Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Edit-warring, ownership and censorship by editor Director on the article "Jews and Communism"

I realise it is only a few days since Jews and Communism was last the subject of a discussion here but things nave not improved there,quite the contrary. User Director repeatedly reverts anything that does not meet his approval, often leaving edit summaries along the lines of "achieve consensus" or "discuss on talk page" but there is little point in doing that since the only result will be that he will say something along the lines of "I am opposed" so therefore there is no consensus as far as he is concerned and he will put the article back to his version. Here are his reverts of this last week - Lots of arguments going on about whether to call Karl Marx Jewish, Director insists that his version is the only acceptable one and it must include a statement about his being descended from rabbis - he reverts Pharos -[1] - reverts me with an edit summary "I'm sorry, but I don't see it." [2], reverts user Galassi [3], reverts Galassi again [4], reverts Izak [5], reverts Soman [6], not exactly a revert but re -inserts material removed by Soman [7], reverts Galassi [8], reverts me [9]. The last straw for me, and why I reluctantly come to this massive waste of time board, is that editor Pharos went to a lot of trouble to revise some highly disputed content, listening to what other editors had said, expanded the material and moved it to an appropriate place and Director removed it all, every word.[10] On the talk page he said "I oppose"it, which he obviously believes is a good enough reason why it should not be in the article.[11] Director stated earlier today on the talk page that he believes himself to be facing Americans who have a different understanding of communism than the rest of the world and that he is engaged in a struggle for WP articles to "liberate (themselves) from the shadow of the circus that is American politics."[12] Director has advised editor Galassi to "go away"[13] and to me has suggested that I "take (my) political POV elsewhere"[14]. He has his supporters on the article, he is not the only one reverting others, I have done it myself, there are definitely two very entrenched "sides" on this highly contentious article, but Director refuses to move towards any consensus or compromise. There are some editors such as Pharos and Soman who are "in the middle" of the two sides, one might say, and try to accommodate all views, but Director will censor them too. I believe Director should be prohibited from editing this article, his approach is directly opposite to WP ideas of consensus. I ask that at least he should receive a warning.Smeat75 (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Having looked at the article's revision history, it looks at though the difficult POV-pusher is Smeat75 (though he/she is not alone).

This seems to be a typical edit by Smeat75 and his/her allies.[15] It seeks to erase Karl Marx's Jewishness! The edit summary is "revise to neutral version"!

After Galassi reinserted it, Iryna Harpy reverted it again, saying "Reverted 1 edit by Galassi (talk): Rv Not only are the refs contentious, but have turned the lead into a non-lead WP:POV travesty. See talk page."

Maybe Smeat75 should be given a topic ban.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. I see a tendency by a tag-team of Direktor and Producer to insinuate that Communism is a Jewish invention. Both of them refuse to seek consensus, and cherrypick quotes to push a POV, disregarding the errors in citations which would normally disqualify these citations as RS.--Galassi (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Galassi disagrees? Well, Galassi, seeing as how you're the resident edit-warring proxy for Smeat75, with virtually no involvement on the talkpage, pardon me if I don't collapse out of shock.

Galassi's involvement on the article cann be summed up entirely as "revert Director whenever you see him editing". -- Director (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Toddy1 above - that was cited to a RS that said Karl Marx was a baptized Lutheran and I am far from the only one saying that on the talk page. I kept saying that sentence about Marx should not be in the lead because it was not discussed in the article, against WP:LEAD. Anyway that doesn't matter as Pharos did a lot of work and expanded the Marx information to a neutral and accurate version which I would certainly not have quarreled with, moved it out of the lead and into the body of the article and Director reverted every word, that is why I am here.Smeat75 (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Smeat75, you have conveniently omitted the fact that you'd blanked other RS and overwritten it with as simplistic statement regarding Marx's Lutheran baptism, plus added that he was a 'classic antisemite' based on a single source all compressed into a single sentence. The source for the 'antisemite' allegation was WP:CHERRY based on this Professor of law's credibility having been established within the scope of the area of law, whereas the RS you selected was essentially a personal opinion piece by him which has been widely criticised.

I am in agreement with Toddy1's evaluation. You seem incapable of being able to approach the subject matter in a rational manner, and have demonstrated no interest in even attempting to. You persist in pointing your finger at anyone who doesn't agree with you as being part of a conspiracy of some sort or another, even where there has been no working relationship between contributors prior the recent outbreak of disparate interest groups/POV pushers. I am of the serious opinion that you should be topic banned. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Smeat75 has no regard whatsoever for discussion or consensus, he just thinks those who revert his content blanking should be banned from annoying him. I mean, if he posts enough sections on ANI demanding his opponents be removed from his presence, someone's bound to sanction them, right? I imagine after this, it'll be the turn of Pluto2012, Iryna Harpy, Producer, and all the rest who are opposed to his (frankly nonsensical) edits. Really though, this is basically Smeat75 "dealing" with his inability to push his edits into the article. Neither discussion nor edit-warring helped, how about another "Ban Director!" section? -- Director (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The reason why I brought this here is because you removed painstaking, highly excellent sourced content added by Pharos, not me.[16]. You already tried, and failed, to get USChick, Galassi, Izak and others removed from editing the article, you will not even allow compromises to be made by editors like Pharos who are "in the middle". Smeat75 (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The edit that was removed was introduced without consensus, amid active opposition on the talkpage. The posting editor didn't seem to read the discussion and/or didn't care that elaborating on that topic is opposed on grounds of being miles outside the scope.

I'm sure Pharos was merely doing what he thought was best for resolving the matter, i.e. "resolve the issue by elaborating on it in enough detail". Unfortunately, elaborating on the issue in detail takes us outside the scope. The best thing to do is to leave it out. -- Director (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Note for an admin- I got an edit conflict which I tried to fix and think I inadvertently removed a couple of other comments. I don't know how to try to fix that without possibly messing things up more, can someone look into that. ThanksSmeat75 (talk) 19:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

(Restore EC removed comment) I do not see a consensus for the changes noted by Smeat75. I suggest an RFC be opened, and Smeat75 consider WP:DEADLINE. JoeSperrazza (talk) 2:56 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Further comment: This edit summary [17] is misleading at best. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, I have to state that the irony of Smeat75's ANI title is too much to keep a straight face over. Given the recent ANI-turned-fiasco over this same article where he declared, "Jews and Communism" is a terrible, terrible article, blatant anti-Semitism imo, unfortunately I did not know about it when it was proposed for deletion, not that it would have made any difference I suppose, but admins are not going to do anything about that. As the AfD failed, there is nothing to do but try to improve the article, hopefully this thread will have brought the article to the attention of others as it did me..., his/her purported interest in 'improving' the article smacks of disingenuousness. My involvement in the article has been limited to keeping an eye out for POV pushes, and I believe I've clearly stated my position more than once as to Smeat75's interest as a WP:COI desire to redact the article into oblivion[18]. The nature of changes to the lead alone were pure POV turning the article into a parody of an encyclopaedic entry per my responses on the talk page [19].

JoeSperrazza, while I can appreciate that you are a neutral editor, I think you may see my concern with envisaging a reasonable, rational RfC if you take a look at the very, very recent ANI, and at the article's corresponding talk page. An RfC can only be viable where those seeking consensus are genuinely interested in developing a good and informative article are the mainstay of such an RfC. Holding an RfC at this point in time will only encourage yet more protracted, convoluted and plain disruptive tracts of WP:IDONTLIKEIT by interest groups antithetical to the existence of the article intent on wearing down good faith contributors. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Expanding on that. Smeat consistently projects onto other users as claiming nonsense like the "first the Jews killed Christ then they killed Christ's representative on earth, the Tsar" [20] and states that users like Altenmann (talk · contribs) and I promote extremist "memes" and push a "straightforward anti-Semitic slur". [21][22] He criticizes others for their wording of sourced information yet his only alternative to throw it straight out the window based on him feeling "disturbed". [23] Smeat clearly lacks the ability to refrain from such absurd behavior and continues to try to associate other users with malicious statements or views in an effort to portray them as anti-semites and get his way. He even employs legal rhetoric and claims that he's stopping users from pushing "libel". [24] --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 09:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

In this edit Smeat75 changed two posts by DIREKTOR, and deleted one by JoeSperrazza and one by Toddy1. He said at 19:48, 19 April 2014 that this was due to an edit conflict. I do not see how that can be true. DIREKTOR you may wish to restore your posts to what they were before Smeat75 changed them.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Well it was due to me trying to fix something that had happened due to an edit conflict and if I had been trying to do something malicious I don't think I would come back to the page and leave a note to say I accidentally removed some comments, can someone look into it.Smeat75 (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Have you thought of looking at the diff, and changing things back?--Toddy1 (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I did look at it and decided that I did not trust myself not to mess things up even more if I tried to change it back, which is why I left a note asking an admin to look into it.Smeat75 (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I entirely agree with Smeat75. If you look at the article's history page, it's hard not to see the systematic censorship by Director. One example is the section titled "Critical reception and conspiracy theories" discussing analysts of antisemitic conspiracy theories related to the concept of 'Jews and Communism'. Director unjustifiably deleted links and] information from that section, most specifically Template:Antisemitism which he deleted multiple times here, here, and here, claiming the article has to be "part of a series on antisemitism" in order to be included, which every experienced editor (an he's one) knows is wrong, and I have even explained that the article is clearly related to the subject and it's exactly the right place for its use. Yambaram (talk) 12:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Director just continues repeatedly reverting others' contributions (not by me, I have had more than I can stand at that article for a while) with edit summaries such as "opposed to this" - reverts sourced material by Soman - [25] by Soman again - [26] and again [27] - reverts Pharos [28] and pays no attention to any discussion on the talk page (not from me there either in the last few days).Smeat75 (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, reverts another user today [29] with an edit summary "Rv. This recent addition ... is opposed." - translation, Director does not approve of it. "Discuss your edit on talk please." - there would not be any point in doing that, if Director answered at all, he would only say it was not going to be allowed. Why is he permitted to control the content of the article in this way?Smeat75 (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Smeat I'm sympathetic to some of your concerns regarding this article. However, this seems to be a content dispute. Also it appears to me that the very existence of this article bothers you. I understand that too, but apparently that has also been dealt with. Coretheapple (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see any admin action helping the conditions over there, although if the edit warring continues I would consider locking the article so they can either discuss it or do nothing. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that, as in a lot of situations, the article simply needs more eyes focused on it. I have to say that I was surprised the article exists, and after reading it I am even more surprised. It is the kind of article that brings Wikipedia into disrepute. But I just simply am not seeing a user conduct issue here, as far as I can see. Perhaps I've missed it. No, to me there is a deeper problem, which is that one has an article at all of this kind. I thought the top illustration was especially repugnant. Coretheapple (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I've just tagged the article for neutrality, as I feel that is the principal problem with the article. Let's see what happens now. I have never edited this article before, so I don't know what the dynamics are. I do know that there is a clear neutrality issue that has not been very clearly articulated. If there are indeed user conduct issues, perhaps they will now emerge. If not, they won't.Coretheapple (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

While I will not plead ignorance to why there are contributors who are overly sensitised to the the subject matter of the topic, Coretheapple, I'm having difficulty in understanding what you are trying to express by stating, "I was surprised the article exists... ... It is the kind of article that brings Wikipedia into disrepute." (sic) There is certainly no lack of research to suggest that it doesn't meet WP:GNG. The only arguments against its existence I've found (including attempts to delete it over the years) are based on perception of communism as being evil, plus censorship based on such articles touching on ticklish topics.

Examining different groups, including the identification of high profile names and brilliant minds behind communism as political/economic/philosophical theory, as being people of Jewish descent (who are still the principal thinkers with whom contemporary, active political parties who have never broken their ties) is less spurious than a ponderous number of Wikipedia articles. If there is any semblance of 'disrepute' in question, I would suggest that it is English Wikipedia's predominant bent towards 'Capitalism → (Representative) Democracy → Not corrupt → Great human rights record → Good vs Communism → Totalitarianism → Corruption → Bad human rights record → Evil' that stands accused of being irrational. Following this line of perception leads to equally badly thought out and emotive reactions as seeing this article as being about 'commies' of Jewish descent → anti-Semitism. What brings Wikipedia into disrepute is knee-jerk reaction self-censorship. Working of the assumption that the article in question is, according to preconceived misinformation and misconceptions about political theory, ipso facto anti-Semitic doesn't even aspire to have anything to do with rational thinking. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by referring to "attempts to delete it over the years." The article was created 27 February 2014, which was two months ago. The rationale for deletion is not that we are sensitive to offending the Jews, but that no reliable sources write about the subject, which is required to meet notablity guidelines. Anti-semites of course write about the subject in fringe literature, that has been mention in reliable sources. and accordingly we have an article Jewish Bolshevism that describes that particular conspiracy theory. Incidentally, anti-semites also connect Jews with capitalism, particularly money-lending and liberalism, so your association does not work. Wikipedia did manage to delete "Jews and money." TFD (talk) 05:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: I've only just noticed this response you've left for me. Firstly, you'll have to forgive my typo. It should have read as 'over the year'. Secondly, I would suggest that you read my comment with care. Using a leap of faith argument, you seem to have twisted my appraisal of the English speaking Western world's predominantly anti-communist conceptions drummed into us from the moment we comprehend media coverage of politics (and heavily reflected in numerous articles on the subject of politics, economics, interpretations of world events here on Wikipedia by which media sources are deemed reliable on the reliable sources list) into a spurious attempt to tar me with the anti-Semite brush. Your 'incidentally' remark is the association with my point that doesn't work. I sincerely hope that isn't what you were implying. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty in understanding what you are trying to express by stating, "I was surprised the article exists.." Sure, here's what I'm trying to express: I'm surprised the article exists. It is grossly unbalanced, a real disgrace. Hope this helps. Coretheapple (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Today's developments - There is a statement in the lead "The philosopher Karl Marx, regarded as the "father of Communism", was Jewish by ancestry, hailing from prominent and historic rabbinic families on both sides." Exactly a week ago user Pharos expanded the main text with more information on his background and a book he wrote about Jews. Director took it out, you can see the squabble we had about it on the talk page. That is the exact reason I opened this discussion at AN/I. Today Pharos reinstated it with an edit summary " re-add Marx subsection opposed by exactly one person - now with strong reference linking On the Jewish Question to Communism" [30], DIRECTOR reverted it with an edit summary "Rolled back non-consensus addition" [31], I put it back with an edit summary "Discuss on talk page!" [32], he immediately took it out again with an edit summary "I did discuss and do discuss. Until there is consensus for this addition I will revert it without fail."[33]. By "consensus" he means "when he approves", which will be never. As Pharos said in the first edit summary, exactly one person, (Director), opposed it a week ago and the same person vetoes it now. It makes me want to edit war and attack the page, yes, it does, it makes me very angry, I have to try to restrain myself, I just do not know how people can read what is going on over at that article and do nothing about it.Smeat75 (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Smeat75 that there are user conduct issues. I said otherwise above but after experiencing the talk page for a couple of days I've changed my mind. But let's be realistic: these user conduct issues are not going to be addressed. The fundamental problem with this article is content. There was an AfD in which a majority of editors favored deletion, which indicates, if nothing else does, that this article has a serious existential issue. Coretheapple (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

How can an article have existential issues, Coretheapple?

The outcome of the AfD, as you would well know, is dependent on policy and guideline based arguments, not the number of votes based on objections of an emotive, POV nature. Those who would like to see the article developed in an genuinely encyclopaedic manner are not those who are ensuring that the content is a travesty. Take, for example, Smeat75's recent 'contribution'[34] where, out of the blue, he introduced that Marx was a classic anti-Semite as a neutral(!!!???) version for the lead. If you understand it to be "... grossly unbalanced, a real disgrace." in its current form, I suggest that you go over the history with care and acquaint yourself with which contributors are responsible for it turning into a 'disgrace' before jumping in and tarnishing the reputation of contributors who were not responsible for the aberration that's emerged. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh please. Even a casual reader can see that this article has massive POV issues. Smeat75 is a bit overemotional but he is working very hard to fix its enormous and I think self-evident problems. You seem to view the problems as assets and the efforts to correct them as problems.Coretheapple (talk) 12:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Iryna Harpy - That was an exact quote from Alan Dershowitz, an expert on anti-Semitism. I wouldn't say it was "out of the blue". I should not have put "neutral" in the edit summary, I admit. It was during an edit war that has started up again over that sentence on Marx that Director bans being expanded upon. Coretheapple restored the information added by Pharos since my last post here, Director took it out, I just put it back, no doubt he will remove it again. That change you are referring to from me lasted about two minutes and almost nothing I have put in or taken out of that article has been allowed to remain so you cannot blame me for turning the article into a "disgrace".Smeat75 (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The talk page is almost as much of a shambles as the article. A perfect example is that Smeat75 was just accused of canvassing in this very discussion! Perhaps someone can examine this discussion and find evidence of canvassing here by that editor or anyone. Clearly the article requires outside attention and lots of it, no matter how that might discomfit the editors that have been dominating discussions there and enforcing their will on the text. Coretheapple (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to ask an admin about that. Was opening this AN/I really canvassing? Would informing WP Projects about the article be canvassing? Also I have just been accused of making personal attacks - [35]. There are two editors with very similar user names DIREKTOR and PRODUCER and they back each other up often in edits and on the talk page. If you refer to them in the same sentence they will accuse you of implying they are the same person and threaten you with being reported so when I refer to them together I make it clear that I accept they are two totally different editors and then I am told that I am making personal attacks and being sarcastic.[36][37]--Smeat75 (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I was asking a rhetorical question when I said "Perhaps someone can examine this discussion and find evidence..." No administrator is going to wade into this thicket. You may want to keep a private record, off wiki, of the various conduct issues that have taken place on that page that amount to WP:OWN, such as false accusations of "personal attacks" for raising content issues and the "formal warnings" that I see emanating from one of the regulars there. One of these days you might need to quote those diffs. Hopefully this article will be put out of its misery long before then.-- Coretheapple (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

No administrator is going to wade into this thicket. - that seems clear. I suppose some of them must have read this thread, but not a one says a word, makes any comment or offers any guidance. They are all waiting for it to just go away I suppose. The talk page of the article is awash with threats of "I'll report you the next time!" "you should be reported" etc over and over, as if such threats of being taken to this board are somehow terrifying, in reality all that happens is that comments sit here until someone closes the thread as "no consensus".Smeat75 (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

These kind of appeals for "help" to targeted like minded users are flat out canvassing. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 08:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Anyone who looks at that discussion will see that in the next message I posted there [38] I said "once again I ask you, or Jimbo, or anyone who sees this, to try to help us.Smeat75 (talk) 13:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

At that discussion I first said "I hope there will be lots of editors... who see this, go on to look at the article, and decide to help to improve it, or change the title, or delete it, or whatever, but it definitely needs participation from a wide part of the community" [39] and then that specific person expressed his view so I said "come and help us then". I don't call that targeted, or canvassing.If I am wrong maybe an admin will tell me so.Smeat75 (talk) 12:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I would point out that I had previously left a message on the talk page of a user who in that same discussion had expressed a strong opinion that the article should not be deleted but the title might be changed, which is a different opinion to mine, asking that he would look at the article and "make suggestions for what should be done" on the article talk page.[40]. I just think the article would benefit from more eyes on it, whether they agree with me or not.Smeat75 (talk) 12:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Also I asked at the NPOV noticeboard if others could look at the article and see what they thought of it, when an editor expressed an opinion I said "come and help us then" there too - [41] If that is some dreadful infraction perhaps an admin will let me know.Smeat75 (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's not to forget flouting the article's talk page (per WP:TALKNEW) by creating an unacceptable section[42] entitled "Attention new editors to this article and talk page" featuring an equally inappropriate call to arms diatribe as the purpose of the section. You're welcome to keep trying to justify the trail of 'just asking' around you've engaged in but, as has already been noted several times in responses to that section in a variety of contexts, if the number of forums and tone used doesn't add up to blatant canvassing, it most certainly adds up to gaming the system. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Mediation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howunusual (talk • contribs) 00:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

What form of mediation would you suggest, Howunusual? The point is that there is nothing to mediate. Smeat75 started an ANI naming another contributor as being the source of the problem with an article that Smeat himself has POV issues with. Smeat's problem with the article is that Smeat is of the opinion that the article shouldn't exist. He has now found himself bogged down in defending himself against his WP:COI involvement, to which he has added violating WP:CANVASS in order to attract as many like-minded Wikipedians as possible, dragging the content of the article down even further than the lower depths it had been degraded to as a result of being turned into a WP:BATTLEFIELD.

There is no question of mediating between this, that or the other party involved. This should have been an ANI looking into Smeat's activities, full stop. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear Iryna, you, like everyone else you are entitled to your own personal POV, but please do not project that onto the rest of the universe you do not like, and hence kindly avoid the melodrama and violation of WP:SPIDERMAN. The ones who instigated this edit war and have run it all along are Users DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) and PRODUCER (talk · contribs) and they have recently faced a block for that, albeit a short one, but well-deserved. So cut the drama and if you wish to edit the article in a calm WP:NPOV manner please do so, otherwise your emotionalism borders on violating WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and fomenting the very WP:BATTLEGROUND you accuse other hard-working editors of doing. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales discussion and blocks & warnings for DIREKTOR and PRODUCER

NOTE: See the discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 161#"Jews and Communism" article that drew attention to DIREKTOR and PRODUCER who were both blocked, questioned, warned, and unblocked over their tactics at the Jews and Communism article. See User talk:DIREKTOR#Blocked indefinitely, User talk:PRODUCER#Sock puppetry or other close relationship and the admin who did it User talk:Jehochman#User:DIREKTOR and User:PRODUCER. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

So, people using Jimbo's user talk page because they can't get what they want through normal channels, and an admin running in and blocking one side on completely false grounds. This thing is rapidly approaching ArbCom territory. When will people learn that running to Jimbo serves no purpose but to increase drama? Fram (talk) 07:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Fram, and feel free to join the debate, even better, please try doing something productive like improving or editing the Jews and Communism article, it sure needs help, I assure you your POV over there would be most welcome. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 09:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

No thanks, I don't need the abuse and complaints that invariably follow such articles. The previous discussion about this article that I tried to have with you here (or at AN) recently was more than enough to give me a flavour of the actions there. The frivolous blocks by Jehochman, based on some discussion at Jimbo Waleses, and seemingly unconcerned by discussions at general noticeboards and the like, have only reinforced my extreme reluctance to join the debate. But thanks for the invitation nonetheless. Fram (talk) 09:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Fram, I understand you fully, but not all of us can just sit some things out. Methinks though that if someone were writing about anyone's own ethnicity or coreligionists and their associations with a controversial political ideology they too would not have the luxury of sitting it out, at least I think so. Nevertheless your concern is appreciated. You know, I never voted to delete this article. My request was and is very simple, no denial, face the truth but put it in historical context for example perhaps merge it with History of Communism so that it makes sense, not an easy task. And as this debate has dragged on and on, I have often asked myself why User RoySmith (talk · contribs) the non-admin who closed off the original debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews and Communism handing victory to a minority (the vote for deletion was 22 in favor, three to merge into other articles, and 14 to keep see also Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 March 14), making it a "non-admin closure" that was actually never noted, and who allowed this unholy mess to grow like a cancer has never bothered to participate or peek in to watch his gift to WP grow like a festering sore, at least in acrimony between editors. Imagine this article could have been deleted, nipped in the bud, or as I suggested it be redirected and merged with History of Communism, then none of this would be happening now. All the acrimony and argumentation would be channeled into more productive work of genuine article improvement (hopefully). By the way, unlike DIREKTOR or PRODUCER, my style in more than 11 years on WP is never to run to ANI to get my way, no matter how rough the debate because I always feel users should come to some common understandings and work things out on their own. That is why there are talk pages for articles and for users kindly provided free of charge by WP with unlimited gigabyte space on its servers to hash things out by their mature selves. I take my editing seriously and will almost never involve myself in a subject I know nothing about. Anyhow, I am praying and hoping that the acrimony will stop soon, we all know this is not a healthy environment to be on WP. Hoping for the best. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 11:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Passover

NOTE to participating and closing admins: The final two days of the Jewish Passover holiday are from Sunday night April 20th, 2014 to Tuesday night April 22nd, 2014, that will make it very difficult for Jewish and Judaic editors to participate properly in this discussion during this time. The post-Passover days are also a traditionally very harried time. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Some initial observations

I haven't had time sufficient to investigate every aspect of the voluminous (and highly vitriolic) back-and-forth above, but I did read Talk:Jews and Communism#Secret police, again in it's entirety, read most of the article and investigated the edit history a little, and its left a strong impression as to which side probably represents the Lion's share of the cause of acrimony there, if what I've seen is indicative of the history there. Initially, reading the first half of this thread, I had a severely amped-up variation of that uncertainty and ambiguity you often have when you try to assess a discussion that has moved from article talk space to a procedural page, there were so many endlessly recursive accusations and counter-accusations involved. But I didn't have to get very far into thread before I began to see severe WP:Battleground behaviour on the part of Direktor and Producer. To be fair, the entire thread is contentious and I actually feel very divided by the content call that was being made there myself and can relate to elements of the auteur duo's arguments as much as those of their (more numerous) opposition. However, what sets them apart is the tone of their arguments. Producer especially comes off as incredibly caustic and personally affronted; from the very start of his involvement in this thread, he seems utterly incapable of reconciling that someone else would disagree with him and he is quite upfront about the fact that he views this opposition as absurd nonsense. That opposition mostly keeps their collective cool and are (relatively) dispassionately removed as they assert their argument -- which it bears repeating, I have middle-ground views on -- and Producer and Direktor remain hostile throughout, and both employ a technique of histrionic threatening of getting a higher power involved on multiple occasions.

Frankly, they are so alike in their indignation, that, taken with other circumstantial evidence, I'd be fairly certain they were mutual socks, but this SPI says that is not the case. Still, they seem to move and take action together and in the case of the discussion I observed, their action seems to be defined first and foremost at displaying outrage at being disagreed with. Perhaps this is simply a case of their being very passionate about the material in question or that baseline discussion there has just become superheated in general -- though given the descriptions given by some of those who have had to edit with them in the past, I doubt it's just a simple matter of either of those factors -- but in any event, there definitely seems an element of WP:OWN at work here. I can't speak to the behaviour just yet of most of the other parties involved in the discussion above, since a majority of them were not involved in that thread or only commented briefly, but at present time I'm seeing Lucas and Spielberg as significant contributors to the bad vibes on that page, regardless of whether their other edits (and reversions) on the article itself are or aren't warranted and regardless of how much they have made themselves available to talk on matters. Frankly I think other contributors there could probably be forgiven for wanting to avoid them at all costs; I wouldn't want to attempt consensus, compromise, and collaboration if I knew such hostility was a given from word go. That's my (admittedly initial) impressions of the situation on that article and talk page, from an uninvolved editor who has no interest of ever getting involved in that quagmire of recrimination. Snow (talk) 10:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I've been referred or inferred by a number of users that I'm an anti-semite, neo-Nazi, white nationalist, KKK member, agenda pusher, ooze prejudice from pores, am affiliated with Stormfront etc. at every possible opportunity and all without any fear of sanctions on their part.[43][44][45][46][47][48][49] Been claimed I push extremist "memes", "lies", "slurs", and "libel". [50][51][52][53][54] Had users criticize content based purely on feelings of being "disturbed" or "uncomfortable". [55][56] Been associated with people who use rhetoric such as "Joos!" and "commies" when I only see these terms of this sort coming from users who supposedly criticize it. [57][58] And had to repeat many times for users to discuss and use the talkpage and not edit war with one liners in summary boxes or throw attacks on the talkpage.[59][60] It gets old, one gets tired of repeating themselves, and given the environment that I am in I'd say I've been pretty patient and calm all things considered.

To add to all this I had then been indef blocked on a hunch by Jehochman (an admin who is personally involved in the discussion and considers the article "ugly bigotry") with an apparent "shoot first, ask questions later" policy. Had him throw a clear CU finding under the bus in favor of believing that some elaborate conspiracy is in play and when asked for evidence as to why I and another user had been blocked, had him "point to long discussions to justify [his] actions" (as one admin put it) or later claim he's "too busy" to do so. [61][62] Only until numerous editors told him how ill-advised such an act and reasoning was did he decide to undo this. [63][64][65][66][67] In the midst of all this I had serious false accusations thrown out liberally at me in the full knowledge that I can't defend myself in any capacity whatsoever while blocked [68] and had backpattery be sent to those responsible for winning the "battle". [69][70] Now I note that you've commended one of these users for this effort despite only having an "initial impression" on the matter. [71] --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 13:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd have to point out though that if they are at times hostile or caustic, it is secondary to having to deal with other editors who...let's be honest here...give every impression that they are there to sabotage the article because they were unable to get it deleted at the recent AfD. I know from experience that it is extremely frustrating to work with others who don't have the same goals as you do, i.e. article improvement. Having different POVs is fine and is to be expected, that's how some of our best articles hit the WP:NPOV sweet spot by having many voices contribute. But here, what it looks like is Producer, Direktor and a few others approach it as "here's a subject that is notable, let's write about it", while others are of the "this is vile antisemitism that personally offends me, what can I do to minimize that?" Tarc (talk) 13:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

PRODUCER refers to "users [who do this or that] ....without any fear of sanctions on their part" and gives a string of diffs, they very first one which is of a user who was blocked because of their edits and actions with regard to Producer and is asking, in vain, for their account to be closed permanently because s/he does not want to participate on a site where one cannot challenge anti-Semitism [[72]. That user has retired from editing this site and I can certainly understand that. I have lost track of how many times PRODUCER has referred to me feeling "disturbed" by a particular aspect of that article, as if that is some sort of trump card showing the irrationality of what he faces, I am not ashamed of feeling disturbed by blatant anti-Semitism. I would point out that that article was quiet yesterday with user Pharos making a lot of edits that no one objected to. Today with Producer's return edit warring has started right back up again. PRODUCER and DIREKTOR should both be removed from editing that article.Smeat75 (talk) 13:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Does the possibility exist that that user's claims of antisemitism were found to be a bit...lacking in convincing-ness, if not outright false. Same with the sockpuppet accusations. This project has various forms of dispute resolution and means to deal with problematic editing and editors, but the problem is that most editors do not willingly submit themselves to the authority of others around here. So we have several editors over the years make the sock accusations against Producer & Direktor, the SPI is filed, the SPI is closed with no evidence found. Yet 4 years later, editors still toss the accusation around. Presumably this Atlantictire filed a complaint somewhere such as ANI about the antisemitism he/she perceived, yes? It appears that the complaint was found to be less-than-convincing or credible, thus no action taken against Producer and/or Direktor. Yet the accusation is still tossed around. Do we see a pattern yet? The thing is, very, very few editors enter into our various means of dispute resolution with the honest intention of listening to a 3rd party arbitrate the disagreement; instead, they enter into DR with the expectation that their p.o.v. will be validated. And when it isn't the outrage begins. Tarc (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not making any comment about whether it was right for Atlantictire to be blocked or not, I am just pointing out that PRODUCER said users are free to call him names without fear of sanctions and gives a long string of diffs, the very first one which is of a user who was blocked for calling him names, among other things. Did he think no one was going to look at those diffs to see what they said? It is an obvious lie.Smeat75 (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Well y'know, I could declare right now that I don't want WP:NPA invoked to protect me and say "ok Smeat75, you are free to call me an asshole whenever you like, I won't do a thing". That's all well and good for me and for you, but other users and admins may not be so wild about that atmosphere being allowed to exist, and act accordingly. Now that I read through more of those diffs, I do remember who Atlantictire was now, the infamous "eat my fuck" guy, who was discussed here. You can't go around being that nasty, other people will step up and squash that every time. Tarc (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

No, once again, I am not defending Atlantictire or making any comment about whether the block was justified or not, I am pointing out that PRODUCER has posted an obvious, blatant, very clear lie on this page. "I've been referred or inferred by a number of users that I'm an anti-semite, neo-Nazi, white nationalist, KKK member, agenda pusher, ooze prejudice from pores, am affiliated with Stormfront etc. at every possible opportunity and all without any fear of sanctions on their part.[73]' He says people can call him names without any fear of sanctions and posts a diff of someone who was blocked for calling him names, among other things, it is a transparent lie.Smeat75 (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Facepalm Did Producer file the complaint that led to Atlantictire's block? If the answer is "yes", you may have a point. If the answer is "no", your continued smears, calling this editor a liar, are running afoul of WP:NPA. Tarc (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. He says people can call him names without fear of sanctions and posts a diff of someone who has been blocked for calling him names. Contradiction.Smeat75 (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, people CAN call him names, but his error was perhaps in the declaration of "no fear of sanction will come to you", as that was quite beyond his control. That doesn't make it a contradiction, it makes it a "making a claim that one cannot enforce". Again per my example above, I can tell you to call me whatever names you like and I won't care. But 3rd parties may indeed care and take action; my words to you are not binding on them. And yes, in the future I could envision indulging in a slight bit of glee at your misfortune as Producer did, as after all, you are responsible what comes out of your own mouth, or fingers, as it were. No one but Atlantictire was responsible for Atlantictire's words and deeds. Tarc (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'll just say this. I don't know what the deal is with the editors who created and defended that line of garbage some called an article. You don't create an article called "Jews and Communism" without knowing the history of the antisemitic canard. Especially when you have a line up of all those sources. As for PRODUCER being offended by my comments about the article, I could give a shit. There was clear intent on creating that article, and anyone who knows the history of the "Jews and Communism" canard knows this. I don't care how many well meaning editors work on that article, as long as it's titled and themed as "Jews and Communism", it should be deleted. Period. Dave Dial (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Anyone is free to file another AfD, esp after the last one ended not in "keep" but "no consensus". Perhaps more editors will see it as un-salvageable this time around. Tarc (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• I would like to think that more editors would see it as salvageable this time around, giving the evolution from the initial version by the participation of new "well-meaning" editors (such as myself!). However, I do think that possibly the title and some of the scope issues could use some more thought, and would encourage people to participate, and not to be standoff-ish and wait for another AFD (which hopefully we can avoid!).--Pharos (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Why do you want to "fix it"? Would you want to fix an article titled Negros and Crime? How about Homos and Pedophilia? That article was created the same way those articles would be. Looking through sources, trying to find connections, and taking those connections and adding them all together. Which is what we call on Wikipedia, original research and synthesis. And the articles would be created for the same reason, the original author would have to know there is a racist/antisemitic connotation to the topic, but would delve into subject by using the same kinds of sources the racists/antisemites would use. Just search "Jews and Communism" with Google. Any non anti-Semitic results on the first page? No. How about the second page. No. There is an insipid meaning to the phrase, and I wish those who know about it's meaning and what is trying to be accomplished would step up and stop it. Instead of trying to "fix" something that cannot be fixed. Time spent trying to fix it could be used in getting rid of it. It's an insult this was not deleted in the first place. The results were obvious and the closer made a piss-poor decision. Dave Dial (talk) 16:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• I am not going to offer any defense of the original version of the article. And neither am I going to defend the name, which is pretty bad, and which can probably be changed. However, I am convinced by my reading of numerous sources that the Jewish experience with Communism in the 20th century (including Soviet Antisemitic activities) is a notable topic, and we should have some sort of article on it.--Pharos (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, on my first page in a google search for "jews and communism" I get Stanisław Krajewski's paper "Jews, Communists and Jewish Communists, in Poland, Europe"(cached version) which is cited in the article. I'll note that it ends with the statements "Talking about it must not be left to antisemites. Sensitivity and good will is needed to understand the story of Jewish communists." If only editors could relax and find the sensitivity and good will to collaborate on the topic. Maybe a dedicated article isn't needed, maybe there are better ways of handling it, I don't know or particularly care, but people should try to relax and focus on building encyclopedic content. It's not a badge of shame. It's just history, a tiny part of the "information of everything". Maybe one day, everyone will agree with Ben Katchor's view that "racial identity is just a dangerous fantasy" (from his interview with Derek Parker Royal) and there will be peace and goodwill throughout this land of Wikipedia, but for now it would be better if people stopped taking shots at each other. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Like Tarc said: certain editors involved over there give every impression that they're out to sabotage the article: their proposals and positions are suggestive of a disdain for the quality of the article, while disruptive users like Smeat75 have gone out of their way to render constructive discussion on that page as difficult as they can, through frequent flaming and (otherwise-useless) attack threads. This was well demonstrated by Producer. Pharos is indeed a notable exception in that regard, and hats off to him. But that's just part of the problem.

The main problem is that editors refuse to abide by the Wikipedia editing standards. In spite of my best efforts, WP:CON and WP:BRD have no meaning on that article whatsoever. Editors (Pharos included) insist that their ability to gang up and revert-war authorizes them to override opposition on the talkpage.
And that is indeed the core issue here: while there's edit-warring there can be no civil discussion, while there's no civil discussion there can be no resolution to the outstanding issues. This is all that needs to be done (at least for starters): WP:CONS needs to be enforced. With blocks, if necessary, for anyone who violates the policy. Or rather goes on violating it.

Uphold policy. Simple, really. And I do hope admins will help. -- Director (talk) 06:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

BRD is a good concept to generally focus on during periods of contention, but from what I've observed, cavalier editing attitudes and even edit warring are less an issue than the general inability of parties to give ground and work collaboratively once discussion has started. On a separate point, if you are having to "enforce" consensus on more than half of the active editors on the talk page, it's likely you never achieved it in the first place. Snow (talk) 07:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Not if half of the "more than half" arrived later and only started complaining after weeks have passed (once one of them brainstormed another in the series of "lets delete this now!" ideas). -- Director (talk) 09:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I"m afraid this type of attitude toward "latecomers" is pretty much the definition of WP:OWN. You perhaps don't mean to be doing this, but that is certainly the effect.--Pharos (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

DIREKTOR the tone and stance you adopt are just too harsh. You come across as too much of a "boss man" when WP requires an ability to get along with a range of editors with who are only human beings with a wide range of abilities, time on their hands and other qualities. Editors are not "worker bees" who if they do not "punch in their cards and salute 'the boss'" at WP are fired or censured en masse. That is not the way to go about things. You must also show more respect for the obvious high level of intelligence and education of all editors who have gotten involved so far. For obvious reasons this is a highly emotional and sensitive topic to many people. Not every person from any ethnicity and religion would take kindly to talk calmly about the relationship of their group or coreligionists with a highly volatile topic such as the divisive and controversial communist ideology. One cannot pour hot water on humans and then say hey why are you screaming, cursing, and doing all sorts of things. While you and PRODUCER have obviously mastered some material about this topic, and your unique highly collaborative method of trying to enforce this topic from your own POV's that in in the long run is an illusion/delusion and impossibility, as you can tell, because there will always be others with opposing POV's and you will just have to get your minds around that just as you would like others to be respectfully accepting of yours. I think that the following post by User FkpCascais (talk · contribs) [74] gives the rest of us who have not had the pleasure of working collaboratively with you and PRODUCER very important insights into your methods and modus operandi. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Extended content

Background to DIREKTOR and PRODUCER provided by User FkpCascais (talk · contribs) from User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 161#"Jews and Communism" article: I must say that I share some of the concerns regarding behaviour of Direktor and Producer which were expressed here. I have had years-long debates with them regarding the Chetniks issue and I felt on my own skin their partisan attitude towards editors that oppose them. The main problem was that they grabbed the articles with the intention to maximally expand their collaborationist activities and shaddow the resistance ones, so that is why Producer is aware and mentioned it, how "his" articles about Chetnik commanders must be the favourite ones ammong right-wingers. They basically refused to acknolledge some basic facts such as an existing animosity that existed between Serbs (majority of Chetniks) and Germans, as they were historical enemies and had just fought a nasty war (WWI) two decades earlier. We even had a 2-years long mediation which concluded that the nature of the collaboration between Chetniks and Axis was opportunistic (as they both fought the communist Partisans of Tito). Direktor even today doesn´t acknolledge any resistance efforts to them. What they did was picky-cherring numerous sources, and it wasn´t difficult because Chetniks lost the war, so the official communist Yugoslav history labbeled them as collaborators and was pretty much a tendency followed by many authors, as there was no interest in defending the loosing side. They refused to acknolledge the complexity of the issue and often used numerous tricks to eliminate opposing editors, and with some admin help, aften succeded. I was very bitter with WP because of it and because of the failure to stop such an agressive attitude in such a sensitive issue. Numerous editors simply ended giving up because they noteced that entering in conflict with the two would only bring fristration and trouble. Now I see that same pattern they applied in Jewish subjects, and it didn´t passed unnoteced as in Serbian one does. However, I don´t beleave any of them is really anti-semite or racist. They do however have some bias: both are Croatian and in Croatia the word "Chetnik" is strongly associated with the Serbs that fought Croats during the 1990s, so their edditing pattern regarding that issue is probably influenced by that. Also Direktor is leftist, Yugoslav Partisans sympatizer, so I think the subject of Jews and Communism for them was more about communism rather than Jewish people, however they should change the agressve pattern they often show in numerous discussions.

Dear IZAK, you shouldn't be so modest about your neutrality and the good faith with which you deal with other hard working contributors. Apparently, there are many of us who should be thanking you for showing us the meaning of civility. I've found your courteous, yet straight-talking approach to be most edifying[75]. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

FkpCascais is a highly biased "background" provider, to say the least. Quite simply, I imagine he still hates my guts for insisting that Wikipedia not cover up Chetnik collaboration with the Nazis and their ilk (you know, stuff like this). In fact if I recall, the affair ended with him getting topic banned or something for tendentious editing. Personally I wouldn't give a wooden nickle for any of his "opinions" on my character. -- Director (talk) 12:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't want to dignify Fkp's biased complaints with a response, but seeing as IZAK is citing it as some definitive proof it should be known it is him not I that had ARBMAC sanctions placed for disruptive editing in the area. [76][77] I've collapsed this "evidence" as this discussion is already convoluted enough as it is. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 12:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Direktor, I don´t "hate you" because of you having your own opinion on the matter (everyone is entitled to disagree and opposing views should be welcomed to form consensus), I disagree with your methods of discussion and dealing with opposing editors. You make it allways a matter of win/loose and you use all partisan methods to win. Also, I don´t know how you talk about my sanction when you have a full page of sanctions and blocks. I dare to say that my topic ban at that time must have been the most exagerated TP of all time and I ended up banned because you and other users made the environment there so nasty and toxic that admins simply gave up to the easiest solution to your folcloric complains (at that time you made so many reports and you and Producer knew pretty well how to present the complains in order that when one came there to defend himself, admins unfamiliarised with the matter were already convinced by you).

Beleave me or nor, I actually came here to defend the two of you against the anti-semitic accusations. I am familiarised with your region and from years-long experience with you I know that you are a Croatian from Split who is a leftist, so I know that racism and anti-semitism was never even near you. The problem allways starts when some users oppose some of your edits and you start a full-scale war. It has been repetitive in many subjects around wikipedia. Here for instance (Talk:Yugoslav_Front#Alternate_proposal_2_.28National_Liberation_War.29) you clearly push a POV title in which the fight of your "Tito Partisans" would be the main subject, when you are not supported in that by absolutely anyone and all except you recognise the complexity of the war there. You simply deny that monarchsts also fought to liberate the country from Axis and had it as goal. I don´t agree with your attitude here on WP. This Jews and Communism was just another exemple where instead of working towards compromise you just entrered in war with another group of editors. And I think you didn´t even had the necessity to have conflict there, you could have just compromised easily there. But no, it is not your way, you like it more to fight, then enter into reports, make ir all escalate from one incident into a full-scale world war. FkpCascais (talk) 14:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

your observations are very interesting - your experience of direktors attitude and hostile superior-tone, chimes with mine actually, -also I remember reading George Orwell and his wondering about how fair the treatment of Draža Mihailović was- Sayerslle (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed :) The entire subject of Draza Mihailovic Chetniks is very complex. However we had Direktor and his team grabbing the articles and writting them the way they wanted, which, as everyone can see, is all about "Chetniks posing with German troops" as if that was smple as that and only that mattered. I don´t want even to recall the horror that those 2-3 years of fighting with Direktor were. FkpCascais (talk) 03:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Whatever, Fkp. It would be nice if you tried to keep your pro-Chetnik agenda out of at least some of the disputes I happen to get involved in. -- Director (talk) 04:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Just as note, I am not a "pro-Chetnik" editor, I simply recognise the complexity in which they found themselfs during WWII. I actually got involved into it when I noteced that you and Producer grabbed the pretty much neutral and objective articles about them and started labeling them all over as collaborators. I opposed you, and since them I got used that you allways start saying how I am biased pro-Chetnik editor in order to discret me. Just another exemple of your disruptive pattern in discussions, as you quite often do this to editors opposing you. I will now leave this discussion to others. FkpCascais (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you FkpCascais (talk · contribs). By the way, what does "Potočnik" mean in English? Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

It's the 7th most common surname in Slovenia and doesn't mean anything in particular (other than being a rush - that is, the plant - and is probably an allusion to an occupation or region from whence an ancestor hailed from). Perhaps he admires Janez Potočnik, or it might actually be his surname. If it were tied to any unpleasant personages or allegiances, I'm sure you would have heard about it by now. Hope this helps. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a tribute to visionary Herman Potočnik. Nothing malicious or sinister. --Potočnik (talk) 09:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Updates: DIREKTOR & PRODUCER are warned by Jehochman, while PRODUCER changes his user name to Potočnik

It is only fair that this discussion be updated of User Jehochman (talk · contribs) admin's parallel guidance towards Users DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) and PRODUCER (talk · contribs) (the latter now known as User Potočnik (talk · contribs)):

• User talk:DIREKTOR#Diffs [78] [79]
• User talk:Potočnik#Ownership and battleground mentality [80]
• User talk:Potočnik#Your username (where DIREKTOR suggests [81] that PRODUCER change his user name and PRODUCER complies) and is thanked [82].

Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

My guess at the name change request is probably they were both tired of various sock puppet accusations since they have been going on for over a year. I don't find it terribly odd that they would try to deconflict that since they seem to be interested in overlaping articles, and any article they actually agree on they immediately get accussed of sockpuppetry. I would do something similar if someone was named Divanir or something close to my handle and constantly started taking flak over it. Tivanir2 (talk) 13:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and Izak's posting of the name change here as if it was some kind of "incident" looks pretty WP:BATTLEFIELDy to me. BMK (talk) 23:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Yea, it's kind of silly at the very least. But he may be worked up after Direktor told him not to edit the article anymore, after identifying him as a "Jew" trying to dissociate Jews from Communism. Dave Dial (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Ooops! That's a bit blatant. Apparently Jews and Communism is about "Communism, not anti-Communism" so it is not permissible for IZAK to include text showing Jews who opposed Communism—that article is only to show Jews who caused/promoted Communism. Johnuniq (talk) 10:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I assume you're expressing Director's opinion about the scope of the article? To my mind, an article entitled "Jews and Communism" should be about the relationship between Jewish people and Communism, include any anti-Communist efforts made by Jews. Any other limitation is totally artificial. BMK (talk) 16:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The accusations of anti-semitism are getting quite tiring. We don't need a Wikipedia secret police. RGloucester — ☎ 00:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

No. What we really don't need is antisemitism. And what are you referring to when you say "Wikipedia secret police"? What could that possibly mean? Dave Dial (talk) 00:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

If an editor has been engaging n antisemitic rhetoric, then bring it to the appropriate board for sanction. Just calling other editors "antisemines" over and over and over, without proof, can and should lead to a bit of a WP:BOOMERANG. Tarc (talk) 00:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence of antisemitic behavior. The article itself, as it was created, was just a copy of the Jewish Bolshevism article. Only without telling readers it was a conspiracy theory. I just linked to a comment above that was over the line. That editors accept such as a matter of fact is the most egregious part of this whole mess. Dave Dial (talk) 01:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I see evidence of anti-leftist behaviour, myself. Apparently no thinks it is a problem to equate communism with 'evil'. That doesn't matter. Content. Not contributor. RGloucester — ☎ 01:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, yes. I've seen these types of red herrings before. So if someone points out that there was/is a Nazi/White Nationalist conspiracy theory involving "Jews and Communism", they are just anti-communists suggesting communism is somehow "evil". Not pointing out that that Hitler used this conspiracy theory to rile up the masses in his efforts to exterminate Jewish people. Just as if I stated that there are Homosexual conspiracy theories, I must be against homosexuals? Or perhaps those defending articles attempting to legitimize conspiracy theories regarding "Jews" wouldn't be so quick to defend those in other areas. At least that is what it seems like. I mean, it's not as important as Wikipedia using the term "wife of" to describe someone or anything. Dave Dial (talk) 02:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

If you did not read my comments below, you cannot expect me to take you seriously. As I said, I was not commenting on the content of the article. Merely on the behaviour of certain editors. RGloucester — ☎ 03:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

We don't need antisemitism, nor do we need a cabal accusing editors of being antisemitic repeatedly. It isn't productive.RGloucester — ☎ 00:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

did you even look at what was written at the talkpage? i agree with beyond my ken -to say an article titled 'jews and communism' is only to be about links between jews and communism, and then wikilawyering about how anything else isn't to be discussed because in the one book that is the source for the article its only about links(or something, I couldn't get my head round what TFD was saying really) -if an article is to be called 'jews and communism' then it seems to me that it can and should take in very much more than what was in fact the aim of Goebbels 1930s Nazi propaganda - to fuse Bolshevism and jews in the public mind. what are 'antisemines' tarc? is that a word? Sayerslle (talk) 01:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Let me ask this again. What are you referring to when you say "Wikipedia secret police"? What could you possible be referring to? Dave Dial (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't speaking about the article content (I've been watching it for a very long time, at this point, but haven't edited it). I was speaking about attacks on other editors. As for 'secret police', I was referring to the tendency, it seems, for certain editors to go on an anti-Semite witch-hunt, rather than dealing with content. I believe we have a policy in this regard, titled WP:NPA. RGloucester — ☎ 01:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• What makes this article peculiarly difficult is that Jews and communism is an obviously notable topic, (or group of topics, for there are quite a number of different aspects and subtopics) with an immense literature, but a good part of the primary literature and some of the secondary is biased against Jews and against Communism.. It is an anti-semetic canard that the Jews are evil because many of them are Communists, or that Communism is evil because many of the prominent figures were Jews. In either case it relies upon the readers assumptions that either the Jews or Communists are so obviously vile that anything can be damned by sowing an association with them. (From the POV of a communist it could equally be seen as an anti-communist canard.) And from the POV of a Jewish Communist it could be seen as a tribute to both Jews and Communism. This is an aspect that must be discussed, but should not overwhelm the article. Historically, it has been the case that anything that deals with the Jewish participation in anything is capable of being used as anti-semitism: if the thing is good, the Jews are debasing it; if questionable, it proves the nature of the Jews. Anything connected with Judaism can be used in this manner, and almost aeverything has been so used. I can understand that in anti-semetic régimes, Jews would protect themselves by trying to avoid any discussion about Jewish topics by non-Jews. I am also aware of a historical fear among Jews that regardless how good things may be now, a period of persecution will return--and it has often been a rational fear. DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

@DGG: A very well-thought out response. It is nice to see some logos amid the pathos. RGloucester — ☎ 16:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

@DGG: Indeed, your comment was extremely edifying. I certainly was not aware of the Jewish historical narrative and feel confident that the majority of us are equally as ignorant of it. You did, however, forget to mention the number of Jewish contributors/editors who have been 'identified' by some 'body' as being unequivocally self-loathing Jews or classic anti-semites (it appears to come about where particular content input is deemed to be undesirable). Could you now explain what your point actually means in terms of the content of Wikipedia. In real terms, which areas of Wikipedia should be proscribed and how does the Wikipedia community determine taboo subjects from pleasant and nice content? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: Dave Dial's comment at 00:02, 3 May 2014 - first Director said "IZAK is a religious Jewish person" and "should leave" [83], an admin expressed alarm, so Director amended that comment to "IZAK, himself being Jewish, is pushing a right-wing agenda to disassociate Jews and Communism to the best of his POV-pushing ability. That's a fact." [84], another admin told him that was not an improvement, it "is typical prejudice of the worst kind - and basically a textbook case of it... it's disturbing" [85] and then Director removed both comments. I find it astonishing that anyone can think Director should be editing that article.Smeat75 (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

We need help. The article is ghastly, Jehochman's warnings do not seem to have been heeded, and attempts to improve the article are met with volumes of hostility. The sourcing is very thin, since old and anti-semitic sources address the topic while modern historians view it as a relic best passed over. One or two blocks or topic bans would do wonders; until they happen, this will continue to be a blight -- an increasingly conspicuous blight -- on the project. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Direktor's battlground behavior continues unabated.--Galassi (talk) 21:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I'd wager that the reason no additional admin action has been taken is that is already has one foot in ArbCom territory and no one wants to touch it with a 10-foot pole. Jehochman tried, and we see how that turned out. This is just the kind of thing that's going to land at ArbCom because the group editing there has already proven incapable of managing itself and no end to the disruption is in sight. This thread could go on forever. I've already spent an hour reviewing diffs and history, and I feel no closer to understanding the situation than when I started. Definitely not enough understanding to determine if admin action is needed. I suggest that ALL the editors on the page develop consensus for 0RR; even if Director doesn't buy into it he still has to respect consensus. Else, this will end up at ArbCom and if I had to guess, I'd say it's going to end up with discretionary sanctions along with and handful of admonishments, blocks, and topic bans. No one wants that outcome. We need calm discussion, no edit warring, and multiple viewpoints. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 00:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

no one wants to touch it with a 10-foot pole. Jehochman tried, and we see how that turned out- actually things have improved, believe it or not, at that article since Jehochman and Stephan Schulz got involved, kudos to them. Jehochman has strongly suggested a 0 revert rule and Director declared today I made it clear I do not subscribe to the 0RR rule, as I consider it dysfunctional in terms of WP:BRD [86] and continues to revert repeatedly. He also says in that same diff that he does not "count" user Galassi "as a participant here".Smeat75 (talk) 01:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Return to AfD?

I think many of us share the expectation of Spike Wilbury above that this mess will end up at Arbcom with "discretionary sanctions along with and handful of admonishments, blocks, and topic bans" There seems to be a good deal of support on the talk page for a return to AfD. There's not a true consensus -- consensus cannot be achieved, as this thread and its predecessors make clear -- but I think there is clear community support for the proposition that the page should go. How soon is too soon? I'd appreciate guidance. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no specific guidance other than allowing a reasonable period of time for people to improve the article. It's been well over a month since the last deletion process was closed. I would take care to offer arguments for deletion that are enhanced or improved from the last time (I haven't looked at the previous nom so I don't know how thorough it was). --Spike Wilbury (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

An early second AfD with much the same participants would seem a bit futile, so I checked the contribution histories. By the end of the AfD, 8 editors had contributed to the article and 5 to the talk page. Since then, 38 more have edited the article and 62 more the talk page. 48 people joined in the AfD (not counting the closing admin) and 59 people that didn't join in the AfD made their first edits to the article or the talk page after the AfD closed. It seems there's quite a good chance of quite a few new participants at a new AfD. NebY (talk) 21:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48's incivility

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

---

Hello, it appears our friend HiLo48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back at it again. His contributions for the past several days include a smattering of personal attacks directed at Christian Wikipedia users at multiple. Here is a selection of them.

• "This is an area where I cannot assume good faith. I don't believe you would find any argument against your faith compelling. You are dishonestly playing with words" and " Given your self declaration of religious faith on your User page, and your already demonstrated appalling behaviour in unilaterally closing the thread earlier, it's obvious that you cannot possibly approach this topic objectively. Your opinion carries no weight at all here now." (Directed at two separate users in one diff) [87]
• "Silly comment. I'll try asking some random people next time I'm in India or China. 'MOST' people don't live in places like the religious parts of the USA." [88]
• "Not good Christian behaviour at all" [89]
• "Global? That's just silly. Or ignorant. Or arrogant. Examples please. Pretty sure Easter's not a holiday in India, or China, or any Muslim country. That's taking a lot away from 'global'" [90] and [91]
• "The mere fact that a self-declared conservative Christian editor shut it down hasn't exactly hasn't exactly cooled things off. It's now been re-opened, but peace shouldn't be expected any time soon with that blatantly POV pushing editor still active there." [92]
• "And I sincerely thank StAnselm, a user who openly and clearly declares their conservative Christian position on their User page, for virtually instantly proving my point by unilaterally attempting to close down this discussion immediately after I made that post." [93]
• "But a hard core of mostly Christian adherents here will continue to behave in un-Christian ways to prevent it happening. I'm not sure what they think their god will do to them if they allow Wikipedia to do it job properly and fairly." [94]
• "How sad is it that the discussion has now been shut down by an editor whose User page tells us very clearly is a conservative Christian?" [95]

Those are all edits within the past three days. Let's also remember that HiLo48 has a lengthy block log and was previously topic banned from WP:ITN for extreme incivility directed at American editors. There was also an RFCU on HiLo from October 2012, which includes a detailed table of past disputes where editors brought him to AN, ANI, etc. I suspect there have been more threads like those filed in the past 18 months.
In the interest of fairness, I do have a lengthy track record with HiLo, dating back to our past encounters at WP:ITN and am involved in two of the discussions I've reported HiLo for above, though none of those comments are directed at me. But enough is enough. How many times can someone mock and attack someone for their religious beliefs and still get away with it? Calidum 00:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Until Wikipedia comes up with an unarguable definition of "incivility', this discussion is pointless. Anything based on an individual's definition, one that might differ from somebody else's, means nothing here. There are far too many points above for me to attempt to discuss. I expect more abuse and alleged mud from the past to be hurled again now. As a lone voice against such dirt I have no hope. This is just another attempt by our user above with the unreadable name to silence an effective critic. My thoughts on AN/I are well recorded. I probably won't post again in this thread. HiLo48 (talk) 01:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• "There are far too many points above for me to attempt to discuss."

You don't have to address every comment but you might at least try to provide an explanation of your remarks rather than claiming to be the victim here. This is your chance to offer some defense for being incivil. You might not have crossed the fuzzy line of incivility from whence no one returns but it does look like you were baiting other editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I do not agree. This does not appear to be so much uncivil as an opinion of other behavior and the need for some to find fault in that.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

"How many times can someone mock and attack someone for their religious beliefs and still get away with it?" As many times as people mock others for other reasons... such as being gay. And seriously...I do not feel you have demonstrated that it was actually mocking.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is, in fact, uncivil behavior. The simple fact is that if HiLo48 had made the comments he made above about any other religion, this discussion would already be academic on account of his having been beaten up with big words and warned not to ever do it again, at the very least. The fact that other people mock others and get away with it is irrelevant: this is attacking another editor on the basis of their religion and casting aspersions that they are incapable of being netural because of their religion, and it needs to be dealt with accordingly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I am actually surprised by how much I disagree with you here, but go for it.--Maleko Mela (talk) 03:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I have only just realise this thread existed, and I had not idea that HiLo48 had been making all these comments about me. Yes, I closed the discussion, and my closure was reverted by the person who started the discussion. I believe my closure was within the spirit of WP:BOLD, but I accept that the community wants this discussed once again, and I have contributed to the discussion with a !vote, which HiLo48 responded to with "Your opinion carries no weight at all here now". Anyway, I think HiLo48 is attacking Christians here, and these sort of attacks should be dealt with as we would deal with blatant sexism or racism. Finally, I should like to point out that the comment that HiLo48 has made on multiple pages about how I am a "self-declared conservative Christian editor" is completely false. I identify as a Christian on my user page, but nowhere do I identify as conservative. StAnselm (talk) 02:46, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Let me be blunt here, from the above, you are clearly incorrect with:"is completely false" as you do admit to declaring you identify "as a Christian on my user page". So...Hilo's comment is not completely false, just mistaken. I have seen many people on Wikipedia confused with conservatism over such issues and it may not be the best way to deal with others but it isn't a huge leap, just a small jump, which could well be the opinion of the editor for other reasons.--Maleko Mela (talk) 03:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I identify myself on my user page as a Christian, but not as a conservative Christian. While the inference might be understandable, for HiLo48 to explicitly state that I self-identify as such is wrong. And making false statements about other editors like that should not be tolerated. Is it "completely" wrong? It is in the sense that the statement was clearly and explicitly referring to how I self-identify. StAnselm (talk) 03:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, it isn't being called a conservative Christian that bothers me, but that HiLo48 specifically referred to me self-identifying as such. In any case, this isn't really what the thread is about. The bigger problem is the assumption that I am not able to edit in a neutral manner, or - even worse - that I am not even trying to. StAnselm (talk) 03:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You seem to be deciding what this is about and I am not sure you are actually correct, but let me say this much, when you make a declaration on your user page you are opening up an entire can of worms you must be prepared for. Just as I have been told that declaring my sexual preference (I am VERY gay) is something I must be prepared for. Criticism is not an attack and I really do disagree with Bushranger here. Assumptions of bias are not what I consider to need admin intervention but that all depends on the extent.--Maleko Mela (talk) 03:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

It is extensive, in this case. None of my disagreements with HiLo have resulted in anything other than his imagining some fictitious bad-faith POV pushing on my part. I think it says something about his willingness to assume ulterior motives that "Christian" can mean nothing other than "conservative Christian" to him. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

[After Edit conflict] I said I probably wouldn't post here again, but these selective claims by StAnselm and their supporters demand clarification. The first two, very conspicuously placed user boxes on StAnselm's User page say "This user is a Christian" and "This user is a Calvinist". That's a lot more than the above defensive claims. This user has gone out of their way to tell us that they are not simply a Christian. Perhaps my summarising that as conservative may not match StAnselm's view of themselves, but I happen to work with a lot of self declared Christians who would definitely see StAnselm's position as conservative. HiLo48 (talk) 04:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

But you jumped to the conclusion that, for me, "Calvinist" means "conservative". And now that it has been pointed out to you that this is false, you should withdraw your personal attack. StAnselm (talk) 04:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Jumping to conclusions is not a personal attack. If the editor made the assumption in good faith (yeah...I bet you don't assume their good faith do you?) then, if they are mistaken, that is it.....a mistake, however, as I read the Calvinist article, I could also agree that it is easy to make that mistake...if it is a mistake. Conservatism is a rather broad term, as liberalism is.--Maleko Mela (talk) 04:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, WP:BOOMERANG, yes. But the relevant question for anyone familiar with the track record is, how long are we supposed to tolerate one editor who sees sinister crypto-Christian, crypto-conservative cabals around every corner? How many non-existent smoke-filled rooms must I be accused of hanging around before he stops making the accusations? Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

In the benighted part of the colonies I come from, Calvinist groups like the Presbyterians are rarely afforded even the second half of the "conservative Christian" designation. YMMV, I suppose. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Not to get completely off topic here, but while we're on the subject of userpages, it should be noted that HiLo's has contained the following mission statement for the past 18 months: "I also find it necessary to protect Wikipedia against, again, mostly American editors who want to impose conservative, middle American Christian values here. Apparently Conservapedia isn't enough for them. Mind you, I love America, and many Americans. The country's and their image, however, is damaged severely in the eyes of the rest of the world by those whose values come from a very conservative interpretation of the Bible." [96] This seems to be in direct contradiction with WP:BATTLE, which states "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear." Calidum 04:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

You do realize that you are making an accusation without any demonstration of its accuracy....right?--Maleko Mela (talk) 03:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've had the self-identification on my user page for several years now. I would have thought that declaration of sexual preferences would be a good analogy. I would regard it as totally unacceptable for anyone to assume that Maleko Mela is unable or unwilling to edit LGBT-related articles in a neutral manner. StAnselm (talk) 03:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC

If you cannot see your own bias...you may need it pointed out on occasion, which is the EXACT REASON I limit my editing on LGBT topics. Got anything else Anselm?--Maleko Mela (talk) 03:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I've seen nothing actionable to the point of a block as of yet, but I do think HiLo needs a good talking-to. His comments to Anselm were offensive and uncivil, and I fully agree with Bushranger's observation above. Anyway, he's been rather nice to me so far this go round, but we have crossed paths before. His problem isn't so much that he is habitually uncivil (I suspect a great deal of that is simply tongue-in-cheek), but that I've never seen him assume good faith on anyone's part, ever. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, HiLo48 needs to make fewer ad hominems and should assume more good faith on the part of the faithful. There's nothing wrong with fighting against bias (systemic or otherwise), but it can be done in a more respectful way. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• I don't remember any significant crossing of paths with HiLo and I'm not a Christian, so I think I can be pretty objective when I say that those comments are uncivil. They are thinly veiled jabs, mocking. HiLo, you say on your user page that NPOV is important, and I take you at your word. Then you need to realize your own bias here and perhaps pull back to a safe distance. We all have biases, and if we are wise, we realize when we have reached the limits of our own objectivity. This is the kind of stuff that will get a person topic banned if it were to continue. You need to find within yourself the ability to see through other's eyes here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not Christian either, but I am a member of several projects and help collaborate with Christian editors. What I see above is not all entirely uncivil. Some of it could be seen that way and I won't argue against that. But what I will say is that the OP was accusing the editor of attacking editors for just being Christian and that is something I don't see demonstrated. Sure, it is easy to say the remarks are uncivil, and I can see why there would be a perception of such, but I do not see this as an attack against Christians in General. Editors should not be discussing the contributor. Just comment on the contribution. So in that way, Hilo is clearly in the wrong. But I also feel the OP here has too much of a record with the editor and may well have past encounters over shadow their view. Christians editors are very much like Gay editors. They have to remember that not everyone is Christian and that being an openly declared Christian or gay editor does not mean others cannot comment on what bias they may be perceiving. To me this filing is a lot like one bias against another. I do agree that Hilo only endangers their own editing privileges when they focus on others and not the content.--Maleko Mela (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

This might be going off-tangent but I think it's a mistake to lump editors who share one characteristic in common as acting in a similar way. For one thing, most editors do not have userboxes on the User page declaring their personal identification so it is very likely that the majority of Christian, atheist or gay editors do not "mark" themselves as belonging to that particular group. So, any generalities one makes is based on encounters one has with a small subset of any particular demographic group. And, as sociology shows, there is usually more variation among members of one group than between members of different groups. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I think I follow what you are saying, just that in this case the editor has clearly decided to declare their affiliation and preference and are also very involved in editing, not just Christian articles, but other religious articles of different faiths. I trust their good faith, but that is not going to be the outcome or perception of everyone. The main reason we have these user boxes is for declaring your interests so that others can look at edits that are associated with the declaration. In the case of Hilo's comments, they don't appear to be generalizing but being a bit specific about the Christian interests of the declared editor. Sure, variations are going to occur, but here the issue seems to be that one editor feels attacked for their declaration and having it mentioned (far too many times perhaps). But the mention of one's close associations as declared are not the issue. The issue is the persistent and rude manner in which Hilo makes these comments and comes across as attacking the individual for the faith when, in fact, they may not be attacking but simply criticizing the editor over issues related to the subjects they edit. At any rate this does not appear to actually be a case where the editor is being attacked just because of their faith.--Maleko Mela (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a much clearer definition of conflict of interest than it does for incivility. The former explicitly mentions religion as an area where it should be applied. For a long time I've been tying to work out why it simply isn't. The only conclusion I've come to is that it's obviously part of our systemic bias. HiLo48 (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

What part of COI applies here? Since you mention that the policy mentions religion, I'm guessing you're referring to WP:EXTERNALREL, but I'd like to be sure before I respond.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Section break (HiLo48)

(e/c) HiLo may not intend to be incivil or to hurt anyone with his comments, but intention is usually not the most important factor in such issues. The very fact that his name is well known in these parts, and usually not for the best of reasons, says that - putting the most positive blush on it - he is not aware of his own strength when it comes to a propensity for getting into hot water. It would be a sign of his good faith if he could come here and simply acknowledge that some editors have been hurt by his comments, whether or not he intended that hurt. That would be a good step. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

No. Intent is the very issue here not just accidently hurting someone's feelings. People get hurt over very straight forward civil remarks. Seriously. I had someone yell at me and then state on their user page that they were quitting Wikipedia over a comment I made about what I perceived in a suggestion they made during a dispute on the Homosexuality article. There was no attack on them and was speaking directly about the suggestion they made about the content. They blew up and accused me of a number of things that were really off base. If we were to start issuing sanctions and warnings over the hurt feelings of others.....there would be no one left to edit the encyclopedia.--Maleko Mela (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

That is not a good parallel, Mark. You are talking about one user being offended by your comments and you view them as being unreasonable. It's much different when multiple editors are having the same kind of negative encounters with a single editor that revolve around the same diatribe of how lousy and biased Christianity is. If several editors are having abrasive experiences with another editor, you shouldn't fault them for being easily hurt. The difference is that your example was a solitary incident, there are not a lot of people saying they are quitting Wikipedia over your comments. That's not the case in this complaint. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, one-off incidents like that will happen. But HiLo is not part of any one-off incident; there's been a whole swag of them involving him at the receiving end of criticism. I read this page from time to time , and I don't recall ever seeing HiLo say words to the effect of "I wasn't out to hurt anyone, I was just telling it like it is. I'm sorry if I hurt people, and I'll try in future to word my remarks and make my points in a less personally hurtful way". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

People in the past got upset with my swearing. (In some cases I didn't even regard what I said as swearing, but whatever.) I don't swear here now. Or at least I try not to. It's obvious that the linguistic environment in which I live and work is one that many here would find unacceptable. Swearing is simply part of normal discourse. I now put a lot of effort into trying tot use a form of language that doesn't come naturally. But this isn't about swearing. Also, several people who have brought complaints about me here are no longer with us on Wikipedia. (Boomerangs fly in unusual ways.) Their complaints were never valid. This is why I have concerns about AN/I being primarily a place where old mud can be thrown again and again and again. HiLo48 (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Goal: Always stay in the top three tiers

My concern is that the comments having a chilling effect on participation. When someone is constantly making slightly uncivil comments that appear to have a particular bias, yet they each slide under the block radar, neutrality dies a death by a thousand cuts. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

This is what makes the most sense to me. Little cuts that are constant can cause a great loss over time. Hilo has to stop discussing the editors. Seriously. The point here is that if one cannot stick to discussing the content they just set themselves up to be perceived as having even more bias than the one they are discussing.--Maleko Mela (talk) 22:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Does not the same apply to the problem created by the fact that our articles on religious topics naturally attract a majority of editors who are adherents of those religions, some of whom cannot help applying their inevitable biases in favour of those religions? Our systemic bias means that Christianity will be the religion with the biggest problem of that kind. Neutrality died long ago on some of those articles. HiLo48 (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Unquestionably, that is a concern and having editors who are skeptics/other to participate in those articles can be highly beneficial to our goals of neutrality. That only works, however, if the editors are commenting about the merits and not about each other. You are a very experienced editor, but Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement (shown right) comes to mind. Personally, I still refer to it regularly to remind me to stay on the merits. I haven't questioned your ability or intent, only your methods. I understand it gets frustrating at times (which might indicate it is time to edit something less contentious for a day or two), but you have to see why I'm concerned, and why it looks like bias to others. You can't correct someone's bias by being equally biased in the opposite direction. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Like I think this hits the nail squarely on the head.--Maleko Mela (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• HiLo48's incivility is unacceptable. You could replace the word "Christian" with any religion or ideology and the problem would still remain. And, in any case, the criticism he presents has nothing to do with religion but with politics. I would like to see him given a final warning and told that if he does it again he will face a long block. Viriditas (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Define "incivility". HiLo48 (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Incivility is the opposite of what you think it is. Viriditas (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's face it Hilo, you cannot attempt to right the wrongs that you perceive. We are simply not here as editors for that. You should really disengage from these topics voluntarily for a while because whether you agree or not, this will only lead to either a topic ban (which sounds more and more appropriate here) or worse, a block. I think admin has been very patient with you. At some point the patience is going to wear off.--Maleko Mela (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I have plenty of other things to do, and probably will pay less heed to the disaster area of our religious articles for a while. I'd just like to see some independent, rational responses to the attacks on me in the initial post in this thread. Let's look at the second point in that litany of alleged sins. My apparent sin began with he words "Silly comment", and it was. I won't ever apologise for that kind of post. Several of the other evils I have apparently committed fall into the same category. If other editors post rubbish, I will point it out. Sorry about that. So what will be done about the falsehoods and silly allegations that have been written about me here? HiLo48 (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

That is actually pretty simple. I am sure more than a few editors have taken note of the fact that an allegation was made against another editor that was never properly demonstrated. In other words, the OP made a complaint that another editor was attacking them based solely on their religious beliefs. That was too strong an accusation for this case/filing. But you can let it go now. A boomerang is also unlikely.--Maleko Mela (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Why? False allegations were made against me. Crap posted at AN/I is part of what makes it a disaster area. The last person to bring me here is now on an indefinite block, but the fact that my name was brought here is still part of the evidence brought against me this time! And so will this be, and most of the allegations are absolute rubbish. There MUST be some consequence. HiLo48 (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're mistaking me (the OP) with St. A, but I never claimed HiLo's comments were directed myself. I merely said he was directing them at Christian editors in general (of which I am one). I even specifically said in my original statement that I've had lengthy record with HiLo, but none of the comments were directed at me.

As for my complaint, I think it's obvious every editor here agrees that HiLo's comments have crossed a line. So I'm not sure why you're saying my allegation was never properly demonstrated. Even you Mark/Maleko wrote that "Hilo has to stop discussing the editors. Seriously. The point here is that if one cannot stick to discussing the content they just set themselves up to be perceived as having even more bias than the one they are discussing." Calidum 00:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

(EC) OK, I struck out the mistake, but you are clearly in the wrong in accusing another editor of attacking anyone based purely on religious faith or Christians in general and you are also wrong about EVERY editor feeing that Hilo's comments cross the line. I don't. I made it clear that in discussing the editor it opens the door for that perception, but I do doubt that simply being uncivil is a reason to complain as if anyone is being persecuted. That is seriously outrageous and you never demonstrated such. All you have are some comments that don't all cross a line of incivility.--Maleko Mela (talk) 00:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, let me rephrase. A majority of commenters believe that HiLo has crossed a line, as I alleged in my complaint. Why you have chosen to defend him is beyond me, but don't pretend you're not in the minority here. Calidum 00:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

And there's some more of this crap. My concern was NEVER with Christian editors in general. It's with editors who openly proclaim their Christianity, and then, at least in my eyes, post in a way that shows more concern with promoting Christian views than creating a great, impartial encyclopaedia. Please retract the falsehood. HiLo48 (talk) 00:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I suggest this thread be closed as it is likely to spin out of control pretty soon.--Maleko Mela (talk) 00:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

When do I see consequences for falsehoods written about me? Or does such crap again stay on AN/I forever? If it does, how do you guys expect me to treat the editors responsible nicely in future? I still believe what I said was true, even if some didn't like it. What has been said about me is simply not true. (Although I expect that here.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• The only spinning I see is by HiLo and Mark. The fact remains that HiLo's summaries ARE problematic, and it would be helpful if he took the advice given here to heart, as that is the easiest path to resolving the concerns. The OP isn't blocked, I have no idea where you got that idea. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

What? HiLo48 (talk) 00:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

(ec)Well excuse me. I am not spinning the fact that this thread was an accusation made against an editor that was never demonstrated to be accurate. It accused Hilo of attacking Christians in general. If you feel that much has been proven than why are you waiting? You have the power to block. The only reason I even intervened here is because this is about one editor feeling others are being persecuted for their faith and this is absolutely a false charge never shown to be accurate. I also have no idea what you are talking about when you say "The OP isn't blocked". I don't remember that being an issue? Also, I should mention that Hilo is not one of my friends on Wikipedia and that I am actually arguing with those I do consider to be friends. In other words...I have no particular opinion for or against Hilo. my opinion is based on the OP complaining about something I do not see.--Maleko Mela (talk) 00:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Spinning as in making HiLo out to be a victim here. I respect your difference in interpretation in his comments, but I have to use my own. As I've said, the edits are problematic, interpreting them for myself. That I'm not "block-happy" and prefer calm solutions is far from a secret. They are personal in nature, they twist the knife in a way that gives the appearance of a religious bias, whether it is intentional or not. I've already said this above more than once, that he needs to stick to the merits. I was hoping for an acknowledgement of such, but disappointed when it looked like it was being spun around into him being a victim. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

(ec) So, as you can see your words and interpretations of what I am doing is insulting and offensive to me, and I know it was not your intent. No, I am not trying to make Hilo the victim, but at the same time I will not allow someone (anyone) to be accused of such a vile thing without CLEAR evidence. There is no clear evidence. I have already agreed with you above but my point in requesting the closure of this thread is that is has gained no consensus to the ORIGINAL complaint, that Hilo was attacking Christians in general. If that is how you interpret making Hilo the victim then perhaps you are reading more into my words and comments than are really there. If you are readfing my comments Dennis I am sure you would see that I agree with you that Hilo should "Stick to the merits". I used the wording that he should discuss the content and not the contributor and that by doing so it opens the door to the perception of attacks, but I really don't see this as an attack as I have seen these same discussions replacing "Christian" with "gay" and to me that seems like a double standard if it is OK to discuss gay editors in this manner but not Christians. As for making a victim, the OP seemed to be doing that not me.--Maleko Mela (talk) 01:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)--Maleko Mela (talk) 01:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

It isn't ok to discuss gay editors in the same manner, but that kind of falls indirectly under the logic of WP:WAX, so it can't be used to justify singling out any group. I was just hoping to get the point across so I don't have to propose a topic ban in the future. It wasn't about consensus as much as understanding. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you in more than spirit as I have also suggested a topic ban may well be appropriate here, but I see these types of things happen all the time. I don't think singling out any one for their declarations as appropriate, but to me many of the comments were not singling out someone out for that alone, but for their edits. Much like another editor here did to me when I mentioned my being gay, they then singled out that mention to use against me in this argument. That didn't offend me or make me feel I was being "singled out" just for being gay...I declared it as part of the discussion. That is very much what I see happened here. It also doesn't help that the editor this centers around, StAnselm is very active in the areas they have declared as being a part of. So, yes, bias is a factor here and in many ways I agree with Hilo.......just not in the persistence. That goes beyond how I work, or what I tend to agree with as I generally disengage and find great relief in such.--Maleko Mela (talk) 01:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

If I had singled out a group, your comment might be valid. It's not. My criticism was of individuals. The OP has sucked you in. I do feel like the victim here now. But that's normal here at AN/I. Given tat you seem to be basing your demands of me on some content that wasn't true, it's rather difficult for me to agree to anything at this stage. HiLo48 (talk) 01:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I tend to find that Dennis doesn't get "sucked in" by things on this board. What he and other admin do (and even I tend to) is give as much rope as possible. You might not want to grab hold of that rope.--Maleko Mela (talk) 01:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

And do what? I truly have no idea what is being asked of me. It cannot be to never do all that was listed in that first post. HiLo48 (talk) 02:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I must now point out that, rather than help answer that question, Dennis chose to find further fault with me down below. He isn't trying to resolve this. HiLo48 (talk) 03:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The claim that you didn't single out a "group" holds no water. This edit [97] and the phrase "I'm not sure what they think their god will do to them if they allow Wikipedia to do it job properly and fairly." is unnecessarily offensive to more than one person, and was directed at more than one person. I can break them all down but I shouldn't have to, this one I just picked at random. The point is, when your edits are disruptive, your motivation isn't my first concern. I only care about keeping the playing field level, keeping the articles neutral, and keeping the peace, all while using the least amount of tools. Above, I've shown you specifically how to avoid future problems, with the bonus of it making you more persuasive in discussion. Ignore it, or put it to good use, the choice is yours. If you can't understand it, I can't help, as I've explained it as much as I know how already. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:21 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Oh, I suppose that was about a group, but a very small one (obviously not all Christians), and I still believe in what I said. I am struggling to see the offence in it. But I am happy to learn about cultures different from mine, where active, even confrontational discussion of religious values is very common. Please explain. HiLo48 (talk) 03:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You went straight to the heart of their belief system by suggesting that "their god" would or would not do something based on the edits here at Wikipedia. That is the line that was crossed there. I don't see that as an attack, but as a very inappropriate criticism of both their beliefs and their deity. I have seen this before and many times it gets pushed to the side or just ignored but I myself have made a point about others criticizing other beliefs or those held as holy. Surely you didn't expect that to go over well.--Maleko Mela (talk) 03:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I certainly wanted them to think about what they were doing. I don't believe it was very ethical. HiLo48 (talk) 03:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Then you need to review: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point: "If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or related pages. If mere discussion fails to resolve a problem, look into dispute resolution.".--Maleko Mela (talk) 03:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

We WERE on Talk pages. I see little point in taking it further. HiLo48 (talk) 07:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sad to see this, as I've found HiLo active and fairly constructive on WP:ITN. To my mind, the most problematic diff is the first one listed at the start of this notice; HiLo cannot assume good faith on the sole ground that the other editor is a Christian editing an article on the Genesis creation narrative. That's out of line, in my view. GoldenRing (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

That deserves a response. It wasn't just the fact that the other editor is a Christian that was the problem. That would never be a problem on its own. I work with a lot of very religious people, who are very happy to join in vigorous discussions on their faith, and its conflicts with the rational world. What we had here was an editor who had loudly proclaimed his Christianity declaring that a word that treated Christianity differently from other religions was neutral, and that he had seen no compelling argument to convince him otherwise. I still feel, as I said in that post, that no argument would compel him to see otherwise. HiLo48 (talk) 08:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

That may be what you were thinking, but it is not what you said; you can't expect us to read your mind, only your words. "This is an area where I cannot assume good faith" seems pretty clear-cut, and if it's not what you meant then you should retract it and apologise. GoldenRing (talk) 10:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

No point in retracting. I still believe what I said. I cannot assume good faith with such an editor. All the evidence points in the opposite direction. I have explained why above. I'm not very good at pretending to believe something I don't believe, such as saying I assume good faith, when I don't. Did that sort of pretending for a while with the church I was once part of, then, for my own sanity, I had to come true to myself. HiLo48 (talk) 11:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

This is starting to go in circles a bit. If you still believe what you said then I think there's a problem; you didn't say that you couldn't assume good faith with that editor, but in that area. What your personal standards may be are more or less irrelevant here; the community has standards that it expects editors to adhere to, and one of them is WP:AGF. It's not something you get to opt out of because you find it difficult. If what you meant is that you couldn't assume good faith with that editor, then I think we'd have to see a considerably history of that editor acting in bad faith to think that was reasonable. I haven't looked into the editor's history but I have read the discussion in which you said this; it seemed to me to be in response to a reasonable, good-faith, policy-based argument. I'm not saying his argument is right, but acting in bad faith is different to being wrong, and very different to disagreeing with your ideas. GoldenRing (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• It isn't about assuming good faith, after all, good faith isn't a suicide pact. It is about your actual words. Whether you meant them to be so abrasive or not, they are. No one is trying to change your mind, only your methods. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe those words would be seen as abrasive by most people in my culture. HiLo48 (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what culture you claim as you own, so I can't refute. It isn't really relevant anyway. The issue is how it comes across here at Wikipedia, not how it would come across at your local pub. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

HiLo has since the beginning claimed that what the community as a whole sees as flagrant incivility is perfectly acceptable for formal business communication in his native Australia. That this is plainly false would be better served by Wikipedia's resident apologists not continually taking it at face value. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

HiLo has never claimed what YOU claim in that post. Thank you for demonstrating one of the many appalling features of AN/I, in this case the ability of anyone to write whatever lies they like about someone they would like to get out of the way. In other words, to make personal attacks with no fear of negative consequences. And the community has never actually been able to agree on what incivility is, let alone a flagrant version of it. HiLo48 (talk) 07:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I should point out, as the main recipient of HiLo's incivility this time around, that I am also Australian (as I indicate on my user page). StAnselm (talk) 01:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks to me like he's pointing out a perceived conflict of interest, per WP:EXTERNALREL. And it seems to me that he has a point. While some of the quotes above could certainly be framed in more civil terms, I find it hard to understand how (to take a single example) the assertion that Easter is not a generally observed holiday in Muslim countries, can reasonably be construed as a personal attack on Christians. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• I was so proud for ages of having fewer than 1000 edits to AN/I. Well that's long gone now. I've worked with HiLo48 since February on the Australian sports rules naming debate. You can see some of our interactions here. I've found him to be fiery, hard-working, intelligent and well-intentioned. I've occasionally had to warn him about "playing the man and not the ball", and this is something I can see he is working on. I've made it my business to scrutinise his history here and his block log, and I've acknowledged the input of User:Drmies. I think HiLo's a good guy. I think this was another incident where HiLo moved beyond intellectual argument about an encyclopaedia and started being too forthright about his own views of the motivation of others. It can be a difficult line to hold. User:Dennis Brown makes an excellent point about Graham's hierarchy of disagreement. It is one I have used in the past. It is good advice to all of us to always stay in the top three levels. I don't think this incident requires a block or other sanction, but I think it would be helpful if HiLo could acknowledge the concerns of others about these particular interactions. Not on CIVIL grounds but in the interests of the community moving on from this and of HiLo's own growth as a Wikipedian, that gesture would be appreciated. Whether or not he wishes to do this, I do not think there is traction here for any admin action. If others disagree, perhaps an RFC/U would be the next step? --John (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

  I am wanting 100%, exactly the same thing as you. The only action I want to see is on HiLo's part, but it is a choice he has to make. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• I've stayed out of this since I've both chastised and defended HiLo in the past two years or so. I agree with John on many things, maybe all things, and with Dennis. I do think the ball is in HiLo's court in terms of improving relationships. I don't think admin action is necessary, or perhaps Thumperward's "resident apologists" comment is correct and no action will be taken--though that is really an offensive remark. RfC/U--I don't know. HiLo is so controversial that there isn't much chance for a very fruitful conversation, but maybe it's worth a shot. Drmies (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Well exactly. If I were to disagree with something either of you guys said, I'd be perfectly capable of saying I think that was a stupid idea, because..., and would aim to avoid discourse like These guys are stupid and biased, because... I would do this because (a) I know you are probably not stupid or biased and (b) if you were stupid or biased, you probably wouldn't think you were, and calling you out on it would probably not lead to the peaceful resolution we want. Can you subscribe to a similar protocol, User:HiLo48? --John (talk) 23:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Folks, what I saw, and won't apologise for describing, was editors who make very bold and clear declarations of their Christianity on their User pages, and even in their User names, editing on controversial matters that involve religion, in ways that matched precisely what someone pushing a Christian POV would do. There happen to be quite a lot of these Christian editors. It's part of Wikipedia's systemic bias. It's really hard to accept that none of those posts were POV pushing. That strange thing we're asked to do here, assume good faith, becomes very difficult to do in such situations. I've thought long and hard about that expression. Is someone whose life is built firmly and absolutely around strong Christian belief even going to be aware, when they push that POV in a wider circle than the one they're usually part of, that they actually are pushing a POV? Maybe for some the answer is "No". So maybe it IS good faith editing by them. But it's still POV pushing. And few of the other editors with a similar mindset will recognise it as such.

Now, we don't want POV pushing here, even if it's done in good faith. I'm still not convinced that there wasn't at least some conscious POV pushing among the overt Christians, but will it help for me to acknowledge that some of the editing I said was not good faith editing, WAS probably good faith editing?

I have fairly strong political opinions. I take pride in the fact that during the most recent US Presidential elections, and recent Australian elections, I was accused by editors from both sides of supporting the other side when I removed their POV changes to articles. We are all biased, but I work hard to be aware of my biases and keep them out of my editing. There are many others editors who I don't believe try to do this at all.

So, in my mind, there's still a big question. What do we do about good faith POV pushing from a body of editors who are strong here because of our systemic bias? HiLo48 (talk) 03:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

These are good questions and I share some of your concerns. However, this section is about your behaviour. I appreciate your concession that some of the editing you complained about was probably good faith editing. I would still like you to outline how this realisation will affect your editing going forward, and to demonstrate such changes. If there is not some change I fear you will be brought back here again and again and will experience editing restrictions the next time, something I would be sad to see. Would that be possible? --John (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

@HiLo48:, honestly, I would try to not lean in the opposite direction, so I don't look just as biased as they are, just in a different direction. I think when faced with bias, you have to take extra measures to stay as neutral as possible. Then, the one sided nature of the problem is obvious to all outsiders. It is kind of like when two editors get into a fight here. If they both are calling each other rude names, it is a draw, and whoever started it and instigated the problem becomes moot. Put another way: when dealing with bias, you are either part of the problem, or part of the solution. If you use a different bias to counteract the first bias (or just sound like you are), then you are part of the problem. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

As I said above, I think I now recognise most of my own biases, and I try hard to stop them influencing my editing. Do you think it's worth trying to get such possibly good faith but still unconsciously POV pushing, Christian editors to recognise how their editing appears to be very similar to what they would say if they were deliberately POV pushing? Because that is the biggest problem in those discussions. While perhaps meaning well, such editors add little constructive to conversations because their contributions are instantly questioned as suspicious by others. The extensive hidden conversations below show that I am certainly not alone in that view. I would perhaps use words like "I can accept that as a good faith post, but can you see that it is very similar to what someone with something similar to your public self declaration of Christianity would say if they were deliberately pushing a POV?"

I don't know. I think the main thing is avoiding absolutes in your statements, and avoid comments about their motives. I get it that AGF isn't a suicide pact, but what matter most is NPOV, not why someone made an edit that isn't NPOV. In the end, good faith vs. pushing an agenda doesn't change the edit itself, unless it is part of a longer term pattern that needs admin attention. Going the extra mile to avoid personal observations really makes it easier for outsiders to see who is and isn't biased. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. I have no idea what you're saying with that post. Maybe the clichés don't translate well. HiLo48 (talk) 04:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanction I am in general agreement with Mark. I don't see HiLo as a attacking Christians as such. Rather he seems to be attempting to raise legitimate concerns about bias, perhaps in some cases in a ill-advised manner. I am mystified by some of the supposedly problematic diffs: how, for instance, is it attacking Christians to point out that particular statements are ignoring non-Christian countries such as China and India? Neljack (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

It's attacking christians if you're simply dismissing someone's edit out of hand because you think they're a christian. Let's not forget that Hilo has a long history of this Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive821#HiLo48_at_Talk:2014_Winter_Olympics, detailed list midway through, and the community has a long history of simply washing their hands of it.There is an on-going unchanging pattern of behaviour here and sticking your head in the sand and pretending it doesn't exist does a disservice to the community as a whole.--211.215.156.184 (talk) 05:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear. What's the point of re-posting an old allegation that was thrown right out of court? That's another problem here. No guilt was found, yet you raise it again. AN/I is a disaster area. It should be renamed "Write whatever attacks you like on the accused. You don't need evidence, just prejudice. No harm will ever come to you." I DO annoy POV pushers by calling them on that behaviour. And I will continue to do both, I suspect. That means many of them would like get rid of me. Some aren't very good at it. HiLo48 (talk) 05:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

It being 'thrown right out of court' is part of the pattern of behaviour. The other point in posting it was for the links also included in that post. The need you feel to label people and use it as a pejorative to dismiss them is indicative of the behaviour issues you have here. Thank you for proving my point with your latest reply.--211.215.156.184 (talk) 10:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The simple fact is that it WAS thrown out of court. Raising it again here just shows that you have a problem with Wikipedia procedures. So do I, as a matter of fact, but your post proves nothing about my behaviour. It proves more about how hard some people will work to get rid of someone who stands in the way of POV pushers. HiLo48 (talk) 12:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Can an Administrator please put this thread out of its misery? When it descends to IP editors who hate me dredging up pointless nonsense from the past, it's proving nothing, like much of what happens here. I know from experience that those who are attacking me in bad faith won't be punished, but can it please at least be stopped now? Otherwise all the unfounded allegations will again be dredged up some time in the future as proof that I'm the devil incarnate. HiLo48 (talk) 12:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't look like there is a consensus to do anything, but it really doesn't look good when you respond like this while the thread is open, regardless of the perceived provocation. StAnselm (talk) 00:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

So what's with attacking me, and not saying anything about the unacceptable attacks on me from an IP editor who is obviously on your side of this debate. I had been trying hard to peacefully discuss the difficulties with that discussion. I spoke only in the third person, without mentioning any other editors or their specific contributions. The IP editor completely personalised the discussion and destroyed the peace. Surely you're not supporting bad behaviour from someone just because they agree with you? HiLo48 (talk) 01:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I see no "attacks from an IP editor." I do, however, see some language that's over the top, even in Australia. -- 101.117.90.215 (talk) 01:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The personalisation of the discussion came from an editor with an IP address of:101.117.110.223, very similar to yours, and who, like you, has made only edit edit ever on Wikipedia. I will let others draw their own conclusions. HiLo48 (talk) 01:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

So User:StAnselm, it's clear now. You publicly condemn me, but you won't say a word to someone who happens to agree with you on the religion front, but who negatively personalised what had been an objective, non-personal discussion? I don't need to call it bad faith editing. Wise judges can see what you're doing and decide for themselves, can't they? HiLo48 (talk) 07:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I really don't know how you've come to this conclusion. Are you asking me why I didn't warn 101.117.110.223? There would be four reasons: (1) the nature of dynamic IP addressed would mean the recipient might not even see it; (2) that would come very close to WP:BITE; (3) "Thank you for clarifying that you're not interested in compromise" is nowhere near as uncivil as some of the things you have said as reported on this thread; (4) it did sound like you didn't want to compromise - certainly, that was my initial thought when I read your comment, though I certainly wouldn't have jumped to that conclusion in public. But of course, I didn't want to condone 101.117.110.223's edits - that's why I referred to the provocation you might have felt or experienced. More to the point, though, what on earth makes you think that 101.117.110.223 "happens to agree with me on the religion front". How on earth can you conclude anything about the editor's religious beliefs from this one comment? StAnselm (talk) 07:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Because this whole damn thing is about religion, and he agrees with you. Oh, dear, I wonder if we are really thinking on the same level here. Maybe I'm thick, for which I apologise. I give up. HiLo48 (talk) 08:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

That link shows a lot more going on than simple incivility. The link to that discussion shows that there is a long running battle on Wikipedia between editors who self-identify as "atheists" and editors who self-identify as religious adherents. Looks like it's past time for arbcom. Frankly, I'm sick of hearing from both sides and I wish you folks would just rent a hall and battle it out MMA style. Viriditas (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep. Arb Com time for sure when a admin steps in and just waves the mop like a magic wand and says there can be no further move discussions as if they are the Wikipedia Dictator. but yes....this is getting out of hand and it seems very much like it is time for an arb com filing.--Maleko Mela (talk) 01:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

If you're talking about the Genesis debate, the closing admin did not "say there can be no further move discussions," but simply imposed a 12-month wait until the next one. A reasonable decision, in my opinion, given the history. -- 101.117.90.215 (talk) 01:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The last issue of civility I saw on ANI consisted of disagreement over whether "cunt" was uncivil enough to be actionable. The result was that it is not. So , now, it's hard to take any complaint of incivility seriously. Howunusual (talk) 14:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Did you know that "Jesus Christ is Risen Today"?

