Hope that helps. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment) I think that the problem is that there are too few admins who work with file issues. It's the same with WP:PUF and WP:FFD: there are plenty of discussions which are trivial to close but still remain open after several months. Check the FFD pages from November with hundreds of open discussions per page, for example. Many "DI" speedy categories also have a huge backlog. I'm not sure if listing the discussions at WP:ANRFC is going to help. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tenebrae

    Hello. I'm here to ask for others to look into the recent edits of User:Tenebrae. He started an RFC regarding the selective inclusion of nominations for film awards at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Request for comment to which I objected as no clear proposal on how it was to be achieved was noted. I asked on several occasions how the selection criteria would be determined, but received considerable and increasing abuse for asking the same question. The same question, it's worth noting, that others asked also here and here. Now then, that's just a discussion about possible content issues, and sure, it can be heated. Tenebrae then prodded an article in an attempt to further his cause, which was rapidly removed and the discussion he had started moved to the talk page, another venue to discuss his RFC. I responded there that it was inappropriate to pointedly use this article to further his position at the RFC. But then the insults and lies started:

    • "just as you'll keep trying to sabotage the process" [48]
    • "snarky" [49]
    • "obsessive eccentric short-circuited any serious discussion" [50]
    • accused of demanding to "follow my orders" and bizarre and offensive references to Colonial England. [51]
    • "he'll stalk you wherever you go" [52]
    • "basement-dwelling Brit-twit", "how crazy and ridiculous you look", "You don't have a job and you've nothing else to do all day but stalk me and misrepresent things.", " Go get a life, please." [53]
    • "disingenuous baiting and needling", " deliberately inane questions designed to elicit an intemperate response" [54]
    • "childish series of diatribes" [55]
    • "you freakish obsessive" [56]
    • " snarky belittling and non-constructive, arrogant, "I'm King of Wikipedia" attitude you started over there", "started slinging around your unasked-for advice and insulting comments. You're just a troll with no life. Am I going to be stuck with you like a wart for the rest of my days, Crazy?" [57]

