Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at 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

Topic ban for Esoglou

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Withdrawn in order to pursue at RFC/U, a better location for explaining the pure fabrications, original research, etc. This thread has turned away from content and policy issues, perhaps because the users commenting are not familiar with the subject matter or sources, to personal attacks and axe-grinding, and is no longer productive. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

---

I would like to propose a topic ban for User:Esoglou from the subject of homosexuality. The user has demonstrated a persistent intent to push a political agenda (and, having been topic-banned from abortion on two separate occasions for POV-pushing, isn't a stranger to this concept). Most recently, this has manifested itself in adding, three times in the past two days ([1] [2] [3]), the claim that homosexuality poses a "widespread threat to life and health". However, the problem goes back much further and indicates that Esoglou's primary goal is not to follow WP policy or improve articles but rather to promote his personal opinions about homosexuality and to make the Catholic Church look good (see eg. this edit, where he wrote a lovely little speech about the real reason the Holy See opposed a particular resolution). He has a persistent habit of doing his own "analysis" of reliable sources when they contradict his personal views ([4] convoluted language which he explained here is intended to undermine the sources, [5] "a word that does not appear in the document"), of otherwise engaging in original research (eg. [6]), and of adding frivolous citation tags for reliably sourced facts with which he personally disagrees (eg. [7], [8], [9]). I used to think that he was not a native English speaker and that his misrepresentation of sources proc eeded from a non-native speaker's misreading, but since he states he does speak English, I have to conclude that edits like this are deliberate misrepresentation rather than accidental. This is only a small selection in a long pattern; I would be happy to provide more examples or to explain anything here that is unclear (since some of it isn't immediately obvious if you haven't looked at the sources). As well, some of these edits were made repeatedly; I've mostly provided only one instance. Esoglou's reliance on agenda-based sources and promoting them over neutral scholarly ones almost goes without saying, and he also has a problem with plagiarism (which may extend beyond this topic area, I haven't looked at his other edits), which he has outright declared isn't a reason to revert his edits.

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

Just seeking some clarification after reading the diffs, is his comment about "widespread threat to life and health" his own addition or is he quoting a Catholic text?--v/r - TP 22:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

See my comment to TenOfAllTrades below. My version of the text was intended to show what the church's position was without stating in Wikipedia's voice that these claims about homosexuality were factually true. Esoglou's edit deliberately sought to say that the church's claims were true. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Ahh okay, I understand now.--v/r - TP 00:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

It's sourced to "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, 1986, point 9, para. 2".--Bbb23 (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The paragraph is online, and it states: "There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil-statutes and laws. This is done in order to conform to these pressure groups' concept that homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an entirely good, thing. Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved."--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

While this might be a legitimate reference, the understanding of homosexuality has evolved, yes, even at the Vatican, in the 27 years since this letter was issued. In 1986, there was a high rate of AIDS in some American cities which received an enormous amount of media coverage. I imagine that is part of the subtext behind "threaten the lives" comment.

If I was working on this article, I'd ask for a more recent reference (say, from 2000-2013) and also insist that this comment reflects an official position of the Vatican, not that it is a unambiguous fact and is true. That's just basic referencing knowledge which should be obvious to anyone who's edited for more than a few months. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I'm getting stuck with the first diffs, there. It doesn't appear, on its face, that it is Esoglou saying that homosexuality poses "widespread threat to life and health", but rather reporting that that is the position – however bigoted, wrongheaded, and offensive – of the Roman Catholic church on the matter. Given that the article is Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism, it is not immediately obvious that we shouldn't summarize or report on the church's statements and opinions on this topic—as long as we are careful to ensure they are properly representative (per WP:WEIGHT, etc.) and as long as we are careful not to endorse those views in Wikipedia's voice. (Far from making the Catholic church "look good", adding in this type of material ought to be embarrassing.) I'm not saying that a topic ban is or is not warranted, but I'm a bit concerned that the commentary offered here is not well supported by the diffs provided.