TOTALLY exciting but we were talking about HiLo's supposed incivility. All this is valuable material for Wikipedia talk:DYK; feel free to copy. Drmies (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Note that one of the diffs at the start had nothing to do with StAnselm or what else is presented here, but is about the fact that some Christian (self-declared) editors put this on the front page: "... that "Jesus Christ is Risen Today"?" in the DYK section. Not with any accompanying explanation, this is the full hook. Their original proposal didn't even have the quotes, but one editor at least prevented that. A discussion at WT:DYK#DYK should not be presenting religious doctrine as fact, where HiLo made the above comment , which is not a personal attack or even incivil at all (though perhaps not really productive either, apart from displaying his displeasure with the hook and the way it was approved). I have no idea why the dff was included in the complaint here at ANI, if not to make the list of supposed problematic edits a bit longer. Fram (talk) 07:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I think that calling Christian editors systematically biased is fairly incivil. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Yes, but you're biased. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 07:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Your proof for such an allegation? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Your editing makes me thing you are.......as far as I can tell thats the same reasoning as HiLo is it reasonable??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.143.204.198 (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC) You can think whatever you want. I said that the hook, and the fact that many people didn't see a problem with it, is a case of systemic bias. That's not the same as calling Christian editors "systematically biased" of course... But the fact that you thought it a good idea to put "... that Jesus Christ is Risen Today? Alleluia."[98] on the main page on Easter makes it rather clear that you don't have the necessary neutrality to edit in a NPOV way and leave your preferences, beliefs, prejudices, ... at the door. Fram (talk) 08:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Now that is misleading because that never appeared on the main page in that format. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Yes, there's no need to add the "alleluia" because what actually appeared was bad enough. Unbelievable. DeCausa (talk) 08:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Misleading? It is your actual proposal, complete and unchanged. Fram (talk) 09:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Still didn't run. It was a mistake I admit, but other editors soon fixed it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC) It appears that it did run and that no one fixed it (well, the quotes were added). That's a little disappointing but I am new to the DYK thing.--Maleko Mela (talk) 09:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC) It didn't run with Alleluia in it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC) OK, got it. But...the fact that it ran as the title alone is very odd.--Maleko Mela (talk) 09:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Your new sig, with the shadows and huge text. Rethink that. Doc talk 09:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I only saw the hook after it had been on the main page, and my first thought was amazement that it got approved. But as User:The C of E has pointed out, it was on the nomination page for several weeks. I think it highlights one of the endemic problems of DYK, which has single editors approve hooks, as opposed to a discussion/consensus model. But getting back to Fram's point, I think HiLo's comment belongs here - "Not good Christian behaviour at all" is a completely uncivil remark that has no place in Wikipedia. It would be like describing HiLo as un-Australian. StAnselm (talk) 10:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Wouldn't bother me in the slightest. Such attempted slurs are typically only used by right-wing shock jocks (Aren't they all?) and similarly inclined and rather thick politicians. Water off a duck's back. HiLo48 (talk) 11:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Yes, I didn't think it would - and so my comment was somewhat tongue in cheek. But I notice you do call it an "attempted slur". StAnselm (talk) 11:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC) What? I have no idea what you're talking about. HiLo48 (talk) 11:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC) You said that "unAustralian" is an "attempted slur. I would suggest, then, that even if it doesn't bother you, it has no place on wikipedia. In the same way, "unChristian", or anything like it, is a slur that ought to be regarded as falling under incivility. StAnselm (talk) 11:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Un-Australian and un-Christian are very different things. There is really no such thing as un_Australian, but someone behaving in ways that some see as not in line with their interpretation of the teachings of the gospels could be described by them as un-Christian. Like much else that depends on Biblical interpretation, whether it is or isn't would obviously be open to debate. HiLo48 (talk) 11:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC) One would expect the admin that promotes a hook to maintain our policies like WP:NPOV, especially for things that will appear on the main page. But the process regularly fails, and DYK is a problem area. Still, it rarely is such a blatant problem as this one. Fram (talk) 10:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC) There's nothing wrong with the hook, and consensus on the DYK talk page shows that editors are OK with it. It was an Easter hook, perfectly appropriate for that day. Further, it does not promote nor encourage religion at all, it merely repeats the ancient "He has risen" meme which was found in Egyptian, Persian, and Roman cultures, until it became syncretically linked to Christianity in its most recent iteration. From a wider perspective, this hook is a celebration of this cultural narrative irrespective of any particular religion or religious belief, echoing through the centuries. This narrow, limited approach you insist upon, that defines an idea or concept by a current belief, is entirely unencyclopedic and ahistorical. One can appreciate ideas and respect them on a purely figurative level without being bound to them literally. Viriditas (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC) If anything, the hook has an anti-Christian bias. Christians, presumably, affirm that Jesus rose again in 30 AD, or thereabouts, not that he rises again every Easter Sunday... StAnselm (talk) 11:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I don't see it as anti-Christian, but you do make a good point. As a song title, the hook is an abstraction of a religious tenet of Christianity, not a religious imperative compelling believers to go to church. I thought it was very well done and appropriate. Viriditas (talk) 12:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC) It’s at least an overgeneralization: I’ve heard Ukrainians, for example, using Христос воскрес (Christ is risen) as an Easter greeting. IIANM it’s right out of the Eastern liturgy for the celebration. At any rate, “is risen” is stative, less restricted to the present than “rises“ or “is rising”, so ISTM a stretch, to say the least, reading into it a denial of the supposed original event.—Odysseus1479 04:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Well, I too can personally appreciate the "quirkiness" in this playful mis-use of the quoted title and the "celebration" of the old Easter idea, but still, it's a profession of faith, I can see no possible way of reading it that is not making a factual claim in favour of one specific religion, and I very much doubt that if Shahada ever were to go on the Main Page, anybody would have gotten away with "Did you know that there is no god but God and Muhammad is His Prophet? (Not to mention that the hook was technically in violation of the DYK rules, in that the fact asserted in the hook was of course not reliably sourced in the article). Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC) "Jesus Christ is Risen Today" is an abstract hook that refers to a song title. It does not assert the existence of a one true god as the Shahada hook you offer does. It asserts that a person "rose" today in an abstract manner. That it happens to refer to a person rising from the dead and coming back to life does not impel me to believe it. As a non-Christian, I have no problem with this at all. It's a song title that refers to a religious belief held by Christians. Unlike the example you offer, it does not make a value judgment about the beliefs of others, it only comments on what Christians believe. What's going on here, is that you are and others are misreading the hook, misinterpreting it to mean "Jesus Christ is Risen Today and You Must Believe It Or Else", when it does not say nor imply that at all. Viriditas (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC) No, we are not "misreading" it. We are reading it, literally. It's not about "impelling anybody to believe something", it is about making a factual claim. This is what it says: "Christ" (not merely "Jesus", but "Christ", i.e. the Divine personality believed by Christians) rose (i.e. from the dead). The hook was not just "referring" to that meme, as a normal hook would if it was just citing the title; by putting it into the syntactic frame "did you know that...", not as a cited phrase but as a clause, it was grammatically asserting that meme. Of course I am fully aware that it was intended to be read in a more non-literal manner, and if this wasn't on the frontpage of the website that fames itself for its strict ideological neutrality I would have no problem with it whatsoever, but still, nothing on earth can change the fact this was its only possible literal meaning. And the meme being asserted there happens to be the most central dogma of Christianity, so the parallel to my example of the Shahada is in fact very close. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Future Perfect at Sunrise: we have never had to source the name of the article, it is in all the refs. See the hook "that I believe I'll dust my broom". Thanks, Matty.007 19:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC) (ec)Consensus (i.e. votecount, I presume?) doesn't trump policy. Furthermore, consensus? Problematic: Agolib, Sven Manguard, Fram, Hilo48, Tourchiest, 64.183.42.58, EdChem No problem: Gerda Arendt, C of E, The Rambling Man, Viriditas, Colonel Warden, Allen3, Victuallers That makes 7 people seeing no problem with the hook, and 7 thinking that it was not appropriate. The sophistry used by those defending it is astounding though. It is not about religion or christianity, it just happens to be a Christian theme displayed on the Christian Easter day. As explicitly requested. Oh yes, that is all just a coincidence, and the hook was an expression of a general, worldwide cultural idea without religious connotations, even though it explicitly said "Jesus Christ"... Please, Viriditas, do you really believe that anyone will believe that defense for one second? Just read FPaS's comment above, this hook was a deliberate attempt to get Christian doctrine on the main page in the least diluted form possible. It was lucky to get missed by people who think our neutrality is more important than professing ones beliefs on Wikipedia, and got approval and promotion by like-minded people, but that's no reason to pretend that nothing untowards happened. Fram (talk) 12:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC) That an unambiguously promotional DYK hook like this made it to the main page is apalling. What admin copied this one into the queue? If they overlooked it they deserve a massive trout, but if they knowingly posted it (which is rather blatantly in violation of the DYK rules, not to mention one of Wikipedia's core principles), they've got no business being an admin. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I explained here my views, but would like to reiterate a couple of points: 1. We will never see on the main page "Did you know ... that "Bohemian Rhapsody"?" because it makes no sense. The hook in question only makes sense as a question involving an assertion of fact, in Wikipedia's voice. 2. Equally objectionable would be "Did you know ... that God is Dead?" Unlike FPaS's example, this also uses an article title that is also a title of work, in this case a novel rather than a hymn. 3. An acceptable hook would be something like "Did you know ... that God is Dead is the debut novel of Ron Currie Jr.?" or in the Christ case, some of the examples offered by C of E. 4. Psychonaut is correct that there is an issue here with the judgment of the editor who approved the hook and the admin that promoted the set. EdChem (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC) On the plus side, when the somewhat surprising news ... that "Jesus Christ is Risen Today"? appeared on the main page, it was accompanied by a picture of 19th-century female climber Jeanne Immink (Wikipedia:Recent_additions#20_April_2014). Every cloud... Sean.hoyland - talk 15:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC) FWIW, this one and the below hoax article were both promoted by User:Allen3. Fram (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I'm an anti-bible-thumping semi-pagan, and I found the hook to be a rather clever wordplay. Tarc (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC) ...which the proposer/approver/promotor deny. It was not wordplay, but a perfectly normal hook, the likes we see every day. The "message" was not intended and is purely in the eye of the beholder. I'ld prefer some honesty form their side, but apparently they rather prefer to defend their actions by making up extremely unlikely explanations. Anyway, clever wordplay or not, NPOV and SOAPBOX are policies which shouldn't be ignored on the mainpage (or elsewhere). Fram (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC) @Fram:, you claim I have issued a denial related to this issue. I have no memory of making such a statement. Could you provide a diff? Demanding honesty from others when you are unwilling to provide it yourself tends to discourage open dialog. That being said, I found the hook in question to be a cleverly play on words that provided a date related message. Just like Gerda Arendt, Tarc, Viriditas, I also am having difficulty seeing the level of NPOV issues you and HiLo48 have been railing about. Instead, from my perspective, this looks like a couple of highly vocal individuals spotting a hook that violated their personal POV. --Allen3 talk 16:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Their personal POV being that hooks should comply with mandatory policy and that this one didn't, a POV they are of course entitled to hold. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC) You're right, you hadn't yet commented on why you approved it, so I shouldn't have included you in that comment. The rest of my comments stand though. There is nothing "clever" about it, there is no word play, it is a hook that promotes a purely religious POV. A hook that would have been acceptable as a normal hook (I.e. one that said something about the subject) and at the same time had given that message could be seen as clever. This is just very thinly disguised soapboxing. Which, yes, violates my POV that hooks should be factual and neutral. We don't "provide date-related messages" that support a religious (or political) POV of any one group. I thought most admins knew that (but then again, most admins know that we don't promote hoaxes either of course...). Fram (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I've asked on his user talk page if he could explain the reasons behind the promotion. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC) The hook sucks. There is no way it should be on the main page as printed at the start of this section. None. But allegations against those involved of the type above aren't much better.John Carter (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I have no idea what the editor or DYK promoter's internal thoughts were, and frankly, intention really is completely irrelevant. I share the view that it's a clever play on words for a date-related message and when I saw the nom at DYK a while back, it gave me a grin and a giggle for the fun of the wording. Since then, it passed not only DYK, but the promoter and those who load the queue, so had at least four sets of eyes on it. It is not POV pushing, it's just an eye-catching way to get viewers to read DYK, and particularly when the article is about a musical piece and not a proselytizing article. Similarly, I would be equally amused at the "God is dead" or Shahada examples above and argue equally vehemently to keep them in. I think that people here who dislike the topic need to just get a grip. Not every passing reference to Christianity is part of a conspiracy by the Sharia wing of the Southern Baptist Convention. Easter exists, so does Yom Kippur, and so do the many porn queens, bikini bars and mermaids whose articles have adorned the main page for a few hours. Viva la difference. Montanabw(talk) 18:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Guys, political correctness isn't gonna go anywhere here. We have Christian and non-Christian editors; just because a new article and subsequent DYK happened to have a Christian slant doesn't mean we're pushing Christianity any more than anything else that shows up on the Main Page. As some have said above, this is merely a gesture for Easter, a widely accepted holiday around the world. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 18:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC) So we can simply do "Did you know [media title]?" Can we assume this construction will always be supported, or only when it's about a Christian holiday? --Golbez (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC) While I would not go so far as to claim such a construct would "always be supported", this is not the first time such a construct has been used. An example is Happiness Is Dean Martin which ran on 1 April 2013. It is fairly rare that using just an article title provides a useful hook, but it does happen. --Allen3 talk 19:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I don't think many people hold Dino at the same level of regard, so it doesn't have the same appearance of POV pushing, or hold itself open for the same perception of POV pushing. John Carter (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I find it amusing more than anything -- that Christians feel they must go to such lengths to promote their beliefs gives them about as much credence as a man leaping from an alleyway to demand of startled passersby, "Worship Thor!!" And, naturally, it is no better as a "hook" than that would be. Plus it is a clear BLP violation, since the claim is asserted to be of a living person, with no reliable evidence of such person's state of being alive or dead as of 2014. Blessings!! DeistCosmos (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Golbez: as I said above, see the hook 'that I Believe I'll Dust My Broom?' It is supported when the wordplay works, as it does here. Matty.007 19:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Except that "I believe I'll dust by broom" is so obviously non-serious no reader would be in danger of understanding it as a serious proposition with a POV message. Likewise, "Happiness is Dean Martin" can't possibly be construed as transporting any POV message beyond perhaps a questionable taste in music. But "Christ is risen" is a serious claim; it is vehemently believed by some people and just as vehemently rejected by others, and asserting it as a fact on Wikipedia is just not right. We can't put it in a DYK hook any more than we can put it in an article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC) "Jesus Christ is Risen Today" is also non-serious (it refers to a song title) and there is no POV proposition requiring the reader to do or believe anything. It is a factual claim about what Christians believe in the form of a Christian song title. We are not being asked to believe anything, we are being told what Christians believe by way of a song title. DYK used a Christian song on Easter to promote an article, not the Resurrection narrative itself. The Paschal greeting, for example, is an expression of faith that has significant meaning to Christians, not to anyone else. Outside of their influence, it does not have an imperative to people of other religions to do or believe anything, nor is there anything serious or POV about it. We are not being told there is only one god and he has a prophet, a "fact" which would seriously challenge the POV of people who believe in more than one god and different prophets. We are being told that there is a song on Easter (the day of the DYK) that celebrates their religious belief on their holiday. Viriditas (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC) "It is a factual claim about what Christians believe in the form of a Christian song title." I wasn't aware the song title was "Christians believe Jesus Christ is Risen Today", or that the DYK hook included the caveat. --Golbez (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Viriditas, I don't believe you actually are dumb, but at this point in our conversation I can only conclude that you are either playing dumb or you are not listening. If the first, please stop playing dumb, now. If the second, please start listening, now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC) WP:NPA and WP:CIV does not exempt admins. I don't agree with your position. I think you can find a way to accept this disagreement without resorting to personal attacks. Viriditas (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I disagree. It's unencyclopedic on any day except April Fool's, when we tolerate that kind of wordplay. It doesn't matter how punny, we shouldn't supply media titles as a statement of fact (which is what we're doing essentially) unless it actually is a statement of fact, like if there were a song titled "Maine borders only New Hampshire." Which would actually be a really fun and witty way of introducing that song... but it only works for actual statements of fact. Neither "I believe I'll dust by broom" nor "Jesus Christ is Risen Today" are statements of fact. --Golbez (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Dust my Broom was an April Fools' hook. Matty.007 20:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Mocking or attacking fellow editors' beliefs (or presumed beliefs) is simply unacceptable. But that hook should only have run like that on April Fools' - which was the date the Dean Martin hook ran, please note - because it violates the "in universe" rule of DYK hooks, which is not suspended for Easter, or Christmas, or Hanukkah, or Eid, but only on April Fool's, precisely because it's either misleading or non-neutral to present such statements in Wikipedia's voice. It was clearly an error that nobody spotted; if it was reported at Main Page:Errors, I'm sorry I didn't see it. It's demonstrably an easy error to make if that's your belief system, but it should have been caught. (Pretty much a classic case of unconscious bias, in other words.) However—... that a mistake was made doesn't excuse mocking or attacking others' belief systems. I'm reminded that the potential divisiveness of religious userboxes was a major reason Jimbo wanted to do away with userboxes. I wasn't here then, but my recollectionis that the community moved them from template space to userspace on the understanding that they should be treated as "This user is an X or is interested in Xness"—and I had the impression they are still supposed to take that form and should never be allowed to lead to suspensions of civility. So I suggest we get back to the main thread here, except for those who want to participate in the more general thread about DYK below. That specific hook is long gone from the Main Page. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I fail to see anything wrong with a song title hook that celebrates the faith of Christians on their holiday. Viriditas (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC) (ec) I think it is pretty clear that the point of there being no hook and just the title was to purposely use the DYK allow that title to look like a claim of fact. but...removing all religious stuff from the debate, I would say that it is not appropriate only because it did purposely use DYK to make a statement and illustrate a point. My personal perception...it looks like using Wikipedia for proselytizing.--Maleko Mela (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I don't see that. I see an Easter song DYK hook on...wait for it...Easter! How dare they! Viriditas (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Cool. Did you know God is dead? Would that be appropriate?--Maleko Mela (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Since Easter is "a festival and holiday celebrating the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead", I'm afraid I don't see how it would be relevant on that day. Viriditas (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC) And if I were talking about placing it on easter that might be an argument. Is it appropriate to have a DYK that is "Did you know God is dead ever?--Maleko Mela (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC) There's nothing wrong with the topic or even with quoting the title, but there's a DYK rule requiring context for fictional or otherwise misinterpretable material that applies here. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC) The context was a Christian song title DYK on the Christian Easter holiday professing the beliefs of Christians. What is there to misinterpret? I mean, really. Viriditas (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Well here's the kicker: Would it have been allowed on DYK had it not contained quotation marks? If not, then it shouldn't be up there with quotation marks. No one is complaining about an Easter-related DYK entry, we're complaining about how it was presented. --Golbez (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I don't get that. It was actually begun without the quotation marks. I don't care that it was used on DYK, or that it was used during Easter. My issue is that it was granted a special privilege to look like a claim of fact. To look like promoting a faith and to look like it got away with something no other DYK has.--Maleko Mela (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC) There's no misinterpretation involved. Honoring a religious holiday by having a DYK is fine if it stays within the rules - by providing context in the hook. I've now looked at the discussion at WT:DYK and I see that the other cited example of suspension of the rule also ran on April 1. That's the only day we suspend the rule requiring provision of a context. Think of it as explanation for our non-(Western) Christian readers - or in the more usual case, for people unfamiliar with the fictional setting referred to. It's easy to forget not everyone has the same frame of reference. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Except, we have dozens of DYK's where context is not provided, and it's part of the appeal of the hook. For example, did you know that baked beans have hairy eyes and iridescent antennae?[99] Viriditas (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I can't seem to find any biologists who counter those claims. I can find many historians who counter a claim that Jesus was ever risen. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Huh? This has nothing to do with "claims". The DYK analogy is as follows: the "baked beans" do not refer to baked beans, they refer to an animal. In the same way, the rising of Christ does not refer to the physical Resurrection, it refers to a song. Viriditas (talk) 21:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Yes, an animal with the name "baked bean". "Jesus Christ" in the hook refers to what then? Not Jesus? Is it not a grammatical subject? What you seem to be suggesting is that the entire phrase "Jesus Christ is Risen Today" should be understood as a noun. In that case, the sentence would actually be ungrammatical. When I read a sentence—and I think a lot of people do this as well—I favour a grammatical reading over an ungrammatical one. I think that would be part of following the principle of charity. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Baked beans do not have eyes and antennae. I have been cheated by false information! But, still, there remains a song named "Jesus Christ is Risen Today", and a DYK hook that ran on Easter, a holiday that celebrates the resurrection of Jesus. I wonder, do we have any other DYK's like this? Why yes, we do! Did you know that today is the day when Krishna gave the holy sermon of the Bhagavad Gita to the Pandava prince Arjuna, as described in the Mahabharata?[100] But wait a second, you might say. The Mahabharata is a poem, and Krishna could be seen as the Hindu equivalent of the Christian Jesus! What's going on here? And what does "today is the day" refer to here? It refers to the day of the hook, December 23. Is this an in-universe hook I see? Well, how can this be? Does Wikipedia actually promote in-universe hooks about religious figures on religious holidays? Yes, yes it does. All the time, in fact. Viriditas (talk) 21:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Wow. Why didn't the Krishna one run as 'Today is the day when the Mahabharata says that...'? That's quite a stretch you've got with your comparative theology there, by the by. I'm a Christian myself; but I come down on the side of the editors who are viewing the Easter DYK entry as a breach of NPOV. You can't just treat the claims of the faith - even well-regarded quasi-historical ones - as fact like that. I also find it surprising that you and others are claiming that the blurb, as published, did not appear to be asserting the hymn's title as a fact. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I see no significant qualitative difference between "did you know on this day Jesus rose" and "did you know on this day Krishna gave a holy sermon". The only difference I see is that some editors are offended by one idea, but not by another. Both are considered similar religious figures and both hooks are stated as a matter of fact, even if it is attributed to the Mahabharata, as if we could draw an in-universe connection between a Hindu sacred text, a divine figure, and a date on the Gregorian calendar in the real world. There's no substantive difference here at all. Viriditas (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Can you really not see the key difference between "Did you know X?" and "Did you know that Y claims X?"? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC) The Hindu DYK is composed as a factual, historical event that occurred on a real date by a divine, supernatural being as described in the Mahabharata, which gives it the status of textual authenticity rather than the simple "claim" you make it out to be. Granted, it has the illusion of attribution, but saying that the act of this divine being were described in a sacred Holy book as having occurred on this day is no different than saying "today is the day Jesus rose", minus the added description in the holy book, where of course, it all comes from anyway. SSDD. Viriditas (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC) That's my point; neither DYK should have run as written - in each case a religious claim, a matter of faith, is presented on equal footing with ostensibly straightforward facts. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I acknowledge your argument and recognize it as having merit. However, I am not arguing that neither hook should have run. I'm arguing that we run hooks like this (religious or otherwise) all the time, and that as such, these types of hooks aren't violating DYK practices. One can seriously argue about what it means to present straightforward facts, since the very concept of a "fact" is highly disputatious. For example, in science, facts are provisional, whereas in religion, facts are incontrovertible. NPOV demands we attribute the best (and in this case, interesting) facts to their claimants, but in practice, DYK has not always done this. Viriditas (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC) To say that baked beans not having eyes and antennae in that sense is a counterexample to the claim that the baked bean the animal has eyes and antennae is just a run-of-the-mill equivocation. All the time it does that? I'm looking right now and I don't see one, so your claim that it does that all the time is not a "fact" at all. Of the 30 random sets at which I looked, none of them had one. It would seem to be a fortunately rare practice. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I'm not certain we are talking about the same thing, but for the sake of the argument let's assume we are. I don't think the practice is rare, but quite common. For example, did you know that Caucasians were brown?[101] Viriditas (talk) 22:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I'd just like to point out that there are wikilinks on these hooks that you can click on to find out what they are. Baked beans, a Christian hymn, caucasians, every last one has this built-in mechanism to let you find out what it is exactly without getting all up in arms over it. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 02:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC) That's another example like the baked beans. I can't find any biologists that counter that claim. I can find many historians that counter the claim that Jesus ever was risen. It's the basic distinction between fact and opinion given at WP:YESPOV. DYK rules for content clearly state: "The hook should be neutral." That means the relevant claim must fit WP:YESPOV. The claim that Caucasians are brown does fit WP:YESPOV. The claim that Jesus Christ is or was risen (today or any other day) does not. The former is a fact, because all the relevant biologists agree those things are brown (or thereabouts anyway). The latter is an opinion, because a significant number of the relevant historians agree that the resurrection of Jesus probably did not happen. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 07:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Viriditas, you wrote that "The context was a Christian song title". This is patently untrue. The word "context" means "the text in which a word or passage appears and which helps ascertain its meaning". The phrase in this DYK hook was entirely self-contained, with no surrounding text whatsoever, and so by definition had no context. It therefore seemed to convey only the literal meaning of the phrase. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC) I'm afraid I disagree with you. I suggest you refrain from citing Wiktionary. The DYK was taken out of the context of a Christian song, in the same way that many of the example hooks mentioned here have been taken out of context, quite on purpose. In their original context, for example, baked beans do not have eyes and antennae and Caucasians aren't brown, yet these are acceptable DYK's, and there are more than enough of them. In the same way, the statement "Jesus Christ is Risen Today" was taken out of its context of a song as a special occasion hook to highlight the word play and attract interest. I would love to chat further about this, but I believe everything has already been said several times now. Thanks for your feedback, but we'll have to agree to disagree. Viriditas (talk) 07:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Proposal to permanently change format of all dyk's based on this entry's passage to "Did you know that "[media title]"?" it will solve all problems and issues if we have stuff like "that Adon Olam?" "that "Imagine (song)"?" "that "Meera: Mane Chakar Rakho Ji"?" that walrsuses also i think yngvadottir has a great point, we already make note of religious holidays on the box right below dyk on a daily basis~Helicopter Llama~ 20:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Really? I can't see any there now? Is it only an occasional feature? Where do they come from? Do they fit the definition in Holiday? HiLo48 (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I presume yngvadottir is referring to SA/OTD which does indeed feature religious observances. Many of these would probably fit some definition of holiday since they are often a holiday at least somewhere in the world, but there's no particular requirement for that (although because of item limits, they are usually expected to be fairly significant). SA/OTD appears to the right of DYK in the normal main page but may appear to the bottom of DYK with some main pages alternatives such as the this one under a small window size (albeit not really right below as ITN is in between). P.S. Good Friday but not Easter is a holiday in Sabah and Sarawak in Malaysia. Note that as Sunday is the main normal day of rest in these two states, Easter being a holiday would automatically mean Monday is for most people as well due to the way holidays falling on the main day of rest are handled in Malaysia. (Meaning that for most Christians in those states, having Easter a holiday would not actually help their observance that much, unlike with Good Friday. But from the governments point of view it will end up being an extra day of work for many people in those states. And there is a vary amount of competition for what days to observe as holidays.) As per the constitution, Islam is the official religion of Malaysia although there is disagreement over whether or not this means Malaysia is an Islamic state, or it's a secular state. Nil Einne (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC) If we want to make an exception for religious holidays, we should formalize it, but where would we draw the line, with 20,000 estimated Christian groups and others? DYK that Raël had sex with white-, black-, brown-, yellow-, red-, green-, and purple-skinned women? John Carter (talk) 20:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC) If that's true, that's very interesting. I'd love to read a backstory on that and it'd make a great DYK.--v/r - TP 22:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC) It makes me understand Lucinda Williams's song "Am I too blue for you?" in a whole new way. What's the guy got against blue women, eh?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC) The problem is that hook treats Easter as if it was April Fools: It presents a song title as if it was a statement of fact. Such wordplay is inappropriate outside of April Fools, when such is expected and presented alongside many other such wordplay jokes. I don't think there's any malice, of course, but it's simply not how DYK is meant to be used. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I now see that this is fundamentally about is Christian selfishness and self-centeredness. There are, what, over four million pages? Scores new every day? But Christians just have to seize the opportunity to try to grab the reigns and shout "Me!! Me!! Me!! All about ME!!" It's exactly the same as the issue with the current proposed move where every Creation myth in Wikipedia is titled something-Creation myth except their precious "Genesis creation narrative" -- as if their sales pitch will be validated and their faith will cease its historically unprecedented spiraling shrinkage if they can only find a vehicle to present the right magic words. Well you can't do that here. DeistCosmos (talk) 01:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC) The actual discussion began as pertaining directly to a comment by Hilo that had to do with a DYK that an admin felt was used in the above complaint by the OP that the admin felt was justified (while still not the best form) or at least not uncivil and was used to over stuff the above complaint. A DYK was allowed without a fact hook used. It made the DYK little more than a christian promotional tool. But it really isn't about the religious editors, it's about whether or not Hilo had a good reason to make the statements they did and whether or not this type of DYK is actually allowed. Frankly it looks like many of the Christian editors see nothing wrong. Heck, I even see some pagan editors that see nothing wrong. But...this will lead to a disturbing practice. It just seems that many editors are for this and I am not sure what the consensus is or if a local consensus on ANI can overrode the larger community consensus...whatever that may be.--Maleko Mela (talk) 01:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC) So what is the outcome of this DYK discussion? If all that occurred here is that we now know that DYK does not require a hook and that titles alone that look like actual facts being presented is the norm, are we to expect this happen more often or have we determined that it was inappropriate and that DYK requires an actual fact from the article be that hook?--Maleko Mela (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC) We could start by not trying to guess the future. Find out if this becomes a trend or a once-in-a-blue-moon play on words. Not overreact and enact knee-jerk policies based on no consensus of there being a problem in the first place. That's my advice from a completely outside perspective.--v/r - TP 01:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Sounds to me like requiring the hook be more than just the title of the article would be an obvious new requirement. I think we'll be fine with just that so as to not run into anything like this again, religious or otherwise. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 01:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC) I don't actually think it's a "new requirement" at all – it's simply a logical consequence of taking the expectation seriously that the hook must be a valid, factual piece of encyclopedic information. Simply building the title into the hook as if it were a clause usually doesn't result in valid encyclopedic information – at best, it results in harmless nonsense (as in the "dust my broom" example or whatever that was); at worst, it results in a POV nightmare. I think this is where the whole disagreement lies, at the deepest level: there are those of us who think that DYK hooks must be valid encyclopedic information, and therefore obey the same principles of factuality, verifiability and neutrality as any piece of article content, and there are those who feel DYK hooks are just a piece of advertisement blurb that may contain anything as long as it successfully whets the reader's appetite to go to the article. If you subscribe to the former view, then none of these playful "just the title" hooks are legitimate; if the latter, they are. Fut.Perf. ☼ 02:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Yes, that's exactly right. The hook did not meet the first two content rules already listed at WP:DYK#The hook; there's no extra rule required. Indeed, making a rule that a hook cannot just be a title of a work could rule out perfectly fine hooks. "Some people are dead when they're cold and dead" [102]—that seemingly tautological title could be a perfectly fine hook. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC) It's an important question. If this were a formal discussion, I would suggest an uninvolved admin closing it for future reference. I guess everyone agrees that ...that "God is Dead"? would be inappropriate, and nominating it would surely constitute a violation of WP:POINT. But I don't want to go through all this again next time. So I'm going to go out on a limb - consensus is against having similar hooks in the future. StAnselm (talk) 01:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC) I don't think 'that God is dead' is inappropriate. I would rather us be non-censored on all topics, including pro and anti-religious hooks, than create a bunch of bureaucratic rules. NPOV isn't just achieved by avoiding anything that can appear to be promoting a topic. NPOV is also achieved by us not picking and choosing which kinds of topics are 'taboo'.--v/r - TP 02:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC) What on earth does being "non-censored" or topics being "taboo" have to do with anything?! Of course NPOV isn't achieved by "avoiding topics". NPOV is achieved in DYK hooks exactly the same way as everywhere else: by not stating potentially disputed claims as fact, but by attributing them. How could you possibly consider it legitimate for a hook to be either "pro-religious" or "anti-religious"? A DYK hook is a piece of encyclopedic content just like any other piece of article content, and the demands of neutrality and the mechanisms of how to achieve it are exactly the same as elsewhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 02:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Guys...please do not argue over the same crap. I don't think God is dead is appropriate myself but that doesn't matter. If we can say Christ has risen we can say god is dead. I don't believe the same stuff as you and you don't believe the stuff i belive. Cool....but that IS NOT THE ISSUE. Either we have a consistent policy/guideline or everyone gets to claim as fact whatever title they want to present on DYK. Good job guys....DYK is little more than a joke now. A punch line and something that pushes editors into sides. Wow.....I am amazed by the ......unusual manner in which this discussion has been taken but...I want a clear answer. Moving forward...can I present a DYK title as a hook. Either it is Yes or it is no.--Maleko Mela (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC) If the title is a complete sentence, as it was in this case, go for it. Would anyone really get annoyed if "Did you know I Am the Walrus?" was posted? How about "Did you know She Came In Through the Bathroom Window? That offend anyone? Calidum 02:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Neither "I am the Walrus" nor "She came in through the bathroom window" are factually true encyclopedic statements (unless you actually are a walrus, which of course nobody would know, this being the Internet). See my post above. Would such hooks be effective advertisement blurb? Sure, yes. Would they be responsible, factual and verifiable encyclopedic information? No. I'm still on the side of those who expect that hooks should be just that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 02:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC) I am for that as well....but i want to be able to do the same thing a Christian gets away with as a pagan. Simple. Either this was not OK...or it is OK. Everyone wants to blur the lines so that its like some personal insult to christians if we don't allow the tile of certain articles to be presented as fact. look....it is simple. If we are not allowed to such then we are not allowed to do such, but...if we are allowed to do such.........then we are all allowed to the exact same ting, whether that is claiming god is dead or i am the walrus.--Maleko Mela (talk) 02:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC) And let's face it. If positive promotion is allowed...why not negative promotion?--Maleko Mela (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC) If you want to tell me articles are to be factually accurate - you've got my 100% unabashed support. However, the main page itself serves as a promotional ad campaign to draw attention to Wikipedia articles. There is zero other way to describe the main page. That's its purpose, its whole engineering. What we are all upset about here is that it promoted a religious topic without any sort of disclaimer and my reply is: get over yourselves, it's not that serious. (cue serious business cat). It is okay to use humor to draw attention to our articles if it serves our readers. Using silly hooks like this to draw them to bits of whatever kind of articles we have might win them $10,000 on Jeopardy someday.--v/r - TP 03:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC) And my response is: Get over yourself..... as well as "Bullshit" on a very large pokey stick. In other words...don't put words in my mouth. What offends me is that Christians are being placed on a higher level here for their own purposes to simply promote their beliefs. Cool....but if that is good for those that believe in the Chiristian god, it is just as good for those that feel god is dead, never existed and that the whole belief is just one side of a coin. That and that any article title should and could be used in the same nammer. If you don't agree, fine....but that only shows that ou support a christian view and none other.--Maleko Mela (talk) 03:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC) I haven't put any words in anyone's mouth (and my reply wasn't really toward you anyway) I say that anything that arises out of natural editing shouldn't be discouraged. It is editors intentions that matter. Any WP:POINTY, WP:DISRUPT, or WP:SPAM behavior should be addressed on a case by case basis. If there is no evidence of intentionally doing any of that, then there is no problem. Be it Judeo-Religions, Pegan, Scientology, Realism, non-religious, or anti-religious.--v/r - TP 04:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Yes, actually you did put words in mine as well as everyone's mouth when you stated :"What we are all upset about here is that it promoted a religious topic". No....what I am upset about is there is no standard and that even you feel that promoting Christianity is fine on DYK but not a criticism in the same form. look....you haven't lowered yourself in my view. Really. I still have respect for you....but that does not limit me from being critical of you when you are wrong...and i feel you are very wrong here.--Maleko Mela (talk) 04:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Interesting, now whom is putting words in whose mouth? Actually, I get the feeling you haven't read a word I've said. Let me quote two passages which explicitly refute your central argument that "even [I] feel that promoting Christianity is fine on DYK but not a criticism in the same form." First, I said "I don't think 'that God is dead' is inappropriate. I would rather us be non-censored on all topics, including pro and anti-religious hooks, than create a bunch of bureaucratic rules" and then I said "Any WP:POINTY, WP:DISRUPT, or WP:SPAM because should be addressed on a case by case basis. If there is no evidence of intentionally doing any of that, then there is no problem. Be it Judeo-Religions, Pegan, Scientology, Realism, non-religious, or anti-religious." So you see, I do support hooks of this nature that are anti-religion. You should treat everyone's arguments on their individual merits and not lump me in with any bible thumpers.--v/r - TP 05:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC) No I read that Tparis, but I also read ALL of what you posted and it doesn't make you look like you are that neutral on this issue or that you feel that DYK is not a promotional tool. You stated it was...but that is simply not what i believe in. You have a lot of posts. I center more on what I see as being the issue here, not the rilgious issue. This isn't about religion. it's about whether or not DYK is for promoting ideas, which you seem to support from what I am reading.--Maleko Mela (talk) 05:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC) I wasn't aware neutrality was the prerequisite for giving an opinion. But no matter, no one here is 'neutral' and disagreeing with you or 'your side' seems to be your definition of what neutrality isn't. But here we have an example of 'moving the goalposts'. Your argument two replies up was, "you feel that promoting Christianity is fine on DYK but not a criticism in the same form." I offered two diffs where I explicitly stated that it was not the case; diffs predating your argument which had you read you never should have made in the first place. Now, you've shifted to a new argument, "you feel that DYK is not a promotional tool". My reply is thus, a simple one, describe DYK in a form that does not include promoting articles. Further, describe ANY of the four (five on featured picture day) content blocks in a form that does not include promoting articles.--v/r - TP 18:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Neutrality on the issue at hand. I think you have your biases like everyone else. I didn't shift the discussion. I just discussed your claim that DYK is a promotional tool as are other features on the main page. And, whether you truly understand the point or not, there is a major difference between a properly structured DYK that promotes just the article and the encyclopedic content and one that is promoting an idea like, Jesus, as a matter of fact rose from the dead. This isn't a shift in argument, this is the basis of the argument. It seems, however that I was mistaken when you did indeed seem to say that either positive or negative religious hooks are acceptable. As long as the structure is made properly as all DYKs are made.....I don't even think we would be discussing any of this right now. But i do admit...I have a hard time understanding your stance on this as it seems we have fundamentally different views on what is being promoted on the main page. Is it the content and the encyclopedic value of the information, or is the main page a tool to promote individual ideals and concepts as fact that millions of readers are going to take exception to? --Maleko Mela (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Neutrality and faith or lack of faith are all just ad hominems to avoid having to address someone's actual argument. I think you're better than that, Mark, so step up the counterarguments a bit. As to your question, I have also already answered that one as well. I said, "Any WP:POINTY, WP:DISRUPT, or WP:SPAM behavior should be addressed on a case by case basis. If there is no evidence of intentionally doing any of that, then there is no problem. Be it Judeo-Religions, Pegan, Scientology, Realism, non-religious, or anti-religious." Deal with attempts to SPAM when they come up. But having a catchy hook isn't enough evidence that someone is promoting a religion.--v/r - TP 23:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Put simply, I'd answer No. As previous posters have pointed out, rarely (if ever) does a title count as a piece of encyclopedic information, and without that, the DYK would go against Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, one of the Pillars. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 03:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Yes...but you seem to be rational while others seem simply to be supporting their personal beliefs that I don't hold in any regard, other than it being the belief of another that I don't share. This isn't about Christians verses Pagans but it is quickly becoming a push pull debate over whether or not Christians have more rights to a title hook on DYK than the non-believer and that appears to be what i see.--Maleko Mela (talk) 03:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Come now, it is no secret that Conservapedia-type Christians would wish to take over Wikipedia as a religious propaganda tool, by feigning sufficient general interest in building a neutral encyclopedia to obtain positions of respect, and then using those to play the numbers game of chipping away at reasoned presentation bit by bit. At let those involved in this current debacle thereby reveal their true agenda, and so render themselves disqualified for future trustworthiness as reasonable champions of factual accuracy and disinterested distribution of knowledge. DeistCosmos (talk) 04:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC) The pressure is too much! Your words force me to admit it, I'm part of the Conservapedia-type Christian POV pushing agenda, which is why I have been fighting them tooth and nail for the last 10 years. My cover is blown, whatever will I do now? Viriditas (talk) 05:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Oh crap...that means my cover is blown! Woe is me for being caught as a neo conservative, religious fanatic for even caring about or working with christian editors. I guess I have to turn in my LGBT card, my liberal democrat card and my free thinking card (ok...that last part was a little over the top...but so was the rest). Now...having taken the tongue in cheek response, let me say this DeistCosmos, it isn't about belief, faith or conservatism....it's a bout a standard and an idea of what DYK was meant for. Some believe it is a promotional tool. I reject that idea.--Maleko Mela (talk) 05:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC) To be clear, I am not speaking of any political agenda, but of the general projection of haughtiness of those Christians who firmly believe that they have "the answer" and that anybody else who doesn't see it is subhuman; and so that they are entitled to use whatever subterfuge is necessary to get in a position to commandeer platforms built by others to trumpet their "rightness." This is why there appears to be no shame, and indeed no understanding of the disgrace and shamefulness, of this gimmicky exploitation of the "DYK" platform. This is why there is no internal moral mechanism to temper the bigotry inherent in declaring that the spiritual warfare page must be limited to Christian examples despite the phenomenon existing across myriad cultures. It is, to be honest, a pervasive self-congratulatory egotism which can barely be stomached by the actual neutral observer. DeistCosmos (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC) I don't think anyone was using subterfuge in this DYK. I think the editors simply thought they were being original and had a direction that would stand out. The unfortunate part of all of this is that DYK was sort of used to make a claim of fact that someone had risen from the dead and claim that as a fact when the truth is there are so many other beliefs and religions that in doing so, they were actually dismissing all other beliefs as false. Yes, if you claim that as fact you are claiming other beliefs as false. That is why it was insulting over all to our readers, believers and none believers alike. But then that goes back to the reasoning of of why it was bad, based on the content and to me that is kinda a side argument (even if I've made it). The direct issue is having a standard for all to apply so that we don't end up with a DYK that uses opinions to claim as absolute fact.--Maleko Mela (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC) @DeistCosmos: You think my neutrality here is a ruse? As I previously mentioned, I'm Catholic, so yes, I'm biased in this. However, Wikipedia needs to be kept neutral, and to do that, we need to put ourselves in other mindsets, weigh the different sides, allow Wikipedia to remain uncensored. In this debate, it seems to me that no lines were crossed with the possible exception of the hook format (a few more words would've avoided a lot of this, although we'd lose the Easter-specific wording in the process). Besides that, if I wanted to turn this into "a religious propaganda tool", why would I be mainly editing articles about purely secular games (Pokemon, Mario, Magic: The Gathering, etc) and the internet? @Maleko Mela: Okay, so a small difference on the surface from what I thought. Any ideas on how to defuse this before things get really messy? Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 05:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Unfortunatley when I suggested this thread be closed because i felt it was likely to spin out of control was....well, it wasn't heeded. So at this point it may have to wear itself out over time.--Maleko Mela (talk) 05:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC) There is also a problem with this entry here: A.D. 797. This year the Romans cut out the tongue of Pope Leo, put out his eyes, and drove him from his see; but soon after, by the assistance of God, he could see and speak, and became pope as he was before. Eanbald also received the pall on the sixth day before the ides of September, and Bishop Ethelherd died on the third before the calends of November. Count Iblis (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC) DYK ... that "he was despised" DYK ... that "he was despised", and from deep affliction I cry out? To the memory, and this is real. The JCiRT hook was not a good hook, because it said nothing new, - I bet that the (also biased) majority of our readers were not surprised, possibly even recognized the hymn, possibly smiled, as I did. The only new fact was that Wikipedia has now an article on it. - I will not approve such a hook again, for the minority's sake. We don't need more rules. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Thanks for bringing us more proselytizing. It only makes your bias more obvious. You don't need to do things for the minority's sake or for the majority's sake, just uphold our policies, as should have been done here in the first place. 07:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs) This kind of breach of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL isn't needed. Saying she is proselytizing and biased doesn't help at all. This is more of a "Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra" situation, where religious metaphors are being employed to communicate concrete ideas. In this case, Gerda Arendt is apologizing, yet you attack her in return. If you're going to preach to others about upholding policies, at least do us the courtesy to uphold them yourself, first. Viriditas (talk) 08:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Yes, this is rather uncivil, Fram. I smell WP:BATTLEGROUND. Let's focus on moving forward - as you are doing with the RfC idea. StAnselm (talk) 08:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC) As part of moving forward, perhaps some here could stop looking so hard for something to offend them. Somewhere way up above I suggested that to me, another's comment was like "Water off a duck's back". I've worked as a teacher in some pretty rough schools. I could not have sensibly taken offence at every rude comment or naughty word. I would have gone crazy. It's pretty hard to offend me. It's an approach I recommend. HiLo48 (talk) 08:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Yeah, of course, when you want to apologize in a discussion about a Christian soapboxing hook you accepted, you start with and head it with "he was despised"... She can keep her "apology" to herself. Fram (talk) 08:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC) I was only quoting from old real DYK, and find the reactions above amusing: ... that in Handel's Messiah, Part II contains the famous Hallelujah Chorus and the oratorio's longest movement, the air for alto He was despised? (29 July 2014) ... that Martin Luther's chorale Aus tiefer Not schrei ich zu dir (From deep affliction I cry out to you) was sung at his own funeral? (14 July 2014) I was in sorrow when I wrote those, and it was not about Jesus. - Yes, I am biased, who isn't? I don't know the other word. - I am restricted by arbcom to a limit of two comments in a discussion and came to find that a blessing rather than a restriction, - off to work on Cantiones sacrae (nothing to fear for DYK, it appeared already). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC) I don't doubt that you were quoting from old DYKs. Your point is? What does it matter how you felt when you wrote these in 2011? Similarly, you are restricted from "making more than two comments in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article." How is that relevant here? Most people don't include pieces from three year old DYKs at random and without context without having some purpose for them. From the context, your intended meaning is pretty clear. But apparently some people feel that saying so out loud is a personal attack. Perhaps they can provide the same fanciful explanations for this, like they provided for the DYK that started this. I will give them all the consideration they deserve. Fram (talk) 09:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Repeating some of what I said above: yes, this thread is getting us away from the serious problem of denigration of other editors' religions. No, we do not need additional rules and regulations; we already have an applicable rule, which was violated in this DYK. Except for April Fools' Day, DYK requires "out of universe" context in such situations. "... that today is the day when Krishna gave the holy sermon of the Bhagavad Gita to the Pandava prince Arjuna, as described in the Mahabharata?" provides such context, as does "... that Martin Luther's chorale Aus tiefer Not schrei ich zu dir (From deep affliction I cry out to you) was sung at his own funeral?". The fact that April 20 this year was a (Western) Christian festival does not supply the missing context; we do not make special exceptions for "their" religious festival any more than we expect everyone to be familiar with the words of this or any other hymn/song or the context of any particular viedo game or TV show. It was an error; let's remember and not do it again, as Gerda says. That's no disrespect to Christianity, nor yet is it rule creep; the ease with which one assumes familiarity with the tropes of one's own religion (especially if one comes from one of the many countries with a state religion) or one's own favorite entertainment is the reason we have the rule. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC) By the way, it was an Eastern Christian festival as well... StAnselm (talk) 21:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC) I'm very strongly in agreement with User:Yngvadottir here. Given that there is a rule, that it has been broken, that it has brought the project into disrepute, and that the situation has been thoroughly discussed, I'm assuming that a block would be appropriate for any repetition of this sort of nonsense. --John (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC) Calling Wikipedia Into Disrepute Beyond the procedural and policy issues discussed at length here, I submit that front-page that reads "Did you know … that Jesus Christ is risen today?" has the flavor and appearance of endorsing Christian belief. Elsewhere in this thread, the responsible party promises not to repeat this episode, not because it was wrong but as a concession to minorities. Both sentiments are contrary to the spirit of encyclopedias generally and of wikipedia specifically. Mishaps like this one can easily lead to censure and ridicule: I'm surprised the storm hasn't broken already. I believe we need sanctions, and we need a mechanism to ensure that wikipedia isn't betrayed on a whim. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC) I spy a teacup in which there is a storm sufficient to splash some of the tea into the saucer. MIghty folk are leaping into boats to ride out the storm and hitting the sides of the cup. IT was unwise, foolish, silly, but not bringing Wikipedia into disrepute, April 1st also creates similar things. Fiddle Faddle 16:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC) IMHO, a reasonable response to the mistake would be to suspend DYK from the front page for a week. It would be better to take action on our own, and promptly; should, for example, a reporter for a major newspaper or magazine take up the story, it would be good to be able to say "Mistakes were made, punishments handed out, and it won’t happen again." MarkBernstein (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC) That's way over the top. There may be reasons why DYK should be overhauled, and that's being discussed here, but it isn't (just) because of this. While this item was a mistake, the hoax article probably is or more serious issue. DeCausa (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC) MarkBernstein: to what purpose? I very much doubt any journalist wants to investigate Wikipedia's complex web deeply, and if they do, we can always point them to this discussion. Closing DYK for a week would be a massive over-reaction, like the fact that someone creates a hoax article: therefore, no-one can make articles for a week. Thanks, Matty.007 18:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC) I will say this, TAFI was removed form the front page because it wasn't working. Seems to me DYK is beginning to suffer the same fate, but we don't punish editors and there has to some effort to improve DYK before it is yanked off the front page. There are great suggestions being made by editors. I think the discussion should take place on the Main Page talk or the DYK talk page to find solutions that satisfy everyone. DYK isn't a new feature to the main page so we should make some effort to rescue it before we declare it a failure.--Maleko Mela (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC) :Matty.007: Using the main page to proselytize, or to assert a biblical story as fact, is not trivial. Our response to the hoax -- indefinite bans for everyone involved -- seems sensible. We've had not one but two major DYK embarrassments in recent days, and I understand its procedures have been a source of considerable friction for some time. It makes sense to take it off line, fix it, and when it's fixed we can give it another try. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Would a teaspoon help to make bigger waves in this teacup? Your point is made. People either accept it or not. Seriously there is nothing to see here nor do here. It was silly, perhaps even mildly reprehensible. I don't have a secret friend in the sky and I don't care about this at all. Time to move on to some other teacup. Would dunking a biscuit in it help smooth the waves? Fiddle Faddle 22:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Facepalm Resolute 20:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Volunteer Marek inserting POV-slanted original research in ukraine topics