    I ask for nothing than an objective look at some of the terms used by this editor to describe me (e.g. "freakish obsessive", "Crazy", "troll with no life", "basement-dwelling Brit-twit", "obsessive eccentric") and the false accusations ("keep trying to sabotage the process", "he'll stalk you wherever you go", "started slinging around your unasked-for advice and insulting comments") and determine the best course of action. I have asked him to qualify his accusations or to bring it here, and he has refused, hence my post. My interest in the original topic stems from my tenure as featured list director and active FLC participant, for what it's worth. Being accused of having no life, no job, a troll, Crazy, freakish, obsessive etc seemed to go beyond the normal parameters of lively discourse. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd suggest a serious step back. Many editors have been blocked for far less then that. I"m not sure about the overall content and if it was provoked but the attacks are pretty overt. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The Rambling Man began a campaign of incessant needling and haranguing at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Request for comment after he asked a question, I answered it, and he responded with an insult, calling the proposal "a waste of time" and spewing sarcastically, "Good luck with that." And rather than leaving it alone with a simple "Accept" or "Oppose," he kept repeating, "this is a waste of time" (19:39, 22 January 2014) and just continued to bully and dig in, saying, in essence, I didn't have the right to ask a question he disapproved of, because since he didn't like it, then it must have been "a waste of time."
    When I explained my approach — common with project management — of first seeing if an issue even existed before trying to find solutions, he became insulting, saying this was a completely invalid approach because "every project manager I know gets paid to do whatever they do, generally ineffectively." Why would anyone attack a cautious approach that way, especially when the recommendations for changing guidelines says to do it cautiously?
    He then began making fun of the RfC, asking deliberately inane questions about what my plans were about listing awards for "films like Titanic" as opposed to "films like Primer." And there's so much more, culminating in his following me to another, unrelated talk page and, with no provocation or cause, to start insulting my approach there even even though the point I brought up there was over and done with. He's been deliberately baiting me, and now he's hounding me and haranguing me for days without letup, and he's surprised now that someone calls him out on his obsessive, stalkerish behavior. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all. And was any of it a justification for calling using terms like "freakish obsessive", "Crazy", "troll with no life", "basement-dwelling Brit-twit", "obsessive eccentric"? Nope. You need to stop, in fact you need to be blocked for so many deliberate and overt personal attacks. As for your introduction of yet another lie, "saying, in essence, I didn't have the right to ask a question he disapproved of, because since he didn't like it, then it must have been "a waste of time."", please prove this. I never said you had no right to ask anything of anyone. I simply said you needed more information on how you would implement it. As did other editors. Also note, the "talk page" which Tenebrae claims to be "unrelated" is in fact "directly" related, as I demonstrated above. The lies keep on rolling... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You've been the one following me around and refusing to stop baiting me and insulting the very question I asked. You think you can belittle and insult other people' suggestions over and over and then stalk them to another page and continue to do it, and that this is OK? That you should be allowed to behave this way with impunity? If anyone should be blocked, it's you. Go to my user page and see the many commendations other editors have given me for being collegial and constructive. Editors like you who attack and behave arrogantly are in no way, shape or form helpful to this encyclopedia. And following me around? That's the last straw. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You opened an RFC, I replied. You said you'd go off and prod/AFD things you thought were non-notable, I disagreed and commented. Where else? Come on, answer the question, where else? And you now feel completely happy with using terms like "freakish obsessive", "Crazy", "troll with no life", "basement-dwelling Brit-twit", "obsessive eccentric"? I don't care what anyone else says about you, you should be blocked for personal attacks. Simple as that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. You call me a liar, and that's OK. You bait me, you deliberately ask inane questions to sabotage a discussion you don't like, you follow me around to another talk page, and that's not attack behavior? There are other ways to attack than name-calling, and you are certainly guilty of instigating this exchange from your very first "oh you're wasting everyone's time" and your gratuitous, sarcastic remark. That's fine and proper behavior, eh? Not where I come from. You should be ashamed of yourself. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You lied, you accused me of stalking, not true. You accused me of asking "inane questions to sabotage a discussion I don't like", not true. Prove it. I edited one other page where you clearly were making a point, which failed. Secondly, it's all very well to whine about the fact you personally didn't like the questions I had asked (which other editors have also asked you) but there's simply no excuse, zero, none, NOT ONE, for calling me "freakish obsessive", "Crazy", "troll with no life", "basement-dwelling Brit-twit", "obsessive eccentric", "wart" etc. See WP:NPA. And you're still quite proud of it by the looks of things. Last time I looked, WP:NPA was a policy. Disgusting behaviour. My last post here. Feel free to once again get the last word in, it would be instructive if others could comment on the gross personal attacks, including those passing judgement on my mental faculties, my personal life and any disability from which I may suffer. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Again with the demands, again with the relentless haranguing. Anyone can go to the discussions on the two talk pages and see for themselves your baiting and your needling. You actually believe what you're doing is perfectly normal — that calling someone's proposal "a waste of time" right out of the box is acceptable behavior. That calling project managers a blight because you, personally, don't get along with them, so a cautious, two-step approach is unacceptable to you. You can't just keep digging at other editors and belittling their very questions and pronouncing that because you wouldn't do something a certain way that anyone doing it that way is wrong. And that Titanic / Primer thing was inane. It made no sense. You attacked me with your attitudinal declarations and criticisms of the way I asked a question. No — it is not alright to keep going after and going after someone and following them to another page to criticize them there. Deliberately provoking someone you disagree with until you get them angry is wrong, wrong wrong. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Disability? Who brought up anyone's disability? That's completely out of left field — and a transparent attempt at smokescreening for sympathy. For the record, no one said anything about disabilities. This is part and parcel of the same tactics you used on the talk pages. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "basement-dwelling brit-twit"?? "freakish obsessive"?? Wholly inappropriate, even if you do believe you're being stalked. You're NEVER permitted to make those kind of personal attacks, no matter what. Handle possible issues (which I cannot see stalking, by the way) on an appropriate noticeboard. As Tenebrae was given sufficient opportunity to retract their statements, but have continually expressed that they were somehow permitted to say these things, there's no choice but to protect the project and its editors for a wee 24 hours period of time. It's been a few years since Tenebrae has begged to be blocked - and they did it again DP 01:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know that many of the people that lurk on these boards lack basic competence but could I ask you to at least post diffs correctly and post them with context? The first diff you post is entirely irrelevant, the second diff is all very well but entirely misses the point that the subsequent post at that talk page entirely backs up my position. Your third link (much better to pipe these, by the way) doesn't head to the section you (presumably) were intending. If you're going to hang around here and criticise, at least do it competently. I'm befuddled by your user page claim that you would prefer to be "known by the quality of my contributions" when it's taken you nearly two years to make your last 250 main space edits. I guess hanging around and chatting is what you'd prefer to be "known by"? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Enough, TRM. What NE Ent is or isn't known by is irrelevant to the question at hand. Even if you were attacked before, that doesn't give you license to continue attacking other people now. Cut it out. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I feel that I must defend myself, and that includes defending myself against bad links, out of context links and generally poorly behaved contributors at this noticeboard. You shouldn't try to censor that. This place needs a shake up and some of that starts with the purpose of some editors at this Wikipedia. I'm sick of being attacked one-sidedly by some here, allowing the "weak and needy" to continue to abuse bans and make multiple offensive personal attacks. Do something about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "This place needs a shake up" and a request for admins to "do something about it"? What exactly are you proposing, The Rambling Man? Liz Read! Talk! 23:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • On occasion I've asked myself the last few weeks if TRM wasn't trying to figure how much incivility/condescension an admin needs to utter before getting blocked, and the very start of this thread seemed like it was going to be a test case. But this here, well, I have to agree with TRM (sorry Ent): the crucial "good luck with that" might be dismissive in a different context, but here it's not to dismiss the person, only the proposal, since an RfC without a proposal doesn't stand to gain much traction or be very useful. Now, TRM could have disengaged earlier, should have disengaged earlier, but I think Tenebrae has, unfortunately, gone way too far. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I am about 80% of the way to calling baiting on this incident and symmetrical blocking, but I have a large possibly 7-year-old ongoing copyvio sockpuppeteer pattern to follow up on, and need to go home soon anyways. I would strongly urge admins to review the degree to which TRM may have provoked Tenebrae. Even if Tenebrae was the one across the bright line, baiting behavior is in no way OK and is by both policy and precedent actionable, and in this case it seems like NOT acting may set a particularly bad example. That said, I am not in a position at the moment to finish following up to a complete conclusion due to factors above, so review and make up your own minds, please. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well since you're trigger happy with blocks, and have blocked me erroneously before, I expect you'll go ahead without any justification. I really don't want to edit in your world where you think I'm provoking someone by asking them to answer some simple questions (and no, not "inane" ones, a very good example is this Titanic/Primer instance - all I wanted to know was where the line would be drawn in Titanic awards as it would no doubt have received dozens more than Primer) and that would equally justify a block when that person calls me "freakish obsessive", "Crazy", "troll with no life", "basement-dwelling Brit-twit", "obsessive eccentric", "wart" etc. I fail to see how asking for simple questions to be answered is considered "baiting". Please also note that several other editors at the various venues this discussion has spilled over to have asked questions very similar to mine. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Drmies said it well, that one of you should have disengaged way earlier. I agree with Georgewilliamherbert about Tenebrae being "across the bright line", but WP:CIVIL is a policy as well as WP:NPA. Even if you think an editor's comments are ridiculous, we are all supposed to "participate in a respectful and considerate way". The personal attacks were over the top, but there was a shouting match that had led up to that point, when someone could have just walked away. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    TRM, if i wasn't clear enough, I agree that the question/comment was fair, and grounded both in experience and judgment--that's not the part that concerns me. This comes on the heels of a very bitey response on ANI to a comment on Philip Seymour Hoffman (closed here) where again you were right, sort of (editor could have checked for protection and ITN, maybe, but possibly the plaintiff was on the run and their good faith should not have been doubted), but the tone of the response clearly rubbed a bunch of people the wrong way. Just saying. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood Drmies. I still, somehow, fail to understand how some of those here equate me asking many pertinent questions about an RFC with me being personally attacked about a dozen times in a day. Perhaps those looking for a "symmetric" ban are quite happy to see me being called "freakish obsessive", "Crazy", "troll with no life", "basement-dwelling Brit-twit", "obsessive eccentric", "wart" etc. In other news, I was unaware that ANI was a chat board for recent deaths (WP:AN would seem more appropriate), but the edit I made was based on the fact that I would have assumed a competent and experienced editor who knew of the existence of such a place would have looked to see the situation with the Hoffman article, it was already protected, maybe two hours earlier. I even went on to have a proper group virtual hug with Tryptofish. The fact that Wikipediocracy and Lord Brad (himself) got wind of it it is pure (and meaningless) trivia. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I can't speak for them. If you're anything like me you're also convinced that the rest of the world is wrong. Sure, AN is a better venue for the note, but hey, it's all in the phrasing. And I tell you what, next time I conceive of a problem and I'm at the YMCA, waiting for swim practice to be over, with spotty internet/phone access, I'll post on ANI too--it's the best place to quickly demand attention. It's not those kinds of notices that make this place a less-than-happy place: it's the interminable discussions by editors who write too much on topics that really aren't all that--wait, that's me. Drmies (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, but that has no relation to the ongoing personal attacks that this user is subjecting me to, including calling me "an abusive obsessive", even despite being blocked for personal attacks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Ongoing personal attacks

    Despite the block, User:Tenebrae uses his talk page to continue the personal attacks here, calling me an "an abusive obsessive". Obviously after his previous insults, in the last 24 hours, including "freakish obsessive", "Crazy", "troll with no life", "basement-dwelling Brit-twit", "obsessive eccentric", "wart", this is not unexpected, but it should be considered as this AN/I develops. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I left a note warning that continued poor behavior will lead to an extension of the block. -- John Reaves 19:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, can't you just leave it be? What do you care about what Tenebrae says on their talk page? Drmies (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, why would I not care if another editor who has been blocked for personal attacks calls me "an abusive obsessive"? What are you talking about? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia discussions frequently show that when the negativity is targeted at oneself, it is perceived as more serious than when someone else is the target. --Orlady (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    How useful. I thought being blocked for WP:NPA and then continuing to engage in personal attacks was pretty obvious to gauge, but maybe this is why an/i is a drop zone worth avoiding at all costs. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AirportExpert and copyrighted images

    User:AirportExpert has repeatedly uploaded third party images of airliners copied from websites, without any indication that such use is permissible, and indeed sometimes in the face of clear language claiming copyright. See File:Barq Aviation L-1011.jpg and File:Air Trust il62m.jpg for two current examples, if they have not been deleted; the latter is a repeat. I don't claim any great expertise in image copyright, fair use or non-free use matters, but a pretty serviceable rule of thumb for me has always been, "pictures taken by other people that you find on the internet are presumptively copyrighted and aren't fair game for uploads" (absent an appropriate license or fair use rationale). I've had a couple of exchanges with AE about his liberal re-use of third party images, see my Talk page, but he has continued to upload them. I raise the issue here because either 1) my understanding of these issues is incorrect and I'm overreacting or 2) AE is a repeat infringer and warrants a stronger warning than I seem to be able to supply. (NB: AirportExpert previously contributed under the name of Msloewengart, where additional copyright / licensing issues appear.) JohnInDC (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I do a fair amount of copyright work and your rule is a good working rule. The parenthetical comment is important - I occasionally run across people over-reacting and missing that a site had a CC license for the text, or a Flickr image had an appropriate license, so I just want to emphasize (if others are ready it) that the parenthetical comment is important.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, crap. We had a long-term abuser from years ago who did this as a serial pattern, uploading dozens and dozens of aircraft images they scraped with false credits, across six or seven accounts I found. I can't recall the name... Moonriddengirl, is this ringing a bell? (poke) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Verybluesky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was one of them. I'm looking for the rest. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Aha. ANigg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ANigg/Archive, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of ANigg, Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of ANigg. Account created in 2007 and commenced copyvios in 2008. Seven known socks, plus Verybluesky matched the pattern but the SPI data was too stale by then. Verybluesky was created just a few months after the block of Skyfox265, the last SPI confirmed sock, and duck test passed a match. Reviewing ANigg sock edit patterns, AirportExpert pops like a flashbulb... But is four years since Verybluesky was zapped, having been created in January 2014 ( Special:Log/AirportExpert ). Crap. Assuming it's him again, and not a false positive match, where has he been for the intervening four years, and what myriad damage has he left us from those four years? .... Aaarrrrgggghhhhh.... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Msloewengart, now AirportExpert, was created in December 2013. It should be noted that AirportExpert seems to have no understanding of WP:V/WP:N/WP:RS, if that helps one way or the other. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    ANigg didn't either. I'm going to mail functionaries and ask to what extent SPI results from 2010 may still be accessable to see if there's any match that could be made, or if anyone remembers info that far back. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    AE was himself a sock, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Msloewengart/Archive. That being said, while I don't know a ton about image copyright rules, I do have a decent nose for socks and to me, AE and his predecessor edit with a different tone than the ANigg. Plus, while the subject matter is a bit arcane, it wouldn't altogether surprise me that Wikipedia might draw in more than one clueless / determined airplane anorak. Still a CU might be helpful, if possible - JohnInDC (talk) 11:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Verybluesky seems more like AE - not very communicative, lots of edits and tweaks to articles about charter operations. JohnInDC (talk) 12:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Georgewilliamherbert, did you get a response? Is this being pursued further? :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal information about a subject has been added to an article

    Tis gone. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 23:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    The addition was here and should be deleted from history as this goes beyond any WP:BLP violation I've ever seen. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Removed, and please don't post such issues here (as is advised in the large bold letters in the pink box at the top of the page when you hit edit). It only serves to ensure hundreds (thousands) of additional eyes can view the material before it's removed.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 23:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Report on abuse of public space

    AlchemistOfJoy, this is not ANI material. Make your request on the editor's talk page. Shii (tock) 02:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This is a subpage of a admin and this is clearly abuse of public space: "User:Kevin Gorman/Casino.org".
    The page happened to be protected (by himself) and I would like to propose speedy deletion.
    (The user has been notified and invited to participate on the discussion, on the respective talk page.) -- AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    That appears to be a sandboxed version of an article and has been saved because it is an example of what was created by a paid editor and not an "abuse of public space" (there is no such thing).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    AlchemistOfJoy, have you discussed this with Kevin Gorman? I can't see any evidence of this in your contribution history. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, there was no dialogue. I just notified him of the discussion, bacause the page is protected and I wanted to edit it. Am I getting this wrong? Is this an example of a PR article to show others what not to do?! -- AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to be an example of not bothering to ask a polite question before running off to ANI. Or even looking at the edit history of the page: [58] "Protected User:Kevin Gorman/Casino.org: demo of Wiki-PR's work ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite)))" AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Lightbreather mass depopulating cat