Volunteer Marek has been going around the articles relating to the Ukrainian crisis inserting original research and completely made up things supporting his POV while reverting any efforts to change the statements to actually represent what the sources say, while deceptively claiming in his edit summaries that he is removing "misrepresentations" and "original research".

One example is the Euromaidan article where i had removed the claim that "some of the snipers were not allowed to shoot" for not being supported, nor even mentioned, in any of the sources.[103] Besides being original research, the statement made it seem as if only those who were not allowed to shoot were surprised by those who were (ie implying that Janukovich snipers were allowed to shoot and were the ones doing it, something completely unsupported by the sources). However, since such a wording, and made-up stuff, fits his POV he immediately reinserted that claim.[104]

Another example is from 2014 Crimean Crisis where i had removed a whole bunch of claims unsupported by the source [105] [106]. As anyone can see the source [107] does not say anything about any "ukrainian officials", "Refat Chubarov", it being "undemocratic", "hastily prepared", "falsified" or "not reflecting the real will of the Crimeans". However, since the claims made it appear as if there is a widespread belief that only 40% participated and that the referendum was falsified, rather than just one man's speculations about how many participants there could have been given turnouts in earlier elections, which perfectly fits Marek's POV, he promptly reinserted the original research.[108]B01010100 (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

This is sour grapes over the fact that I filed a report on User:B01010100 for edit warring ([109] - s/he got blocked then block was reduced after B01010100 promised to behave, which appears to have been an empty promise) and had the temerity to point out that it's a sketchy-as-hell single purpose account who's arrived recently (?) on Wikipedia for the sole purpose of engagin in some good ol' fashioned WP:BATTLEGROUND.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

No, this is over the fact that i'm constantly working to fact-check sources and rewriting the articles to more accurately present the sources but you constantly reverting and reinserting OR for no other reason than that it fits your POV. Besides, even if it were sour grapes, i'll just refer you to Ad Hominem.B01010100 (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see how Marek's contributions are in any way controversial, and am going to have to side with them in this regard. If you guys have a dispute, work it out at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, but I am not seeing anything here that is concerning, especially when one looks at B01010100's talk page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. B01010100 needs to stop focusing on Volunteer Marek, and start concentrating on ensuring his own contributions are not becoming problematic. Coming here each time he perceives an issue is not going to go down well. If there is in fact a dispute, a conflict or some grievance about Volunteer Marek which needs to be addressed, the appropriate thing to do is utilise dispute resolution. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I find Volunteer Marek's edits so much POV that it's very difficult to keep assuming good faith. I don't want to look non-neutral, but, frankly saying, I am beginning to think his aim is to add as many anti-Russian stuff as possible and to remove as many pro-Russian stuff as possible. (I'm not trying to deliberately attack him, but I just want to say what I am actually beginning to think after seeing his edits on the Ukraine crisis-related stuff.) IMO his edits can seriously upset any editor who tries to be neutral. And he keeps pushing them in, keeps reverting people who try to stop him. I seriously hope some admin takes a closer look at Volunter Marek's editing patterns. Just look at his edits and think, "1. Did he add something against Euromaidan or something good about Yanukovich or Russia just once. Did he? 2. Why does he like to call people who are against Euromaidan nazis: [110], [111], [112], [113]? (It's, like, the first thing he does in any article.)" --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• It is difficult to take seriously allegations of POV pushing from an editor whose username is "Moscow Connection". BMK (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

You mean that's beyond your ken? See how easy it is to do stuff like that, so how about focusing on content rather than usernames?B01010100 (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Admins will see this Volunteer Marek's edit: [114]. Admins, please, just think, "What does the editor actually do on Wikipedia? Are all of his edits look somehow the same? Is it someone who actually expands Wikipedia, who writes good articles, who actually wants to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia?" --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

It is pretty clear that you guys are warring over the Euromaiden/Ukraine issue and are dragging the drama here. Neither side is in the right here in terms of attacks, but the dispute resolution page is probably the best bet for this discussion, as both sides have rather strong opinions here. Moscow Connection, I think you are going in the right direction, but this isn't the place to do it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

It is somewhat hard not to focus on someone who keeps following you around reverting your edits while simply refusing to even read the sources (User:Lvivske goes so far as explicitly defending his practice of not reading the sources before reverting[115]), or the talk pages. There were existing talk page discussions regarding exactly those changes, but does he follow the consensus there or even read them? No. If there is nothing controversial about making edits going against the talk page discussions, then why do we have talk pages in the first place? You say to take it to dispute resolution, but WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE says to go here, which is why i went here. Where exactly should this be taken then? The issue isn't any particular instance of his edits, but the entire underlying pattern of behaviour, which seems like a conduct dispute to me and hence why i took it here. At this time there is simply no point in making any contributions since if they don't fit his POV they'll just get reverted again irrespective of what the sources may or may not say.B01010100 (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. In what you quoted I specifically talked about fact checking, just that its safe to assume if a portion of your sources are junk then the rest likely are too, especially if it's an IP or SP account --Львівське (говорити) 18:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

When an editor deliberately introduces text complete with citations and the citations do not support the text, the citations are fake. If an editor has the habit of using fake citations, then it is not very surprising if people check-by-sampling, and revert all the untrustworthy edits as vandalism.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Except that's not what has been going on. The editor who first removed the text did not introduce any text, and hence did not introduce fake citations, he removed them.[116] This was only his second edit, so he couldn't have had a habit of such things (his first edit was adding a source to a quotation to comply with WP:BLP). Volunteer Marek then reintroduced the fake citations, even though it should be BRD rather than BRR, giving as reason in his edit summary "restore sourced text" even though he obviously didn't even read the source for the text he was introducing.[117] The only thing going against the edit he reverted was that it was made by an IP-user who happened to be based in Russia. Rather than reverting again i rewrote the text to remove the parts that were not in the source and more accurately represent the source [118] (and subsequent edits), as well as using the talk page to discuss those changes. [119] Volunteer Marek then simply introduced the fake citations again[120], completely ignoring both the talk page discussion and the call to read the source first. It seems, to me, that if anyone is making a habit of using fake citations it would be Volunteer Marek. And it's not like this is an isolated incident, it's a general pattern.B01010100 (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I apologize if i have misinterpreted your linked comment, but in the context of the discussion where you made that comment it was Volunteer Marek who kept introducing text not supported by the source by reverting the editor who, rightfully, removed it - thereby showing that he obviously didn't even read the source for the text he kept introducing. It was for that i called him out on blanket reverting others without even reading the sources, which you responded to as sometimes being appropriate. I realize now that i have misinterpreted your comment to some degree, but i presume you can understand the misunderstanding given the context.B01010100 (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I would like to draw attention at these edits, which introduce Reductio ad Hitlerum-linked car analogy, in violation of WP:SEEALSO (which demands that "The links in the "See also" section should be relevant"). Nazi/Soviet events of 1938 and 1940 aren't related to modern Crimean events. Seryo93 (talk) 05:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

"Those who fail to remember history are condemned to repeat it." BMK (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

We may add those parallels as attributed (such as in Reactions section), I won't oppose that. But not in See also. And BTW, quote above can be likewise applied to NATO expansion towards RF borders. "Those who fail to remember history...", so I suggest to avoid WP:SOAPBOXing (which, I admitt that, coming from both sides of 2014 crisis) Seryo93 (talk). 06:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC) Updated 08:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

NATO? NATO hasn't expanded since 2009, and Ukraine disavowed any intent to join in 2010. I believe the current brouhaha originated over Ukraine wanting closer ties to the EU, a non-military association. And in any case, if the Santayana quote draws attention to parallels between Germany's actions prior to WWII and Russia's current actions, what is the parallel you're drawing between Ukraine's associations with NATO and the EU and the situation back then? I see none.

Putin seems stuck in the age-old Russian desire to keep a buffer between itself and Europe, either by the conquests which created the Russian Empire, or Stalin's creation of puppet states after WWII. This need for "security" at the expense of the independence of other countries appears to be a long-established part of hard-line Russian thinking. Failing to point out those obvious facts (through citations from reliable sources, of course) would do a disservice to our readers. BMK (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Non-military? Please get your facts straight. The parallel would be the expansion of a hostile military bloc eastwards in violation of the relevant agreement with Russia on that, just like another hostile military bloc's eastwards expansion in WWII. That's the issue with inventing Nazi analogies in wikipedia articles, all you do is open a can of worms.B01010100 (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not (and in fact never, you can see this from my post before!) objected to carefully attributed parallels (look at 2014 Crimean crisis#Commentary for examples). About NATO: I've meant expansion since fall of USSR, which Russia - country, that dissolved its own NATO - views as a hostile encirclement (see also Cordon sanitaire). Either way, parallels can be found for anything. Seryo93 (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC) Upd: 17:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Please don't change the contents of a comment after it's been responded to. IN this case it makes my response look provocative, instead of responsive to yours. BMK (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, sorry. Seryo93 (talk) 06:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The Warsaw Pact dissolved itself, and the Soviet Union really didn't have any choice in the matter, so there's no reason to give them props for that And what of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation that succeeded it? That Russia is now less powerful than the old Soviet Union was is a fact of life, and certainly fuels the Russian paranoia and loss of self-respect that appear to be part of Putin's motivations - but, here again, the rebuilding of Germany's self-regard was one of the factors that entered into the provocation of WWII, and, again, the Santayana quote is pertinent. No one is saying, I don't think, that the situations are exactly the same, but one rarely comes across two world-historical circumstances that are so closely paralleled as these two are. BMK (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

See here (remark about Gorby claims - but this is logical consequence of "unwritten promise"). Anyway, I'm not opposed to statement that "Many compared X to Y...[refs]", as in 2014 Crisis commentary section. Seryo93 (talk) 06:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Sharing a POV is not an excuse to have it included where it obviously doesn't belong.B01010100 (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

B01010100, Seryo93, Petr Matas: I suggest you look into this: [121].
(I'm not sure, but it looks like the person (under a different account name) has already been banned from the Eastern European topics for participation in a coordinated anti-Russian campain on Wikipedia. As I understand, the edit I linked suggests going to WP:AE to enforce the decision. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The original case can be found here [122] (the old user name is Radeksz). The topic ban was for a year [123] but has been rescinded by motion [124], and even if it wasn't rescinded it would've passed now anyway. So there isn't anything to enforce at this time, however point 4 of the motion should be relevant.B01010100 (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

@B01010100: Where is this point 4? Could you provide a link? (By the way, I probably won't be able to do anything myself, but I want to help other editors who might want to do something about the problem.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moscow Connection (talk • contribs) 11:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe that he meant the 4th supporting vote of this motion. — Petr Matas 16:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

It is very easy to get caught in edit warring with VM, it happened to me as well. You have to be very careful. It is also useful to focus on one thing at a time in the discussion. — Petr Matas 16:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

That's hardly suprising, edit warring is after all one of his proclaimed methods to keep the content the way he likes it.[125].B01010100 (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

This still going on? Guys, as flattered as I am to be the subject of your discussion, you do realize that you are basically talking to yourselves? The uninvolved editors, Ktr101 , Ncmvocalist, BMK and a few others, commented above and I think that's pretty much all there is to say. So how about closing this and the few of you that have axes to grind behave yourself in the future? Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I have a suggestion for both of you. Are you overlapping in the areas that you edit or does it look like one is following the other? I suggest that one or the other has a go at editing a topic that the other would seemingly never touch, if the other party starts editing the same area then a problem is clear cut there. If I had a dispute problem that's what i'd take a look at doing. MM (I did the who in the whatnow?) ^{(I did this! Me!)} 21:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Questionable comments by User:JohnValeron

Hiya, earlier this month, User:JohnValeron promised to check all of my edits; he stated: As far as I am concerned, you have zero credibility as a Wikipedia editor, and I shall henceforth independently confirm and where appropriate challenge whatever you contribute to this article. This comment was made due to a soon-to-be-explained misunderstanding, as well as his lack of knowledge about what is contained in RS regarding the subject matter.

My edits are followed so closely that yesterday I was unable to fix my edits as I developed a new section, running into 3 edit conflicts as he somewhat frantically made changes to the work seconds after I hit "save page". I asked him to give me some space, due to the edit conflicts, to which he replied Truthfully, Petrarchan47, as an editor you are a butcher. If you'd do a half-decent job I wouldn't have to correct so much...In my experience at Wikipedia, your ineptitude is singular.

In my experience at WP, small technical errors like those he pointed out are fixed quietly by others, or discovered quickly by the offending editor. Usually when I add new content, it takes a few edits to get all the glitches out. I've never been faulted for this before, let alone called inept. Regarding the drama and various issues he brought to the Snowden talk page yesterday, today he does not seem keen to explain himself, saying he "doesn't respond well to badgering". He does not engage on his talk page, either.

He has also made a comment about "our Hong Kong editor" but will not explain who he is speaking of, how he knows this editor's location nor why he is bringing this information to the talk page.

(Quick history: the Snowden page has been quite a hotbed of edit warring since December. John Valeron came in about half-way through and we don't actually have much history between us, so I am not sure where this level of hostility is coming from.) petrarchan47tc 04:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC) (*edited at 5:17)

• Another questionable comment was added today in the "quid pro quo" section below: [Petrarchan47 is] the most unethical editor I have ever encountered. This outrageous claim was apparently based on the fact that I thought the date was May 2cd rather than the 4th. petrarchan47tc 07:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

It is 100% unacceptable to refer to someone as "a butcher" or "your ineptitude" - no matter the quality of your edits (which, by the way, you need to use the "Show Preview" button a little more in order to avoid issues because they are somewhat poor). There is also a fine line between validly using the "show contributions" of another editor, and wikistalking - and John appears to be on the wrong side of that line the panda ₯’ 14:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. Because this will be likely used against me in the future, would you consider amending your comment to reflect whether you checked a selection of my edits, or as I assume, is your comment ("somewhat poor") referring only to this one section/incident? I accept that it may have been an off-day, and there were more glitches than usual, however, one could interpret your comment as a general statement about my editing, so I just wanted to clarify this. petrarchan47tc 22:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

DangerousPanda, I appreciate your input, but please let me provide some background. Although Petrarchan47's preceding post describes the page Edward Snowden as "a hotbed of edit warring since December," she has lately attempted to sanitize her own central role in these hostilities by portraying herself as having "sought peace over all else for the last few months."[126] However, as I replied to her post three days ago, "The notion that you are a peacemaker at the Edward Snowden article or its Talk page is preposterous. You are resolutely proprietary and consistently combative."[127] An unbiased review of the Snowden edit history will bear me out. Day in and day out, Petrarchan47 makes war, not peace.

Petrarchan47 acknowledges that she and I "don't actually have much history between us," which is true. But the sinkhole of her edit warring, evidenced by frequently and peremptorily reverting particular editors' contributions, eventually sucked me in. In the heat of anger, I lashed out, calling her a butcher and castigating her ineptitude. For that I am sorry. I apologize to Petrarchan47 and to the entire Wikipedia editorial community. I will henceforth strive to keep my temper in check.

But, DangerousPanda, you are totally wrong in endorsing Petrarchan47's unfounded and offensive accusation against me for Wikihounding. The facts are these:

• 5 June 2013 – Snowden/NSA story explodes in worldwide news media.

• 00:38, 10 June 2013 – just five days later, I post my first edit to Wikipedia's Snowden page.[128]

• 14 April 2014 – The Washington Post and The Guardian are jointly awarded the 2014 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service for coverage of the Snowden/NSA scandal.

• 17:10, 20 April 2014 – six days later, having noticed comments in online social media mistakenly asserting that Glenn Greenwald won this prize—which is awarded to news organizations, not to individual journalists—I became curious as to whether or not Wikipedia's editors had recognized that distinction. Visiting the Greenwald page, I discovered otherwise, and posted appropriate edits to clarify the matter.[129]

• 17:14, 20 April 2014 – after finishing my Greenwald edits, I proceeded immediately to the Wikipedia page for Laura Poitras, Greenwald's closest collaborator in the Snowden saga, where I executed similar edits to clarify that Poitras, like Greenwald, did not personally win the Pulitzer prize.[130]

• 20:36, 21 April 2014 – I likewise edited the Wikipedia page for Ewen MacAskill, a British journalist who also collaborated with Greenwald & Poitras on the early Snowden reporting.[131]

My editing of the respective Wikipedia page for each of three journalists closely associated with covering the Snowden scandal was a natural outgrowth of my longstanding interest in Snowden, dating back to 10 June 2013.

Yet Petrarchan47 now smears me with a spurious charge of Wikihounding for doing something innocuous and purely coincidental to her own contributions to two of those three pages. (She has never edited the MacAskill page.)

This, DangerousPanda, is 100% unacceptable. I am not guilty of Wikihounding, and you are wrong to say so. JohnValeron (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You say you're not guilty of wikihounding, but right here, in this very thread, you accuse Petrarchan of "making war, not peace" and referring casually to "the sinkhole of her edit warring, evidenced by frequently and peremptorily reverting particular editors' contributions" for which you provide no evidence. An apology is nice, but you undermine the presumption in your good faith by making such statements. Coretheapple (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Coretheapple, please advise: what evidence would you accept of Petrarchan47's edit warring since June 9, 2013, when she first graced Wikipedia's Edward Snowden page? As I wrote above, "An unbiased review of the Snowden edit history will bear me out." Did you bother to familiarize yourself with that history before pronouncing me guilty of Wikihounding? Given the quickness of your response here, and considering the large volume of edits to that page over the past eleven months, I seriously doubt it. JohnValeron (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

So your position is that people commenting on ANI threads have the burden of proving the allegations made in them, whereas the people who make those allegations don't? They can just make accusations without a shred of evidence (such as a history of edit warring blocks, which Petrarchan doesn't have, not even one)? That's a new one. Coretheapple (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Coretheapple, as a first stab at submitting the evidence you demand, I found three pertinent comments by user DrFleischman, posted earlier this year at User talk:Petrarchan47, relating specifically to Petrarchan47's unfounded accusations of POV pushing at the Edward Snowden page (emphasis added):

• I believe that Petrarchan truly does feel "batted around" but that is not a reason for him/her to accuse me of "high school girl behavior" and being here to "play games" rather than to "write articles." And this is just the tip of the iceberg. If you follow Petrarchan's history with me and others you'll see we're way, way, way beyond AAGF territory.

00:46, 6 February 2014

• [replying to user Gandydancer] We're talking about Petrarchan's conduct here, not mine. WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF are universal policies/guidelines that apply regardless of whom you're dealing with. I think I'm on safe ground saying that you've been spared from Petrarchan's wrath because he/she sees you as having a similar POV.

04:50, 6 February 2014

• [addressing Petrarchan47] Sure, I'll give one example, the one that led to your insistence on me answering this question. In your response to some of Brian Dell's (apparently good faith) arguments you failed to address most of his arguments beyond, "Please stop POV pushing," and in the same comment you wrote, " [I am officially 100% EXHAUSTED by Bdell555.]". I found your conduct unacceptable, and I believe many or most other Wikipedians would as well. Your near constant sighs and groans (literally) about being too tired to deal with your critics and your near constant accusations of POV-pushing seem never-ending despite my repeated requests that you stop. You clearly have a tin ear. I'll say it one last time, and then, as you request, I won't edit your user talk again (except for mandatory notices).

21:47, 6 February 2014

Coretheapple, as I continue gathering evidence of Petrarchan47's edit warring and often toxic relations with her fellow Wikipedians, I'd appreciate it if you refrained from putting words in my mouth, as you did in your preceding comment by stating my "position" in the least accurate way possible so as to ridicule me. JohnValeron (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Those are just accusations against this editor. Doesn't prove a thing. I've been accused of everything up to and including kidnapping the Lindbergh baby. Do you feel I should be extradited to New Jersey? Coretheapple (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

"Doesn't prove a thing." This from one of Wikipedia's most notorious inquisitors when comes to COI allegations. You may be sympathetic to Petrarchan's POV, thinking her McCarthyite anti-COI campaign is consistent with yours but are you aware that she goes a step further with her beware infiltrating government agents line? This after Mastcell had already tried to get her to back away when she was trying to finger Wikipedian Dr. Fleischman as a federal agent? Maybe that's too much bad faith assuming even for you, @Coretheapple? In any case on April 8 Petrarchan went 6RR in less than two and a half hours on the Edward Snowden article edit warring with JohnValeron and I and John and I let it go rather than take Petrarchan to an admin noticeboard thinking she'd be more likely to change her edit warring ways if shown mercy. Petrarchan then turns around and takes John to this noticeboard! It's right out of the Parable of the unforgiving servant. We obviously should have gotten Petrarchan blocked at the time since editors like you are making an issue out of "...history of edit warring blocks, which Petrarchan doesn't have, not even one." We apparently need to change our tactics with edit warriors like Petrarchan and get them blocked as soon as they violate 3RR given what editors like you make out of "clean" block histories.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Coretheapple, since you asked, I'll answer for the record: I wouldn't consign anyone—not even Petrarchan47—to New Jersey. JohnValeron (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, as we wend our merry way through this delightful WP:ANI adjudicating my alleged QUESTIONABLE COMMENTS, cherish this Pearl of Wisdom from Petrarchan47: "The thing is, you can't edit articles around here for very long without coming into contact with hardcore POV pushers and pure, unadulterated jerks." 20:13, 18 February 2014 Submitted here for entertainment purposes only. JohnValeron (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

And a comment of extraordinary accuracy. Coretheapple (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You certainly have chutzpah, @Coretheapple. You declare in this thread that Petrarchan's got a clean edit warring record when you've participated in edit warring noticeboard complaints involving her trying to get her off. I note one gem of a comment in particular: " Coretheapple and I are two wiki-friends of Petrarchan47 that are concerned for HER health. Being brought in front of the Admin Noticeboard can be stressfull." So stressful! Yet Petrarchan bring someone else "in front of the Admin Noticeboard", well, that just's business!--Brian Dell (talk) 23:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Well actually I'm monitoring this board because I'm following another thread, so I dropped in on this one and another and boy! am I being yelled at. Talk about stress. It's terrible. Coretheapple (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You could relieve yourself from the stress by declining to nod along when Petrarchan complains of "hardcore POV pushers" given that when IRWolfie noted that Petrarchan was, yet again, trying to battle what she thinks is a "large conspiracy" by "fighting the good fight against US Corporations" and "insert[ing] highly polemic statements" at that time you were all about not worrying about whether there was any POV pushing and just focusing on whether your "wiki-friend" could beat an edit warring charge on technicalities. I'll also note that while you trumpet Petrarchan's flawless block record (and try to justify all her COI attacks), when SpectraValor took her editing to the edit warring noticeboard she got off because the complaint was apparently a few hours stale. Yet another editor started a case on the 3RR noticeboard and Petarchan was found guilty of a 3RR violation but was again let off. There's nothing to be seen here, according to you.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm seeing a lot of mud-slinging directed at her, doing a good deal to prove her original point. Coretheapple (talk) 00:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

You demanded "evidence" Petrarchan is an edit warrior and I pointed out that just within the last three weeks she went 6RR in less than 3 hours and subsequent to avoiding a block there got taken to the edit warring noticeboard by another editor where an admin found that "Petrarchan47 violated WP:3RR". This thread could have been shorter had you let us know earlier that you would be dismissing the evidence you ask for as "mud-slinging" since we would have known your request for evidence was not to be taken seriously.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

This thread would have been even shorter if you hadn't tried to divert attention from the real issues with mud-slinging and character assassination. Coretheapple (talk) 12:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The issue here is Valeron's behaviour at the Snowden talk page, and the disruptive hostility. If bringing up anything Fleischman once said is supposed to justify comments made yesterday about my ineptitude as an editor, or the wiki-hounding, I fail to see the connection.

It should be noted that Dr Fleischman, shortly before leaving Wikipedia last month, admitted that Brian Dell's position - the kernel of the 3 month edit war - is untenable. Dr F essentially admitted that I was, in fact, right to have been exasperated by Dell; he came up against the exact same difficulties I had been complaining about. Dr F took BDell555's side immediately in the edit war, and regretted it later. In the end though, the POV warriors, not RS, won the day. The Lede to Edward Snowden now contains a SYNTH account of Snowden's passport/Russia saga rather than the simple account given by countless RS (that Snowden was stranded due to the US' revocation of his passport) because Brian Dell exhausted me completely. petrarchan47tc 22:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Doc is an ally of yours, is he? That's why he asked Mastcell to do something about you? "Dr F essentially admitted that I was, in fact, right to have been exasperated by Dell" Is that so? Yet after you claimed to be "officially 100% EXHAUSTED" (elsewhere saying my comments were simply too extensive for you to bother reading) Doc's reply was that "This "you are exhausting" talk is destructive, non constructive, and is contrary to the spirit of the project" and Doc specifically addressed you.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

And MastCell responded by saying that he didn't want to touch the case. The diffs I left show that after more information, Dr F progressed from blindly aligning himself with you, to becoming completely exacerbated as well and leaving WP. Before he did, he told Gandydancer: Btw, you and Petrarchan are probably in stitches over my recent interactions with Brian Dell at Talk:Edward Snowden, ad you have a right to be. Now that Brian's putting me through the ringer I certainly understand your frustration and "exhaustion." Then again while you may have been fully justified in feeling the way you did, IMO that didn't justify you expressing it to Brian, which was inflammatory and uncivil, even if honest. In any case, my reason for bringing this up isn't to justify my involvement; rather, just the opposite. If I had been actively participating in that discussion (rather than passively observing) I would have better appreciated what you and Petrarchan had been dealing with and I probably would have kept my mouth shut. So, in hindsight, I'm sorry for that indiscretion. Fleischman (talk) 05:03, 10 March 2014 petrarchan47tc 23:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Petrarchan47 may now claim to be fast friends with DrFleischman, but it wasn't always so. A mere six weeks ago she posted this to Doc's user talk page: "Why are you following me to articles completely unrelated to anything besides, I have to assume, your obsession with me? This is harassment…."

Sound familiar? Yep, it's Petrarchan47's standard charge of Wikihounding. In March, DrFleischman was "following" Petrarchan47 around Wikipedia due to his "obsession" with her. Now it's April, Doc has made no edits for 30 days, and so it's my turn to stand accused. After all, Petrarchan47 has got to have someone Wikihounding her. If not the obsessed Doctor, then I guess yours truly will do in a pinch. "This is harassment!" Maybe so. But who, pray tell, is harassing whom here? JohnValeron (talk) 23:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we can close out this thread by quoting from said fast friend: "Petrarchan47, it is time to drop this cowardly and disruptive witch hunt once and for all."--Brian Dell (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I've mostly been a interested bystander on the Snowden talk page. I'll just comment that this noticeboard is for reporting and discussing incidents that require the intervention of administrators. Generally that means you need to ask for something specific, like a block, and give evidence that the requested action is required, for example three warnings on the user's talk page concerning a blockable offense, backed up by links to the offending edits. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

What really matters is making sure WP:BLP is enforced

I generally consider myself to be an editor who tries to avoid all sorts of drama as far as possible. However, ever since I've started editing the Edward Snowden page, it has become very clear to me that this is one of those articles any sane editor would want to avoid at all costs. In fact, I've practically given up trying to make it look more like a biography than a battleground. I don't know what motivates some people to keep pushing a particular POV for so many months and I have to admit I do admire your determination to achieve whatever aims you have here, but I'm fully amazed that you don't even try to hide your POV.

Can we at least agree that labelling a living person as "narcissistic" on his biography, even quoting someone who did so, is extremely unconstructive? But at least this is better than turning the entire article into an NSA quote farm.

Although I think JV is a highly motivated editor, his lack of adherence to WP:BLP and his conduct towards other editors, and more importantly, his general attitude towards the subject of this biography is a serious cause for concern. -A1candidate (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

With respect to what you say is "most important," just what sort of "general attitude" towards Mr Snowden would you like to see? I take it that it would not be Hillary Clinton's--Brian Dell (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

A1candidate, please clarify your second paragraph, in which you link to the same diff for both "labelling a living person as narcissistic" and "turning the entire article into an NSA quote farm." I honestly don't understand how you can construe a single comment by former NSA Director McConnell, reliably sourced to New York magazine, as constituting an NSA quote farm. JohnValeron (talk) 01:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, A1candidate, if my behavior is such "a serious cause for concern," why have you waited until now to bring that to my attention—and in this highly adversarial context? I reckon you just like a good ambush. JohnValeron (talk) 01:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@Bdell555 - An attitude that is in line with building a biography instead of fighting a battle would be more than welcome. For starters, how about not trying to remove reliably sourced information from Snowden while replacing his quotes with goveernment issued-statements? @JohnValeron - The fact that you use words like "ambush" is very telling of your attitude. Both of you obviously have a POV (you don't even try to hide it), this is something that I've long felt needed to be addressed. I always avoid drama, so this is going to be my last reply. -A1candidate (talk) 02:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

A1candidate, the fact that you stage an ambush only to turn tail and run is very telling of your attitude. JohnValeron (talk) 02:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on edits and ideas, not on editors'. Your comment above verges on a personal attack. Dial it down, please. BMK (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

What really matters is making sure Edward Snowden Hagiography is enforced

Note: I'm not indenting because my response applies to both the overall section Questionable comments by User:JohnValeron and its subsection What really matters is making sure WP:BLP is enforced. Also, thanks to admin Dennis Brown and user Beyond My Ken for pointing out that my subtitle (obviously a parody of A1candidate's subtitle) should not be formatted so as to appear in the TOC.

As the foregoing discussion demonstrates, at the heart of this post by Petrarchan47 to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is what user A1candidate identifies as my "attitude" towards Edward Snowden. In her edit warring over the past 10 months, Petrarchan47 has exemplified the politically correct attitude of blind partisanship in favor of Snowden. Moreover, she has acted as bully and enforcer, peremptorily exercising innumerable reverts to disrupt the attempts of other editors to provide balance. Shamelessly seeking to go beyond that and punish editors who have taken issue with her, last month she targeted DrFleischman, posting to his user talk page: "Why are you following me to articles completely unrelated to anything besides, I have to assume, your obsession with me? This is harassment…." Now, having disposed of DrFleischman (who has made no edits at Wikipedia for over 30 days), Petrarchan47 turns her sights on me, taking to this page to foster the impression that I have been Wikihounding. Her success in this smear is evidenced by the very first reply to her initial post, from DangerousPanda, who applied the term "wikistalking" to me.

No doubt the pro-Snowden partisans have the numbers to block and even ban me. But until then, I will not be intimidated. I shall continue to resist all attempts by A1candidate and Petrarchan47 to enforce their hagiography of Edward Snowden. I shall rely instead on Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy, which states in pertinent part, "Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight." JohnValeron (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have glossed over the part about due weight. One person calling Snowden narcissistic does not merit including the term in the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

HandThatFeeds, as explained in Wikipedia's due weight policy, "Neutrality requires that each article fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." In determining which viewpoint is significant in each instance, a Wikipedia editor must consider overall context, not just the particular report. For example, if an otherwise reliable but left-leaning, pro-Snowden publication runs a piece that includes 1,000 words of direct quotations from professional partisans such as Snowden lawyers Jesselyn Radack and Ben Wizner or journalistic enablers such as Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras, offset by 100 words from Hillary Clinton criticizing Snowden, Wikipedia is not required to reflect these opposing viewpoints in proportion to their numerical value. Rather, editors mush exercise judgment. The mere fact that a former U.S. Secretary of State, U.S. Senator and First Lady publicly disputes Snowden makes her words more significant than the utterly predictable, canned retorts of longtime Snowden shills, whose unchanging views are already amply represented in Wikipedia's Snowden article.

As for the specific example to which you allude, in the Motivations subsection, we quote former NSA director and current Booz Allen Hamilton vice chairman Mike McConnell's reference to Snowden as "narcissistic," reliably sourced to New York magazine. What you conveniently overlook, HandThatFeeds, is its placement near the end of a 1,074-word subsection that includes 566 of Snowden's own words (53% of the total), plus our paraphrasing of his views not directly quoted and statements by his enabler Laura Poitras. In a subsection devoted to his motivations, that focus is entirely appropriate. However, in this context, it is equally appropriate to quote a single sentence—all of 23 words—spoken by a prominent critic of Snowden's motivations.

Due weight does not require excluding significant minority viewpoints. JohnValeron (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Significance is the key here. Show that Snowden being narcissistic is a significant viewpoint, and you'd have a point. As it is, you really don't, and WP:WEIGHT is against you. Hagiography is definitely to be avoided, but so are unsupported POV opinions expressed only by a small number of people. BMK (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, Snowden being narcissistic is a significant viewpoint not because a large number of people have expressed it, but because of the prominence of who did express it: a former NSA director and current vice chairman of the firm for which Snowden worked as a contractor and where he sought employment expressly for the purpose of stealing more secret US Government documents to leak. "My position with Booz Allen Hamilton granted me access to lists of machines all over the world the NSA hacked," Snowden told the South China Morning Post on June 12, 2013. "That is why I accepted that position about three months ago." JohnValeron (talk) 18:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Editors could choose to quote McConnell because he's a prominent person; on the other hand the nature of his prominence in this case makes him a particularly unreliable source. Specifically, his crude characterization of the psychological motivations of a whistleblower are made in an unavoidably political context: they're certainly not reliable, and arguably unhelpful. We're not required to quote a famous person every time they open their mouths. -Darouet (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Placing McConnell's statement in the "reaction" section would be more reasonable, as it wouldn't purport to give readers special insight on Snowden's motivations. -Darouet (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Darouet, McConnell's reference to Snowden as "narcissistic" is properly contextualized in the Motivations subsection. The reliable source in this instance is New York magazine, not McConnell. He is quoted here not because he's famous, but because he's a former NSA director and current vice chairman at Booz Allen Hamilton. In both those capacities, he brings an insider's knowledge and expertise to bear on Edward Snowden. To exclude McConnell's viewpoint merely because you personally disagree with it is unsupported by Wikipedia policy. JohnValeron (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and as a former NSA director he's about as neutral about Snowden as an ex-grunt is about the Marine Corps. It's irrelevant that he's quoted by a reliable source, what's relevant is whether his view of Snowden is shared by others without a connection to and history with the Agency. BMK (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Rubbish. If Wikipedia required editors to quote ONLY neutral sources, we'd have to eliminate every quotation attributed to Snowden's lawyers Jesselyn Radack and Ben Wizner or journalistic enablers such as Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras, to mention just four of many such pro-Snowden speakers. The article would be reduced to 20% of its existing length. JohnValeron (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I do believe that McConnell's statement may be notable: as a reader I could benefit from knowing what the man said even if I disagree. However, McConnell is an overtly hostile party and not a reliable when describing Snowden's motivations, which is why I think his comments fit better in "Reactions". -Darouet (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Drama and POV pushing

This drama pushes good editors away from the Snowden page. It is aimed at anyone wanting to add RS that implicates the US government in Snowden's 'choice' for asylum in Russia, and essentially anyone who disagrees with the edits of Valeron or Dell.

For instance, John Valerion had these comments about editors today:

• "At 20:40, 30 April 2014‎, User:A1candidate attempted to hijack the editorial process" *
• "Another Edit Warrior Parachutes In - Beyond My Ken thus attempts to backdoor his way into control of the Snowden article without posting a single comment at the Snowden Talk Page...This arrogant, willful behavior even ignores BMK's own admonishments to editors of other articles, whose work he has undone with a warning to Discuss on talk page, Do not revert without a consensus to do so. Clearly, Beyond My Ken is one of those Do As I Say, Not As I Do edit warriors." *

I addressed the now 5-month edit war here, for some context. Brian Dell's friend User:DrFleischman said it well: "There is consensus that "stranded" is reliably sourced and appropriate for the lead." and "When you're disputing an account made by dozens and dozens o[f] reputable news sources, you've got to start asking yourself, are you trying to build an encyclopedia or are you trying to promote a fringe conspiracy theory instead?" More on that is here: Retelling of the passport story.

The Snowden page has been taken over by POV pushers. Here is a discussion for more insight. A1Candidate to Dell: "you seem to be more interested in pushing a particular POV instead of improving the article as a whole. A large portion of your edits appear to be related to Russia, Russia, and more Russia. We don't know for sure whether the Kremlin is behind Snowden's flight, as you have been claiming all along. While I do think it's a plausible theory, it's nothing more than mere speculation." Please see this Snowden Talk section for more.

Today, Dell and Valeron are using Business Insider and their report on a Wikileaks tweet to support their contention that Snowden chose to go to Russia, as opposed to what RS states over and over, very clearly: Snowden was stuck in Russia due to the US' revocation of his passport (RS listed here).

Last week, Snowden's entire accolades section was reduced by John Valeron to this. Here is the talk page discussion where I explain that to cut only his awards, squishing them to two unreadable paragraphs without condensing any other sections, is POV. Valeron says that Snowden's awards "all seem equally unmeritorious". Valeron notes that he does not find the article to need condensing, so his only reasons for this editing are POV, it would seem.

He also removed a quotation cited to Snowden, though his edit summary was: "reword so as to not imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". Again, the edit serves the US government, but not Wikipedia.

He states: "I am participating here in good faith with the object of providing much-needed balance to th[e Snowden] article, which is overly sympathetic to its controversial subject." When asked to specifically point out how the Snowden article is biased, Valeron never responds. Instead Brian Dell pops in with another long OR rant.

Valeron has become very hostile, and besides admittedly following my edits at Snowden by seconds, looking for any mistake, he also followed me to Laura Poitras supposedly fueled by the need to set things straight: the Pulitzer was not given to her, but to WaPo and Guardian. However both Glenn Greenwald and Barton Gellman's articles contained the same information and were, until I pointed this out to John, left untouched. Valeron is now {cn} tagging Poitras instead of finding the citations. He tagged "1971"'s release at Tribecca, whilst a simple search finds very good, recent articles about its release.

Brian Dell:

• As recently as April 14, Brian Dell was continuing his edit war, calling cited information OR dreamed up by User:Binksternet and inserting "allegedly" in the Lede.
• Dell continues to push this theme, with the edit summary: ""allegedly" stranded. Legal experts say there is no legal distinction between the airport and the rest of Russia. And no independent journalist verified that he was in the airport transit zone"
• Dell adds "reportedly" to cited information, arguing "supposedly he was stranded. The story does not hold up under scrutiny"
• Earlier Dell declares a Fox news article "demonstrably false" and changes the Lede in this same edit war.
• This is where Dell first appeared with his theory.
• Here is where Dell followed me on this same day to Jimbo's talk page to make some remarks.
• Here is where he followed me to an NSA awareness WikiProject I was working on.
• In this comment at the WikiProject, he justifies making this POV change to the Russ Tice article saying it was done "to more fully inform the reader about the reliability of this "whistleblower." He also states "Over at Talk:Edward_Snowden#Passport I've pointed out the problems with the line that it is the U.S. that has marooned Snowden in Russia, as opposed to Snowden or the Kremlin's own choice. These matters are all concerned with getting the facts right. If you've worked in media you'd know that there is huge popular demand for conspiracy theories." About NSA spying revelations, he states, "The truth is that this charge against the US government has been grossly exaggerated in the media."
• When news broke that there were statements made by some US officials about wanting Snowden dead, Dell had this (predictable) response.

Besides the obvious POV pushing by both of these editors, the hostility aimed at me and others who may oppose or question them needs to be addressed. No WP editor should repeatedly come into contact with this type of behaviour - the aggression is over the top, and better suited for YouTube comment sections. Brian Dell should be topic banned (an IBAN is also a consideration), and an IBAN against Valeron would be very much appreciated. I guarantee the Snowden article and Wikipedia would be better off for it, and would not be damaged in any way by these bans. But I am no expert, the response that would reinstate a sane, peaceful environment at Snowden (read: pre-Dell, pre-Valeron, circa Sep-Nov '13) is likely better determined by administrators. petrarchan47tc 22:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Petrarchan47 has now outdone herself in sheer, malicious perfidy, posting comments that I myself reconsidered and deleted within minutes. Clearly, Petrarchan47 will stop at nothing in her toxic efforts to poison the editorial atmosphere surrounding the Edward Snowden article. JohnValeron (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty fucking ballsy of JohnValeron to accuse me of trying to "control" the Edward Snowden article, when he's made over 100 edits to it in the last week alone (over 300 in the last year), and I've made three edits in total. And to say that I edited without discussion is equally ludicrous, considering that the discussion took place right here on this thread, with his involvement. I suggest that if anyone's trying to "own" the Snowden article, or push a POV into it, it sure as hell isn't me. I also suggest that an admin might like to try to machete their way through the jungle of rapid-fire edits over there to see if some level of protection isn't called for to get things to stop so that reasoned discussion can take place. BMK (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

No reasoned discussion about the Edward Snowden article can take place here, on an adversarial ANI where I stand falsely accused and where my accuser is calling for Brian Dell and me to be banned. Any "consensus" about editing Edward Snowden arrived at within this ANI is illegitimate. The regular editors of the Snowden article do not follow ANI. We follow Talk:Edward Snowden, which is where all editorial discussions rightly belong. JohnValeron (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Bullshit, consensus is consensus, and it remains so even when it goes against you, and no matter where it takes place. Usually the article talk page is the best place for consensus discussions to take place, but when someone tries to dominate the discussion there it may have to take place in other venues. Besides, you've misread my comment above - if an admin were to fully protect the article - which I think would be fully justified by the volume and speed of the editing there, which indicates knee-jerk responses rather than well-considered action - then the reasoned discussion I was speaking about should take place there and not here.

At this point, however, editors have clearly despaired of getting any balance there while you and others continue to duke it out, and have come here for relief. Having felt the (temporary) sting of your displeasure, I understand precisely what they're talking about - you're trying to browbeat people into submission because you disagree with their POV (or what you perceive as their POV, which may well be mistaken), and that makes your editing as bad as theirs is, if they are also pushing a POV, as you claim. I still think temporary full protection would help, as would your thinking before you act. 04:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree, full protection and Admin oversight for a while is a worthwhile consideration. petrarchan47tc 18:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• User:Jehochman once filled this role at the Snowden page. We also spoke in January about bringing the article to GA status. It might be worth checking into these options as a way to cool the current edit warring and hostility. petrarchan47tc 23:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I personally don't edit the Snowden article because, to be frank, my feelings about him are fairly negative. I think that's the best course of action in dealing with a BLP in which one holds a negative POV - stay away. JohnValeron might want to consider doing that too. Coretheapple (talk) 10:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:

Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight.

Wikipedia's due weight policy explains, "Neutrality requires that each article fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." As I pointed out above, former NSA director Mike McConnell's reference to Snowden as "narcissistic" is reliably sourced to New York magazine. McConnell served as U.S. Director of National Intelligence during the period when Snowden was employed by the CIA, which reports to the DNI. After leaving that post, McConnell rejoined Booz Allen Hamilton to lead the firm's intelligence business, and was vice chairman throughout Snowden's brief (less than three months) tenure as a BAH employee. These high-level positions give McConnell's perspective on Snowden significant weight. Moreover, our now-deleted quotation of McConnell provided the only balance to an otherwise self-serving 1,074-word subsection that includes 566 of Snowden's own words (53% of the total), plus paraphrasing of his views not directly quoted and statements by his enabler Laura Poitras. By excluding a single sentence—all of 23 words—spoken by a prominent critic of Snowden's motivations, you are totally suppressing a verifiable point of view that has sufficient due weight. In violation of policy, you are promoting Wikipedia's unbalanced cheerleading on behalf of Edward Snowden. JohnValeron (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

McConnell can hold any opinion about Snowden he wants, and can express them to anyone he wants to, but he's not qualified to discuss Snowden's psychological makeup in our article because he has no training or expertise in that area. He can say that Snowden is a traitor or that he's damaged his country or that he ought to be clapped in irons or that he's selfish or immature or whatever, because these are things anyone can say about anybody, but when he says that Snowden is a "narcissist", he's making a psychological evaluation, and he is not qualified to do that, and he can't be in our article expressing that opinion except, perhaps, as an example of people's reactions to Snowden's actions. BMK (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Dictionary.com provides two definitions of narcissist:

1. a person who is overly self-involved, and often vain and selfish.

2. Psychoanalysis. a person who suffers from narcissism, deriving erotic gratification from admiration of his or her own physical or mental attributes.

Neither Wikipedia's biography of Mike McConnell nor the sentence you seek to suppress in Edward Snowden identifies McConnell as a psychologist or psychiatrist. His opinion of Snowden as a "narcissist" is not a clinical evaluation, and only pro-Snowden editors such as yourself would so willfully and disingenuously misconstrue it. McConnell is using the term in its popular, not medical, sense. Note that Wikipedia quotes Yogi Berra as saying about baseball, "90% of the game is half mental." Are you going to suppress that, too, because Mr. Berra is not a credentialed mental health professional? JohnValeron (talk) 17:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Your WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality is showing - I am not "Pro-Snowden". In point of fact I have decidedly mixed feelings about what he did, including my belief that anyone who thinks that their government isn't in some way "spying" on them is a fool, and that such monitoring is, to some degree both necessary and harmless. But you don't know that, because you are, clearly and by your own admission, "anti-Snowden", and because I reverted one of your edits that must make me "pro-Snowden", thus throwing WP:AGF out the window.

I reverted your edit because the guy doesn't have the chops to make that kind of statement and have it appear in a Wikipedia article as a factual reason for Snowden's actions. You want to put in a "responses" section, that's different, the guy is notable and his allowed to have an opinion - he's just not allowed to express that opinion as fact on Wikipedia. You get it? It's the diference between "I think he's a narcissit" and "He did it because he's a narcissist." If you can't see the essential different between those two statements, and the need for the person saying the second one to have the right credentials, then you probably shouldn't be editing here.BMK (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Quid pro quo

Never let it be said that Petrarchan47 does not reward those gallant souls who spring to her defense here at ANI. Vote early and vote often, Wikipedians, for "must-read" commenter Coretheapple as Crony of the Week. JohnValeron (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Admin attention requested: Can I get an admin to give JV an WP:NPA warning? If nothing else, his serious lack of AGF is worrying. BMK (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your broad argument on the McConnell quote, here, but the last time this came up at AN/I (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive835#User:Petrarchan47 Serial COI Accusations as Battlegrounding), I got more or less the same impression John has, although I would have expressed it more delicately. That said: John, knock it off. Wholesale snarkiness will only succeed in getting people to blow you off; there's plenty in Petrarchan's editing history, plainly and dispassionately expressed, to build a case against her. Choess (talk) 02:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Choess, I appreciate your advice, but I am not the least bit interested in building a case against Petrarchan47. As you imply, and as demonstrated by her shameless use of an Editor of the Week nomination to reward Coretheapple for supporting her in this meretricious ANI, Petrarchan47 is her own worst enemy. JohnValeron (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, now, isn't this enlightening? Following the link provided by Choess, I just read User:Petrarchan47 Serial COI Accusations as Battlegrounding posted to ANI less than a month ago by User:Geogene. It broadens one's perspective on Petrarchan47's generally antagonistic behavior and her contemptuous hostility in particular to editors who do not submit to her supposed authority. And guess who rushed to her support on that occasion? Why, our presumptive Editor of the Week, of course: Coretheapple. What a magnificent team they make! A true credit to Wikipedia. JohnValeron (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Dr Fleischman, before leaving WP last month, tried very hard to build a case against me. He went to people angry at me from the BP (Geogene) and March Against Monsanto (SecondQuanitzation/IRWolfie) articles and found willing participants to help find diffs for an eventual ANI. He asked MastCell and Drmies for help, both said no. MastCell has repeatedly said he has respect for me as an editor, and as for my complaints about Geogene (who eventually took me to ANI), he said: "Back in the day, I used to feel like there was a core of clueful editors who would support each other in these kinds of situations, but most of that core has been run off the site or decided they have better things to do than argue interminably with cranks and agenda accounts."

Geogene was canvassed by Dr F, who still has a list of my wrongdoings compiled, and who appeared to be helping Geogene with diffs for her unsuccessful ANI. Geogene came to the BP oil spill articles (where I met Coretheapple, and whom btw, I had been planning to nominate for months) and began making POV changes. Her biggest grievance was with the tremendously well-cited study mentioned in the Lede of Corexit (in this version). To end the edit war there, I slashed the Lede and removed mention of studies. Geogene, who purportedly wanted to help the Project, and improve the Corexit article specifically, has not been seen since. As was obvious from the start, her efforts seemed focused on removing content harmful to BP. Once that was done, there was no interest in actually working on the article, or WP for that matter. I noted that her appearance and frantic editing coincided with the announcement of BP's Clean Water Act trail. I was asked by other editors not to make such connections unless I have proof of COI, so I have agreed to stay silent in the future.

I do not see how that ANI plays into this one, however. Valeron's behaviour should not be tolerated, and there is no case to be made that it is justified by anything I have done, or by anything that has been said about me. The NPOV requirement for editors is not being met in his case, and I think a topic ban should be considered. Just today he was reverted at James R. Clapper and Edward Snowden for non-neutral editing. * * *

Whether my edits to Snowden have been POV has not been proven, nor has a case been made that the Snowden article is biased. I have put in a lot of time and work on that article, and the atmosphere there has driven away everyone else but the anti-Snowden editors. That has been pretty stressful, and is why I have opened this, my first ANI to see whether something can be done to stop this. petrarchan47tc 18:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

As usual, Petrarchan47 is lying to promote her punitive crusade to get me banned. The diffs she cites as evidence that "just today" I was reverted, actually date from May 2, 2014. Petrarchan47, who will do anything to get her way, is the most unethical editor I have ever encountered. JohnValeron (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

As usual I don't know what day it is. I am the most unethical editor EVER. John's ever-balanced, non-hyperbolic views will save the Pedia one way or another. Thank goodness we've got editors like this around. petrarchan47tc 18:52, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• Seriously, John, this is the type of "lie" that matters around here. Wouldn't you consider this unethical? petrarchan47tc 00:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

IBAN for JohnValeron

I have seen too many disruptive actions taken against Petrarchan47 by JohnValeron. This behavior should be addressed by IBAN.
JohnValeron was working on the Chelsea Manning biography and the court case United States v. Manning in the summer and autumn of 2013. In late December 2013, he encountered Petrarchan47 at the Edward Snowden biography, at the Sibel Edmonds biography, and at the article about Global surveillance disclosures (2013–present). Talk page relations were civil at first but by February 2014 the tone was strained, then icy with disdain and hurtful irony: "Wikipedia should permanently lock out all editors except Petrarchan47, whose sole proprietorship would be beyond reproach." By March, JohnValeron was engaged in WP:BATTLEGROUND confrontation, trying to get a rise out of Petrarchan47 by referring back to the "sole proprietorship" comment: "I earnestly hope this meets with approval and does not offend particular editors with an aggravated sense of sole proprietorship over this article." Also: baiting Petrrarchan47 with this comment: "...rest assured that the ever-vigilant Petrarchan47 has undone my revisions in toto." At the end of March JohnValeron was accusing Petrarchan47 of having "paranoid fantasies", and insulting her with the term "schoolmarm"—a sexist putdown intended to stifle discussion. The April 8 comment "petrarchan47 has zero credibility" was a gross attack, a poisoning of the well to remove Petrarchan47 from effective discussion. I suggest that JohnValeron should be given an interaction ban with regard to Petrarchan47. Binksternet (talk) 02:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

IMO, given the admission of POV towards the topic, a TBAN could also be considered. petrarchan47tc 08:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose As wondrously premature, and use of a draconian solution, which rarely actually works. A POV is not a "disqualification" but simply an indication that the person must assiduously work towards compromise and accept that others have differing POVs. Collect (talk) 12:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly Support If we can get rid of this problem, I will Die happy, This user has committed Personal Attacks against a single target, just remove contact with that target. Boom, done - Happy Attack Dog (Bark! Bark!) 14:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I would like nothing better than to stop interacting with Petrarchan47. If you could craft an IBAN that did not in effect amount to a topic ban against my editing Edward Snowden, I'd be the first to endorse it. But as a practical matter, it is impossible to avoid this proprietary, pro-Snowden partisan intent upon, as she wrote above, "implicating" the United States Government. Petrarchan47 has singlehandedly made 19% of all 6,106 edits to said article. She has racked up as many edits as the next three most active users combined. She is inescapable and intransigent. Moreover, her domination of Wikipedia's Edward Snowden has long since passed from good-faith stewardship into exclusive ownership, enforced first with haughty reverts and ultimately, as seen here, with vindictive demands that editors who dare to trespass on her turf be banned—under whatever pretext she and her supporters can contrive. Is this any way to run an encyclopedia? JohnValeron (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, Perhaps you would like a TBAN to be kept away from editors who you commit Personal Attacks on? Maybe we could Implement Both and Get 2 birds with one stone? Happy Attack Dog (Bark! Bark!) 14:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive, authoritarian editor in Snake articles

I am reporting the editor Dendro†Naja^{Talk to me!}. The editor has taken over the Black mamba article, and it has been tedious work to fix erroneous data he added which has been shown to be added by him not in good faith, and one addition which is fabrication of scientific data. Further more he has deleted scientific consensus material from two other articles snakebite, Venomous snake, in order to hide his fraudulent editing in the black mamba article.

He seems to mostly cite from books, thinking nobody will check up on him and then quickly nominates his articles for GA without the reviewer knowing the manipulation of data. gaming the system to lock the articles etc. all in pretense of being an expert.

Basically he's motivation is to make his favorite snake appear more venomous by a huge margin 0.05-0.30. venomous snakes toxicity is commonly compared through subcutaneous injection testing of mice, representing a real bite (as seen in his deletion of the venom list in the two other articles - since his snake is not quoted due to lack of venom potency).

It all started here Talk:Black_mamba#Black_mamba_LD50_quote_is_incorrect. he defended his source quotation by false arguments, in which finally i was able to show directly from his own source that he fraudulently attributed to their quotation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.6.4 (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Multiple times he has been caught misrepresenting citations Talk:Black_mamba#Discussion_2 to promote his POV
• Removing of scientific consensus material of two other articles in order to promote his POV on the black mamba article Talk:Snakebite#RfC:Should_the_List_of_most_venomous_snakes_by_LD50_from_reliable_sources_stay_in_the_article.3F, Talk:Venomous_snake#No_more_.22Top_10_most_venomous_species.22_lists
• Fabrication of scientific data on the black mamba article Talk:Black_mamba#The_hypothetical_debate_is_over

I am opening this Incident request now , because the editor constantly present himself as "Academic" "an expert" etc. and he in not only misrepresenting citation he is fabricating information into them. i find it severely troublesome.

If you find this Incident case to be true, my practical suggestion is to put back the data in the two other articles

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Venomous_snake&oldid=605989121
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snakebite&oldid=604598339

and to revert the black mamba article back to when it represented clear scientific consensus data

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_mamba&oldid=605989081 79.178.6.4 (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The Real Issue Here

• Let's start with this IP editor's history. Admin Diannaa wanted to block the above IP editor for a wide range of Wikipedia policy and guideline violations. He almost entirely plagiarized the Inland taipan article. It wasn't "close paraphrasing", but outright plagiarism. Guess who figured that out? I did. Immediately afterwards, this IP editor began a full on assault on my credibility, my integrity, and I would even say he is somewhat obsessed with me due to a deep resentment and bitter feelings because I happened to discover his plagiarism, his complete disregard for any Wikipedia policies as evidenced by his continuous violations of said policies. He has attacked me personally, calling me a "charlatan" and accusing me of "fabricating data". This is a quote regarding this IP user and his recurrent issues with regard to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Just the other day, he violated the 3RR rule several times in a single day. His problems are ongoing and aren't going to stop because it is not borne out of concern for any articles integrity or factuality, but his bitter resentment of me and his desire to destroy my work or antagonize me because he perceives me as a hostile person (projective identification) because I found out all the problems he had caused in the inland taipan article, so he is trying to do the same to the article in which I put in most, if not all the work in. That is what it really boils down to, folks. I am trying to be civil, I have even altered the black mamba article in order to compromise, but this has gone in vain as he continues his assault on my person and the article. I have listed the most known LD₅₀ values for the black mamba, which is in line with the neutrality policy (represents viewpoint fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each). I have done that by giving different examples of toxicity (values in the article are from Minton, Spawls & Branch, Ernst & Zug, Brown, and Australian Venom and Toxin Database). The IP user prefers to use only HIS preferences, but that is not appropriate for such an article.

This is an administrator's quote regarding the violations of this IP user:

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here, here, here, and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Not to sound arrogant or patronizing, but this IP user (who is confirmed by an admin to use several IP addresses, and likely has an account on Wikipedia) is definitely an amateur because he shows a gross lack of the very basic concepts and knowledge of snake venom, venom variability, toxinology, venom composition (and the interactions between these components that can make a venom which, for example, tests as a 4 mg/kg (LD50) on mice, be particularly deadly to humans causing severe envenomation), scientific methodology, limitations to research studies, and other important scientific concepts. I happen to have studied herpetology, more specifically, ophiology at a university level. I'm also a Medical laboratory technologist. So this entire issue is due to one single issue which he seems to be obsessed with and that is LD₅₀ ratings of venomous snakes. This is what its about at the end. This should be of least concern to anyone who has a real interest in science, biology, and herpetology. Debates about which snake is more toxic should be left for kids, or those who lack real scientific curiousity for more pressing and important issues related to snakes and snake venoms. This is a non-issue. Why? Here's why:

• Lists of top ten venomous snakes don't belong in ANY encyclopedia, including Wikipedia. These kinds of lists belong maybe in a children's book. Venom composition is not static. Even within a single individual, it will vary in quantity and relative proportions of components over time. Greater variability in components is seen between individuals of a species, greater still between species. Further, venom continues to evolve, often very rapidly, so there may be wide variations in venom composition and toxicity within a single species, over its geographic range. This is especially true for widely distributed species and may cause problems in antivenom effectiveness. Factors involved in the variation of venom and its toxicity include diet/habit variability, seasonal changes, geographical location, age-dependent variability, gender-dependent/sexual variability, altitude, and the list goes on. Then you've got the research methods used. This can be critical, as some snakes produce many venom components, but eject them sequentially, rather than as a uniform mixture. The immediate fate of the venom after collection is important, particularly in relation to environmental conditions that might denature certain components. The storage of the venom is also vital, and exposure to heat may cause damage to certain toxins. Prolonged storage in liquid form may damage others. Pooled venom may introduce many variabilities, because each pooled batch of venom will contain venom from different specimens, compounding both intra-individual and intra-specific variability. There are many potential variables in such research that may affect comparability and interpretation of results. The choice of test animal may be crucial, because each species may respond differently (including humans). The choice of route is also critical. The standard test of toxicity is the LD₅₀. Mice are most commonly used. The LD₅₀ remains the most universal standard for determining and comparing toxicity of venoms. As an example, the rough scaled snake (Tropidechis carinatus) has a much less potent venom than the tiger snake (Notechis scutatus), on LD₅₀ testing in mice. Yet clinically, the two venoms are virtually identical in the type and severity of effects on envenomed humans. There are many examples just like this across all species. The black mamba is not the most venomous snake species in the world, but it untreated human moratality rates are 100% and produces death in the most rapid time. To compare, the many-banded krait has a more potent venom on mice, but doesn't produce the same devastating effects on humans the way the black mamba does. Many more examples are readily available. Mice aren't humans. Yes, they may give us an idea on toxicity, but they aren't the same as humans.--Dendro†Naja^{Talk to me!} 19:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I am glad he brought up the inland taipan article. that was his first attempt in deleting scientific consensus information in order to elevate his favorite snake - the black mamba.

What's more cynical, is he copied my style article writing in many places (sections, lead etc) in the black mamba, after complaining about my style.

He tried his best, even quoting a study showing that the black mamba venom was more toxic to monkeys then the inland taipans in a study. Not knowing that the inland taipan was discovered in australia only one year before the study publication and was not availabale to the scientific community. yet another "show of expertise" by him and misrepresenting citations. As usual only after tedious arguments he conceded to the fact , and erased that fact from the black mamba article.

I was a new editor to wikipedia when i edited the inland taipan article, and thought that citing pasages from sources with references doesn't conflict with copyright. it was a good faith mistake. But this was his way of gaming the system to kill that article which was in his way for his POV pushing in the black mamba article. Most of the information is back on the inland taipan article without making copyright violations, using multiple non conflicting scientific consensus references.

User:DendroNaja loves his original research POV to the point of deleting the mainstream published scientific consensus in other articles, and shamefully fabricating and misrepresenting his own citations. This has to stop (same ip editor)79.180.5.90 (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the venom toxicity list. there were two lists originally in the snakebite article. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snakebite&oldid=589136661#Cause

He had no problem with them not being "encyclopedic and for kids", he just killed one list that didn't list the black mamba, and he was itching to declare the black mamba "the fourth most venomous snake in the world" in his lead. So under the pretense of "more accurate citation is done via Saline with Bovine serum Albumin, and not saline alone". he left the other list to stay.

The list he was pushing to stay was found out to be not representing the citation and had nothing to do with Bovine serum albomin (surprise surprise) "First of all the list posted in the article is not the list published in the book. This is the list in the book, you can verify it in google books (see the first 3)." quote taken from the talk page

So a new list was made citing both modes from reliable sources (saline, and saline with Bovine serum albumin) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snakebite&oldid=604598339#Most_venomous which non of them cite the black mamba in their top venomous snakes (for good reason).

As usual when he gets caught with misrepresenting citations, he changes his strategy. now suddenly putting venom lists "are for kids". though the final expanded list is sourced from lists published in peer review articles and academia (references 56,57,58).

Hypocritically, at the time he used this "kids play" in the black mamba article "Based on extensive and most comprehensive toxinological study conducted the toxicities of snake venoms by Ernst & Zug et al (1996), the black mamba is the fourth-most-venomous snake species in the world" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_mamba&diff=606120034&oldid=605989489

Do not be deceived by his professional sounding jargon. this editor, behind all the bells and whistles is abusing and distorting scientific data to push his personal POV. 79.180.5.90 (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I will give a classic example demonstrating this editor M.O when I say "Do not be deceived by his professional sounding jargon. this editor, behind all the bells and whistles is abusing and distorting scientific data to push his personal POV" :

An experienced editor/reviewer opened a WP:Good article reassessment section in the talk page, noting "There's so much that's wrong with this article it's difficult to know where to start"

Other editors have agreed and commented as well. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Black_mamba#GAR)

User:DendroNaja Modus operandi is this : He bombards with what looks like a very knowledgeable and scholarly text. Here a fine example from that section, responding to one of the editors:

Now to the toxicity/LD50 issue: the black mamba is the 4th most venomous snake species in the world based on the study by Ernst & Zug (1996). That is unquestionable. The toxicity ratings obtained from this study/experiment is considered to be the most important toxicity study on snake venom in the world. This is due to several factors: first, the data that was obtained was based on snake venom that was collected from hundreds of specimens from some species, while for other other species, venom was collected from thousands of specimens from all different regions of a species' geographic range (which was the case for the black mamba - 1,200+ specimens of wild caught black mambas from all localities had their venom extracted). Zug et al. also used Fraction V (bovine serum albumin). This method is known to produce the highest purity precipitate, usually in the range of 98-99%. This precipitate is the dried venom which is then used to determine toxicity. Basically, this means the most accurate toxicity rating is obtained due to the purity of the precipitate. The study conducted by Ernst & Zug was extensive, costly and the scientific methods used had been proven to produce toxicity ratings that were consistent and although variation was still observed (as expected, it was insignificant). They were meticulous and the study is considered to be nearly flawless within the herpetological community. All other methods of determining snake venom toxicity always result in wildly varying toxicities, which is/was never the case with the 1996 study. In addittion, venom is usually collected from only a handful of specimens from each species (usually such experiments will study the toxicity of a very limited number of snake species, unlike the 1996 study). Up until now, there has been no single study that has been as large in scale as the 1996 study.

Except for the fact that Ernst & Zug listed the black mamba fourth on their list - the entire paragraph is completely fabricated. he literally made up EVERYTHING else regarding that list.

It took me some time, but i found Ernst & Zug note regarding their venom list, in their own book. On the columb heading LD50 they have a small star.

This star leads to their note regarding the list (page 120) "also, the LD50 values are mixed data, derivd from different studies using different sites of venom injection (intermascular, intraperitoneal and subcutaneous)". http://books.google.co.il/books?ei=iidDU6TqKqKv4AT_wIDQBg&hl=iw&id=TuY5AQAAIAAJ&dq=Snakes+in+question%3A+the+Smithsonian+answer+book&focus=searchwithinvolume&nfpr=1&q=Subcutaneous

Do you get it? Ernst & Zug simply collected info from other studies, and they mixed up all the data which makes it un-citable regarding mode of injection, and if it is Saline alone or saline + Bovine Serum Albumin. Ernt & Zug book "Snakes in Question:the Smithsonian answer Book" is a popular science book: "New titles for a popular audience from SP/SP included Snakes in Question and Bats in Question, part of the Smithsonian Answer Book series. These inviting, easy-to-read books, written by Smithsonian experts, satisfy the curiosity of both adults and children." http://archive.org/stream/annalsofsmithson1997smit/annalsofsmithson1997smit_djvu.txt . I'm starting to believe that User:DendroNaja is a compulsive liar. (same ip editor) 79.177.130.168 (talk) 05:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

This thread is not attracting any administrator attention, because it's basically a content dispute, and admins don't make content decisions. You would be better served trying dispute resolution. WP:Dispute resolution. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

This thread isn't getting any attention because it's a content dispute, contains walls of text, bickering between the disputants, and a host of other issues that I cover in WP:ANI Advice (I've been spamming this essay on here because I'm fed up with this crap on ANI).--v/r - TP 19:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Verifiable data contribution which is argued about indeed should be dealt in dispute resolution. which i have earlier started on those talk pages. The nature of the dispute changed once it was proved that User:DendroNaja is fabricating scientific data (from a cited book, that could not be verified easily as a web link) and also deliberately misrepresenting citations in his arguments, which in turn led to the present corruption of three articles black mamba, Snakebite, venomous snake). This is the core reason i approached the panel of admins here to address. (same ip editor)79.180.139.200 (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

No administrator will make the call as to whose data is correct. It's not part of what admins do. Please see the information at WP:Dispute resolution, which offers several possible venues to assist in resolving this matter. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

We've had trouble with snake articles before. There is a blocked editor whose name I can't recall right now but maybe a checkuser is in order. Warping content is a serious charge and should be investigated. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Update - right, it was Sebastian80 (talk · contribs), also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/VeronicaPR/Archive - @Sasata:, any comments on the content? and @Drmies: who looked into this previously? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Haha Casliber, I stopped here before you pinged me. Yes, that was fun. Interesting: fairly new account, black mamba, from Canada, interest in snakies and DYK and GA (6 already? quick learner!). I mean, compare user boxes, even. So please, let someone run CU, and get ready to have a good look at the GAs.

Now, on another note, for all those admins who blah blah TLDNR content dispute and all that jazz--please consider more seriously that where there's smoke there may be fire, and that we should take IP edits on good faith as well. Thank you--and thank you Casliber for looking into this and pinging me. Someone should make you an admin one of these days. :) Drmies (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Much of the snake content contributed by this editor that I have looked at is problematic. I've noticed a couple of incidents of close paraphrasing/copyvio in Black mamba and Eastern green mamba, and I suspect that more issues will be revealed when I can get to the library and check the print sources (but AGF and all that...). Sasata (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I asked Sebastian80 on their talk page if they could please stay the hell away from GA in any future reincarnation. They couldn't--see Talk:Black mamba/GA3 (Casliber, you'll be interested in that given Talk:Black mamba/GA2, the delisting). Sasata, the problem with Sebastian is that they think they know shit, like a lot of it, and they don't. Plus, they can't really write--typical biology major, maybe, with a C- in freshman comp. So we have the Dendro-Sebastian problem right now, which CU will deal with shortly I hope, and then we have the bigger problem of GA (pinging HueSatLum here). Is it the case (you know the article better than me) that the article was in better shape when it was reviewed for GA? Do we want to yank that little green cross again, regardless of whether what HueSatLum passed was a valid GA or not? (I don't doubt their good faith, but that's not the issue here.) Or could we revert to the article as it was in an earlier state and still claim, hand on heart, that this is a GA we're looking at?

Sasata, you sound like you know what you're talking about; perhaps you can have a look at their other GAs as well. Thanks to all, Drmies (talk) 02:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

When I passed the article as a GA back in January, it met my standards for GA; since then, I have admittedly not always kept track of major changes to the article. I have been following but not participating in the discussion on the talk page because my knowledge of the scientific matters discussed there is very limited. As it stands, the article would most likely fail GAN due to its instability and potential copyvio. To me, a potential casual reader of the article, the "Venom, envenomation and antivenom" section seems quite long and technical, and I have not yet looked into the alleged copyvio. (For the record: a diff of the article as I passed it versus the current revision) /~huesatlum/ 02:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

You understand why I'm pinging you--not to impugn your GA reviewing; if you can tell me, hand on heart, that the version you passed is a GA, you could consider reverting to that version, and perhaps reinstating whatever positive edits were made by other editors?

Sebastian was in the habit of doing GA reviews also, and getting Black mamba at GA is a long obsession of theirs. In other news, I've been going through some old edits of some old socks (VeronicaPR (talk · contribs) and Thegoodson (talk · contribs) (pretty disgusting appropriation of a Nick Cave classic). What they all have in common, besides sssssnakies, is Temazepam. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I've semi'ed that last one for six months then. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

What can I say? Thank you guys ! Truth has (finally) prevailed. Gosh that was one nasty snake to bag. (same ip editor)79.179.132.166 (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Both editors may have a bias. [132] is an exaggerated claim of consensus by IP79* for either edit to the lead [133] or [134], and this is the discussion of that section Talk:Black mamba#GAR. Some edits by IP79* seemed drastic causing alarm, but after examination many of the edits were agreed upon. Still, the specific edits to the lead, which were difficult to follow the changes, were not agreed upon, by the claim of consensus. I think both editors are capable of contributing, but the IP should be more diplomatic and introduce changes (as to the lead) gradually where people can readily distinguish it by looking at the diffs. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 05:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Sidelight12 This editor is a known Academic Charlatan with a very long history on wikipedia. See for example what one Admin that blocked him in his past reincarnations wrote about him. It is almost word for word the same conclusions i came up with. Unfortunately you were one of the editors he tricked in thinking he is a legit and serious expert. I guarantee you, that now, my edit to the lead will not only not look "extreme", but be welcomed. And you will see the serious pruning of that article once the admins here get to work. I am also at service if needed. (same ip editor) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.132.166 (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: I have blocked the editor indefinitely. A comprehensive interaction report between DendroNaja and previous socks (including socks confirmed by CheckUser) can be seen here. Between that and the eerily-similar user page to Sebastian80, that was more than enough to convince me per WP:DUCK. -- Atama頭 16:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I would like to add, that None of User:DendroNaja citations can be considered reliable. we simply can't be sure what he "fixed". i mean that person had no limits. I just had a look a section in the' venomous snake' article. He used my own references which i used in the inland taipan article and he miss-quoted them intentionaly: " Lists or rankings of the world's most venomous snakes are tentative and differ greatly because of numerous factors.[1][2]" This is his manipulation for showing don't trust venom lists (because black mambas are not listed in them..), and you can see an editor (AIRcorn) in the RfC section in the talk page has been convinced by this sentence. But the real sentence is "Lists or rankings of the world's most dangerous snakes are tentative and differ greatly because of numerous factors.[1][2]" and this is off-course true. (numerous factors:Venom potency,disposition,size, human mortality etc) (same ip editor) 79.179.106.114 (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Guys if you would unlock those three articles: black mamba, snakebite, venomous snake (which he got them locked by gaming) and maybe write something in the talk page to clarify the situation to other editors, i am willing to fix the stuff i recognize he corrupted. (same ip editor) 79.179.106.114 (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

And the Rfcs that i started prior to the ANI on all three articles can be closed by one of you too.79.179.106.114 (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Only Snakebite was still protected. Go for it. It would be funny if you were someone else's sock and we just gave you the keys to the liquor cabinet--but Materialscientist is probably looking over your shoulder. Drmies (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

You are so funny. :) . Thank you very much for taking me seriously and addressing this case. (same ip editor)79.176.118.185 (talk) 07:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I've semi'ed some of the other pages edited frequently by the user that are not actively being edited much at present. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

And thank you too Cas Liber. You were the first one to roll the ball (I almost lost hope). (same ip editor)79.176.118.185 (talk) 10:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC).

I can vouch for the fraudulent citations by this user, we had a similar incident on Angelina Jolie, which eventually earned them an indefinite block (which was subsequently removed). HelenOnline 09:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey...who locked the liquor cabinet. I need a shot.--Maleko Mela (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I remember that nightmare with Angelina Jolie's article and talk page. I think most of those edits had to be rev'deleted. Really improper WP:OR on a BLP that was more appropriate for the National Enquirer. But he promised to stick to snake articles. I guess that didn't work out, either. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

@Drmies: would you mind also unlocking the inland taipan article please. The banned editor also gave me there a false reputation as a "vandal/disruptive" editor, so an admin locked it again. Thank you (same ip editor) 79.178.152.192 (talk) 05:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'm pinging EdJohnston and Diannaa about this. There's a couple of issues in the history and on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

It's hard for an IP-hopper to participate effectively in dispute resolution. An editor may prefer not to create an account but we should not give complete deference to that if he wants to work on contentious topics. What we need on the snake articles might be a series of RfCs, which will require time and patience. At present there is no RfC at Talk:Inland taipan, but an IP could create one if they wanted. I would not support lifting the semiprotection on Inland taipan, though another admin might do so if they were confident they had consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Ed, I gladly yield to you. The IP can always participate via the talk page and RfCs, as you note. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Evildoer at Ashkenazi Jews. Repeated disruptive POV pushing over an extended period on a single issue

Evildoer has a long pattern of persistent disruptive POV-pushing, not only on this article alone. His thesis is that the Ashkenazi by scholarly consensus came from the Middle East, and he refuses to countenance any scholarship that contradicts this, suppressing the dissonance in order to thrust this into pages as a truism. Late last year he worked intensely to get this in(1):(2):(3):(4):(5):(6):(7):(8):(9):(10): One user User:Jeppiz described this flurry of edits as a 'a massive NPOV violation' for removing a lot of sourced content , and Evildoer's response was simply to (11) revert him, then, on second thought (12) self-revert, to give others time to respond, then again, (13) self-self-revert because he decided he didn't need to listen to anyone. User:Debresser, acting as talk page umpire, was so exasperated he warned Evildoer that if he persisted he would be taken to arbitration, reverting his material as '1. pointed, 2. contentious 3. ignoring ongoing discussion 4. no consensus.'

Evildoer took note, and disappeared. By consensus through December 21-27, the lede was stabilized, and the POV push Evildoer had inserted disappeared with two edits by Debresser, here and here.

Evildoer popped back three months later and without announcement, reintroduced the controversial and now elided (by consensus) phrasing, with a new source (14) in this edit. When successively challenged for breaking the consensus, he persisted in restoring his old version, pleading (14)I don't recall any consensus on this passage. Moreover, it is sourced material that appears further down in the article.

Seeing this lately, I restored the consensus of December, only to be (16) reverted by Evildoer immediately, who argued he had a 'new' consensus. So I looked at what he had done.

The 'new source', which he copied and pasted from elsewhere, failing to note there was no page indicated, was Bernard Dov Weinryb's The Jews of Poland: A Social and Economic History of the Jewish Community in Poland from 1100-1800, Jewish Publication Society of America 1973 pp.17-22. I examined it closely. It failed verification. Weinryb's book in fact espouses a conclusion diametrically opposed to the one Evildoer draws from it. It examines a dozen theories about the Ashkenazis' origins only to dismiss them all as speculative. I therefore notified the page I would remove it, unless something could show I was wrong, within 24 hours. Evildoer threatened to revert me if I did, indifferent to the fact that he had been shown to use a false source. Unintimidated, and since no one responded to my request, I removed the text and source after a day, and was (17) immediately reverted by Evildoer. Please note that he has, in the face of my demonstration on the talk page that Weinryb cannot be used to support that sentence, reintroduced him in support of it. This is a flagrant disfiguring of our obligation to provide wiki readers with reliably sourced information.

Evildoer has once more made a preemptive edit, been shown the edit is flawed source-wise, but insists that it cannot be removed without consensus. This upturning of WP:Burden and contempt for collegial editing is characteristic of a consistent WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude, all in the service of a single minded pursuit of stamping pages with an ideological meme about origins. This is a long-term problematical behavioural pattern, and not a content dispute Please advise.Nishidani (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

In diffs 1, 2, 4: I reverted because it looked like it was WP:UNDUE. The majority of sources present at the time supported Near Eastern/Israelite origin, with only one RS contradicting it. I believed that nitpicking on the accuracy of the sources belonged in the genetic section, and I still do. The lede is meant to sum up who they are without getting bogged down in details. If I am wrong, then I am wrong, and I will make an effort to fix that.

Diff 3: Restoring a cat that was not a subcat/parent cat of the other (at the time). They meant the same thing. I didn't see a reason to remove it.

Diff 5: Self-explanatory. We had not laid out a specific criteria for inclusion in that box, therefore I believed it was a mixture of blood, culture, language, and geographical origin. In the case of Ashkenazi Jews, there is stronger cultural, geographical, ethnic and linguistic affinity for Samaritans and Levantines than for Central Europeans.

Diff 6: Also self-explanatory. There is only one DNA/scholarly (without obvious political biases i.e. Joseph Massad, Ali Abunimah, etc) source that ascribes a non-Middle Eastern/Levantine origin to Ashkenazi Jews, and that is Zoossmann-Diskin's study from 2010, which was not present in the article. Instead, there was a study explaining that the majority of Ashkenazi maternal lineages were European in origin.

Diff 7: I was wrong here. In hindsight, it's easy to see why other editors believed it was about genetics.

Diff 8: Would have been easier to link to the study itself, not a news article pertaining to it. Furthermore, the DNA test did not arrive at the conclusion ascribed to it in the article (i.e. that Ashkenazim are predominantly European in genome, rather than in maternal lineages).

Diff 9: Here I removed an onslaught of secondary sources, all of them pertaining to the same study in an apparent attempt to pad it out and make it appear as though it has more weight than it really does. See WP:UNDUE. It was an obvious attempt at POV pushing.

Diff 10: I did what I said I would do in diff 9. I restored all of the genetic sources, including Costa's which Nishidani tendentiously claims I am trying to censor.

Jeppiz revert: See explanation above for diffs 8 and 9, and to a lesser extent 1, 2, and 4.

Diff 13 and Debresser's first revert: Should not have removed the info in the related ethnic groups box. You will notice that we have since come to an agreement and I have left it alone, since then. As for the rest, it's essentially the same problem outlined in Diff 8. The source did not say what the article said it did.

Debresser's second revert [135]: I never altered that sentence after he put it there. However, he later added this portion (which Nishidani is now trying to remove, without consensus) here, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashkenazi_Jews&diff=599098825&oldid=598841923.

Diff 14: This version did indeed enjoy consensus, as per this diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashkenazi_Jews&diff=599098825&oldid=598841923. Nishidani violated consensus. After Nishidani, and later Debresser, tried to revert me, I pointed out this error to Debresser and he agreed, admitting that he made a mistake. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashkenazi_Jews&action=history

Nishidani is correct that it does appear further down in the article. That's where I initially found the source, and transplanted it to the lede.

I have made a few mistakes, but Nishidani's complaint is riddled with dishonesty, and I am in the process of compiling a case against him myself. Beyond that, I provided more academic sources per his request, and I will remove the Weinryb citation.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not going to comment on the walls of text above, but I agree that this article needs close scrutiny by some outside observers, rather than being left to the usual group of involved editors whose views are as predictable as the tides. I have not edited this article, but have been concerned for some time that it is being used by some editors involved in the Israel/Palestine debate to push certain points of view related to whether Ashkenazi Jews are descended from the Israelites, which I believe are being used as a proxy for pushing viewpoints as to the right of Ashkenazi Jews to lay claim to Israel. Number 57 19:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

See Number57's contributions here and judge for yourselves whether he is the best editor to comment on the neutrality of others.     ←   ZScarpia   20:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd be genuinely interested to hear in which direction (pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian) you consider those comments to be biased, as it seems that editors of both sides think I'm biased against them (and equally editors from both sides come to me for help). But, yes, if anyone does have any concerns about my neutrality, I'm more than happy for those comments to serve as a barometer :) Number 57 20:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd be quite happy if all I/P editors were banned from this and other pages, even if for some it would be just suffering from a blanket ban. I come across pages like this and see editors, whose knowledge of Jewish, European and specifically Ashkenazi history and culture is all google-improvisation, plugging away at just one thing, genetic proof all Ashkenazi came from the Land of Israel. The fact that I have strong private views on the I/P area has not impeded me from writing most of the articles about Raul Hilberg Irving Goldman, Franz Baermann Steiner Eugenio Curiel, Gertrud Kolmar and other Ashkenazi whose example and works have influenced my thinking. Each of those pages cost me a few hours or days work. Easy. I've put months of attention on this article, and most of it is reverted automatically precisely because of the suspicion you allude to. I've failed several times to redo the article because of this deplorable fixation, which impoverishes one of the most fertile creative human communities on record. I have from the outset argued that the article in the Jewish Virtual Library by Shira Schoenberg on 'Ashkenazi' should set the pattern (it has nothing about the prehistoric speculations on origins), written by competent enthusiastics who know about Ashkenazi lore, rabbinical learning, the Cossack and other genocides, the Pale of Settlement, Mendelsohn, Heine, Marx, the haskalah,Durkheim, Marcel Mauss, Carl Emil Schorske's Vienna, Freud and psychoanalysis, Einstein and the Hungarian-german Ashkenazi contribution to modern physics, and other things too many to be enumerated. I've almost never complained of anyone, even of editors I deplore. I make the exception here, because Evildoer knew the material he was editing back was erroneous and unsupported, it was proven before his eyes, and yet he simply reverted it back in. That is an extreme example of contempt for process, for listening to what editors say, and for consensus. It requires administrative oversight. His further edit, if you wish me to analyse it, makes the situation even more bizarre.Nishidani (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

This would mean that you would be banned from editing there too, seeing as you are a regular on I/P articles.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I generally understand the implications of what I write. And I wrote self-evidently saying what you think I missed: by all means get me too off such articles, if that is what is needed to get them written.Nishidani (talk) 09:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

You will see these kinds of debates raging on virtually every single article related to Jews or the Middle East in general. It is hardly a secret that most of these articles are edited largely by political campaigners (usually of an anti-Israel slant, as the Zionist ones are almost always outnumbered and T-Banned quickly), but I couldn't care less about that. All I'm trying to do is make sure sensitive articles like these remain fair and accurate, without turning into horrendous, libelous screeds that would make Joseph Goebbels proud.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

It is Nishidani regularly engages in POV pushing and who is now attempting to silence an editor who does not share his point of view on Jews and our origins. Keep in mind, the editor Nishidani wishes to silence is a Jew who only wishes to bring balance and sensitivity to the Ashkenazi Jews page. Nishidani's edits and comments demonstrate an anti-Jewish sentiment; which is to say a sentiment that runs counter to beliefs held by most Jews about the origins of our people as a whole. Nishidani is now attempting to defend the removal of a paragraph in which the origin of Ashkenazim is explained as being Israelite. Debresser, an editor who usually argues alongside Nishidani, admitted that the paragraph was removed without consensus. Nishidani claims that there "two consensuses" - an impossibility to be sure. Gilad55 (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)Gilad55

I don't know the specifics of this article, but Evildoer187 has been edit-warring for several years over the Middle Eastern origin of Jews. See his edits to the various categories of Jews. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring? There are dozens of people on both sides who disagree on the status of those categories. If you believe it's just me restoring those cats, then it's obvious you're not paying attention.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I've been paying attention. You're the SPA who is edit-warring over them. See WP:NOTTHEM. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Clearly, you haven't been, otherwise you'd have noticed the participation of Gilad, Kitty, Yambaram, AnkhMopork, among others (and those are just the people who agreed with me) in these same edit wars. WP:NOTTHEM is not an excuse. Thank you for proving my point.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment It'true that the article on Ashkenazi Jews suffer from a heavy WP:POV. Despite the existence of extensive, modern DNA studies suggesting that Ashkenazi Jews are of mainly European origin, such opinions are sometimes "banned" from the article by one side, sometimes they are pushed as the only studies by another side. Both approaches are wrong. We know that Israel is a sensitive issue and there are political reasons both for including or excluding a number of facts. This is true for both sides.
  This is a much wider problem than User:Evildoer or User:Nishidani. The only thing we can know for certain is that these edit wars will continue unless a policy is set by Wikipedia. We had years of fighting over Macedonia until WP:MOSMAC settled the issue. I'm not going to comment on what Evildoer or Nishidani did or do, but I would encourage AN to consider whether a wider invention would not be needed. When extensive modern scientific research is regularly silenced because it says the "wrong" thing, then Wikipedia has a problem. There is extensive modern DNA research saying Ashkenazia Jews are mainly European and there is extensive modern DNA research saying they are mainly Levantines. If the scientific world cannot know for sure, neither can we. It follows that both sides should be presented. Until a policy on that is laid down, these edit wars will go on.Jeppiz (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

"Ashkenazi Jews are of mainly European origin". This is incorrect, unless you are referring to Zoossmann-Diskin's study from 2010. The study you are thinking of says the maternal lines are mainly European, whereas the paternal lines are Near Eastern. The fact that you are still clinging to this idea, after having been shown that you are wrong on more than one occasion, is a demonstration of bad faith on your part. I do agree, however, that a new policy needs to be set down, and it should probably go far beyond a mere 1RR sanction (as can be seen on Arab-Israeli conflict articles).Evildoer187 (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Adding on to the above points, I believe some kind of balance needs to be reached on these sensitive topics (including Israeli-Arab conflict articles) so they are not dominated by one side or another. Or perhaps a policy that allows only editors who are proven to be neutral to edit these articles (i.e. people without any particular interest in these topics), whereas other editors can send in requests which will then be evaluated and approved/rejected, based purely on their merit and adherence to Wiki policy. I don't see any other way out of this. The way things are now, editors with a political agenda can just storm right in, outnumber the opposing side, and tilt the narratives of the articles to reflect their own prejudices (this goes for both sides, mind you). Simply placing good faith on other editors in this particular area is not a good idea. At all.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

So, you'd be willing to stop editing these articles and all categories "of Jewish descent" in favor of neutral editors? I'm not saying I'd be one of them, it's just I never thought I'd ever see you suggest this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but I doubt it could ever be implemented. People in general seem to have an uncanny knack for being irrational when it comes to anything related to Jews.Evildoer187 (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm surprised to hear you describe editors who focus on editing articles on Judaism and Jews as being irrational. Personally, my interest is in all categories of descent and ethnicity but I've never run into this amount of conflict before. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd actually like Evildoer187 to qualify what he means by 'irrational'. An inability to be able to discern where WP:OR has come into play? An inability to distinguish between WP:POV and neutrality? Perhaps, Evildoer187, your definition is proscribed to anyone who doesn't agree with you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

No, by 'irrational' I mean this [136]. Notice that all of the citations he restored pertained to the same study, so the word 'some' is clearly a misnomer. Moreover, it constitutes WP:UNDUE. There are many other examples I can give you. Do you want more?Evildoer187 (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Your use of the word 'irrational', and your behaviour, reminds me of Spinoza. He fell out with his community precisely over this, risking the death penalty, and the Enlightenment and the haskalah flourished in the wake of his acute perception of the problem. As has been remarked: Heidi M. Ravven, 'Spinoza's Rupture with Tradition -His Hints of a Jewish Modernity,' in Heidi M. Ravven,Lenn Evan Goodman (eds.) Jewish Themes in Spinoza's Philosophy, SUNY 2002, pp.187-224, p.208: 'For a stable society to be a realizable goal (wikipedia's encyclopedic project in this instance) there has to be another way to establish agreement than mere emotional irrationality. In the final two books of the Ethics, Spinoza shows us how to emerge from the irrational investment in others and in the multitude that obtains in the most primitive imaginative life. . .Spinoza warns us here that more often than not a person cannot but conform to social pressures. One pays the price- that of one's own integrity- in the bargain. For "it needs an unusually powerful spirit to . .restrain oneself from imitating (others') emotions".'