    Scratch that - complaint withdrawn. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Sorry folks gun controversy again. Lightbreather is basically depopulating the entire "Gun Rights Advocates" category. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Lightbreather&action=view I happened to have 3 of these on my watchlist, and her edit summary is "No mention of gun rights" when in fact all 3 that I had (Glenn Reynolds Jeff Cooper James Wesley Rawles are rather famous for their involvement with guns and all three already have mention in their articles. Based on a quick scan of the rest of the list, many of them are well known gun rights advocates. She is not doing any research or reading, just blindly depopulating the cat. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Gaijin just told me about this. Before we get too far along in this process, could everyone please go read the discussion on my talk page with the head WP:GUNS honcho, Mike Searson? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with mike. Kudos on the creation of the new cat, and no objection to moving the people into the subcat. But removing everyone is very disruptive. There is now no way to know that they were in that cat except by looking at the article history of every article in wikipedia, and therefore no way to improve this aspect of the articles. Many of these are EXCEPTIONALLY easily sourceable, or ALREADY had the info in the article. doing mass removals with obviously minimal investigation is highly disruptive, particularly for something not covered by WP:BLPCAT. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Because I've become so accustomed to having my every move questioned, I did it as transparently as I could. FIRST, I added the category "American gun rights advocates" to every article that was ALREADY in the less explicit category "Gun rights advocates." THEN, I went back and examined each one to see if they should stay there. If it was obvious to me that they did not belong, my edit summary did not begin with the word "Bold." (I think I used "bold" three or four times.)
    I should have preferred to do that in one step for each article, but as I said - I've gotten used to intense, unpleasant - and IMO, unwarranted - scrutiny. I did the same for "American gun control advocates."
    Note each category says at the top: Articles about individuals who have actively worked for gun [control or rights]. This category is not intended for people who have merely espoused an opinion. Lightbreather (talk) 02:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If you were bold with one or two articles, and were wrong, its not a big deal. Doing that to a massive number of articles is disruptive. Clearly there was some consensus for this categorization since the categorization had been stable for months/years on these articles. This type of change needs more than a short conversation with one person.Gaijin42 (talk) 03:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I hear you. I think bringing this to ANI was hasty, that's all. Do you plan to keep this open? Lightbreather (talk) 03:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, to be fair, the "one person" (Mike Searson) I had the conversation with, as I stated earlier, is the sheriff (or whatever the WP equivalent is) at the WP firearms project. And he doesn't like me much, so I doubt he was going to let me do anything bad. If this were a paying job, my probationary period would be over by now. I sure would like to get the AGF everyone is supposed to get here. I am a good editor.
    I dont think I have a choice. An admin needs to close it I think. But If you will slow down and build some more consensus, I won't push for any action. Also, it would be helpful to go back and do some review on the ones you have removed already. I perhaps was hasty. I went to you when I saw 3. When I saw 20+ it required a bit more drastic action. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There's not a way to say "Scratch that - I withdraw my complaint"? Lightbreather (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    • The root cause of this complaint was a technical flaw. "There is now no way to know that they were in that cat except by looking at the article history of every article in wikipedia...." I have personally run into the same missing feature, for AfC-related categories: you cannot tell which articles were in a category last month (the view-history button shows edits to the *template-code* not the insertions/removals).
      I realize that AN/I isn't the place to request new mediaWiki features, but in the interests of preventing future AN/I threads like this (which come up related to e.g. edit-wars over musical genre categories like "soul music" or which countries are in "eastern europe"), can somebody here suggest a place for this technical lack to be discussed? Feel free to use my talkpage rather than here, if that is preferable. Thanks for improving wikipedia, folks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    spam only account User:Veemalaysia

    I previously reported this spam only account on the spam noticeboard weeks ago with no action taken. the Veemalaysia (talk · contribs) is back spamming Malaysian location articles with advertising links. LibStar (talk) 07:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Viriditas and the BLP noticeboard

    Things fixed on their own, closing this while it's on a good note.--v/r - TP 07:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Viriditas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has replaced a BLPN post in which they refer to me as being "like a rabid dog", after I removed it on WP:NPA grounds and asked them nicely not to do this. Would somebody uninvolved please have a word with them? Regardless of the merits or otherwise of the user's arguments, it should be possible to make whatever point they may have without making this objectionable comparison. Thanks for anything you can do. --John (talk) 07:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone needs a thicker skin. It's a metaphor… Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC) okay, I suppose it's actually a simile -- but it functions like a metaphor...[reply]
    Out of respect to John, I have removed it. I compared the "putting down" of John's argument to the "putting down" of a rabid dog, which is frankly, uncouth and not my style. So John is partly right, in the sense that it was not nice. The problem, however, was that John did not explain to me why he disliked it, he simply removed my comment from the noticeboard. In the future, it would help greatly if John would attempt to communicate about specific problems with my comments instead of blanket reverting me without an explanation. In any case, I've deleted it. I did not realize when I originally wrote it, then it could be perceived so negatively, but John is correct on that point. Viriditas (talk) 07:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Block review

    I blocked both CensoredScribe and Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for the totality of behavior over the last week above (ANI section on CensoredScribe's categories, now closed/hatted by me, with a community sanction enacted on CensoredScribe). In closing it up, based on the totality of the week's behavior, I blocked both users for 72 hours for disruptive editing.
    Tparis on my talk page suggested this had been unfair to Ryulong. Another editor on R's talk page agreed with the block. I believe both parties were ultimately disruptive, enough to block. However, I would like to invite other admins and editors to comment, and any admin to overturn if you feel I was off base. I still believe the block was good and called for. But I could have misjudged. Input sought. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think they were disruptive in different ways. Ruy was way out of line deleting comments and wikipoodling, and CS was more obvious. Equal blocks for both was the only possible end to that, or else one would have "won" that ridiculous dramafest DP 10:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite frankly, I think it's way too mild. I don't see it mentioned elsewhere, but processing C:CSD this morning, I found Ryulong adding a bogus CSD tag to an article of CensoredScribe's, for instance. Perusing Ryulong's block log, it's not obvious that it's likely to discourage them from engaging in further harassment once the 72 hours is up, but 72 harassment free hours is better than zero. WilyD 10:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Harassment? Have a look at Talk:Lilith#Is Lilith Karina and is Karina a giantess? as just one recent example. Monitoring such obvious problematic editing should result in a barnstar. Johnuniq (talk) 10:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That someone may have been on the right side of an edit war is not an excuse for harassment. WilyD 11:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I oppose Ryulong being blocked at this time. I think that while the block was meant well was just a little off target. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I also oppose the Ryulong block, as Ryulong wasn't as much in the wrong. This looks unpleasantly close to the Wikipedia equivalent of "shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't happy about CensoredScribe adding Category:Mythological sword fighters to El Cid. His block was a good one, not sure about Ruy's block at all. Dougweller (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree 100% with DP, they were disruptive in different ways. Ryulong focuses his/her behavior on individuals he/sher believes are sockpuppets or are habitually disruptive. Asking for an interaction ban when this goes too far, if effective, can get him/her back to productive editing. There is no clean-up. However, CensoredScribe was randomly creating new categories without paying much attention to other editor's concerns with them. Several people have asked CS to stop or slow down and it seemed to have little effect. Now, categories, once created, have to go through a sometimes lengthy and tedious CfD process to be deleted so there can be quite a lot of clean up involving many editors. I'm not saying that all of CS's new categories weren't good, it was more that he/she wasn't paying attention to other editor's asking him/her to be more circumspect, to make categories that fall in line with WP:Categorization guidelines.
    I'm not sure that they deserved equally long blocks. I think Ryulong will respond to admins asking him/her not to edit war with CS but I'm not sure that CS even realizes his/her mistakes because he/she is so convinced that he/she is right and correct in their edits. Liz Read! Talk! 16:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Both of them were out of control over this categorization madness. Neither looked like they had any willingness to stop and discuss. Hopefully the block got their attention. My suggestion would be drop the duration to 24 hours and but add some restrictions. CensoredScribe would be prohibited from adding categories unless they first getting clear consensus on the talk page. Ryulong would be prohibited from removing a category added by CensoredScribe unless they first getting clear consensus on the talk page. Both are futher limited to ONE post per day commenting on the other on any given page (so one post here, one post on article talk page A, one post on article talk page B). This would stop the stupidity but still allow some discussion. Then figure a longer-term solution. Ravensfire (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I oppose Ryulong's block. This is a case of a user with a real competence problem and if I were Ryulong I'd be beating my head against a brick wall too. Here are some examples of CensoredScribe's edits:
    • I mean seriously, folks, we've got an editor who is certainly good intentioned but is just wasting our time. Sorry to say, but I think Ryulong would be justified to follow him around per WP:HARASS, "it must be emphasized that one editor warning another for disruption or incivility is not harassment if the claims are presented civilly, made in good faith and in an attempt to resolve a dispute instead of escalating one. Neither is tracking a user's contributions for policy violations (see above);"--v/r - TP 18:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think there's any question that CensoredScribe is incredibly lacking in WP:COMPETENCE, but I don't think Ryulong is a good selection for someone to wander around cleaning up after them; their long history of getting into bickering is part of the reason, and another is that it is likely to generate more of the trolling puppets from the sockmaster that likes to harass him. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, there seems to be a pretty good rough consensus that Ryulong's block is unwarranted or at least needn't be that long. Are there any objections to reducing the block to time served at this point? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you get "a pretty good rough consensus that Ryulong's block is unwarranted" when so far here there are nearly twice as many people supporting it as opposing it? —Psychonaut (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Are we definitely reading the same discussion? I count 3 explicitly opposing Ryulong's block, 1 call to give Ryulong a barnstar (which I'll count as implictly opposing), a couple others expressing doubt in the block (Liz, Dougweller), 1 to reduce the block to 24 hours, some comments that neither explicitly oppose or endorse, and 1 strongly implicit endorse (WilyD). How did you get your count? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking only about whether the block was warranted, I count Georgewilliamherbert, DangerousPanda, WilyD, Liz, Ravensfire, Lukeno, and myself (the "another editor" referred to in the OP) as speaking in support; Johnuniq, Hell in a Bucket, TParis, and yourself as opposing, and Dougweller as "unsure". So that's 7 to 4, plus 1 undecided. Of users supporting the block, there's one here (plus another one not mentioned here but active on Georgewilliamherbert's talk page) who supports a reduction in the duration. —Psychonaut (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose I'm the "another one" (that's kind of exciting): I support an unblock if such-and-such a request is made; see Gwh's talk page. Last time I looked, a couple of hours ago, I got no indication whatsoever that Ryulong was aware that their edits were deemed very problematic. Drmies (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Truthfully, I have less concern over a three day block and more about post-block behavior. I read CensoredScribe's Talk Page and it looks like some editing restrictions are in place. If CS's errors decrease, I don't think that Ryulong will be stalking him/her. I should add that while most people have focused on CS's creation of new categories, categorization oversight should also include placing articles into and out of categories. Because a small proportion of editors focus on editing categories and with HotCat, one single-minded editor can do a lot of damage in a short period of time if they don't understand Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • In all fairness, Ryulong responded in the same manner as the last two blocks in December,[66] almost got him an ANI in January. I think the 24 hour and the 3 day block in lieu of a much harsher Arbitration Enforcement block is at this point a sign of amazing resistance because the time prior to that was also waived because he was blocked during that same exact period. Last I checked, going against explicit sanctions by Arb Com is not something dependent on being blocked for a different matter. The fact its so short on the back end of so many recent blocks shows mercy and that two wrongs do not make a right. And its almost over already. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Pigsonthewing and BLP

    I am concerned with Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) and his view of BLP. He has been creating a whole heap of unreferenced BLPs, examples include Csaba Sógor, Franck Proust and María Muñiz de Urquiza. All three articles are now referenced - but the references have been added by other users. Pigsonthewing seems to be on some kind of mission to churn out as many of these poor, BLP-violating articles as possible, and I view his editing pattern in this regard as disruptive as he seems to be expecting others to clean up after him. Despite me raising the matter at his talk page 48 hours ago, he continues, with the latest, on Salvatore Caronna, containing one 'reference' so poor that it is basically unreferenced. As a minor issue, you will also note many of the articles containing basic formatting errors, further evidencing that Pigsonthewing shows little care for the articles he is creating. My request for him to add a basic reference (something as simple as a bare URL link to an online biography) to the article before clicking 'save' does not seem onerous. GiantSnowman 17:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • For such an experienced Wikipedian, these actions are very troubling. I think the creations are linked to a message on his userpage; "I am working on the European Parliament project over the next five days and shall have limited opportunity to edit here." My guess is that he is just churning these out and intending to come and fix them later, but that doesn't sit well with BLP at all. I've read his comments in his talk page discussion, and this is incredibly concerning; it's an atrocious response to a genuine concern, and shows a tremendous lack of interest in following policy. I wonder if Pigsonthewing has ever read WP:BLP? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have a tremendously low opinion of unsourced articles (I am in favor of deleting them immediately, regardless of subject matter), and an even lower opinion of people that create unsourced articles (with the caveat that if the creator has only been here for a week, they might not know better). Now that he is aware that users consider this a problem, and now that we know that he doesn't intend on handling the issue constructively, I recommend that Pigsonthewing be blocked for disruption if he creates another unsourced BLP article. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't create something like this but to call it a BLP violation is putting it a bit strongly; the first two Google hits confirm. Drmies (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • While not a "violation violation", the fact is that all new BLP articles are required to be sourced, full stop; while in that particular article's case you could say it's technically sourced, the other three linked in the OP don't even have that and would be instantly - and justifiably - {{Blpprod}}ded. While I can understand Andy's desire to have all European MPs bluelinked - and we should - creating substubs like that is...inexplicable. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, it's an important requirement they be sourced and concerning her is not taking the time to do so. Looking through it's probably best to merge these all into a list, as most don't appear to have anything else worth saying (i.e. a biography) and parroting a self-written bio is probably not a good idea. --Errant (chat!) 23:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The project is Wiki Loves Parliaments / European Parliament:
    "We now have the opportunity to visit the European Parliament in Strasbourg in February and perform a photography and editing project for the 764 MEPs there. In particular as the next elections for the European Parliament are upcoming in May, these new articles and photos are under a strong focus of the public."
    If these articles are going to be "a strong focus of the public", the public isn't going to get much information from these sub-stubs. But maybe the MEPs who are up for re-election (or their aides) will nip in and fill them out? The prospect of getting their own articles in Wikipedia before the elections may have helped spur the MEPs to grant access for this project. Nothing wrong with that per se, but surely the requirement isn't to create an article literally within 30 minutes of taking the MEP's picture as was the case here? I don't understand the rush. Voceditenore (talk) 11:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm struggling to see how this post is actionable. Certainly you can't be calling for administrative sanctions against someone for creating stub BLPs? If you see one floating out there without references, prod it and it will be deleted per policy. My impression is that these are being created with high likelihood that they will be fleshed out in the short term. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tbrambo

    Is on a crusade to add material about an Irish performer calling others homophobic, where there is an ongoing discussion at WP:BLP/N at Wikipedia:BLP/N#Irish_homophobia_controversy.2C_3_biographies_that_need_oversight

    This user specifically states:

    The controversy, which is the entire purpose of the article, is that individuals who promote discrimination against homosexuals in Ireland were able to exploit Irelands anti-defamation laws in order to censor Rory O'Neill and get a cash settlement from RTÉ. THAT is the controversy!!! So please DO NOT change the article to read otherwise!!!!!!!. Whenever this issue has been documented in the press or discussed at a governmental level it has always been about the controversial decision of RTÉ to censor O'Neill and give money to the claimants. So we should all be able to see why it is that that is the controversy worth documenting here on wikipedia. If Collect is determined from keeping the article from reading as such, then Collect must have a personal agenda to keep the controversy away from John Waters. But unfortunately it is not up to Collect to decide something like that.
    The issue is over homophobia so it should be addressed as such for all involved. Those involved are Panti, John Waters, and Breda O'Brien. If someone is trying to conceal the fact that this is an issue over homophobia accusations, it should be easy to see that person's agenda. If someone is trying to re-word articles to avoid the word homophobia, when the word homophobia is CENTRAL to the entire event, then it goes without saying, that that person is intent upon concealing information vital to the article. Homophobia is the central element of the entire events with which Panti, John Waters, and Breda O'Brien are concerned so it should be addressed as such

    The edits at [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], etc. show a clear obsession and desire to label living persons as homophobic, viewing it as something of an obligation to so label living persons, and decrying WP:BLP as not applying to such accusations. Collect (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The issue of individuals being called homophobic is CENTRAL to the article. Tbrambo (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Lukeno94 have you not read any of the citations? Have you not taken the time to educate yourself on the fundamental nature of this controversy and why it is being written about in the first place? Of course they have to be called "homophobe" THAT'S WHAT THE ENTIRE CONTROVERSY IS ABOUT!!! The controversy of Panti, John Waters, Breda O'Brien, and Iona Institute is about the fact that they were called homophobic, O'Neill was censored, they were paid money and then A LOT of people, including individuals in the Irish Government, European Government, and general public, though this was a really controversial thing. So tell me WHY should homophobia not be used in these articles, when the entire article is about them being called homophobic?? This is CRAZY!!!! Tbrambo (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    This user is determined to avoid the word homophobia when concerning John Waters and Breda O'Brien. User seems to have a personal agenda to water-down the documentation even though the central theme of the controversy is about homophobia, censorship of comments about homophobia, and monetary payouts to individuals that are accused of homophobia. Tbrambo (Tbrambo) 18:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    (response to original post by Tbrambo findable in history) I am damn well concerned that using any words which are considered to be a contentious claim about any living person in a Wikipedia article are subject to WP:BLP as policy. Where you have stated that your primary concern is drawing attention to homophobia from specific living persons, I damn well disagree with that interpretation of the policy stated at WP:BLP. Your edits show yur preternatural position thereon. That you feel the "monetary payments" to "homophobes" must be exposed in some way is further evidence for my post above. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Read WP:BLP, Tbrambo, and then you will see how far out of line your ranting is. Either start editing in line with it, or risk being blocked indefinitely. No article should ever be entirely about someone being homophobic, and if it is, then it could qualify for speedy deletion as an attack page. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The material Collect is referring to is about an extremely large controversy in Ireland that has spilled into street protests, Debates in Parliament as well as the senate and mentions in the European parliament. Collect has been busy deleting all mentions of any protests about the payment, or otherwise blanking entire sections about the very highly covered incident. For example, collect blanked this section: [82] despite it being mostly well sourced and despite at least 200 sources dedicated to the topic here all of which are in depth: [83] and the text being easily sourced multiple times over if desired. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Reporting myself for possible 1RR violation on an Arab-Israeli conflict page

    No violation. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I've just made 4 deletions at Kahanism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and only then sawa at Talk:Kahanism "All articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, are under WP:1RR". I removed a blacklist url, some material sourced to a copy of a letter and an image of an envelope[84] that was clearly unacceptably sourced, some material with a citation needed dated March 2007 which mentioned a living person, and in my 4th revert the template about the blacklisted url. Have I thus violated the active arbitration remedies on that page and do I need to self-revert? And is the talk page template up to date? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you're fine, as the edits were consecutive and thus count as only a single revert. From WP:3RR: A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert..— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Corrector11744

    Hi, I was hoping to get other eyes on this. While acting in a reviewer capacity, I reverted a religious demographics table submitted by editor Corrector11744 here to an article on Moradabad. I rejected the table for being improperly sourced--it uses another Wikipedia article as a reference. I learned that the table had been removed a few minutes earlier by Deor, also for being unsourced. A random IP 103.18.72.81 tried to revert my edit, but I took care of that. Assuming good faith, I looked at the Demographics of India article and couldn't find any mention of Moradabad. I even tried to find the religious distributions at the Census of India, for example here, but I couldn't track down those data. I left a note on the user's page, but then of course the user ignored the notice and added more unsourced religious demographic tables to articles. Again, I couldn't find these regions mentioned in the Demographics article. Deor reverted these tables, and Corector11744 re-reverted without explanation or improvement of sources. My primary purpose for this report is to ask admins to look into this and maybe offer the user some guidance, or if it's clear that the edits are disruptive, that the editor be discouraged from continuing. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    (Responding to a post on my talk page by Cyphoidbomb.) People's adding unsourced information, usually in graphic form, about the religious demographics of Indian towns is a very common occurrence. I usually delete it when I see it, as I've never been able to find such information in authoritative sources (and specifically in Indian census data) and it seems to have the potential for contentiousness. Deor (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've undone a few of these. THe editor was also adding to a number of similar tables added by 101.218.185.95 (talk · contribs) last October. Dougweller (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Mr. @Dougweller:! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Hiding a BLP violation

    Dealt with. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Revdel'd. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    A single purpose account posted [this unsourced edit] that I would consider a BLP violation and should probably be hidden. I have reverted the edit. I don't know how to hide an edit and probably don't have the authority to do it anyhow. Trackinfo (talk) 02:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I revision deleted it, but in the future, please consider the advice at Wikipedia:Revdel#How_to_request_Revision_Deletion on why it is inadvisable to post such requests on a noticeboard. Monty845 02:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Ban proposal for User:Katrina Villegas

    As per Callanecc's suggestion I thought of bringing this issue up here. I know it wasn't that long since Katrina started posting and copy-pasting hoax articles of Filipino child actors, but this is eventually becoming a nuisance, given his persistent and relentless efforts at recreating and spawning faked articles. Blake Gripling (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Support - Having had to perform unnecessary good-faith research until it occurred to me that this might be a sock jobber, I would support a ban so that future victims could revert all edits instead of having to go through requisite good faith welcomes, and good faith explanations for why you deleted their hoax articles, and good faith warnings, and good faith detailed reportings at AIV or SPI... Because we all spend far more time getting our "this person is an asshole, and here's the proof" case together than the sockpuppet spends committing their nonsense over and over again. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Agreed on that, as that would save time with knowing what's going on. Not to mention that since this is a regional, Philippine-centric subject, and relatively few people from outside the country knows the ins and outs when it comes to local showbiz, it would be of significant benefit for other users and admins to be informed about Kat's modus operandi. Blake Gripling (talk) 07:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    personal attacks on User:Drmies talk page