All editors who edit knowingly on behalf what they perceive to be a 'group', national/ethnic or whatever, identity are liable to allow their rational assessment of edits to be affected by the perceived 'group' interests implicit or explicit in articles. The 'rational' editor is one who never allows these emotional attachments to sway his judgement, which operatively means (s)he's going to be seen as a 'damaging' editor to any group of editors who think in collectivist terms.Nishidani (talk) 09:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

There aren't any editors on that page who are not swayed to a certain extent by personal biases. That's Wikipedia's perennial flaw. It places too much faith in the "inherent good of people" (Jimmy Wales' own words) without realizing, or ignoring, that a lot of people really are not good and are only here to use Wikipedia as a platform for their own prejudices. My only aim in this area is to see these articles remain balanced without veering into Al Jazeera/Stormfront-esque bias (as per the example I gave). Myself, and perhaps Gilad are among the only editors left who can provide the Jewish/Israeli perspective to balance out the predominantly pro-Arab ones that are gradually making their way into Jewish articles. Admittedly, I did not take your word seriously because I don't trust you (e.g. the fact that you once referred to Purim as a "celebration of genocide" would raise red flags for any rational person, and tells them that you don't belong anywhere near a Jewish article), and that's why I restored it. I hadn't actually looked at the sources yet, but I assumed they were accurate since they remained in the main body, unchallenged, for months on end.Evildoer187 (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

First Gilad, then Evildoer hinted, and now he has made explicit that he reverts me on sight because I'm not to be trusted anywhere near a 'Jewish' article. Could any administrator who is unfamiliar with Evildoer's allusion to Purim examine the note attached to the top of my page (User:Nishidani) and then notify Evildoer he is engaged in a violent assault on my integrity by suggesting I am an antisemite? This has been repeatedly examined by many editors and admins, and the inference Evildoer is making has been repeatedly rebuffed.Nishidani (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Unsuitable comments by Gilad55

I am not going to get much involved in this dispute, but I must protest quite strongly against the arguments of Gilad55 who appears to claim that ethnicity, not sourced facts, should be the criteria for editing. Defending (or accusing) an editor because they are a Jew (or any other ethnicity) shows a profound lack of understanding what Wikipedia is about. Likewise, accusing someone with whom one does not agree for being "anti-Jewish" is also remarkable. And the definition Gilad55 uses for "anti-Jewish" ("a sentiment that runs counter to beliefs held by most Jews") just defies belief; if a major DNA study comes to a result that is different what most people believe, then there is nothing "anti" about that. Given this flagrant lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works, and given the troublesome nature of the user's edit history, I'd lend an ear to anyone suggesting Gilad55 should not edit articles related to Jews, Israel or Judaism. Both the comments on this page and the actions of the user shows that this user is not on Wikipedia for the right reasons.Jeppiz (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that ethnicity should not determine who gets to edit an article. However, even a cursory glance at Nishidani's editing history shows him to be someone who probably should not be editing on Jewish topics, or anywhere near them. Not a single one of his edits, as far as I can tell (and I have watched him), have depicted Jews in a positive light. That alone is a serious cause for alarm.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

There it is then, once more. Cursory glancing is your problem, and I think you'd better retract that. Read the edit histories and contributors behind the articles on Raul Hilberg, Irving Goldman, Franz Baermann Steiner, Eugenio Curiel, Gertrud Kolmar, Hugo Salus, (Ashkenazi) or Mizrahi like Ezra Nawi, Bruno Hussar, Albert Antébi, to name but a few, most of which I wrote. I have a total inability, well known to those who know me or read my academic work, to think 'ethnically' or in terms of 'nationality', and the problem I encounter here is that many POV-pushers think the respective differences between Albert Einstein, Theodor Adorno, Spinoza, Osip Mandelstam, Lenny Bruce, Abraham Isaac Kook, Dov Lior and Pamela Geller all miraculously dissolve when you categorize them as, which they happen to be, Jewish. I only see individuals. Perhaps that's why I get the 'antisemite' label thrown my way, as Evildoer has just insinuated. Collectivists cannot understand opposition to anything they personally believe as anything but opposition to their collectivist identity, to everyone else in the vast group they imagine to constitute their basic identity.Nishidani (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Refocusing

What I what close administrative scrutiny of is, in synthesis, the following facts.

• In December, Evildoer was told by two neutral editors that his behaviour on the page consisted of gross POV-pushing and if he persisted, an AN/I complaint would be made. He disappeared. An agreement was reached to elide the problematical assertion re Ashkenazi origins.
• He popped back up 2 and a half months later, and inserted the same phrase back into the lede, without prior discussion on the talk page, challenging the consensus, and the peace. He had a 'new' source for it.
• I eventually checked the 'new' source. It was Weinryb. Nothing in Weinryb endorsed that formulation, and therefore Evildoer erred in using it.
• I analysed the source on the talk page, gave Evildoer and others a day to correct me if my analysis was wrong.
• Evildoer clearly, only then realized with the link that nothing in Weinryb supported his WP:OR.
• I said I would remove the WP:OR. Evildoer said he'd revert me if I did, in full knowledge that in reverting my removal, he was restoring a false source for an WP:OR statement.
• Since no one intervened to challenge my analysis, I removed the WP:OR and it was immediately reverted back by Evildoer, including, with the disproven Weinryb, 'new sources' putatively backing the old statement.
• I complained here, and Evildoer immediately admitted his revert was wrong. He removed Weinryb. Again, this was wrong. Weinryb, in the link I provided, specifically dismisses Evildoer's phrase about the Middle eastern Israelite origin hypothesis as 'speculative'.

The beginnings of Jewish settlement in Polish lands are buried in the dim past and are as obscure as most beginnings, including Poland’s own. . .Whatever may have been the reasons for immigration, there is no documentary evidence of its origins.’ p.17

(After dismissing the Khazar hypothesis for Ashkenazi origins) ‘the rest of the hypotheses and speculations have little or no basis in reality and lack any factual value for dealing with the early settlement of Jews in Poland.'p.22

• Evildoer had read this, in the meantime, and refused to admit it contradicted flatly his WP:OR phrasing that Ashkenazi:ethnogenesis and emergence as a distinct community of Jews traces back to immigrants originating in the Israelite tribes of the Middle East'.
• So he used Weinryb to prove a statement he'd made, without consulting Weinryb. When I showed the error, he read Weinryb, and removed him, though Weinryb clearly declares that things like 'the ethnogenesis' of the Ashkenazi are all 'speculative' and without any 'basis in reality'.
• He kept his text on page, stubbornly, adding more sources for this. What are these new sources?
• (1)William Henry Anderdon’s Fasti apostolici 1884. Analysis? The book deals with events between the putative ascension of Christ and the martyrdoms of St Peter and Paul. There is nothing in this of the origins of the Ashkenazi. No page indication is provided.
• (2) Josephus Bella Judaica. Analysis? Josephus lived 900 years before the first mention of the existence of the Ashkenazi, and the book, which I am familiar with, has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of Ashkenazi.
• (3) Josephus, The Jewish War, Gaalyahu Cornfeld.' Analysis. This is another name for the same source in two, cited in total ignorance, as though it were a second source. No page number is provided. Nothing about the Ashkenazi
• (4) William Whiston The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged. Analysis? Same problem as above. No page given. Josephus's relevance to the origin of the Ashkenazi whom he did not know of, is totally obscure.
• (5) 'Encycl Britannica entry on the first Jewish Revolt, which took place 900 years before the emergence of the Ashkenazi.
• (5) Behar et al. The genome-wide structure of the Jewish people (2010) A genetic paper, which does not support in its mixed theory, his contention, and all genetics papers were excluded by consensus in December from the lead.

This is incomprehensible behaviour. There is absolutely nothing rational in doing what he has done several times, just in the last few edits, and no editor should be obliged to have to talk to the wall for days, weeks, and months as people like him, assisted by Gilad, just keep pushing back the same stuff which the archives long disposed of. As often, attempts will be made to talk around, beyond or through the facts until the comprehension of this simple abuse is lost in chat. Nishidani (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I have already addressed nearly all of this above (save for his analysis of the sources I provided), and I won't bother to do it again. Evildoer187 (talk) 22:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you should address all of his argument. It's pretty damning evidence. As for my experience with you, I've never encountered an editor who reverts those he disagrees with as often as you do. I could say more but it would take away from Nishidani's case as it involves categories involving Jewish descent, not this Ashkenazi article. At the root of it all is your insistence that every individual who has had even one ancestor who is Jewish (no matter where they live in the world) can be classified as "Middle Eastern" or "Asian". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I already did address his arguments. Needless to say, Nishidani's version of events is not accurate as I've demonstrated in my initial reply. As for you, you do have a habit of coming back to an article/category months or weeks later and putting in an edit that you know has no consensus. This is the pattern I've noticed from you. How do you excuse that? And as much as I don't want to get into the descent argument here (again), you know as well as I do that descent is not negated by moving to another country and living there for a certain period of time. It is contingent on ethnicity, as any source will tell you. White South Africans in America are still classified as European (on this website), although they immigrated from Africa, not Europe. That's just one example, or are Jews unique relative to every other diaspora group? It's the idea that because Jews were displaced a long time ago and lived in Europe for centuries, that they are now Europeans and no longer Levantine/Middle Eastern, that I object to. I simply don't buy that argument (because it's nonsense), and neither did at least half of the people involved in that dispute.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

1. As can be seen in this diff [137], both attempted to pad out what would otherwise be considered WP:UNDUE by linking to several tertiary sources reporting on the same study (which didn't even arrive at the conclusion the corresponding passage said it did), in contrast to the wide selection of studies provided that contradicted it. In short, it was an attempt at POV pushing, and a rather transparent one at that. The "related ethnic groups" box, as I explained above, seemed to me (at least at the time) to be about more than just blood, but also culture and geographical origin. We were able to reach a compromise on that bit, and I have not touched it since then.

2. Yes, I put it there because it was a non-genetic source (and the initial dispute was about genetics) and because it was already used further down in the same article, saying the exact same thing.Evildoer187 (talk) 00:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

And you, Evildoer187, are claiming that every one of your edits, to "article/category months or weeks later," has consensus? Because if that were the case, then I doubt you would be having to keep defending yourself here on AN/I. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

(Question on the side: Why do we allow user names like "Evildoer". Would we allow "Murderer of children" or "Death-maker" or "Serial rapist" or "American terrorist"? Why is "Evildoer" different? BMK (talk) 02:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC))

OK BMK, I'm getting giddy so it's bedtime. But hey, one more for good measure, on usernames: dude, if it's beyond your ken, why not leave it alone? And: 'fore you know it we'll have user names like "Malleus Fatuorum"! And now I kiss you goodnight, in token and confirmation of our long wiki friendship. :) Drmies (talk) 04:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be an in-joke for the I/P area: there's a guy whose handle suggests he's spoiling (antisemitic?) plots, and another who says he's not going to be a nice guy any more, all with the same POV.Nishidani (talk) 07:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

@Liz, the edits you are thinking about came after someone restored a non-consensus version of the article/cat.Evildoer187 (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Stay focused on the specific complaint. My evidence argues that, in full knowledge that Weinryb did not support your edit, and after a due warning was given to you that reverting back a false source and an unsupported statement was 'actionable', with a full day conceded for you to sort out your confusion, you still automatically and almost immediately reverted my rule-consonant removal of dubious matter and a source that failed verification. This translated into my wasting 5 hours of work to read about 400 diffs, and three archives to confirm my long-standing impression you are problematical. I finally made the case, and immediately you o and admit, 'yes, I'm wrong on that' and edit out Weinryb, while leaving the WP:OR in, and adding five absolutely fatuous sources in place, which are self-evidently irrelevant. This, on any reading, suggests you mess around, play, create havoc, disturb the serenity of editors who take their duties here seriously. It's called attrition. It takes no time for any editor to play at attrition: it takes huge amounts of time for editors who follow the rules to clean up. People who do what you did cannot but know that frivolous reverts in the face of facts cause endless wastes of time for serious editors. Perhaps that's the point of such gaming.

I might add that this kind of confusion is general. Galassi has now reverted you on Weinryb, and reintroduced him into that text, where the WP:OR lies undisturbed. His judgement was correct, that Weinryb is not, as your edit summary said, 'controversial'. But, as shown, Weinryb cannot be used to support that statement about Ashkenazi origins. One can only use Weinryb to gloss a statement of the kind:'there are many theories about Ashkenazi origins, all speculative.' The normative solution is, in all such cases, to open a thread (which I did) for editors pushing a controversial proposal to hash it out with colleagues. You refused to use that recourse. I repeat: editors should not be forced to put up with this frolicky, perhaps even tacticxal, insouciance to the rules. It is what drives most potential editors out of articles. Nishidani (talk) 09:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

You hadn't achieved consensus for removing it, and I was so busy that day that I did not have the time to look at it. However, looking at it now, you are correct that it does not belong (hence why I removed it yesterday). I told you not to remove the passage as I was busy fetching other sources to use, and as I reverted you, I put those additional citations in (thereby not violating talk page consensus). However, you rejected those too.Evildoer187 (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

You need to read WP:BURDEN. Onus is on the insertion of text, not on its removal. Zero^talk 16:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't going to pay attention to this, but hey I took a look at the edit of Evildoer that Nishidani highlighted and it is frankly amazing. Not a single one of the sources given supports the claim being made, and it is hard to believe Evildoer didn't realise that, since it is either completely obvious (as for Josephus) or had been pointed out already on the talk page. Zero^talk 16:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Those sources detailed how Jews arrived to Europe i.e. they did not manifest themselves organically via the adoption of Judaism by native Europeans, but by immigration, slavery, etc of Judeans brought to the territories of the Roman Empire. They were adequate sources, in my opinion. It's impossible to know when and how the Ashkenazi Jewish communities were born (since that time period in Jewish history is not that well documented), but we do know (from genetic studies, linguistic/cultural evidence, etc) that they originally came from the Levant and mixed with local Europeans (mainly Southern Europeans) at a later date.Evildoer187 (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay. If you are convinced those sources 'detailed how Jews arrived in Europe, give me the page numbers where this is explained from each source. (clue. Josephus doesn't give an explanation of how Jews arrived in Europe because he wrote in Rome, well aware that the Jewish community he encountered there had been established 200 years earlier than the date of his writing and before the Fall of Jerusalem).Nishidani (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and where did that Jewish community come from?Evildoer187 (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know, because scholars haven't elucidated the issue. I regard all history as hypotheses mostly: it's not a subject for anyone uncomfortable with the provisional or uncertainties. However, you cited without pagination Max Dimont's popular book, Jews, God and History, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1962, and I eagerly wait on proof that you have read it for what you say Dimont says. Had you actually read that book you would not have asked me this question, for your eye would have caught his remark that ‘as many as a third of the Jews of Italy were not descendants of Abraham and Moses but descendants of Romulus and Remus, in as much as their ancestors were former pagans who had converted to Judaism as far back as 100 AD.’ (pp.213-214).

Personally, I remain unconvinced by the statement, though his prose is neat. Had you read it, you would have seen that some Jews have no problem with a perspective or possibility you constantly try to erase from wikipedia.Nishidani (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

My question was rhetorical. And yes, I am aware of that passage. I never said that there was no mixture with native Europeans.Evildoer187 (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• I presume, by the fact this is here, that all articles and topics relating to the Middle East, Jews, and so forth aren't covered by discretionary sanctions yet, but only a certain selection are? If so, it's a bit surprising and maybe an amendment request is needed to arbcom to make it broader (and even more global, which I suppose will maintain some level of consistency). Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

That would not be enough. There needs to be something else introduced that can prevent biased narratives from dominating these articles. Even with the 1RR Arbcom sanctions on I/P articles, they still exhibit an obvious pro-Arab bias/slant, as other editors have previously remarked on, albeit not in this particular discussion. Say what you will about CAMERA, but I highly doubt they would have felt the need to do what they did if there wasn't a serious problem on these articles. The same would happen on Jewish articles as well.Evildoer187 (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think it was and is a serious problem in these topic areas, and I don't think this particular noticeboard will resolve it. My other comment was reflecting on some other (pretty unrelated) topic areas where its apparently in force. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think articles dealing, directly or indirectly with Jews should be singled out. That risks inadvertently creating an 'exceptionalist' environment. Israel figures almost not at all in the first millenium of Ashkenazi Jews, at least from 900-1882, except if you look at rabinical books and attempts to make a connection are misplaced. It is like imagining that the 'Holy Land' obsessed Europeans for a millenium because theological books treat it as central. In the real historical world, such religious angles were marginal to society.

I've always argued that where problems exist, the imposition of 1R, and, in important articles, insistance that the RS bar be set high, so that only academic sources be permitted, would stop a good deal of edit-warring (if only by forcing potential edit-warriors to actually read books, or chapters of books, rather than fishing in google for anything that might back up a preconceived claim). One of the reasons why Jewish history should be easy to write, and be written with celerity and depth, is that the scholarship on every aspect of it is the subject of a huge magnificent academic output, fascinating in its own right, diligent, scrupulous, sceptical, and often iconoclastic. Almost nothing of this scholarship is being reproduced on wikipedia precisely because the I/P political obsessions have created a climate of suspicion in some editors which suggests to them everything 'they' do is motivated by a desire to attack 'Israel'.

Little of this scholarship seeps down into the mainstream or popular press which, in compensation, gives intense coverage to the Middle East conflict. That is why, simply insisting that encyclopedic articles draw on scholarship, not memes and googled tidbits, would cut the Gordian knot. I mention Toch below, and, checking youtube this morning, heard his book discussed at the conservative Bar-Ilan University. What Toch says at the end of the presentation (The Economic History of European Jews: Late Antiquity+Michael Toch+ YouTube at 24:55 onwards) (2 minutes) sums it up eloquently, if hoarsely. He says he is trying to overcome the 'abnormal' focus on Jews and Jewish communities as though they were an historical isolate, we must normatize their 'exceptionalism' and place them and their history back within the realities of historical life, like all other communities. Nishidani (talk) 09:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. What you call 'exceptionalism' is needed in this area, just as it is on other controversial topics. We're not exactly arguing about t-shirts here. The origins of Ashkenazi Jews are highly politicized, and that's something we need to remember. The 1RR doesn't work on I/P articles, and it won't work here either.Evildoer187 (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The origin of the Ashkenazi is 'highly politicized' is true and untrue, like most sentences that lack a context. Scholarship admits of complexities, the absent of records, the profusion of theories, and, Socratically, say: 'we dunno, but for me, the probability is this or that, or that theory'. Scholars who theorize it live within a wider discursive framework where politics in the largest sense does enter the equation, but they are trained to take cognizance of this, and if they lead with their chins, allowing their doubts to be drowned out by facile solutions, they know they will suffer from peer censure. At a public level, yes, in propaganda, identitarian discourse, and whatever, it is politicized, and witlessly so. It is poliicized because the broader commentariat, and the public it addrsses, are fed one line or another: Israel's security is based on the doctrine of return. If the Ashkenazi majority are not descended genetically from the Land of Israel, then, some think, we have a problem in explaining what happened. Anti-Israelis, even antisemitics hunger for any theory that would rupture the connection, shrieking or giggling with malicious joy:their cover's blown! the establishment of Israel, and therefore Israel itself' was theologically and genetically invalid.

This second level is the only problem, and it can only be overcome by editors stepping out of the memes, defensive or aggressive, and surveying serenely what scholars say, and their views vary. Your error, and it is not uncommon, is to toe a known publicist line which is at odds with the complexities of 'Jewish' scholarship. No scholar in the field could recognize what you do with the scant evidence at your disposal. I don't mind whatever restriction is made, as long as editors who edit articles are held to high standards. Nishidani (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

A simple empirical test on Evildoer's bona fides

Evildoer made several edits (he is not bound by 3R apparently) in reverting me. He now admits he didn't read Weinryb when he first used him for his WP:OR sentence. I believe he does this all of the time, but rather than squabble or assert suspicions, he can disprove me by responding to a simple test.

In one of those edits, he added an absolutely extraordinary claim:

The first European Jews were invited from Babylon to Europe by Charlemagne, with the first groups settling in the German Rhineland, spreading to France.’

It is extraordinary because Jews in Europe are attested from pre-Christian times, and are certainly attested (Michael Toch 2012 et al.) not to speak of the Sephardim of Spain, far earlier than Charlemagne's time in Spain, France, Italy and Greece. And secondly, it is nonsensical, because it says European Jews lived in Babylon until they were invited to be the 'first' European Jews by emigrating under the aegis of Charlemagne. That is just perhaps extremely clumsy English, but it makes for absurdity.

As evidence for this claim, Evildoer adds 4 sources.

• (a)Nathan Ausubel, Pictorial History of the Jewish People, New York: Crown Publishers, 1953
• (b)Max Dimont, Jews, God and History, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1962.
• (c)Encyclopedia Judaica. "Ashkenaz". Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, 1972
• (d)Simon Schama,The Story of the Jews: Finding the Words (1000 BCE - 1492), Publisher: Bodley Head.

Note that (1) he provides no pagination, just as he didn't for Weinryb. Note secondly that he provides no link to google books. This means, as always, that the editor is throwing the burden of proof, or disproof on the unlucky person who wishes to verify everything. All he need do is show, with either a diff to the books or a transcription with he page number where, in those four books, passages confirm the precision of the statement he introduced.Nishidani (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

On a purely technical point Nishidani, I don't think there is a requirement he shows a link to Google Books. That said, it's perfectly reasonable to ask for a page number and an exact quotation/transcription from the source if it is a specific line or particular paragraph in the source. Did you actually request that on the article talk page? And Evildoer187, would you mind providing page numbers in any citations you introduce in these articles? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist. Point re googled links accepted. Evildoer made his edits before I made this complaint. I did not request page numbers then. The Weinryb instance only confirmed he won't listen to anything I say in remonstration or counsel (as he admits above, which I just noticed, he reverted me without looking at the source because he thinks I'm an antisemite and not to be trusted on anything). That has been tacitly obvious, but, evidently, to continue to negotiate and plead, as you suggest I might or should have, on the talkpage, would have been pointless.

I'm quite happy to give him a day, even two, to show neutral administrative eyes that those edits, unlike numerous earlier ones, were done in close consultation with the sources cited. I know and have verified that they're not, but no one need trust my word. Nishidani (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Certainly. It might take a day or two though, because I don't have the exact quotes off hand and work has been hectic. I use Wikipedia at work. In the meantime, I can provide this if JVL is a reliable enough source. "The Romans vanquished the Galilee, and an estimated 100,000 Jews were killed or sold into slavery." http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/revolt.html

And also this. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2850/2850-h/2850-h.html

"I shall also distinguish the sufferings of the people, and their calamities; how far they were afflicted by the sedition, and how far by the famine, and at length were taken. Nor shall I omit to mention the misfortunes of the deserters, nor the punishments inflicted on the captives; as also how the temple was burnt, against the consent of Caesar; and how many sacred things that had been laid up in the temple were snatched out of the fire; the destruction also of the entire city, with the signs and wonders that went before it; and the taking the tyrants captives, and the multitude of those that were made slaves, and into what different misfortunes they were every one distributed. Moreover, what the Romans did to the remains of the wall; and how they demolished the strong holds that were in the country; and how Titus went over the whole country, and settled its affairs; together with his return into Italy, and his triumph." Here he is referring to the Judeans (or "Jews", which is etymologically derived from "Judean"), and it is clear that he is saying that the Judeans were taken back to Rome as captives. I intended to add these sources before, but let's just say I was interrupted.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

What is this evidence of? You were asked to justifying your use of sources like Josephus for :(the Ashkenazi are a Jewish ethnic division) 'whose ethnogenesis and emergence as a distinct community of Jews traces back to immigrants originating in the Israelite tribes of the Middle East.'

What you provide in ostensible response only showcases a lack of knowledge of elementary principles of policy:WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:Primary sources etc. Could any admin please clarify to Evildoer what is being asked of him. The principle he refuses to understand is that whatever an editor adds to a text must paraphrase, while avoiding plagiarism or infringing copyright, what an RS or several state of a specific point, issue or topic. When one requests source verification, as here, the editor must show a clear correspondence between the sentence he has composed, and the content in the sources adduced to justify it. Evildoer never does this, and above is just more proof he doesn't get it. Nishidani (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

What I provided was evidence that Jews were brought to Rome as slaves. Nevertheless, it appears that I've made a major and embarrassing mistake, as I will explain below.Evildoer187 (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate what you are saying Nishidani and how patient you have been otherwise throughout this, but if you are happy to give him the day or two that he requested like you told me in your above comment, there is no need to rush ahead with a further response in the meantime (and as you would know from experience like him, the more text that is added, the less likely you will have a useful outcome from this - and repeating the same concern/allegation and request may not result in much either). I understood from his comment that these are other sources that he intended to provide and which he has with him at the moment, which he says are relevant to that. However, in order to provide a response to the clarification which is being sought by you and me in relation to the actual quotes from the 4 sources he initially provided and the page numbers in those sourcse, he will need to be back at work. After that time once we receive his response, we can assess what needs to be said to him and what restrictions need to be imposed, if anything. Are you OK with that? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Evildoer was explicitly asked to provide a source for an action of Charlemagne (d. 814). S/he thinks that this page which doesn't mention Charlemagne might do, or this book written 8 centuries before Charlemagne lived might do. I cannot find any mention of Charlemagne in the book of Schama, after searching two editions; I doubt he is there at all. The second edition of Encyclopedia Judaica doesn't have it either; we can wait to see if Evildoer can prove that the first edition cited by him/her does. Dimont's book says "Charlemagne encouraged Jews from other parts of the world to come to his empire" but doesn't say that they came from Babylon, that they were the first European Jews, or where they settled. Now, the reason why Evildoer didn't provide us with page numbers for these sources, is that s/he simply copy-pasted them from the internet. You can see the first three of them, exact to the very comma, on this page which, you will notice, doesn't mention Charlemagne either. Such woeful disregard for proper editing process cannot be allowed. It seems to me that Evildoer simply does not understand, or chooses to ignore, the concept of proving a source for a claim. S/he should leave or be topic-banned, as the last thing we need in this area is someone with a strong pov and little knowledge who doesn't understand the rules. Zero^talk 05:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I confessed to my foolish error below. That being said, you're not exactly a reliable editor in this area either.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Ncmv, I'm fine with giving Evildoer plenty of time to demonstrate I am wrong in believing he is, and has long been, consistently prevaricating. If, within 2 days, he manages to supply the data requested, whatever the judgement about his behaviour re Weinryb, I'd also accept that I be sanctioned for WP:AGF in this regard. Individual editors don't count, the composition of articles that can result in wikipedia obtaining a reputation for quality the equal of, if not superior, to any other existing encyclopedia is the only thing that matters.(I also apologize for reformulating the complaint twice. I did so because Number57 remarked, perhaps with justice that my original presentation was a wall of text, leading me to wonder whether WP:TLDR might come into place.)

Thanks Zero, I suspected that, but didn't track where he copied and pasted it from. I just checked Schama, Dimont, and Ausubel) For those who dislike suspense, what Evildoer wrote, ostensibly from those sources, is a garbled version of a legend not accepted by scholarship, which you can get a glimpse of at Makhir of Narbonne, an antiquated page in need of serious updating, but one that will allow anyone at a glance to confirm for those not familiar with Jewish history and the Carolingian period that 'the first European Jews were invited from Babylon to Europe by Charlemagne' is wildly counterfactual, and could never have been asserted by an historian of Schama's stature (I checked: Charlemagne isn't even in his index). It can't be true because Charlemagne's court as that of his predecessor Pepin the Short already had numerous local European Jewish advisers (Michael Toch's book, which I introduced to this article, covers those communities in the Late Roman Empire extensively, destroying many stereotypes that have made them an 'exception' to other social groups in late Antiquity). In any case, he is contradicting himself: (a) in his WP:OR additions from Josephus above, he argues that the first European Jews were brought to Italy after 70 CE, in the wake of the Roman conquest of Judea; (b) in the second, the 'first European Jews' came from Babylonia at Charlemagne's invitation in 797 CE!).

The European Jews, descended from people established for a millenium in Southern Europe, indeed helped Charlemagne organize the very embassy to Hārūn ar-Rashīd which later legend embroidered to make out one Babylonian scholar was sent back to Europe. But miracles are always possible, and I'm happy to wait a day or two here for one to happen.Nishidani (talk) 08:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• Using fake references would be extremely damaging to the integrity of the encyclopedia, and Evildoer should urgently provide page numbers to allow checking of the four references. The article currently has slightly changed wording with five references with no information about which part of the book is supposed to verify the text. It is unreasonable that such vague references should be used, and if Evildoer is unable to speedily resolve the issue a topic ban is required. Johnuniq (talk) 09:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

For the record, there was quite a lot more than I have mentioned here, in the spate of reverts of anything I'd done (only to mention the edits done in one day, vs months over which one has had to endure this). He added to the text’s consensual remark on Yiddish, that it was a mix of Hebrew and the language of the country in which they were living.

'A mix of' is wrong, because it suggests Mischsprache, a technical concept out of place here. (b) it is POV driven because it implies the basic language was ancient Hebrew retained from some hypothetical immigration from Palestine ca.70CE (c) and he sourced it to Weinryb again, without providing, once more, any page in Weinryb. Weinryb in fact described Polish Yiddish as a German vernacular that was judaized later by absorbing Hebrew words (p.79). I.e. once more he used Weinryb without either looking at it, or understanding it. In linguistics, this is a serious error, though it may look trivial.

In mechanically reverting my edit, with an RS indicating Ashkenazis had various identities, he changed my identities back to ‘identity’, while retaining the source I introduced. Double bad. The source, like very many, mentions that Ashkenazis have plural identities (Chinese historians and sociologists, speaking of their very recent diaspora use a similar term zhonggen 重根 (multiple roots), for the 6th category). Evildoer retains the source but falsifies its concept of pluralism, because ideologically he wishes to plant the concept of a unitary Jewish identity everywhere.

In partial exculpation of his use of Weinryb, I should note that he just trusted User:Yambaram, who introduced that pageless source, and the falsified information, down the page way back on Nov.9 2013, trusting that since they have shared POVs, no checking was needed. But let us restrict things to the specific request for the pages and content of the four sources. There is no 'urgency', and we should give Evildoer time to present his case. If he fails, at a minimum, all of those edits should be reverted back to the consensus.(Editwarrers mainly change leads: much of this has been vitiated by ignoring the fact that all leads summarize the article, and edit warriors ignore whether their lead changes reflect the article (hard work) or challenge its contents).Nishidani (talk) 13:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I did not check who inserted that source. Granted, I should have looked through the book before adding it to the lede, but I assumed it was true. Nevertheless, I made a completely idiotic mistake wrt those above 4 sources and Charlemagne. I saw them sourced in that manner elsewhere, got confused, and assumed they were accurate (seeing as I don't exactly have the time to pore over books anymore). Anyway, this is the source I should have used for the lede passage on Jewish origins in Roman slaves taken from Judea (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13992-statistics). Nishidani is right here, and I was wrong. I will remove the corresponding passages, and apologize for my apparent carelessness. It is a mistake I will not repeat in the future.Evildoer187 (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your owning up to an error, Evildoer. But that, and several other errors, led someone like myself to waste 2 days (=in real terms, denying myself the pleasure of reading two novels) slowly working round your resistance to acknowledging from the outset you were wrong. You knew from the outset, surely, that you hadn't read Weinryb, or Josephus, or then the 4 sources. A retraction costs us nothing if admitted simply and immediately when the evidence falls. We are all fallible It is less so if extracted like blood from a stone, while you repeatedly played the 'Nishidani-antisemitic' card. Here behaviour is examined: ANI is not, as your counterbid below suggests, for working out an editorial compromise. And in any case, that line is futile of compromise, for it is wrong, apart from being extremely dated. RS will tell you that 100 years before the fall of Jerusalem and those captives your antiquated source theorizes about as forefathers of European Jewry, estimates for the local free population of Jews in Rome run as high as 20-30,000. Cicero whinged about them, with prejudice, because they gave significant support to his adversary Caesar. Effectively below, having been shown that a dozen successive sources enlisted to warrant the statement you introduced were false and deceptively thrown in, you suggest it can be settled by yet one more source, which says what you want the article to say. No. The only honest retraction would be to admit the sentence, and the sources used to justify it, was, from the outset improperly constructed, and to allow that all of that flurry of your activity to cancel the consensus now be reverted to the page as it was when I last edited it. That is all that interests me. If you wish to argue for something in the lead from here on in, you should feel obliged, given this precedent, to first propose it on the talk page, and wait for scrutiny, analysis and consensus to accept, confirm, modify or reject it because you have been shown to be unreliable. I'm not interested in punishment. I am intensely interested in not having my time devoured by frivolously insouciant editors.Nishidani (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I see now that you had indeed reverted and apologized. Thanks. I still think it advisable that you spend a period making work page suggestions before venturing to edit at least there. That article needs serenity, close attention to scholarship, sedulous reading on each point of several sources, in drafting most things. Quick insufficiently prepared edits on difficult subjects lead to edit wars almost invariably, and when they occur, the actual body of the article, which needs drastic pruning and re-elaboration, stagnates.Nishidani (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Your advice was not heeded, Nishidani. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I did not read his advice until just now.Evildoer187 (talk) 03:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Try this

"Tacitus declares that Jerusalem at its fall contained 600,000 persons; Josephus, that there were as many as 1,100,000, of whom 97,000 were sold as slaves. It is from the latter that most European Jews are descended."

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13992-statistics

Evildoer187 (talk) 17:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

A sources from 1909 that says "These appear to be all the figures accessible for ancient times, and their trustworthiness is a matter of dispute." So even this sources says there is a problem. The lack of technical expertise in this area has been reason in the past and I dont believe anything has changed here. I do think that all is done in good faith but from a non-academic POV = lots of myth bases edits. At this point I believe its clear that you need some guidance - in two respects - first on what is considered reliable and secondly on how to understand the sources as a whole. -- Moxy (talk)

They appear to be speculating on the exact number of slaves taken, not the origins of Ashkenazim. I have asked for a tutor (forget what they're called) on editing, but none have been forthcoming.Evildoer187 (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

None of your sources provide "evidence" of your POV, that there is this unbroken lime of ancestry that connects everyone who has ever had a Jewish ancestor, whether they are Canadian, Brazilian, South African or Chinese, so they should be considered to be of Middle Eastern and Asian descent. Granted, this debate is beyond the scope of this complaint. But it is this same POV that causes problems in so many articles related to Judaism and Jews. You're not alone in this belief but it is an opinion that is not supported by referring to ancient texts. You're starting from an assumption (a unitary Jewish identity and heritage) and then look for texts that you believe confirm your point of view. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I should add that this belief in an unbroken, unitary ethnic heritage that overcomes all barriers of time and geography is not unique to Judaism. It's quite common and is the source of many disputes on Wikipedia for other ethnic groups. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I find your comments to be needlessly inflammatory and not civil, which is itself an indication of POV, at least in this context. I never said that every single Jew in the world had Middle Eastern/Levantine ancestry, but rather that (per genetic studies) the vast majority do, and that's what matters. It's the same reason we classify Romani as Asian, Afrikaners in diaspora as European, and so on. Otherwise, why even have a Jewish descent category at all? Ethnically pure nations don't even exist, except perhaps on some remote island. These are things that you don't seem to understand, and this is why I often have to revert you. Regardless of where in the world they live, a Cherokee is still a Cherokee.

And you can call genetic studies unreliable as much as you'd like, but they fall under the WP:RS scope, and we can't just remove them from the equation because you don't like what they say. Evildoer187 (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't call genetic studies unreliable, you're putting words in my mouth. I haven't passed judgment on them because, from what I've read, there is conflicting information, there are isolated studies that are less than conclusive. I think that their value needs to be interpreted by someone who is up-to-speed on scientific studies. Either these studies are cited from academic journals, which require some background in science to understand, or they are being taken from popular literature like magazines and then they have been simplified for a general readership and hold less weight. But my field is social science, not natural science and I can't weigh all of the conflicting research done on ethnic DNA studies and say which results are more compelling.

But this is an issue for a talk page discussion or the WP:RSN, not AN/I. I'm sorry for my part in this discussion going off on a tangent. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

As if nothing has transpired here, Evildoer is back in the article pushing his pov with the help of an encyclopaedia more than 100 years old and an article on the web written by a student. Can we please have some attention from administrators? Zero^talk 01:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

For the record, in that edit Evildoer restored a source which, along with many others inserted by User:Tritomex, with Evildoer standing by, I noted on the talk page was wholly unacceptable, way back in December 28, 2013. E.g. This is hackwork, full of untruths or distortions and the source is written by a certain Johanna Adrian, who turns out to be a student at the European University Viadrina at that. This is unacceptable for our RS criteria.Johanna Adrian, student at the European University Viadrina. What is frustrating here is that the archives or past discussions don't stick. Problems resolved or consensuses are reversed, and disproven matter recycled.Nishidani (talk) 09:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted his edits as obviously without consensus and not reliably sourced. BMK (talk) 01:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

To my knowledge, they were reliable sources. Why does it matter how old that encyclopedia is? And that other source was used in another article on this site. Evildoer187 (talk) 03:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Evildoer. I don't think you (a) understand wikipedia practice, even its most elementary principles, from WP:OR, WP:RS etc., through to WP:CONSENSUS, the last of which, operatively, for you has meant 'you edit on page' and then me and others can't touch it until we get a revert consensus on the talk page. After all the work, and desistance from asking for harsh applications of the law, showing that you repeatedly prevaricate, and only yield to the facts when the evidence for deceptive gaming is overwhelmingly laid out before third parties, you just went ahead and reverted my simplest edits (diversities/fixing Weinryb and the WP:OR down the page) and pushed on, without even a courtesy note of explanation or argument on the talk page (where I had opened a section for you to make proposals. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I see no option, no leeway for generosity or lenience, and therefore ask that you be permabanned from articles dealing with Judaism, suspended indefinitely until he can appeal with evidence that he is capable of contributing productively to wikipedia generally. It is far too important an area to be left to incompetent and obtuse POV pushers.Nishidani (talk) 07:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I specify Judaism because, as other editors more familiar with his record than I have stated, Evildoer has an SPI fixation on inserting over multiple pages essentially the same POV, regardless of context, content and sources, and seems impermeable to any rational evidence that suggests his doctrinal certainties are, from another perspective, just points of view, often controversial and marginal.Nishidani (talk) 09:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest including categories along with articles. Categories have been even more contentious than this one article, with disputes going back to November 2013. Nishidani's new suggestion of a temporary, indefinite block would cover edits to both articles and categories until WP:NPOV and WP:RS can be more fully understood and integrated. The goal here is to gain edits in accordance with Wikipedia policies, not to remove editors. Liz ^{[Special:Contributions/Liz|Read!]] Talk!} 10:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with the above proposed topic ban. I believe a better option would be to find an editing tutor (forget what they're called) who can help me learn the ropes and edit more effectively. I have tried to find one before, but nobody volunteered, and those I requested never replied. I am willing to try it again.Evildoer187 (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I was not under the impression that I needed to notify anyone before editing the article further. As you can see, BMK reverted my edits, and I left it alone. If my edits were wrong, they're wrong. I'm not above admitting that.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

'banning yet another editor who isn't entirely dismissive to the traditional Jewish narrative is not going to make the article more neutral. '

It's not me, or anyone else, who is 'dismissive of the trad. Jewish narrative'. The TJN was elaborated by great 19th. historians like Heinrich Graetz (very influential despite severe criticism from scholarly sectors of Reform Judaism, and even orthodox rabbis like Samson Raphael Hirsch), and started to be knocked to pieces by Salo Wittmayer Baron several decades latter. Whatever happens, I suggest you try to find the time to read all several volumes of both just to observe the different ways the history can be interpreted. But both are now long superceded. A multitude of studies emerge each year, and there is, even in Israel's great historiographic production, little interest, except as an object of historical sociology, in the so-called TJN. There is nothing unique in this: all national identities are jerry-rigged for political purposes ( asErnest Renan formulated as far back as 1882) and only when the nation is self-assured, and its identity safe, do you get a willingness to begin to dismantle the foundational myths (Invented tradition). There is no place for the TJN in encyclopedias, except in so far as an encycl might develop an article on them.Nishidani (talk) 17:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

To illustrate (what a potential tutor might do). You write:

Why does it matter if the source is 100 years old?

Well, you see, what you chose was something written 108 years ago. It fits your point of view. However, when someone like myself edits into the text (and immediately has it edited out) a view which contradicts that position, one written 60 years later by a great Jewish historian, you are given food for reflection. What you sought out in sources is old, and is contradicted by newer evidence. The contradiction emerges when you read, say, Cecil Roth. He is writing on exactly the sae topic, Ashkenazi/European Jews origins.