    Semi'd and revdel'd before I was even awake DP 09:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    An IP-hopping editor is making personal attacks at User talk:Drmies. Please semi-protect the page and consider a range-block for the IP. GabrielF (talk) 07:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Inappropriate AFD bundling at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Definitions of pogrom (2nd nomination)

    Relevant page:

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Definitions of pogrom (2nd nomination) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Relevant user:

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

    Summary:

    Four days after Definitions of pogrom was nominated for deletion, and after a good deal of discussion, Oncenawhile bundled Definitions of fascism, Definitions of logic and Genocide definitions into the AFD.[85] While I personally believe this is a disruptive nomination per WP:POINT, my main concern is that having three unrelated articles in the original nomination is confusing and highly inappropriate this late into the discussion, especially given that the pogrom discussion centres in large part on whether it's a POV fork. I'm requesting that an admin move the other three pages to a separate AFD discussion so that the two discussions don't interfere with each other, or whatever other actions s/he feels appropriate to deal with the situation. Wieno (talk) 08:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Not really something for ANI. The closing admin (preferably) will decide what happens when the time comes. Might I also add this: Suggest this editor be investigated: Very suspicious editing history. Had made 77 edits in 7 years. Yet suddenly pops up to participate here and in another deletion discussion by the same nominator here. Then immedietaly after being accused at the other AfD, makes 100+ edits in seven hours (more than he had made in the preceding seven years) like some kind of pro editor. Something is very fishy. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC) Ansh666 08:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I have WP:BOLDly NAC-closed the addition of articles to an AFD nomination roughly halfway through the standard discussion period, well after extensive discussion had occurred. Such additions were plainly inappropriate. It is telling that Oncenawhile dis not even properly log those "nominations", nor did they notify the article creators or those who had commented in the discussion previously. It appears their intent was to muddy the waters in a discussion where consensus against their position was emerging. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hullaballoo, I wrote clearly that i will "leave it to other editors to decide whether we are near enough to the start here", since the guidance at MULTIAFD is not specific as to how to interpret "near the start" (FYI I will propose an amendment at WP:MULTIAFD).
    I am therefore fine with your interpretation as to it being too late, but i am not at all happy with your questioning of my motives. I explained my reasoning very clearly on the page.
    How would you respond if i started questioning your motives here?
    I can tell you how i feel, and that is that you have characterised my action in a grossly oversimplistic and negative fashion, when in practice I considered many angles to it which were intended to create a heathier debate. So I found your gratuitous speculation rude and disrespectful.
    Oncenawhile (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sitush plus a group is possibly trying to put communities in India to a fight

    No evidence of actual misbehaviour has been presented. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The many edits on this page are without signatures from unknown people whose intentions are obviously provocative. Also User:Sitush is found editing posting comments here which has potentials to put people from Vishwakarma_(caste) and other communities into trouble. A clear example of this behavior can be seen over here Talk:Adi_Shankara where he has cited "That claim has been pushed tendentiously on Wikipedia by self-identified community members, usually by citing Roberts, and we really do need to put a stop to this." He is actually requesting people on the talk page to revolt against Visvakarmas? What was User:Sitush's intentions in writing this? How did he make up his mind on what was correct? And why is he provoking people who are editing that page? I have put a remark about the same so readers understand what is going on here if at all they reach the talk page. Request to check the same. [86] Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 09:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:BOOMERANG. Myself and MatthewVanitas (talk · contribs) have been trying to resolve some severe issues relating to WP:TE, WP:CIR and WP:POV for well over six months now. At the core of those issues has been the person reporting above, together with various other people who refer to the Vishwakarma (caste) as "we", "us" etc. Most of the dispute, which relates to sourcing and to the verifiability of a claim to Brahmin status that is made by the Vishwakarma community but not accepted by almost everyone else, has taken place at Talk:Vishwakarma (caste). Some people who are new to the dispute - Cyphoidbomb (talk · contribs), JamesBWatson (talk · contribs) and DougWeller (talk · contribs) - have recently been commenting in this thread (which I have deliberately kept out of) but basically Ganesh and others who come and go simply fail to understand. This may in part by a language issue - Ganesh has certainly misunderstood me in the diff that he raises here, although generally he seems capable of communicating well in English ... and certainly, to my shame, 100% better than I can do in any of the Indic languages. - Sitush (talk) 09:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sitush I agree you have been very helpful trying to explain etc. Please explain what you did on Talk:Adi_Shankara's page. Was that a part of explaining me as well? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 09:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sitush wrote "and we really do need to put a stop to this." who are "we" here? why is he provoking? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 10:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    My point of 26 September was that the tendentious efforts of yourself and others who appear to be of the Vishwakarma community to effect the inclusion of unnecessary and/or unbalanced statements and sources needed to be curtailed. It had gone on long enough then and, if proof of tendentiousness is needed, it seems from this report that you are still pursuing it but by use of a different angle Why, five months on, have you suddenly mentioned this? You and Gopalan Acharya (talk · contribs) both saw it at the time.
    Nowhere have I tried to set any community against another: that is a figment of your imagination, presumably based on the fact that such things, although still commonplace in India, are illegal there. I can't count the number of times I've seen people raise the issue when they've lost the real argument: Wikipedia is not censored and should reflect the sources with due weight, as has been explained to you on umpteen occasions. Your random claims of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry, such as in the recent talk page thread that I link above, are a further demonstration of your lack of clue, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 10:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That is because Gopalan Acharya (talk · contribs) is also a possible meatpuppet of this same group. Even this account is under my current suspicion. Possibly you all planted it. But I don't know how to cross check these. So, as of now I do not know. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 10:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sitush I would want you to put some light on this--> Sitush wrote "and we really do need to put a stop to this." who are "we" here? why is he provoking? Why did you do this? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 10:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The Wikipedia community need to put a stop you the tendentious attempts to include completely unsuitable sources and statements. I think that is clear if you read my entire message rather than cherrypicking. - Sitush (talk) 10:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "completely unsuitable sources and statements" how did you know they are "unsuitable sources" almost all of them? How do you know? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Also did I write to you in person about there being a danger to life?? You wrote that statement only after that? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 10:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you know Vishwakarmas were attacked? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 10:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this style of writing that Sitush adopts acceptable to the entire wiki community? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 10:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that you have failed to provide any actual evidence that Sitush has done anything wrong, why not? AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is. Ganesh, are you at all reading any of the answers to your questions and the explanations of the things you misunderstand, here and on Talk:Vishwakarma_(caste)? Perhaps it's time we had a separate noticeboard for clueless complaints about Sitush. Bishonen | talk 11:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
    (edit conflict) I'm sorry, Ganesh, but I've had enough of dealing with you. Your inability to understand how Wikipedia works long preceded the statement that you are now calling into question and which formed part of a detailed critique of a source favoured by you. I'll let others try to explain the behavioural issues, if they see fit. Frankly, I think you are heading towards a topic ban from Vishwakarma and Brahmin-related articles. - Sitush (talk) 11:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "and we really do need to put a stop to this." is not an evidence User:AndyTheGrump?Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 11:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sitush I did not ask you to favor, but you were persistently removing sources and making me talk over the talk page. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 11:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Since it endangered lives I wrote to you in person... and asked you to get things clarified over emails instead? Didn't I? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 11:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    All wiki needed were sources which contained the references. You could have said "Acceptable", "Unacceptable" over email itself. But you insisted me to talk instead. Why was that? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 11:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    A. You insisted me to come over talk page and discuss B. You are citing I have been tendentious? Please explain? I have been doing what you were asking me. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 11:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and now he's making you talk all over ANI. Unless someone would like to close this meritless grievance? Bishonen | talk 11:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Sitush wrote to me the following "Ganesh, I would prefer it if you do not email me regarding the Vishwakarma Brahmin claim. You can say anything that you want to say on the article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 11:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ganesh_J._Acharya/Archive_1&oldid=593821898#Emailing_me Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not meatpuppet Sitush (talk · contribs) Ganesh J. Acharya (talk · contribs) both are two side of the coin, please edit article with independent view, i was born in vishwakarma community but i am left free thinker, first of Vishwakarma is not caste that history is explained well in JSTOR by gorge Vargese K and brahmin is not this bunch of priests castes brahmin means "Designer". they born in every caste and religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopalan Acharya (talk • contribs) 11:25, 7 February 2014‎

    User:Richard Daft and serial evasion of community-wide WP:BAN

    The subject speaks for itself and I'm sure many admins are already familiar with the Daft saga and its impact on WP:CRIC and the site generally. Two things to be said first: one, if this is not the right forum, please direct me; secondly, I do not intend to keep this account open for long as I prefer the privacy of IP editing but I think an account is needed to fight a troll like Daft effectively.

    Okay, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft/Archive for recent activity (cases 1.37 to 1.41 starting 27 Dec 2013). You will note if you care to look through the CDTPP contribs that Daft got away with that account for a long time because he behaved himself (for a while at least) and because some in CRIC decided to forgive him and make him welcome. However, leopards and their spots. In due course we were back to normality and especially so in the case of 86.138.166.244 where these diffs are totally unacceptable and show Daft for what he is: see abuse in this diff and this diff towards User:Nedrutland. Again in this diff and this diff and on User talk:86.138.166.244 where abuse to User:331dot continued.

    Having seen those edits and realising that Daft is continuing to flaunt his ban and get away with it, I decided to act myself. I will point out that I have worked on CRIC as IP for a long time and have encountered Daft before so there is history and I am sick of his antics and his inflated view of himself. He makes grandiose claims to be the "most expert cricket writer on the site" and yet his "good edits" can be summarised at best as mere WP:TRIVIA or trite POV. Take this input for example. See how typically incompetent the edit is and then ask yourself if anyone really needs to know that the Earl of Winchilsea was 61 when he played in a minor cricket match in 1814!? As I say, that is Daft's idea of "good editing". Bad enough but what really annoyed me was his habitual condescending abuse towards Nedrutland and 331dot highlighted above. I decided to implement the terms of WP:BMB and remove all of Daft's input, "good" as well as bad, and reawaken the CRIC members to the problem. Users like Nedrutland and 331dot are not members of CRIC (at least, I don't think they are) and they should not be having to clear up a mess that is largely CRIC's doing. Why is it CRIC's doing? Because certain people in CRIC have failed to act against Daft in compliance with site policy and have even offered him sympathy and a safe haven.

    While I was removing the Daft inputs, I found this diff and this diff where Daft had done his usual by running from WT:CRIC to user talk pages and, as usual, the person he ran to was User:Johnlp. Now see this diff] whereby Johnlp politely refused to have Daft removed from his talk page. This was, fair enough, before TYPGTTO was blocked by the Daft SPI but the posts are still there and so is this one, unsigned as usual, though Johnlp does expect "peremptory deletion". Checking his talk page, I see that has already happened per this action by User:Black Kite in Dec 2012 (the 2012 Daft posts and Black Kite's erasure of them were all, well, erased at the time). That sets a precedent where Johnlp is concerned.

    Without wishing to annoy Johnlp who is a top class editor and a good writer, I believe the admins need to instruct him forcibly if necessary about WP:BAN and WP:BMB. Daft sees him as a sympathiser, with some reason it must be said, and his talk page as a safe haven. Take Johnlp out of the equation and Daft has nowhere to go. If he appears on WT:CRIC, someone will revert sooner or later. If he attacks an article, the chances are that it will be on someone's watchlist. I strongly recommend that the Daft edits now on Johnlp's page are removed and that the page is then protected, regardless of the owner's view on that. His only possible complaint could be that bona fide IPs will be unable to write to him but, his page history shows that he hasn't received any IP posts apart from Daft in the last three years, so protection will not impact him in the slightest while it does keep Daft away.

    I would also ask that an admin places a notice on WT:CRIC asking members to be vigilant and to use WP:RBI whenever they spot anything that Daft has done, citing WP:BAN or WP:BMB as their reason for reverting.

    Finally, there is one Daft edit I couldn't remove as the page is locked and the owner has gone. Could you please remove that one too to complete the job, especially as it insults two admins User:The Rambling Man (I think) and User: Dweller. Sorry this has been a long post. Thank you very much. HCCC14 (talk) 08:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Just wanted to clarify that I know nothing about what HCCC14 describes above other than my brief interaction with the IP address mentioned. As such I am unable to comment on any other aspect of this matter. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fair enough but as I have mentioned you, it was only polite to let you know. Thanks again. HCCC14 (talk) 09:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    A notice seems to have been placed on WP:CRIC to watch for this guy, and the latest socks are blocked. Is further action needed here? As an aside, re: "the privacy of IP editing", how exactly is editing in a such a way that allows you to be geolocated more private than editing from a registered account? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I accept that as far as it goes except that I strongly recommend action on User talk:Johnlp to remove the Daft posts and then protect the page to prevent more being placed there. As I say, this will take away Daft's "safe house" and leave him with nowhere to go. By refusing to remove Daft posts, Johnlp is assisting Daft to evade his ban.
    Re your aside, IP addresses can be very quickly changed and I don't care who knows I live in the Midlands. So do several million others. Just checked my current IP and it geolocates to a place that is over two hours drive away in another county! But if you have an account you're stuck with it and no escape from unwanted attention. Pros and cons but I like IP. And so does Mr Wales according to one of his public pronouncements. :-) HCCC14 (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:GaelanClark – bad behaviour

    Resolved: Textbook NPA, blocked. m.o.p 13:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    GaelanClark is trying to edit-war some changes into Traditional Chinese medicine, accompanied by attacks on editors:

    Blocked indefinitely. Personal attacks are an issue, but this was also quite concerning. m.o.p 13:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=594386881"