 :'Was the great Eastern European Jewry of the 19th century preponderantly descended (as is normally believed) from immigrants from the Germanic lands further west who arrived as refugees in the later Middle Ages, bearing with them their culture? Or did these new immigrants find already on their arrival a numerically strong Jewish life, on whom they were able to impose their superior culture, including even their tongue (a phenomenon not unknown at other times and places – as for example in the 16 century, after the arrival of the highly cultured Spanish exiles in the Turkish Empire)?) Does the line of descent of Ashkenazi Jewry of today go back to a quasi autochthonous Jewry already established in these lands, perhaps even earlier than the time of the earliest Franco-German settlement in the Dark Ages? This is one of the mysteries of Jewish history, which will probably never been solved’.Cecil Roth, I. H. Levine (eds.) The World History of the Jewish People: The Dark Ages, Jews in Christian Europe, 711-1096,, Volume 11 Jewish historical publications, 1966 pp.302-303

When you see an editor presenting evidence that contradicts your own, evidence that is fresher, you either ignore the disturbance or stop to think, which can be uncomfortable (Cognitive dissonance, which is what all scholars must accept as a premise for the integrity of their research), and try to find a compromise, or, otherwise, search to see what the state of advanced opinion on the issue is. Can you see that? Nishidani (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I think there also has to be the acceptance that when editors challenge traditional ethnic and national narratives, they are not attacking the people of that ethnicity or nation. It's the origins myth that is being debated. And as Nishidani alludes to, this challenge to traditional narrative happens with just about every ethnicity and national history (even for long-established countries). Disputes about this come up fairly regularly on Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that I do seem to have a bit of trouble distinguishing between WP:RS and non-RS. That is something I want to work on, and that is why I have requested a mentor. Making sure that Jewish articles remain neutral and accurate as possible is one of the reasons I registered here in the first place, and if there is a way I can improve my editing skill, I will accept any help I can get. That being said, I have to disagree with Liz when she says that the revision of Ashkenazi origins doesn't constitute an attack on Jews, because anyone can clearly see that it does (for obvious reasons).Evildoer187 (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

See, there is the problem. You are so absolutely certain of your understanding of "Ashkenzi origins" that any point of view that challenges this narrative is seen as an attack. This version of the origin myth is completely intertwined in your mind with Jewish identity. But, you know, knowledge of cultures evolves over time, it is part of the scholarly process that source material and traditional interpretations are critiqued and reinterpreted by academics. I am NOT suggesting original research here as I understand that Wikipedia reports what has already been established (or is in debate) in secondary sources. But if you conceive of any challenge as an attack, if you are so wedded to one particular interpretation of the past that you can't productively dialog with other editors (some of whom have more experience and are more well-read) who have come to different conclusions, then I see your time editing in this topical area as a endless series of conflicts. Wikipedia requires humility and for editors to be able to accept the possibility that some of their edits are simply wrong and can be improved by others. Historical interpretation is not a political platform you can not deviate from. You can have the best of intentions and still be wrong because it is incredibly difficult for lay people to be up-to-date on the latest scholarship in their field of interest. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

My understanding of Ashkenazi origins derives from the copious amount of genetic studies done (all of them pointing to Levantine origins), cultural evidence, linguistics, migration patterns (what we know of Jewish history in Europe fits rather neatly with the paradigm that Jews entered Europe via the Mediterranean, and gradually settled in Germania and later Eastern Europe), and of course, their own self-definition as Israelites (many among them being Levites and Kohanim). Granted, throwing all of this together would constitute WP:OR and possibly WP:SYNTH, but when stacked up against a few books by historians (many of which are as old, if not even older, than that Jewish encyclopedia I cited earlier) alluding to the "mysterious and uncertain" origins of Ashkenazim, it's not hard to see why people like myself are more inclined to believe the evidence supporting the idea that the Ashkenazim really are who they claim to be. If reliable sources ever emerge debunking their self-conception/identity, then of course it should be worked into the article. However, beyond the highly polemical works of noted anti-Zionist authors like Max Blumenthal, Joseph Massad, and to a lesser extent, Shlomo Sand, we don't have anything conclusive on whether or not the Ashkenazim are "really" Israelite. My suggestion would be to give due weight to every possible theory.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Everything is wrong here, because there is no sense you understand the nuancing that is crucial to encyclopedic judgement. This is no place for aut/aut thinking. E.g.

Therefore, "Jewish descent" applies to anyone with Jewish parents.

Crude simplification. People who have Jewish descent can define themselves as not being Jews, and express strong opposition with Jews or societies that insist they cannot avoid being Jews because of their parents. (One of Nazi/Fascism's particular violences for which there was no answer by the innocent, was their classification of who anyone was, by pointing to their or one of their grandparent's birth-certificates).

Alain Corcos,The Myth of the Jewish Race: A Biologist's Point of View, Rosemont 2005 pp.15ff., explains why his brother is Jewish, while he himself isn't, though they were born of the same parents.

In Judaism, you are not a Jew necessarily because you have Jewish parents. Many people are not recognized rabbinically as Jews because the mother is not Jewish, whilst the father is. For this line of thinking in Judaism, you are only born Jewish if you can prove you hail on the mother's side from a Jew. In the new genetic argument, which is powered by political interests, the deciding factor is not whether your mother, or both parents are Jewish, but, absurdly, whether some 'marker' in one's genetic code shows a factor present in contemporary Jewish populations, attesting putatively to a 'Jewish' origin two thousand years ago. The rabbinical definition is severely restrictive, the genetics definition opens the door to virtually everyone because, in genetic theory, all people in the world can be linked if descent lines are traced back to 2,600 BCE.

In a category like Ashkenazi, Jews can dismiss the idea they are Ashkenazi. E.g.

‘I don’t know if Ashkenazi works anymore. Me, I’m a sixth generation American, my son is seventh. Am I still an Ashkenazi? I would say that I’m an American Jew, not Ashkenazi, though Ashkenazi is certainly my heritage – German Jewish and the Austrian/Hungarian empire, but that was the 1840s.’ Rabbi Lynn Gottlieb,Melanie Kaye Kantrowitz The Colors of Jews: Racial Politics and Radical Diasporism, Indiana University Press 2007 p.89

Being Jewish is not the problem. Defining Jews is a huge problem, not only for the above reason, but because throughout history the obsession for defining communities and people as 'Jews' has imperilled from thousands to millions of lives. Read the bizarre, chilling chapter on 'Definition' in Hilberg's unsurpassed masterpiece.

'A destruction process is a series of administrative measures which must be aimed at a definite group. The German bureaucracy knew with whom it had to deal: the target of its measures was Jewry. But what, precisely, was Jewry? Who was a member of that group? . .The problem of defining Jews was by no means simple; in fact, it was a stumbling block for an earlier generation of anti-Semites.' Raul Hilberg The Destruction of European Jews, (1961) 973 pp.43-53.

Shlomo Sand opens his controversial book, The Invention of the Jewish People, with several biographies of 'Jews'. (a) Shulek (b) Bernardo (c)Mahmoud1 (d) Mahmoud2 (e)Gisèle who had terrible trouble because they all came from diverse backgrounds that made them, all Israelis Jews, run foul of the bureaucracy's confused definitions. They didn't have the luck of politically defined freaks of definition that transformed people not of Jewish parents, Ethiopians (Beta Israel, Falash Mura); Italians (Jews of San Nicandro etc); Russians/Soviets immigrants, of whom conservatively at leastc a quarter fail all criteria for having 'Jewish parents'(1990s Post-Soviet aliyah); Incas (B'nai Moshe); Indians (Bene Ephraim); Chinese (Kaifeng Jews). Spain has offered citizenship to potential millions of people if they can prove that they have some converso ancestor 500 years ago, whether they are now 'Jews' or not. This is magnificent: only the same right is not extended to millions of Moriscos expelled in the same ethnic cleansing, because they are now 'Arabs'. In all of these politics is to the fore, and racial and politics calculations uppermost. 'Classification' once more is not based on universal, rational or objective criteria.Nishidani (talk) 10:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The categories are vexed because even within Judaism, and Israel there is no such simple logic of definition (Jewish parents) operative, but rather a tangle of religious, civil administrative and political decisions. And finally, when someone like myself, basing judgment on these complexities, raises queries, (s)he gets hit with antisemitic innuendoes by people like Evildoer.Nishidani (talk) 08:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban

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

---

Proposal: Evildoer187 to be topic banned from articles dealing with Judaism.

• Support Evildoer has neatly deflected the evidence above—when called on the use of four fake references, the reply is "I made a completely idiotic mistake wrt those above 4 sources and Charlemagne". Six hours later we have what is accurately described above as "Evildoer is back in the article pushing his pov with the help of an encyclopaedia more than 100 years old and an article on the web written by a student". Evildoer's reply is the innocent "To my knowledge, they were reliable sources." It is totally unacceptable to post four books as references with no page numbers, then evade responsibility by saying the four books were a "mistake", then continue with significant changes based on obviously unsuitable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 10:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose What more can I do, other than acknowledging that I made a mistake and rectifying it (as I did)? Why does it matter if the source is 100 years old? As for the second source, it was used here as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Germany#From_Rome_to_the_Crusades. I do not believe a topic ban is appropriate, not only because A ) I've made important contributions to them and B ) simply banning yet another editor who isn't entirely dismissive to the traditional Jewish narrative is not going to make the article more neutral. Quite the opposite. But if it makes everybody happy, I will leave the Ashkenazi Jews page alone. I realize that I have become somewhat obsessed with this topic, as of late.Evildoer187 (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support Evildoer's insistence on certain things pertaining to Judaism has gotten quite out of hand. He continuously POV-pushes and often refuses to accept others' views when they go against his. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Minor correction. You could not (or would not) understand that Jews are defined (by themselves, and by others) as an ethnoreligious group, unlike Christians, Muslims, etc which are faiths only. Therefore, "Jewish descent" applies to anyone with Jewish parents. You based your objections on your repeated assertions that "Jews are not a race", citing an outdated book (in the sense that there are now mountains of genetic studies contradicting it) to support this view, even though it is completely irrelevant to categorization procedures. I understand that some people are still sensitive to direct (or even indirect) associations between Jews and anything that could be interpreted as having to do with "race" (which has led to me, and numerous others, erroneously being accused of harboring Nazi sympathies), but this is not a sufficient reason to remove a category.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support unless s/he begins mandatory mentoring. BMK (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I am perfectly willing to accept a mentor. However, I have had trouble finding one in the past. If anyone has any recommendations, please notify me as soon as possible.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I have to express how very saddened I am that it has come to this, Evildoer. Unfortunately, I can understand why potential mentors would be reticent to take you on. You are extremely intelligent and erudite, but you're just so focussed on your personal passion regarding the subject matter that you're blind to anything other than WP:ITSIMPORTANT when it isn't as important as you seem to think it is. Your tenacity and argumentativeness in the most civil of discussions would make it difficult for a mentor to work with you because you'd keep arguing the point rather than trying to open your mind and listen to what other good faith, intelligent contributors have to say. Everything about your manner suggests that you have more than enough aptitude for being able to contribute without a mentor, yet you always fall short of being able to reign yourself in. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

"I have to express how very saddened I am that it has come to this, Evildoer." Me too.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose User should be indefinitely blocked, not topic banned. --Malerooster (talk) 23:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support both topic ban and block the panda ₯’ 23:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support Topic ban and Temp Block Happy Attack Dog (Bark! Bark!) 00:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

(Responding to both posts above) -- why a block in addition to the topic ban? NE Ent 00:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support both topic ban and block preferably indefinite. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 00:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Malerooster. I think a temporary block, with a focus on grounding himself in Wikipedia sourcing standards, is sufficient. And I'm speaking as someone whose every edit on the subject is typically, immediately reverted by Evildoer. While we have some fundamental disagreements, I think he is open to learning and I believe in second chances. With some education, hopefully, a mentor and an attitude adjustment, I think he can be a productive editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, but with a time limit such as six months. Zero^talk 02:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I can already see where this is going, and contrary to popular belief (and my own autism), I know when to quit. And that is what I will do. Consensus here clearly wants me gone, so I'll hang up my proverbial hat while I still can. At the very least, people want me banned from all Jewish articles, which is my area of expertise. If this happens, then I'll be relegated to editing mindless trivia, and I don't really see the point or the fun in that at all. I am Jewish myself, and although it was never my intention to promote one view or another (despite what others may think), I do believe that I bring (and have brought) a different perspective to these articles that are otherwise in increasingly short supply on Wikipedia. We all have our own opinions, whether we want to admit that or not, and this does effect the way we edit on any particular topic. And like numerous other editors have noted in the not too distant past, I am deeply concerned at how many articles in this area (and the Israel/Palestine area) have become tainted with a (mostly pro-Arab) bias. I know I am not alone when I say that this is becoming a very serious problem. I do hope that, in the future, there are additional sanctions and safeguards applied to these areas, because the current paradigm is not working.

Banning will not be necessary. I won't be logging in again.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban, even a thematically restrictive one. It would help if, in that period, Evildoer did some extensive improvement on Jewish articles where these issues are absent. We need a lot of work on rabbis, synaogues, historical sites, etc., which leave him/her ample space to keep contributing. I think it should extend no more than 6 months, as per Zero, and then if he wishes, that he come back under a tutor. It is unfair to him that so far efforts to find a tutor have failed. On the other hand, he persists in thinking editors like myself, on these historical issues, are driven by a 'pro-Arab bias'. Arabs have nothing to do with the specific problems shown here. And I would argue that in the I/P area, the real conflict, regardless of personal perspectives, is between editors who use bad sourcing, and editors who exercise strict quality control on the quality of sources. It's about sifting out clichés, memes, and POV-pushing, and trying simply to get the factual record straight, and balanced. Prevarication, even in what editors passionately believe to be a good cause, Arab or Israeli, is unacceptable.Nishidani (talk) 09:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support an editing restriction indefinitely, but oppose a block which, on the information available in this thread, would be premature if not punitive. A topic ban is appropriate, but I favour the suggestion by Nishidani in relation to making it a thematically restrictive one if possible. I'd think this would also involve putting a probation-type restriction on him concurrently whereby a mentor, administrator, or other editor approved by the Community permits some limited exceptions to the topic ban, which must be logged in advance so that he can edit or participate in relation to to the development of a particular article or so in the topic. But if it's all too complicated, or there is still no one willing and able to assist him on these fronts, then it will have to be a standard topic ban. I don't agree that six months is sufficient; the onus is on him to show his editing that he appreciates the core policies and that he can contribute usefully in the topic. I actually hope he will not leave Wikipedia and can show, if he is genuinely interested in building the encyclopedia here, that he will be able to work within the confines of the requirements here. But if he still insists on leaving the project, and bearing in mind that a full site ban was seriously not going to be implemented from this, I hope he will be allowed to leave with integrity and that users who did have issue with him or his editing will (in accordance with the relevant guideline) refrain from raising it in public view on-wiki during his absence, if remarks relating to him are necessary. That includes criticisms, laundry lists, negative comments, and so forth. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

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

CFD of Category:Pseudoscientists

Please could some experienced admin(s) keep an eye of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 1#Category:Pseudoscientists?

The debate is attracting a lot more participants than I have seen at CFD for some time, and there several suggestions that sock/meat puppets may be swelling the numbers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Not sure how much this has to do with this but it may be attracting a lot of editors because of several different discussions referring to Pseudoscience that have popped up lately, here and on DRN. Not entirely sure how related they may be.--Maleko Mela (talk) 23:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I suspect some people participating in the CFD may have came from the Fringe Theories Noticeboard (diff). Would the result of this CFD count as WP:FALSECON? Probably. -A1candidate (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Unlikely. There are many eyes on this. Guy (Help!) 01:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't rule out those who came from FTN. -A1candidate (talk) 01:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Probably does, most of them are policy savvy. As to fringe, the idea that the cold war is still going on is waaaaay out there. Guy (Help!) 03:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Have you even read them? How policy savvy are subjective statements such as "The cat is appropriate for some articles and should not be deleted? If you want to convince me that the Cold War is over, you're free to do it at my talk page. -A1candidate (talk) 04:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

1. Yes I have.

2. I don't have to,m the consensus view of the relevant professional community is that it ended in the last decade of the 20th Century...

3. Which is relevant because as an advocate of an obviously fringe POV, your snide remarks about FTN are going to be accorded little weight. Guy (Help!) 08:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

It was also the consensus view of the relevant professional community for quite some time that the world was flat, that smoking was good for you, etc. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

And had Wikipedia existed the, we would presumably have reflected that. We weren't. There were no pseudoscientists back then, because we only had the vaguest idea how science should be done: it was really natural philosophy not science. And it was the scientific process that showed the world is not flat, just as it showed that life on earth evolved by natural selection, human behaviour is changing the global climate, and perpetual motion is basically impossible. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Had Wikipedia existed in those days, people like Nicolaus Copernicus would have been outnumbered by the hordes who blindly trust the doctrines of the mainstream Catholic Church. There were alchemists back then, just like there are pseudoskeptics today. What obstructed progess in those days was not natural philosophy, but religious doctrine. Likewise, the thing that obstructs progess today is not religious doctrine, but academic dogma based on the mainstream opinions of "experts" and skeptics who pretend to be critical about a certain subject but in fact know little about the natural world. -A1candidate (talk) 03:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia would have been absolutely correct to label Copernicus' theory at the time as not accepted by the mainstream of natural philosophers. As he gained adherents, it would then have been mentioned as a theory with growing acceptance among those philosophers, and when it finally received acceptance, our article would be about it, with previous theories being discussed in their historical context, and the people who hung on to them would be described as "fringe". That's because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia, as we define it today, must be by its very nature conservative, because it aims to be as accurate as possible, and out guide to accuracy is acceptance by experts. An encyclopedia does not break ground, it does not introduce new theories, except in the context of how they differ from accepted explanations, it does not attempt to convey "Truth" with a capital "T" only the current state of our knowledge.

Also, you mischaracterize history: the alchemists did not impede the growth of knowledge, they were the primary factor in creating what became the science of chemistry. They weren't "pseudoscientists" because there was no "science" at the time, therefore no "pseudoscience". Yes, they also held beliefs that we now know sent them off into unhelpful territory, but they weren't the bad guys, they were the best we had at that time, and they helped advance the state of our collective knowledge. BMK (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Give it a couple centuries, and today's scientists will probably be viewed the way we view alchemists today. That's just how progress works. When the handful of fringe scientists turn out to have actual, real breakthroughs, with proven and reproducible results covered by mainstream experts and journalists, then those particular scientists will no longer be fringe. -- Atama頭 23:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

See WP:BALL. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Also see Mertonian norms. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Massive POV Pushing from user: Jyoti.mickey

User: Jyoti.mickey is keep pushing POV on article Abhinav Bharat and removing sourced materials from the article making it unblanced from a neutral point of view. Please, check this diff[138] with the current revesion[139] particularly he changed all my edits from the Allegations of involvement in terrorist activity which were sourced from reliable sources here[140] with this source[141] and specially here[142] where I tried to omit the weasel terms and put as per source but he reverted and added back the tags. He also removed the word right-wing here[143] even without looking at the sources. Then also removed the category far-right politics in India while the very first sentence says it ultra-far-right from at least 2 references. The article is not neutral after removing sourced contents like here[144] particularly sections like Relationship with Sangh Parivar groups, History including the Caravan magazine findings here[145]. He also removed the arrest of some of the leaders of the group and the misterious shut down of the group's website here[146] all of which were cited from sources with no original research, anyone can check. Edmondhills (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please check the diff 295 and 296. I think my edit summary is descriptive and presents my stand clearly.

For 297 the change was re-inserted by me within minutes. It is _present_ in the article much before you mentioned it here and in the article talk page, where I had mentioned the change in a separate section.

When you put right-wing the reference you mention was _not_ present, you added _new_ sources in a _subsequent_ edit after I mentioned in my edit summary that the references do not say so. The opening statement is "Abhinav Bharat is an ultra-right-wing Hindu extremist organization". Would you call that neutral when there was a much less charged lead earlier? Doesn't it contain weasel terms?

How is this article related to 'politics'? I asked same question in my edit summary.

Basically I think I put my edit summary quite clear each time. I object to you doing bulk over-write of the entire article from a very old copy and discarding all the intermediate edits with perfectly fine and descriptive edit summary. Why can't you do that? You can find a diff for each of the edit from one month back or so. I have absolutely no objection if you take the article to last good state and make your edits incrementally with descriptive edit summary instead of bulk over-write of entire article from much older copy. Here is the single edit where you bulk reverted. It is not convenient nor possible for me to respond to all diffs you have pointed above, from my side it will boil down to the above argument and I am dead sure I give a descriptive enough edit summary each time to make my stand clear. The article talk page also stands proof I responded promptly and took to discussion any matter of dispute. Jyoti (talk) 04:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly, you removed the word right-wing as this wasn't cited[147] then why did you remove text on History section instead tagged with a {{cn}} tag[148]?Edmondhills (talk) 07:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you understand that the opening sentence of the lead is highly biased? That is why. After bringing the discussion here you have made 9 more edits to the article, aren't we supposed to refrain from doing more edits to the same article before we complete discussion here? Jyoti (talk) 08:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Please, explain what is biased in opening sentence which is properly sourced with references? You need to stop editing from your POV. I edited the article with only sourced material that is verifiable so I don't find any harm doing that.--Edmondhills (talk) 08:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, the problem is not limited to the article mentioned by Edmondhills and thus this may be more than just a content dispute. There have been issues at Narendra Modi, for example, involving this contributor's alleged POV and there are quite a few warnings on their talk page relating to it. I'm off out, though, so diffs will have to follow later. - Sitush (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Sitush, I think we discussed this on the talk page of the article and reached a consensus about the edits on Narendra Modi page. We reached consensus on on all four edits in the article talk page discussion started by me, we retained two of my four edits. Do you not agree to this? Jyoti (talk) 02:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Here are the four talk page discussion with consensus reached within one day for three and withing three days on another. I have done exactly four one line edits to the article a few weeks back(and ever) and had started discussion on each one and we reached consensus. 1, 2, 3, 4.Jyoti (talk) 05:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Th issue is not whether the consensus reached or not the issue presented here that you are pushing POV not just in Abhinav Bharat but also in other articles.Edmondhills (talk) 07:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

What are you trying to convey that the talk page discussion above and the related edits demonstrate pov pushing? By what logic? Does every discussion implicitly convey a pov pushing. Sitush, I would prefer you to comment on this one. Do I not have the right to hold a different opinion and discuss it, did I edit the article even once after those discussion or caused any disruption? Did I not agree to your suggestion unconditionally that the article is in volatile state and lets leave it for now? And you also noted that you were not aware of the entire situation in the fourth discussion. Is this termed as pov pushing. Jyoti (talk) 08:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't understand why this editor is removing referenced materials in the name of original research like this[149] or even this[150] and putting back dead links like here[151] where this dead link[[152] was replaced by this live link [153] from the same source. My last revision was this[154].Edmondhills (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

My main concern and motive for behaving the way I did is, this is the article a day back, you transformed it into this which is basically an old copy herehere. Here is the single edit where you bulk reverted. You ignored all previous edit summary and re-inserted from much older copy. Why would you revert entire sections, including section headers and loose all intermediate edits?

For the first diff you provided please check that the statement was reinserted immediately, it is present in the article much before you pointed it here. The second one, I have not mentioned original research in the comment. When you copy-pasted from a much older edit all intermediate edits are lost and I found it extremely annoying and tiresome to pick new contribution from it and re-instate them along with the changes lost or changes rejected with valid edit summaries before. The dead link also got in when I tried to restore to the last good state.

You inserted charged terms like 'dictator', I think that is pov pushing. Jyoti (talk) 02:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

If the term is not present in the sources then feel free to remove it. I was BOLD and added what is cited in sources so Again, the diff[155] you provided shows I just put back referenced text which you removed :-).Edmondhills (talk) 13:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

You have edited your reply above inline and changed its message. Your earlier reply can be seen in the diff: "I didn't charged terms like 'dictator' but this is your OR". Jyoti (talk) 07:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I gave a diff in which you introduced the term. Do you disagree? How is it my original research? Jyoti (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

You removed a lot of sourced materials from the page in your subsequent edits to the page. You actually not reverted back but deleted the sourced material and put back the old texts in the article. Even after fixing dead links like[156] you also changed them[157] and specially in this edit you called original research, not present in source[158] and removed the whole paragraph which was exactly cited by this source[159]. You're playing with edit summery but your edit summaries were incorrect. You have to maintain neutrality instead of showing sympathy for an extremist organization. Edmondhills (talk) 07:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

And I restored to an older version because you removed several text from the article because the references were dead which is also against WP:404. Edmondhills (talk) 07:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Particularly this edit[160] showed how you just pushed POV by changing the wordings. The source[161] does say Investigations have revealed that serving and retired army officers associated with Abhinav Bharat but you changed to Serving and then tagged in subsequent edits. Edmondhills (talk) 07:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

This is the third time I am responding to this one at a third place. They were restored by me within minutes without you having to point me out. They _are_ _present_ in the article. Stop presenting incomplete picture. You copy pasted the entire article from a month old copy, what about all the edits in between? You admit to doing it above. What about the open discussion on the talk page. And why have you made 9 more edits to it after opening discussion here, aren't we supposed to continue discussion here and mutually agree to one course? I want you to revert to last good state and edit on top of it. Your bulk-copy paste overwrites several edits in between. You inserted charged terms like 'dictator' that is pov pushing. I stand by my edit summary. If there was a mistake I have reverted this once without you having to prompt. Stop pulling that same diff and raking it up? Do you disagree that it has been fixed within mins by me itself? What is your continued contention regarding it? I copied the version before your bulk copy paste that is it. I can do edits on top of it, or you can. Did you even attempting that? Jyoti (talk) 08:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Your restoration is removal of sourced material so this is not acceptable. You should be careful when restoring and shouldn't remove cited materials even if the references are dead s per WP:404.--Edmondhills (talk) 08:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

You overwrote with an older copy. You are cross posting in ani as well as continuing to edit the article. Is it okay to do it in less than 24h of you having raised an objection in ani, can we not wait to reach a consensus? You have made 9 more edits and I do have several objections to it like 'dictator', the opening over-surcharged statement "Abhinav Bharat is an ultra-right-wing Hindu extremist organization", writing irrelevant stuff under sub-section 'history', adding the caravan story here as encyclopedic content and much more but you are tiring me with nonsensical arguments and raking up the same diff even when I have corrected it before you point out and also responding to you at every place you are mentioning it. Jyoti (talk) 08:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

All 9 edits are constructive and backed by references but reverted them all[162] so please, explain what is irrelevant in sub-sections. And for the lead it is absolutely okay. As per you then Indian Mujahideen's lead is also biased! Is it? --Edmondhills (talk) 08:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

You have editedyour reply above inline and changed its message. Your earlier reply can be seen in the diff. The revert diff that you give now is much older and the 9 edits that I mention above are much after that revert, I have not touched those nine edits of yours which you did after starting this ani page discussion, there are there in the article even now. Jyoti (talk) 07:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

So you have made a judgement that your edits are constructive and my edits are pov pushing? I have repeatedly raised one single point only -- why loose all intermediate edits? -- why overwrite with much older edit? I think I am fully justified in objecting to use of 'dictator', and the opening over-surcharged statement "Abhinav Bharat is an ultra-right-wing Hindu extremist organization". Since you have passed the judgement and continued editing the article and cross-posting on talk page despite a discussion here what is the course of action? I am refraining from any activity on this article until we reach a course of action here. Jyoti (talk) 09:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Removing sourced content is not constructive edits. And there is not over-surcharged statement when it is backed by several reliable sources otherwise you will find all most all similar groups have such over-surcharged statement. Now, please don't say that the sources are biased as they cites your over-surcharged statement. And if you are referring to intermediates edits then you already did so and I haven't reverted you. In my subsequent edits I just put what is cited in references. Its you removed the sources as they were dead then removed text and now you have issue with the lead. Edmondhills (talk) 10:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

You over wrote from a month old state. You lost the intermediate edits in that. I am pointing about ach edit (and summary) of that duration. Jyoti (talk) 10:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

You're just have this one issue of old state which you have already pushed in the article and I didn't reverted you so what point you're trying to make with this? And my concern is you removed sourced materials and references which go against the ultra-right-wing organization and undid my edits where I tried to resolve the weasel words as per sources.Edmondhills (talk) 13:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Whichever admin happens to take this up please check the talk page of the article also. User:Sitush, I hope you will also check once before making a hasty comment. This user is wearing me down with changing goal post and cross-posting. Not once is the user agreeing or responding to going to last good state and editing on top of it. Jyoti (talk) 10:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Please, stop your accusations. You removed sourced materials, dead references which can be easily fixed with google search and now accusing me of wearing you down with changing goal post and cross-posting. And thanks to User:Sitush for bringing your edits on Narendra Modi page. Also, admins should check your contributions like this[163] as you seem to have editing from not a particular POV. You are saying over-surcharged statement for an entity which gained prominence for allegedly terrorist activities[164][165][166] and now a SPI aigainst me to ban me. Edmondhills (talk) 13:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I think I have nothing to add here what I have not already said. Jyoti (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Your edits like[167],[168] and [169] are serious POV pushing. I request admins to take a look at the article's history and do the needful to resolve this issue. Edmondhills (talk) 06:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I did not go through the whole post here but I think this is a talk page dispute. Edmondhills somewhere above you mentioned that I can't understand why this editor is removing referenced materials in the name of original research like this[170] If that sentence is not present in the source as mentioned by Jyoti then you are just insisting to use a wrong source which is not a right thing to do. You call your edits as "BOLD" edits while Jyoti's as POV!. My advice, calm down both of you. Take a third opinion if required, go for a DR. I see that Jyoti has made efforts to dicuss on talk page, may be you can take it back to where this "edit-war" started and discuss each changes. -sarvajna (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

sarvajna, I think you're not neutral here. Firstly, you didn't read the whole discussion secondly, did you really take a look at the diff you mentioned[171]? The sentence is indeed present in the source and here it is clear that you're considering jyoti's edits is fair without judging the diffs I provided like this[172]. You took something middle of this discussion so, please honestly tell, did jyoti emailed you for this? Edmondhills (talk) 04:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@Sarvajna: After checking your edits like[173] and declined block request here[174], I am inclined to disbelief your comment. Edmondhills (talk) 05:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• Also, I would like to add this instance[175] where the editor changed live references like[176] back to dead link[177] again. Edmondhills (talk) 07:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Pan-Turkist (Pan-Turanist) users invaded several articles with fringe and unreliable content

They bring unreliable changes and false content to many articles. Their edits are against wikipedia policies. List of these users:

• Hirabutor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Su4kin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Kleropides (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Radosfrester (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

They infected many articles. User:Hirabutor is a disruptive user. --114.160.71.150 (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Since the user did not notify any of the editors, I have put ANI notices on all of the users talk pages. TheMesquito^buzz 22:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

User Hirabutor may be disruptive in the IP's mind due to his pro-Turkish edits, but it looks like this user makes use of reliable sources. And as long as he can provide reliable sources without using them purposefully, it is consistent with the behaviour guidelines. If you want to check sources concerning their credibility you can also make use of Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. User Kleropides looks almost unbiased, about user Su4kin I have no idea, except that he is more concentrated in genetic/anthropological articles. But, just wait a moment... why putting my name here? At all, I see no signs of a forthcoming Turkish invasion. Radosfrester ^{talk to me} 11:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Because they're sock puppets (you - the puppet master - and them). Mods must check your ips. --114.160.71.150 (talk) 05:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any reasons for this cherry picked assumption, except your prejudice on a certain group of people? Give us some clues so that we can follow your way of thought. If I should be a sock master, can you explain me then why user Hirabutor is active since 21 October 2013, whereas I am active since 30 November 2013? In addition, there are only 4 edits (out of 70) I have in common with your supposed sock users: 1, 2, 3. 4. In case 1 there are 4-6 months between user Hirabutor and me. In case 2 there are nearly 5 months between user Su4kin and me. In case 3 there are 4 months between user Su4kin and me. And finally, the fourth case, its the only one where my edits overlapped with those of user Hirabutor in a short time distance. At last, I suggest that your discomfort results from this article: Turanid race. So, my advice to you is to solve your problem by confronting other users (-by using your account-) with reliable content backing your position instead of suspecting other people. If you are not able to do it, and I say it again with all explicitness, you are completely wrong here. And here you can get help: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard, Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request. Radosfrester ^{talk to me} 11:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@ Anonymous IP: Can you tell me how I can become a member of this "Pan-Turanist" invasion? This sounds very interesting to me. --Kleropides (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You're the banned User:Tirgil34. All of you claim that you're Germans from Germany. Germans who are interested in Pan-Turkism/Pan-Turanism and Turkification of wikipedia articles! Your behaviors and your edit patterns are exactly similar to Tirgil34 and his puppets: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tirgil34. --46.143.214.22 (talk) 03:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Reporting Katieh5584

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

---

for continuously violating the wikipedia entry of Sheikha Al Mayassa bint Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani. She keeps deleting a series of images I hold the copyright for. AmmarAbdRabbo (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

You were edit warring over the insertion of images that were already deleted in Commons. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The images were still visible to me.Katieh5584 (talk) 23:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

OP has been blocked by admin DangerousPanda for edit warring. TheMesquito^buzz 23:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

And Materialscientist has unblocked them. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Always amusing to see declare their intent not to donate to WP as if their donation somehow grants them some sort of extra privileges. Blackmane (talk) 09:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Editor review/Cwmhiraeth

Those of you with long memories may remember this review being imposed on User:Cwmhiraeth because she complained about harassment by User Afadsbad and his/her cronies. It's been running for over a month now, and is starting to repeat itself. User:Black Kite who offered to be the uninvolved admin, seems to have abandoned it. Can someone please review, make a decision and close? Thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

An editor review is different from an RfC, and doesn't usually end in a "decision." I'd be interested in whether Cwmjiraeth feels she is still obtaining useful comments in the review. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Really? Even a show trial like this shameful episode should have a conc!fusion. And the harasser is still targeting Cwmhiraeth. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually I think it is - the usual purpose is an informal discussion where an editor is asking for feedback as it is not an RfC. I think the best is for Cwmhiraeth to close it with a comment on how she will proceed from this. Any further comments by others that are ad hominem or groundless should then be treated like a personal attack and dealt with accordingly. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, fine with me Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I made my comments on it a while back, after reading a lot of diffs and a lot of articles. However, those are just my views; no-one is required to actually take any account of them, and the issue has expanded quite a lot since then as well. Cas Liber is correct here. Black Kite (talk) 12:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

POV-pushing SPA

Ichrio Nazuki (talk · contribs) account created a few days ago in order to make unsourced POV edits to the Battle of Busan article.[178] User:Oda Mari has already pointed out that this is probably a sock account, but I'm not sure of whom. 182.249.241.38 (talk) 08:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I see three small edits to the infobox of this article by Ichrio Nazuki, removing unsourced assessments of the battle with different unsourced assessments of it. He started a conversation on the article talk page on April 30th which has not been responded to by any other editors. I think this is a content dispute that should be discussed on the talk page, not here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a long-running edit war. Oshi niko (talk · contribs) apparently felt he had "lost", so he created a new account and continued edit warring. He continues to refuse to use refs. User:Oda Mari provided a ref (admittedly not a great one), to the effect that Ichrio has turned to badmouthing her to other editors. "this user has an issue of camouflaging historical facts" clearly indicates he is HERE to RIGHTGREATWRONGS. 182.249.241.22 (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

If Ichrio Nazuki and Oshi niko are suspected as the same person, an SPI can be opened. If the accounts are related, they can be blocked per WP:NOTHERE, as stated above. Epicgenius (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

But the problem is that Nazuki is removing an unsourced sentence in an infobox and adding a different unsourced sentence. I'm not saying he is right or wrong but the information he is replacing isn't sourced either. Since the point of contention is how to assess the outcome of a battle, it should really be discussed on the article talk page or DRN, not AN/I. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

A source has been provided for the claim he is opposing. I'm not a fan of the source, but all he has done is claim his opponent is "trying to hide the truth", without citing a source. He posted on the talk page, without citing a source. He posted on Oda Mari's talk page, without citing a source. He attacked Oda Mari on another user's talk page, without citing a source. Even if Oda Mari's source is problematic, the burden is on Mr. Nazuki to provide a better source that says something else. 182.249.241.25 (talk) 02:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• As far as socking, if you compare the contribs, you see [179] and [180], so one account stopped and the other account started. It could be they lost a password (granted, unlikely considering the closeness of timing), or abandoned the account for whatever reason, so "socking" is a tough charge to make stick even if they ARE the same person. "Overlap" is one of those things that they want to see at SPI. Next, Liz really makes the main point, that this looks like more of a content dispute than anything. If it is all unsourced, maybe all of it needs to go. Or someone could go look up a reference and just cite it. If they keep slow reverting each other, someone may end up full protecting the page, at WP:RFPP, forcing a discussion. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't there need to be disclosure if theyre the same person? Howunusual (talk) 01:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• If there is overlap, yes, but there isn't at this time. If they are the same person, abandoning an account and starting another isn't good practice, but it happens regularly for a variety of reasons. Again, it all boils down to having two accounts for "abuse". And it might not be the same person, making all of this moot. Personally, I haven't tried to figure out if they are the same person because I don't see abuse. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The closest thing to abuse is at Ichrio Nazuki's first edits, where they're perpetuating the edit war started by Oshi Niko. However, it wasn't done in such a way to get around 3RR restrictions so I don't see how the multiple accounts were used to gain any sort of advantage. Oshi Niko never received so much as a warning so the account was about as clean as you can get. Maybe they wanted a name change and bypassed WP:CHU by just abandoning one account and starting with another one? I really don't dispute that they are the same person (they have an identical POV and the new account took over right where the old account left off) but as long as Oshi Niko doesn't edit again I see no multiple account abuse. So I totally agree with Dennis Brown, this is a content dispute. -- Atama頭 19:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Requesting backup

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

---

Could we have another editor slip in here and help me deal with a rather fiery IP editor? 71.239.82.39 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to be precise. I removed huge blocks of unsourced BLP text from Nazanin Afshin-Jam and he is simply not having it on the talk page. Help would be appreciated, thanks. ^Myname^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 16:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Clearly, Mr "not dave" is trying to begin a political battle; I am not. The facts of the matter are as follow. I went to a "celebrity" article, after editing at a serious article, where I have scholarly interest. That first article is Nazanin Fatehi. The celebrity article referred to in this first article was the further BLP text from Nazanin Afshin-Jam, which I found in a mess.

I did the following, in each case, writing a talk section before making the changes:

• updated information on MacKay's current position in government
• created the "Early life" section (so birth and immigration content did not appear solely in the lede)
• moved citations from the lede to appropriate places in the main body
• created a full citation for the Two Nazanins book (and added initial book review-type content)
• tagged three references inline as poor sources, and
• added some section and inline tags in the opening sections, to call attention to the direction this article needs to move.

I also noted that the key biographical detail—before today's work, 9 of 29 references, or >30% of sourcing, were from non-objective sources (i.e., non-independent, where the article subject supplied information to the website; see National Speaker Bureau and Halifax webpages). The citations/sourcing are therefore—for these and further reasons (much unreferenced factual content, bare URL and other footnote format issues, etc.)—substantially deficient. A multiple issues tag was therefore set.

ALL OF THESE INTENDED EDITS APPEARED IN TALK, BEFORE I ACTUALLY MADE THEM.

Mr "not dave" reverted a substantial portion of these changes, without any prior discussion at the article's Talk page. It is for that reason, and for his re-reversion, that the discussion became heated.

His perspective is that since some material in this article is unsourced it must be immediately removed—note, all of the unsourced material was already there when I began my edits, and had been for years. I only moved the material around, and added tags calling for new / better citations. Rather than deleting these, and with them, some information that did have citations, as "not dave" did, I took a softer line, per the added opening two section tags: I was asking previous editors to mitigate the situation, and add or improve references as needed. (Note, all uncited material appearing is positive, and, per the appearing tag, none appears to be libelous, and therefore demanding immediate attention.

Bottom line, "not dave" rushed to judgement. Now Neil has done the same. PLEASE, CONSIDER CAREFULLY, BEFORE TAKING SIDES, OR SIMPLY ADDING TO THIS CHILDISH REVERSION STRING.

Finally, it does not matter that I was originally editing IP. This is unacceptable stereotyping/prejudice, and against WP. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Not Dave is completely correct as you've been told repeatedly on your talk page: If someone removes unsourced material, you cannot just add it back in with the excuse "it was there before", especially on a WP:BLP. Find sources, then add material. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Please fully read above and comment, again. Please stop taking side before carefully weighing both arguments. This rush to judgment and teaming up by cliques at Wikipedia is endemic. You have a choice here, to be fair. Use it. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

What is stopping you from improving the article without re-adding unsourced or poorly sourced content? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Forensic referencing post hoc, by an individual other than the original editor is the poorest of ways, scholarly, to arrive at the original source used by one composing original text. I would have thought this to be prima facie obvious. What is stopping you from taking a mature, nuanced view of this editor conflict, fully reviewing the article history and full article Talk, considering the WPs being violated by "not dave" (and now, yourself), and not simply jumping in and taking a friend's side, as his request here was so clearly soliciting? I will add nothing further here, at all, and likely nothing further at the article site, either. You have made the decisions to set the quality. Enjoy. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

If you're actually expecting editors who have added unsourced material in the past to magically show up and add sources now then you need to spend more time here before asserting something is prima facie obvious. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

And just to add, Wikipedia is not a scholarly journal, so I consider that opinion inappropriate for this situation. ^Myname^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 18:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

He's back again. Anyone else think that this warrants a block? ^Myname^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 18:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

You clique-orented editors are really something—please, understand if you try any such thing, I will elevate this to the administrators I know. Note, for the record here: (1) A moment ago this matter was closed, and you have reopened it to cause this further trouble. (2) These additional "citations needed" are explained in the Talk section. Grow up. Accept that others disagree with you. I am calling on you and your friend Niel, to act consistently at that article—you have said no unsourced material should appear. I am simply calling to your attention the rest of the material in the article that is clearly without sourcing. READ AND RESPOND IN TALK. Stop playing the clique game, or I will take advantage of the real fairness inherent to Wikipedia (though requiring and wasting inordinate time), and contact those I know. 71.239.82.39 (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

A quick glance at that edit makes me think it seems perfectly OK. What am I missing? JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Joe, you are missing a whole battle of the day, where "not dave" and Neil objected to me adding "citation needed" tags, rather, insisting that I should have carte blanch deleted all the sentences that were without citation. I objected to this, and they reverted consistently, to remove material that, though BLP, I felt was innocuous—which by leaving it, would would have given opportunity for other editors to complete their earlier writing efforts. Instead, these two editors insisted in deleting all of the text that were missing citations.

Here, in the remaining edits (adding tags), I am calling on them to be consistent. If all unsourced material needs to be removed, remove it all. I do not agree with this; I am merely asking this clique of editors to be consistent in the position they have laid out, and enforced together.

Finally, note, "He's back" violates a host of WP, beginning with presuming lack of good faith (which I have clearly laid out above). That someone disagrees strongly with you, "not dave", is not a reason to block them. But play your games, as you will. Le Prof (Writing from the road, am not an IP editor) 71.239.82.39 (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

These edits are in violation of WP:POINT. Leprof 7272 was upset before because people were removing unsourced information from a BLP that was in dispute, so in retaliation they are adding citation tags all over the article. That seems to be the goal according to this section of the article talk page (and now in this ANI thread as well).

@71.239.82.39: @Leprof 7272: Cut this out, this tantrum can lead to a block. This is a formal warning. Also, please stick to your account, editing as both your account as an IP makes it difficult to respond to you and keep track of your edits. While doing what you're doing isn't a violation of WP:SOCK (you don't have multiple accounts and you're transparent about who you are) you're making things unnecessarily difficult for other editors. -- Atama頭 19:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

First, there is one editor, me, and I identify myself, always, as Le Prof, whether logged in or not. Any attempt to paint this as a case of WP:SOCK is specious. I log as I can, and this is my business, not yours, so long as I make clear who I am (and the singular IP and my signatures make this perfectly clear).

Second, there is no tantrum here, Atama, just an attempt to try to sort a continuing disagreement. Were "not dave" and Neil above board, they would admit their original revertive edits went too far, and were done in haste, without attention to the extensive early Talk that I dedicated to explaining what I was doing.

Third, the continuing matter is as I mention above—that "not dave" and "Neil" have ganged up to insist that any BLP material that is not sourced—all of which has been in the article for years, none of which was by my adding—should be removed from this article. I simply call on them to be consistent. If all must be removed, remove it all. SEE MY TALK SECTIONS, AT THE ARTICLE.

Finally, I am a mature academic, and this discourse is nonsense. This politicization of matters is what makes this place a growing desert of subject matter talent. Keep up if you will, but this is a clear case of careful scholarly hard work being confronted by proud, superficial (and tech-driven) pseudo mistake finding. Rise above it. See the forest for the trees. Le Prof 71.239.82.39 (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

You'll find that editors are disinclined to do your bidding. If you want to make an edit to the article, you make it. Not Dave did, and stood by it. I did, and I stand by it (contrary to your "above board" nonsense). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The first set of added tags, to the "Education and Red Cross work" section, had their intended effect: someone found an article that (on good faith I assume) must support the three statements in that paragraph. Bravo. Now, shall we block me for marking material that needs to be sourced? Shall we revert my other tagging edits, so there is no indicator that the further work needs to be done? Or shall we follow the Neil and "not dave" approach, and either delete those "citation needed" edits (hiding the work needing to be done) or delete all of the unsourced innocuous text (making it impossible for such good editing as just done on the "Education…" section to be accomplished)—best, shall we do as "not dave" suggests, and block me, so I you all can conduct business together, without the suggestion that there might be other, and even better ways? Your call. I care not. Le Prof 71.239.82.39 (talk) 19:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Kabirsa91 and Muriellefinster attempting to edit ASmallWorld

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

---

New users Kabirsa91 and Muriellefinster have admitted they are employees of asmallworld and are working together in violation of WP:MEAT and WP:SOCK as well as admitted WP:COI. I think that both users and there IP addresses should be blocked from editing the asmallworld page. The relevant statements and diffs are here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AASmallWorld&diff=607201353&oldid=607200956 and here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AASmallWorld&diff=607202846&oldid=607201353 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AASmallWorld&diff=607200956&oldid=607194331 Thanks (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC))

Also both accounts were created today and have not attempted edit any other pages. (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC))

Actually the Muriellefinster account was created on 2012-03-27. Epicgenius (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

So far, these two accounts (which have 5 edits between them) have only edited the article talk page. Typically, cases that are brought to AN/I are not preemptive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC) (my comment was deleted in an edit conflict with My name is not dave)

Cool, sorry for the wrong info on the Muriellefinster account. I thought that since they admitted they worked for the company there could be a limited block as to editing that page, since it has in the past been the subject of vandalism from IP addresses and is therefore now semi-protected. (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC))

Also I thought the meat/sockpuppeting should be brought up as that is not preventive. The two users are in the same office and communicating, if they are not in fact the same person. So I thought I would bring all three relevant issues to this board. Sorry if that was inappropriate. Thanks (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC))

I don't suggest a block on these accounts, mainly because they are doing the right thing by suggesting potentially COI edits on the talk page. Epicgenius (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Did they suggest COI edits? They mentioned edits that are in their perspective 'biased', 'spammy', and 'personal in nature' which are all comments on the content not on a COI. (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC))

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

Memorial Day

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

---

This article is presently attracting a fair amount of vandalism. It might be a good idea to semi-protect it until the holiday is past. Brianyoumans (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

It was all coming from one IP and it's been blocked. There are legitimate edits by IPs happening there too as late as yesterday so I don't think semi is warranted here.--v/r - TP 22:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

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

2 May 2014 Odessa clashes censorship

Article has multiple issues from users about non-neutrality. I think there is strict censorship by some users. Cathry (talk) 02:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• You need to take it to the talk page of the article. The article is currently fully protected, so no one except admin can edit. Content issues are not decided by admin, so this problem doesn't belong here at an admin board. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Oglesruinsand Club América Soccer Academy‎

User:Oglesruins keeps removing the redirect on Club América Soccer Academy (from [181]. He has been warned twice, but continues on. More recently, looks like he's taken to undoing edits I've made on other pages only in spite. LionMans Account (talk) 02:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Nothing has changed since Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive837#User:Oglesruins. This editor is simply not here!! - "Little or no interest in working collaboratively" and seem to have a CiR native language problem as noted before. A ban is in-order - hard to change someone editing habits if they have no interest in talking to the community about the problems raised by editors. -- Moxy (talk) 05:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

As the editor that initiated the AfD on Club America Soccer Academy, I can't take any administrative action against Oglesruins, nor protect the page (as a redirect). If his only problem is at the Club America page, then proetcting the redirect is sufficient. Fram (talk) 07:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Club America seems his worst problem. However, since then, he insists on undoing edits I've made elsewhere, namely List of developmental and minor sports leagues, where he keeps adding in a local rec league and a fictitious league I've removed from there. I guess he's hit 3RR there already though. LionMans Account (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Club America is far from his only problem. The main problem is that he never discusses on talk pages, and repeatedly engages in edit wars. He does read edit histories and responds to them, often with bravado. See his talk page for previous bans and extensive complaints going back several months. I've repeatedly tripped over him at Mexico. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 15:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• I've blocked him for one week for edit warring and reverted him on the Club America article. I didn't protect as he is the only one that is trying to upend consensus and the block should be sufficient. This is his third block. If he comes back warring, I will personally indef block him, as he has had plenty of warnings. This is all the generosity I can muster with this kind of warring. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Histmerge needs undoing

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

---

User:Master of Puppets "boldly" histmerged Valyrian language and Dothraki language into Languages of A Song of Ice and Fire (then Language in Game of Thrones) on 30 April. He was then told by 2 (now 3) different people to undo the histmerge here, but refused. (Apparently, BRD doesn't apply to this case because.) He's not been on since. Can one of you brilliant souls here see to it? — lfdder 02:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

He's now responded on his talk page, but he's not actually said that he will be undoing it. — lfdder 03:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you realize what you're asking for? Articles should not be hist merged just to merge articles. Only forks with no overlapping edits should be merged. Splitting articles is very delicate, painful, and tedious. No offense to MoP - but if he's screwed up then it's his mess to clean up. At least, that's my feelings on the subject as unhelpful as they are.--v/r - TP 03:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

No, it's also your mess to clean up, as one of the community's elected overlords. — lfdder 03:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Correction: 'volunteer' overlords.--v/r - TP 03:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

That's not an argument; we're all volunteers. I did not say that you must clean it up, mind you. — lfdder 03:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a textbook "what were you thinking" situation: we now have diffs like this one in the page history. MoP, please make this your highest priority when you're next online. Nyttend (talk) 06:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll do it later when i'm not at work if nobody beats me to it. Every revision before April 5, 2013‎ belongs to Dothraki language so it shouldn't be too annoying to sort the rest out. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Right, done. The histories should now be in their correct places at Languages of A Song of Ice and Fire, Dothraki language and Valyrian languages. I did that quickly so if I've got a stray revision in the wrong place let me know and I'll fix it. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Great, I didn't realise Talk:Languages of A Song of Ice and Fire was merged too, I'll do that later. —Xezbeth (talk) 09:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

thanks, Xezbeth. — lfdder 14:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Is it possible to get full page protection on my talk page?

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

---

An edit I made on Super-spreader has become the subject of a blog and I'm sick of the piling on that's been taking place on my talk page. The most recent edit there has pushed me over the edge. I'd appreciate it if it's allowed. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 05:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but no. And I hope you see the irony (and hypocrisy) in your request - and I mean that without intending offense. Full protection isn't used to avoid scrutiny. If the project and your fellow users have gotten to you, then take a break. We all screw up once in awhile and it definitely adds to the stress when someone blogs about it. But that's not a proper use of full protection. I'm sorry this has happened to you, but I hope you are sorry as well that this has happened to an editor that wished to contribute in good faith. Your best move right now is to learn and grow from this experience.--v/r - TP 05:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually I don't see any irony here. I'm asking for protection from piling on. That's harassment under the guise of adminship, IP's who are really editors socking, etc. We page protect from IP's, we should page protect from named editors who should know better. Especially when those named editors don't know the first thing about the article and still haven't come up with any diffs to support the bullshit and personal attacks they are writing both on my talk page and on the article talk page. Malke 2010 (talk) 05:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Malke, I'm going to cover several thoughts floating in my head so bear with me. I mean this all to be helpful and not critical. I wrote an essay at WP:ANI Advice which covers several problems with your request. I hope I don't need to point any out. The irony is that you worked on an article with another editor, User:Dballouz that you were very critical of. That editor had no way to ask for help on Wikipedia so they've stopped editing instead. You've now received criticism because of a blog post and you're seeking protection to prevent you from being further criticized. That's some real foul tasting irony right there. Now, I'm not going to argue back and forth with you, you seem very stressed out right now and ready to quit - and honestly no one wants you to quit over this. What we all would like you to do is take a break, and then try to see this from Dballouz's perspective. You claim a good deal amount of expertise on your talk page and Dballouzs claims to be a student. This is a great opportunity for you to educate and collaborate with someone who shares an interest in a field you enjoy and unfortunately you've sabotaged any opportunity to engage this student personally (perhaps). You've become defensive and that's not helpful here. Whether you are right or wrong, defensiveness isn't going to win any thing here. Besides page protection, what do you suggest happens to diffuse the situation? GWH has already suggested that folks back off and give you some breathing room. What do you think about that?--v/r - TP 05:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You've become patronizing and condescending. What do I suggest? I suggest you take George's advice and stop commenting. Malke 2010 (talk) 06:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

And with that, I can't imagine anyone else is going to extend a hand to help you as I have. Good luck, you're on your own now.--v/r - TP 06:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

That said, and I may unintentionally have done this, piling on Malke 2010 at this point will not help. Everyone taking a break and coming back to it tomorrow morning with a hopefully fresh and constructive and assuming good faith perspective would help. Enforcing that with a page protect would be an abuse of the page protect policy, but common decency and the magnitude of this incident don't rise to needing to keep going on it RIGHT NOW... Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Have to agree with others that I can't see how full protection can be justified. Since Malke2010 doesn't apparently want to discuss the issue at the current time, I agree with GWH et al that people should stay away from it for now. And definitely if autoconfirmed socks keep attacking Malke2010 or something, it may be worth considering temporary full protection. But hopefully none of this happens and Malke2010 and others are able to engage in constructive discussion about the possible problems a few days from now. Nil Einne (talk) 06:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Malke 2010's behaviour on the article talk page isn't exactly conducive to a discussion. An editor opened a discussion, three others chimed in to try to discuss improvements to the article and instead it is quickly derailed by Malke's defenseive responses. The others try to mollify him and it seems like that stirred him even more until a fourth editor showed up to get things back on track. Malke definitely could do with a break, not an enforced one of course). TParis looks to have covered it aptly. Blackmane (talk) 08:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hope user takes a break and comes back and works things out constructively, that would be best& no hard feelings then.

OTOH, after multiple attempts&failures by multiple users to engage on their user talk page, here, and elsewhere; I'm now ok with supporting some sort of enforcement should there be no break and/or should behavior not improve in -say- 48h .

In particular, I don't think it's a good idea to allow users to remove polite inquiries on their user talk without any consequence. Else you could hold off steps in WP:DR indefinitely. I figure such removals fall under "tried and failed to resolve the dispute on user talk".

On the fourth tentacle, we can definitely give the user the benefit of the doubt, as long as they come back and behave constructively.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC) Mislabelling such removals as "vandalism" or "trolling" is not particularly helpful.

• Support full protection on user's talk page This user has made a claim of harassment and has made a reasonable request to protect themselves. We should assume good faith, give the protection, and then if there is more to say after good faith is assumed, then the protection could be removed if that is merited. When a user makes a claim of harassment which seems to be legitimate as this one does then that person should not be forced into a debate. This also happens to be a gender based discrimination claim, and perhaps some of you are aware that at meta:Gender gap there is documentation that Wikipedia has problems with being hostile to people because of their gender. Let us assume good faith.

To deny this request is to pass judgment and to enforce a punishment. No one here is empowered to do either of these things unilaterally. After the protection is applied, anyone here is empowered to challenge the protection unilaterally.

As a matter of process and without comment about the sustainability of the request, I would like to call for this user's request to be fulfilled on the basis of it being a validly formed request in an emergency situation and being backed by a reasonable rationale.

Aside from this, I would also like to note that I notified WikiProject Medicine and the education program about this general case as described at Wikipedia_talk:MED#Super-spreader_student_problem. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure this qualifies as an "emergency situation". Have you looked at the talk page history and seen who has remarked on this incident? It's regular editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Malke 2010 should be afforded semi-protection of the talk page to prevent the several IPs from interfering with Malke's removals,[182] but full protection is not indicated. This response by Malke shows a deeply arrogant attitude, especially considering that Malke called the new editor arrogant for the simple act of making edits to the article. Malke ought to remove the Welcoming Committee userbox, or reconsider how to treat new editors who contribute material. Binksternet (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Please stop fanning flames here. Even the admin in your diff, softened his tone after that comment you are showing. You're piling on. Please stop. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not support full or even semi-protection. I see some useful advice given; I'm tempted, but will not add any because it is clear it isn't being processed. There's no vandalism, there are simply a number of parties who have opinions abut a situation not well handled. The best course of action is to take a few days break, take a deep breath, and start over.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The talk page has already been protected from editors who are not autoconfirmed. It is kind of useless though because, as far as I saw in the page history, almost all of the comments being posted there in the past day have been from regular editors, there was just one IP editor who posted twice. Protection seems like overkill. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@admins Can someone close this discussion? Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Abuse of admin privileges

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

---

I am reporting Ymblanter for abuse of admin privileges (if that is what its called). To be more precise, abusing his admin powers to promote his POV by protecting the RT (TV network) article after his POV has been added and shifted a major weight of the article against the consensus that been reached a month earlier. The paragraph in question is the last paragraph in the article's lead.

The evident negative POV pushing paragraph resistance was "supposed" to end by Ymblanter protecting the article against IPs (me) on March 29. Immediately other editors reverted this blatant POV pushing, Then admin Hahc21 locked the article against registered users as well on march 30 for 6 days (I'm guessing to get the talk page going). From there. there has been an intense debate in RT (TV network) talk page, regarding the very controversial paragraph that has been added to it's lead, which gives a very negative general POV on the network. Multiple editors have argued for and against, and the consensus was not to keep it. Subsequently an uninvolved admin GedUK  locked the article completely on April 11 for three weeks, and a version presenting the consensus was kept.

May i add, that one of the editors that was against that paragraph and noted how POV pushing it was, Carolmooredc has been a serious contributor to the article and wikipedia at large and has basically kept the article meticulously NPOV over the past year.

Since the protection has been lifted (May 2), the minority position editors have tried to force their POV back in the lead on the same paragraph, one after the other in a matter of less then an hour. the names of the editors are on the list of the consensus summery for comparison to the edit history page.

One of the minority voices in the original debate was admin Ymblanter that wanted the Negative POV paragraph to stay. He just now protected the article again, knowing very well, that now the paragraph is not only going against the consensus, but also supporting a distorting of a quote by Russian President Putin in the lead, by chopping off a part of the quote that gives it an altogether different color. differences here.

This admin knows very well he is vested in this article, and yet chose to abuse his administrative powers.

I am not asking for the admins here to make a judgment about content (a consensus has already been reached), my focus is on the Admin privileges abuse. thank you 79.179.32.234 (talk) 09:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that Ymblanter has a case to answer here. There is a standard sort of content dispute going on at that page. It is not an issue (like BLP violation) that is objectively required to be one way or the other. Ymblanter has argued for one of the two options on the talk page and has repeatedly made reverts on the page in accordance with his/her opinion. Just now Ymblanter did another revert then immediately protected the page. Set me straight if I am reading this incorrectly, but it looks like Ymblanter used his/her administrator privileges to gain an editing advantage. Speaking as an administrator who years ago was desysopped for 6 months for something like this, it don't look so good. Zero^talk 10:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Your observation is on point. 79.179.32.234 (talk) 10:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I briefly reviewed the article's editing history and agree that User:79.179.32.234's complaint seems to have merit. Is there some further background to this editing dispute which might allow for a more favourable interpretation of Ymblanter's actions? —Psychonaut (talk) 10:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I did not edit the article since April 11 and in fact I filed the last protection request, and the article was protected until May 2. When I saw that the IP re-started disruption (without discussing anything at the talk page) after the protection exprired, I returned the pre-war version, protected the article, and advised them to continue discussing. It is unfortunate that the IP, who was lucky to get their version for a month, instead of looking for consensus, decided to edit-war (check their contribution, for example today they were reverted by three different editors, and last time they violated 3RR) and to report me hoping somebody else restores their version.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree though it was not the best call from my side.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

As I see it, Ymblanter is correct on the facts here: we have one person edit-warring against three, the page was previously protected for this exact reason, and yet the person comes back and resumes edit-warring. Restoration of protection is completely reasonable in such a situation. For this reason, I've done a pro forma reprotection, basically so that anyone can see that this is deemed reasonable by an uninvolved admin — I've never even heard of RT before. Since Ymblanter was basically restoring what had already been done by an uninvolved admin in response to clear edit-warring, I see this as the "any reasonable administrator" exception to WP:INVOLVED. Nyttend (talk) 11:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

This analysis would be reasonable if Ymblanter had not been a participant in the edit war and talk page argument. But he had been. It is also not adequate to describe his action as "restoring protection". He reverted the article to the form he liked before he protected it. The fact that a different admin had previously protected the page is not an excuse for an involved administrator to use his powers to win an edit war. (And for the record I had never heard of RT before either.) Zero^talk 13:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

It is actually not the form I like, which you can see if you read the whole discussion at the talk page. It is really the pre-war version.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow! It's just sheer random chance that Ymblanter reverted to "pre-war version" that just so happenes, supports his personal POV (that he also expressed in the talk page), which has been against the Consensus. And he describes "three different editors" as if some accidental editors tried to do right. those are the same editors that were on the side of the rejected view in the talk page. Part of his "gang". see " list of the consensus summery for comparison to the edit history page." on my first post here. Well, we have just got a live example of Ymblanter "good faith" practice. (same ip editor) 79.179.32.234 (talk) 12:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Would you please stop calling your personal opinion "consensus" and "clear consensus". Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Ymblanter, you are doing your best here to characterize yourself as totally unworthy of any administrative powers:

Keep the Propaganda paragraph as is. 8 editors - Ymblanter, Trappedinburnley, Galassi, Capitalismojo, Sidelight12, Volunteer Marek, Sayerslle, Nug. Change the Propaganda paragraph. 12 editors - Zvonko, LokiiT, Carolmooredc, LarryTheShark, TFD, NinjaRobotPirate, Sietecolores, 79.179.155.133, North8000, 109.66.173.51, 94.193.139.22, Damotclese.

Source (same ip editor)79.179.32.234 (talk) 13:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

First, arguments and not a number of voters should be evaluated. Second, 8/12 is no consensus. Third, this discussion was NOt about the issue which you have chosen to edit-war about. Fourth, whereas others continue discussing at the talk page (there was some meaningful interchange yesterday night), you are only edit-warring without any attempt to reach consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Which, of course, was pointed out to you before.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Once GedUK  locked the article with the version supported by the majority of editors, the only ones who were still "discussing" the lead were the minority view editors, who, i might add, were bullying the entire pre lock debate. Pushing now a different paragraph that has exactly if not worse negative POV than the one previously you pushed for ( I mean manipulating Putin's quote is very clever piece of propaganda by itself), and calling "lets first debate this change because it's new" is Gaming the system par-excellence. (same ip editor) 79.179.32.234 (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

It's more like 8/? after you discount North8000, who is banned, and a few of the IPs being the same user. Doc talk 13:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that particular edit here since I prefer short leads. The bigger problem is that the article also has two very big criticism sections, the old one of that name and a new one called "Responses to RT's news coverage". There's just a bit of neutral and positive opinion in there. I worked a lot making article more NPOV in 2012-13 when there were a couple of strong POV pushers but right now I'm burned out from dealing with POV pushing in general, so didn't try to integrate and shorten the two sections into one section. Now that it's been protected, maybe in next couple weeks I'll dump an NPOV version of such a section on the talk page for discussion. I found lots of NPOV commentary 2 years ago and I'm sure there's some overlooked today as well.
There needs to be input from more neutral editors, and saavy members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Media, so that POV pushers don't make the article a pro-western propaganda piece. (With all the accusations of "facism", etc. thrown around at BLPs and even editors here, it's rather unnerving to see trashed one of the few large media outlets exposing the role of murderous Right Sector-co-opted and/or led Ukrainian nationalist mobs and/or paramilitaries being covered in such a POV way on Wikipedia. It's rather scary, actually.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Carol although the POV pushers have been bullying to the point of burnout, please don't give up. You have provided excellent and fair contributions to this article. The short lead edit is literally saying that Putin admitted that RT is a propaganda outlet. come on now. Nothing can be further from the truth if you read the whole quote. and it should also be "some critics".(same ip editor)79.179.32.234 (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to enter into this conversation, but Ymblanter is very much abusing his admin privilages and if he dosn't recognise this he should have them removed. It is not that hard to wait for another admin to protect the page and reverting and immidatly protecting is NOT OK, unless it is a BLP issue there is always time to wait for another uninvolved admin to use their privlages. CombatWombat42 (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but unless I am missing something here having read whats said in this thread, I don't see how an apparently isolated incident warrants the hype of suggesting there is administrator abuse, or that there is some form of real damage caused by the single incident involving a page being protected and Ymblanter's response somehow reflects on his ability to remain an administrator. Having realised the issue, he seems to have conducted himself in accordance with the requirements of an admin in accepting it and being receptive to the feedback. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

We don't just tally up editors votes to determine consensus, but if we did I would point out that both North and Larry the Shark are banned, and that some of the other "voters" were SPA/IP accounts. There was hardly a consensus or even a true majority around this edit-warring IP account's prefered proposal. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Capitalismojo disclosing your personal involvement in this controversy (part of the determined minority pushing for the negative POV paragraph) should be noted. (same ip editor) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.32.234 (talk) 16:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Ncmvocalist, Making a single mistake probably does not warrent loss of admin, making a single mistake and continuing to defend it after you have been told you were wrong may. I do not see where Ymblanter recognised his mistake and apologised if I missed that then I apologise.CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the "abuse of administrative privilege", I think it might have been a mistake for this particular admin to protect the page but that it is an action that any reasonable admin would make looking at the the history. In that sense it was not abusive, as admin Nyttend has said above. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I fail to see any "abuse". The article was protected recently, a discussion had occured, ater protection was removed a non-consensus version was being edit-warred over. Any admin would have been welcome to return to that version, even one who had expressed an opinion. Perhaps not optimal, (as Ymblanter expressed near the top of this thread) but returning to a "neutral" (i.e. pre-dicussion) version was the correct step to take. Random edit-warriors don't get a leg up just because there's an admin occasionally editing, and calling fairly standard practice "abuse" is unacceptable rhetoric the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

According to you panda, Ymblanter should have rolled back to the version before the protection was removed and the non-consensus paragraph was added, and then protected the article. Had he done that, there wouldn't have been an administerial abuse accusation. (same ip editor)79.179.32.234 (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Calling beliefs held in good faith unacceptable rhetoric, is unacceptable rhetoric. It is abuse IHMO. Need I put IMHO after everything say panda?CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with Nyttend and the Panda--and with Ymblanter's "not optimal" comment. Drmies (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
• I'll have what Drmies is having, and point everyone to WP:WRONGVERSION. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would call this "abuse". But it's definitely not good. I think "not optimal" is putting far too mildly. I understand the difficulty in maintaining a balance between being an editor and an administrator (any admin understand that) but you must be able to swap hats. If you participate at an article you're involved and you're voluntarily relinquishing the use of your tools at that venue. There are times when I've been frustrated because I've gotten involved at an article that is then besieged by sockpuppets, edit-warriors, you name it. And I have the tools to stop them but can't use them. Because doing so is misusing the tools. The level of involvement from Ymblanter on the article is pretty heavy. There are some strong opinions given on the article talk page by Ymblanter involving content, and a number of edits to the main page of the article, including some (minor) edit-warring. I'll also point out that that this isn't the first time that Ymblanter has done this, nor even the second time, it's the third time that Yblanter has protected the article after reverting other editors.

• Reverting an IP, then protecting the page shortly afterward.
• A few days later, again reverting an IP and then protecting the page shortly after.

The edits that Ymblanter are reverting are not a BLP violation, or blatant vandalism, or any other kind of edit that mandates a revert. They were POV-pushing edits but were part of a content dispute. If an admin wants to act as an admin on an article, they can't weigh in on a content dispute by opposing an editor's viewpoint on the discussion page and revert their edits to keep that viewpoint out of the article. Because at that point, by protecting the page to keep them from reverting your edits you're misusing your tools to gain the upper hand in the dispute that you are a part of. That's borderline abuse of the tools. I don't try to cast judgment on other administrators because I'm not perfect myself, but this is definitely wrong. Not worth a de-sysop or block or anything dramatic, but at minimum a massive trout.

Just to show the level of involvement, see this thread started by Ymblanter soon after protecting the article for the second time. It's clear that they were not acting in an uninvolved, impartial administrative role. Administrators can't be allowed to do that. -- Atama頭 18:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

But they did act in accordance with the exception in WP:INVOLVED. Everyone agrees he shouldn't have done it, that doesn't mean it is abuse, just a bad choice, even if the right conclusion. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Not really. Policy doesn't require admins to revert to the pre-war state before protecting an article due to an edit war; they also have the option of simply protecting the page as-is. Choosing to revert the page, even if it's not to their preferred state, is a non-obvious choice to which the "any reasonable admin" exception should not apply, since it's not clear that any reasonable admin would've done so. The decision to protect might have been fine under that exception, but the decision to revert (no matter what it was they reverted to) wasn't. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Reverting isn't necessary, but it looks like it was reverted to the exact state it was before the edit warring started. I don't think this is an extraordinary or unusual move. It boils down to us having to guess his state of mind, to either know or assume why he did what he did. Personally, I'm not ready to jump to the conclusion that there was nefarious or bad faith in what he was doing, not without more evidence. Unquestionably, he should have just let someone else do it. Had I stumbled across it, I may have very well done exactly what he did, however: revert back to a pre-war state. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

They did not act in accordance. Editing a page prior to protection in most cases is against policy, see WP:PREFER:

When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies, such as vandalism, copyright violations, or defamation of living persons. Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists. Pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes which are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus (see above).

The problem is that "establishing a contentious revision" in this case doesn't really apply because with an active dispute between multiple editors on each side, any version is contentious. When Hach21 protected the page on March 30 there was no revert to a particular version, the page was properly protected "as is", which was the proper way to protect an article in the midst of a content dispute. I don't see how reverting a page to your preferred version in an edit war that you're actively involved in just before protecting it is not a misuse of tools. It's a fairly big misuse of tools. It's a misuse that was repeated three times at that article. I'm extremely concerned not so much with Yblanter's poor judgment (repeated poor judgment) as the dismissive response to it. I'd rather see them say "I made a huge mistake and will never do anything like this again" than saying it was "not the best call from my side". This kind of behavior has led to people losing administrative tools in the past. Good administrators who didn't stop making mistakes. I don't want to see it happen again. -- Atama頭 18:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we aren't looking at the same thing. The version he reverted to was exactly the same as the version before the edit war started, which the policy you quote says is ok. [183], via "administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists.". Again, no one is arguing that what he did was smart or best practice, but that is not the same as "abuse", meaning he used his tools to gain a distinct advantage in an edit war. There were a lot of edits between his last edits and this revert, so I don't see this as protecting his edits. You can argue what he did was stupid or whatever, but if you throw around the word "abuse", you need clearer evidence. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it intentional "abuse", but then violations of INVOLVED aren't always intentional, and the lack of intention doesn't make it any less a violation. It would've been a reasonable action for an uninvolved admin, but that's not the exception that makes it acceptable to ack as an admin when involved. The exception isn't that it's okay when an admin would have probably come to the same conclusion, it's that it's okay when any admin would have probably come to the same conclusion. That is: it's not just that you can act if involved when there is some admin that would agree with you, it's that you can act if involved when no admin that would disagree with you. Dennis, what you're suggesting here, even though you acknowledge that it's not a best practice, is a significant weakening of the policy against involved actions, to the point where nearly any involved action could be wikilawyered around--after all, with hundreds of admins, there's always going to be one of them that'll agree with an involved action, and to argue that an action wasn't subject to the exception, you'd need to poll every uninvolved admin there is! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• Writ, my first concern is always "abuse", which even you agree is probably the wrong label here. That said, what are you suggesting the proper remedy? Granted, this would have been easier if Ymblater was more vocal, and clearer in his understanding. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• Well, the proper remedy as far as I would consider it would be for Ymblanter to be more vocal and clearer in their understanding. :P Specifically in their understanding that things like this revert-protection combination are not (and would virtually never be, except perhaps in the case of a BLP vio, which would trump) covered by the exception for acting as an admin while involved, regardless of what the page was reverted to, and that they would undertake to never do it again. It's a fairly finicky point of policy, I suppose, for one not really thinking much about it, but it's important, which is why one should think much about it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

It would really help if you could indicate where I said that they are covered. I believe I never did. What I did is clearly against the policy and i should not have done it. On the other hand, I believe it is unfortunate that nobody here is addressing seven reverts of the IP who basically refuses to discuss anything, and is hoping to get the page protected on their version (best, indefinitely). I am sure whan the protection expires they would come reverting again. I do not believe the article becomes any better if POV pushers just get their hand. Concerning myself, I do not care a shit about my admin bit. I can resign right now, I will just have more time for the articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Don't resign over this mistake. Just move on. I said before that I'm not perfect either, I've made mistakes too. The IP is not totally in the right here; while I think the complaint about being involved has merit, the suggestion that you were going "against consensus" or that you're part of a "gang" does not have merit. And the IP definitely does not come here with clean hands. -- Atama頭 19:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) but much what Atama said You don't have to have said that it did to affirm that it doesn't. If you know it was wrong and aren't going to do it again, then that's all I ask. I just don't think that people thinking that this qualified as an exception to INVOLVED--even if only as a technicality--is a good idea, because it weakens the INVOLVED policy, and that's not a policy that I think we want weakened. If I had to guess, I'd say that nobody's talking about the IP because what appears to be a garden-variety edit warrior doesn't really require comment or discussion, unlike possible breaches of INVOLVED; it's not that people think the IP is blameless. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Ymblanter - we're not criticizing you as an admin, we're criticizing this one action. You've already acknowledge twice that I can see that it was a silly thing to do, that's all I've ever asked of anyone. Not something to resign over. It's only worth a resignation if there was a pattern of this behavior. That hasn't been demonstrated.--v/r - TP 19:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• I have to agree with Atama here. I can sort of see the "any admin would do it" argument in terms of the page protection. But reverting right before page protection is never a good idea. We don't know that the previous admin intended to protect it on a particular version and so Ymblater's claim that they were doing what the previous admin did is false. The previous admin likely protected it however it was when they got there. Ymblater reverted to a version he preferred. There is a significant difference there. Ged UK walked into an article during an edit war and protected it without regard to the version. Ymblater did not simply do what any administrator would have done.

  But regardless, let's set that contentious point aside for a second. Let's say that Ymblater DID revert appropriately. The question then is: was it good judgement to revert a page and then protect it? Under any non-BLP circumstance is that a good idea? It's even controversial on BLP articles, so what administrator could possibly think there was good judgement here. That seriously damages the faith in this administrator's judgement.

  However, since Ymblater already said as much themselves, and understands it was a bad judgement call, that gives serious credibility to the idea that this was a off-day for them and we can all just let this go as lesson learned.--v/r - TP 19:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: For your benefit, I'll repeat what I said initially: I'm not sure I would call this "abuse". But it's definitely not good. I think "not optimal" is putting far too mildly. Admin abuse is something that I usually suggest opening an RfC/U over, or something else more drastic. This doesn't rise to that. It's a major error in judgment that I just want to not see repeated again, now that it's been brought to their attention (as far as I can see, nobody approached Ymblanter about being involved the first two times the tools were used). As I said before, a "massive trout" is sufficient. -- Atama頭 19:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Not that it matters but I believe the first time I protected the article I did not revert anything (to be precise, I mistakenly reverted an editor in good standing, then reverted myself). I see now that all disruption in the article was indeed coming from the same IP editor hopping between addresses.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment-Given the extremely difficult atmosphere surrounding this article, caused in no small part by the complainant I might add, I’d be most unhappy to see @YMBlanter punished for this. For those unaware of RT, I’d challenge even the most conscientious noob friendly editor to watch a couple of hours and not become a “hammer of fools” rivalling @Malleus Fatuorum.--Trappedinburnley (talk)

Comment-We sure see some amazing stuff around here. "I do not care a shit about my admin bit," Ymblanter declares. "I can resign right now." Why on earth would an admin who doesn't "care a shit" about being an admin continue in that role of power and responsibility at Wikipedia? It's unconscionable. Ymblanter shouldn't resign. He should be fired. JohnValeron (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Because "not car[ing] one bit" is in line with the Wikipedia:No_big_deal#History philosophy and the idea that we are just servants and janitors - not in any elevated position. Any administrator that holds onto their admin bit too dearly is not suitable for adminship. We should not take the bit too seriously and base our pride in the bit. That is what causes the drama of rogue admins. I'd wager that the majority of us do not care about the bit, nor do many of us have enthusiasm anymore to continue being admins. I sure don't. It's not fun, exciting, or enjoyable. It's taxing, full of harassment, and tedious. But if we all turned in our bits, there would be no one to do the maintenance work. And, I'm sorry, but there just isn't anyone who could do this job and enjoy it at the same time. While I am sure we could all resign to day and Wikipedia would find new admins, those admins would fall into the exact same feelings. It's the nature of what this project is. So, I disagree with you, Ymblanter's opinion of the bit is the right one.--v/r - TP 20:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, User:TParis, we sure see some amazing stuff around here. So now it's not merely acceptable for an admin to not give a shit about being an admin, it's an altogether normal and inescapable part of the job! I commend you and Ymblanter for enlightening me on this score. As a Wikipedia editor for the past four years, I've been naively operating under the assumption that admins care about their role here—not consider it joyless drudgery. Thanks for opening my eyes. JohnValeron (talk) 20:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem at all. Hopefully the day will come where you get to burden yourself with it too.--v/r - TP 20:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Sadly, not a chance. I'm on the cusp of being banned for life for the unforgivable sin of actually caring about my role as an editor at Wikipedia. JohnValeron (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• A massive trout and a clear statement by YMBlanter that they understand this isn't acceptable is all that's needed here. Hobit (talk) 20:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• As Ymblanter has already indicated he knows it was a mistake, and we admin are all debating what is and isn't technically an exception or not, and what the definition of "is" is, and now it is devolving into drive by comments, I have to wonder if we have extracted our pint of blood yet? He screwed up, he knows it, and it is starting to look like the drama drum is getting beat louder and louder. I'm simply not sure what is being gained by ramping it up, and I'm sorry, it it does look like that is what is happening. I fail to see what is being gained, and I'm curious if anyone uninvolved is brave enough to just summarize this. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
• Isn't this funny that both registered editors in this thread who want me quartered and drawn have between 1400 and 1500 edits? May be we should introduce a policy - an editor with 1400 to 1500 edits can fire any administrator.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
• What I saw (and I'll admit that I haven't checked the talk page carefully to judge the extent of Ymblanter's involvement with article content) is the editor Ymblanter reverting in an IP-fueled edit war with a distinct POV flavor, and then running to the hallway to get their admin hat and semi-protect the article. Sure, that's not optimal--one could use stronger words, but I don't really see the point of that. That Ymblanter may have preferred the version they reverted to, well, I don't know what Ymblanter prefers or not. If a deeper analysis of their edits reveals that they were significantly involved in the production of that version, maybe one can call that their preferred version. Maybe. What I see is they're the third editor to undo the IP's edits--followed by the unwise decision to not wait for RFPP or another admin being pinged and semi-protect. Sure, that's unwise. It's not worth firing someone for (way to go, JohnValeron), nor is it worth getting in a tizzy over (that's you, Ymblanter--and while the disruption was initially caused by the IP editor, this thread is, unfortunately, of your own making). Nor am I one for "trouting", but I'm not known for my sense of humor I suppose. I think this was a pretty serious error of judgment, and now we should move on. IP, I've known you to do some good things around here, but edit warring is rarely ingratiating. Ymblanter, stop digging. Drmies (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You Dutch have no sense of humour ;-) the panda ₯’ 21:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Mallexikon

Mallexikon was blocked on the 29th for edit warring at Traditional Chinese medicine. He had repeatedly tried to insert the claim that Traditional Chinese medicine was a protoscience into the article. Since returning he has found a new source and has resumed trying to incert the claim that Traditional Chinese medicine is a protoscience into the article by writing that Traditional Chinese medicine is a “pre-science” and piping it to protoscience. The source that he has used to do this does not support the claim that Traditional Chinese medicine is a protoscience and Mallexikon was informed of this, but apparently doesn’t care. He has also tried to insert the “protoscience” claim into the Acupuncture article.

However, the larger problem is Mallexikon’s decision to engage in race baiting on Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine. [[184]] And his subsequent decision to engage in taunting when Dominus Vobisdu objected to his remarks about race. [[185]] Mallexikon has apparently decided that “white males” or those he suspects of being white males are not allowed to call Traditional Chinese medicine a pseudoscience.

Editors with racial agendas are notoriously difficult to deal with and Mallexikon’s refusal to get a consensus before reinserting disputed material makes him even more disruptive. I ask that a topic ban be considered. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it is correct to call Mallexikon's comments "race-baiting". For example, his first comment on this included this remark:

• "Why use a source for this at all, since we have so many smart people on WP agreeing on it? And within no time, WP will look exactly like all of us white male tech/science-friendly geeks like it."

So, he is characterizing the majority of Wikipedia editors (including himself) as white, male, tech/science-friendly geeks. And then he says his "Wow, the white/male/tech-friendly assumption really hit a nerve in you, did it?" And he said this on April 29th, the day he was blocked. Nothing since.

First, I'm not sure that this is a mischaracterization of the demographics of Wikipedia editors. And second, he was including himself in his observation. I'm not sure who he is "baiting". Third, aside from these two remarks, I don't see any further comments about whiteness on this talk page (but I haven't looked at his edits to other pages). I think if more incidents of this occur, it is might be worth looking into. But I'm not sure if observing that most editors of Wikipedia are white males really qualifies as having a "racial agenda". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Liz, Mallexikon was blocked for edit warring. His inappropriate comments to Dominus Vobisdu have not yet been addressed. Also, he has continued to edit problematically after returning from his block.

Mallexikon’s comment to Dominus Vobisdu was an attempt to control another editor through appeal to racial sentiment. Such tactics have no place on Wikipedia as they are an attempt to shut down civil discussion.

I also cannot understand how any reasonable person could deny that “Wow, the white/male/tech-friendly assumption really hit a nerve in you, did it?” is obvious taunting. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Mallexikon’s previous comment in December last year was Everybody's complaining about WP being too white / male / tech-friendly influenced, and everybody's always talking about how incivility should not be tolerated - but obviously that's just talk. Thanks a lot, guys. The edit summary was white / male / tech-friendly WP raising its ugly head. He seems to have a battleground mentality at the Acupuncture related articles when you look at the contributions. QuackGuru (talk) 20:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

After being blocked, Mallexikon is continuing to edit war. After the source was deleted by User:JzG and there was no consensus Mallexikon ignored there was no consensus to restore the source. He repeatably restored the source against CON.[186][187][188][189][190] According to this comment any editor can issue an alert to Mallexikon, with {{Ds/alert}}. QuackGuru (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Mallexikon is one of the few reasonable editors at acupuncture, and by reasonable I mean respectful of sources as well as mindful of NPOV. In my opinion Quack Guru is the most guilty of edit warring at TCM and acupuncture. While Mallexikon has proposed seeking compromise wording, QG and Dominus have refused to take that offer in good faith and instead have focused on him. Its ridiculous. If anyone considers banning Mallexikon I recommend reading a larger sample of talk page discussions.Herbxue (talk) 00:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You also tried to delete the text against CON.[191][192]

Trying to delete well sourced text from the lede at TCM did not work for Mallexikon. So what is the next step. Rewriting the text at the various articles to bring doubt to the term pseudoscience. When the idea is to undermine what the reliable source says by whitewashing the term pseudoscience when you or another editor can't delete it from the lede, that is not a content dispute. That is a battle ground mentality. There is no point to having quotes in the lede or adding "has been described as". The text largely pseudoscience was correct before. The same kind of thing happened to the lede at TCM. He is moving text around that does not follow the same order as the body. QuackGuru (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

76.107.171.90, QuackGuru and Dominus Vobisdu are some of a group of hawkish editors desperate to include the assertion "TCM is pseudoscience" to the lede of the Chinese medicine article, trying to use an inadequate source, and rigidly resisting any compromise (the current compromise is "TCM has been described as largely pseudoscience", which I happily supported). Please find my more detailed view on this dispute here at the DR/N. The DR/N thread was started by me.

Yes, I have been blocked 24 hrs for edit warring over this (first time ever for me), and I'm sorry - I got caught up in the heat. I'd like to point out though, that the admin who blocked me simultaneously warned QuackGuru for edit warring as well [193]. The race baiting charge, however, is so ridiculous I'm not even going to comment on this.

Parallely to the DR/N thread, tentative consensus regarding this dispute has been found at Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine#Labels: pseudoscience, protoscience, please take a look. This AN/I here is a pretty obvious attempt eliminate a perceived opponent (and/or to sabotage the consensus found at the talk page and/or the DR process) in a content dispute. I think that WP:BOOMERANG should apply, and would ask for a topic ban of 76.107.171.90. It also like to ask whether it is possible to check whether 76.107.171.90 is a sock puppet of any of the editors involved in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Traditional Chinese medicine. --Mallexikon (talk) 03:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Mallexikon, saying “The race baiting charge, however, is so ridiculous I'm not even going to comment on this” is a classic Argumentum ad lapidem. You know that your racial comments are totally indefensible, so you are trying to shift the focus away from your obvious misbehavior and onto content issues. Let me be clear; if you had not taunted Dominus Vobisdu then we would not be here right now. Your decision to taunt Dominus Vobisdu after he took offense at your racial comments is obvious bullying.

If any administrator is tempted to think that this is a content issue then they can consider whether Mallexikon’s racial comments alone are sufficiently inappropriate to warrant sanction. The primary reason that I brought up Mallexikon’s problematic editing of Traditional Chinese Medicine is to show that Mallexikon’s racial bias affects his editing of articles and not just his talk page behavior.

Mallexikon, abusively and falsely accusing another editor of being a sock in an attempt to discredit them is a personal attack. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 06:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Almost constant insulting and abusive behaviour

Luuluu MuuMuu (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) seems to be incapable of posting a response in a talk page without including an insulting or abusive remark. Further this user seems to have decided that their totally incorrect comprehension of a phenomenon must be right and therefore everyone else who tells this user that they are wrong is treated with contempt. This user has demonstrated and actually stated that they have no intention of discussing collaboratively. This user has a history of edit conflict and is clearly WP:NOTHERE to contribute collaboratively to the project.

This user seems relatively new, but is clearly familiar enough with Wikipedia policy that this is obviously a fresh start account. Even if it is genuinely a new user, they are familiar enough with the policy rules that there is little excuse for their battleground approach.

This started with Luuluu MuuMuu engaging in a minor edit war at Railway electrification system. Suffice to say that her argument was opposed by myself and two other editors (therefore some consensus of support for my edit exists). I attempted to discuss the point on Luuluu MuuMuu's talk page. This was met with a hostile and insulting response ([194]). There was also a threat from some policy that Luuluu MuuMuu had misunderstood ([195]).

I endeavoured once again to engage in the discussion without resorting to similar abuse ([196]) plus a note about the unnecessary abuse ([197]) - another user had contributed to the discussion prior to this point broadly supporting my stance. There followed a response from Luuluu MuuMuu that was incomplete, and inaccurate. I responded, again without resorting to incivility addressing all the points raised (some of which were not read or comprehended from the previous attempt). The result was further abuse ([198]). I responded emphasising the point in my previous response that Luuluu MuuMuu had either not understood or not bothered to read (I suspect the latter).

There was a response in incomprehensible English and a reply from me pointing this out. There followed another abusive post that was clearly stating that I was not worthy and that Luuluu MuuMuu was going to ignore me. Luuluu MuuMuu is entitled to ignore me but not to resort to abuse. It is clear that Luuluu MuuMuu does not understand a well understood phenomenon and consequently it does not exist. Luuluu MuuMuu thinks that he or she is right and therefore everyone else wrong. Luuluu MuuMuu is not interested in discussing it. This demonstrates a battle ground approach and a complete lack of intent to collaborate (WP:NOTHERE). It has been suggested by another that the 3rd, 5th and 6th criteria all apply - and I can't argue with that.

Another editor DieSwartzPunkt had contributed to the discussion, but Luuluu MuuMuu adopted the same abusive approach to that other editor ([199]) clearly refusing to collaborate with him or her either. There is even an implied allegation that because we are (more or less) agreeing with each other, that there is some relationship. The reality is that we are both disagreeing with Luuluu MuuMuu.

For the avoidance of doubt: the phenomenon in question has its own and fairly well referenced article at Skin effect which fully supports all points that I made. –LiveRail < Talk > 17:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

My take from the difs is that the user might be borderline uncivil a few times, the only actionable thing would be the last dif referring directly to you as a muppet. One PA will get them a warning but I don't think this has reached a level of confrontation that you require administrator involvement. Tivanir2 (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You also neglected to inform them of your filing this ANI request as a heads up. I am doing so now. Tivanir2 (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a little more than slight rudeness. Saying things like "It is clear from your comments above that you clearly do not understand the subject that you are attempting to discuss." in the context it was given is just a passive-aggressive, sugar coated way of calling someone an idiot. Civility isn't defined as insulting someone using sweet words, it is not insulting people at all. I would like another admin to take a look, but in eyes, this is insulting and uncivil. Not necessarily personal attacks, but this kind of behavior is known to run off good editors and shouldn't be brushed aside. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

In my defense I do believe that I was not in any way un-civil, considering that I was responding to a very concerted individual that was behaving highly defensive of his/her views. In my opinion, this mode of expressing ones view is not of a manner that I understand this encyclopedia entertains. I think that if one has to respond aggressively to uphold their views, that perhaps their view is not one that would be supported by a consensus of the population. I think that I have been subjected to an assault by two or three editors that have a view, but which does not in itself mean that it has consensus. I have tried, perhaps naively, to invoke Wikipedia protocols to diffuse the situation. The last protocol was that on WP:DENY in order to calm things down, but instead I find myself in court. - Luuluu MuuMuu (talk) 23:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

This isn't court, it is a discussion. Occasionally a lynch mob, but today, just a place for discussion. Let me be frank: You sound educated and informed, but you should stop commenting on other people's abilities. When you talk about other's skills, it comes across very, very arrogant and wins you no friends here. Spoken communication and typed communication are very different things, and the skills are not the same, although I'm not sure if that is the problem. We are all editors, we all have different skills, if you think someone is less informed, help inform them instead of getting defensive. Honestly, the most influential editors are those who are patient and tolerant, as they get the most respect. Not just as "experts", but as trustworthy and non-judgmental fellow editors. As a fellow editor, I promise you will have more success if dial back the personal observations and just stick to the verifiable facts. We are all on the same team, we all want good articles, but we all have to get along while building them. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I blocked Luuluu MuuMuu as a fairly obvious sock --Guerillero | My Talk 03:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

user removed my rfc for no reason and accused me of bad faith

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAfrikaner&diff=607348441&oldid=607348252, can someone revert his edits and explain to this user why he cannot do such disruptive edits 120.50.35.122 (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Rather than disruptive edits, it looks more like someone providing the reason for the removal and some helpful advice about talk page guidelines. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Also the consensus is clear on the main talk page about it, also the IP has edited thing without proper consensus in the main article. All this seems to me, is the IP user trying to use AN/I for a content dispute. TheMesquito^buzz 19:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I intervened in an edit war over the article's hatnote, and posted a comment about it in a talk page section the IP had started. After another editor and I had commented there the IP edited the beginning of the section and turned it into a RFC without any explanation anywhere, changing the context of our comments. I reverted their changes to the beginning of the section and asked them to start their RFC in a new section. I clearly explained what I had done in the thread, with reference to relevant talk page guidelines, and I never accused them of bad faith. HelenOnline 20:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• Also see conversation at User talk:Dennis Brown‎#user removed my rfc for no reason and accused me of bad faith. GB fan 20:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

  Déjà vu. Not that it is important, but I didn't see the purpose in an RFC when it could have been discussed on the talk page, as we depend on sources for this stuff, not votes. Now, as on my talk page, I will just bow out as I didn't see any merit to the complaint. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

User:StopItWoodroar

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

---

The fake deity "Menapozal, goddess of whine" keeps getting added to List of Aztec deities, first by IP 129.7.134.174, then by IP 129.7.134.171, and now by new user User:StopItWoodroar. I'm honored, really. This username has been added at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention, but I'm wondering if page protection or an IP range block may help as well? Woodroar (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Admin eyes requested

Hi, I was hoping to get some admin eyes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network (2nd nomination) please. A few of us believe a sock of Finealt is inappropriately nomming this article for AfD. I believe there to be possible vandal intentions. There are a few speedy keep noms already. There's an active SPI case on the account (linked earlier) but SPI is backlogged. Anyhow, hoping some admins could take a look and revert the disruptions if deemed disruptions. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• I've closed the two AfDs in question per WP:SNOW. I'm not familiar enough with Finealt to act on the SPI, alas, although from the descriptions I agree it sounds like a duck. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Aimperator reported by User:Nightscream

Aimperator responded to his block by King of Hearts by violating WP:CIV with this remark. An extension would not be inappropriate. Resumption of both edit warring and incivility on Aimperator's part is almost certain once the block expires later today. Nightscream (talk) 06:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)