Looking at the most recent thread on Talk:Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism#Alleged campaigning against decriminalization, it appears that Esoglou is engaged in a fairly calm, reasonable discussion about a point of contention. Esoglou offered a frank and apparently sincere apology regarding an error he made, and the discussion resulted in a reasonable compromise edit satisfactory to all parties, including Roscelese, which seemed to best reflect the sources at hand.

Honestly, quickly glancing at the article's talk page, it's a bit difficult to untangle who is (most) worthy of trouting. In bickering between Roscelese, Esoglou, and Contaldo80 last week at Talk:Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism#"Inhuman", the question about whether or not the Holy See described gay sex as "inhuman" got bumped over to RSN: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Holy See document. It appears that the only two independent editors to comment on the issue came down more on the side of Esoglou's interpretation of the sources. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

With regard to your first point, you will note in the edits in question that I specifically addressed this concern: to convey the church position without promoting factual inaccuracies, I wrote "what the church claims are risks" and "may supposedly constitute a widespread threat." Esoglou removed this text. There is no way to read this as just conveying the church position. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I am looking at the first three diffs that you presented above: [10] [11] [12]. In all three cases, it is quite clear that the claims about homosexuality are attributed to the church, and are not in Wikipedia's voice. In every case, the sentence at issue opens with "The Catholic Church has said that...". Are you saying that Esoglou's edits aren't a factual representation of what the Catholic church has said?

It's neither necessary nor productive to insert multiple hedging statements inside every sentence where we talk about religious beliefs or dogma. In our article on Jesus, we write "Christians believe that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of a virgin, performed miracles, founded the Church, died by crucifixion as a sacrifice to achieve atonement, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven, from which he will return." We don't say – and we don't need to say – "Christians believe that Jesus was conceived by a purported Holy Spirit, born of a woman who claimed to be a virgin, performed acts that Christians claim were miracles, founded the Church, died by crucifixion, rose from a poorly-documented death, and ascended into a supposed heaven..."

Above, Liz raises a much more pertinent point, in that the material cited is some decades old, and may not reflect current Roman Catholic beliefs. As such, it may be worthwhile to review the content in that light, and consider whether Wikipedia should address it in the context of historical or current Catholic doctrine—particularly given that it is prominently placed in the lede of the article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems obvious to me that there is a difference between non-falsifiable religious beliefs and demonstrably false scientific claims that happen to be located in a religious article, but this is not really the venue for that discussion and I won't waste your time or my own with breaking that down. The statements about the "harm" of homosexuality aren't the only false claims that Esoglou has inserted, and I've also documented a selection of instances of original research and frivolous tagging intended to make the articles conform to his own personal beliefs rather than to reliable sources. If it were only the first three diffs, I would not have brought the issue to ANI. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I will be extremely honest and frank here by saying that both Roscelese and Esoglou are intractable POV-pushers bent on shaping articles to their world view. The only way the integrity of Wikipedia is maintained is by both of them canceling each other out. Therefore I will only support a topic-ban for Esoglou if one is also enacted for Roscelese as well. AN/I is a poor venue to bring this kind of content dispute, it is more of an attempt to summon a lynch-mob to remove your competition from the article so that you can steamroll it. If Roscelese truly seeks relief then she will take the time and file a WP:RFCU which would be the best venue for discipline. Elizium23 (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Alternately, if you have any evidence of my inserting insulting factual inaccuracy, deliberately misrepresenting sources, engaging in original research, or wasting everyone's time with frivolous tags, you could start a thread to present those diffs, as I have done. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I have evidence of your consistently condescending attitude which always hovers at the twilight edge of WP:CIVIL, and there is clear evidence of your tendency to edit-war in the last two years' worth of block log, which Esoglou does not have. He is admittedly disingenuous and hard to reason with at times, but I personally feel that his abortion topic-ban was an unfortunate casualty as a result of his indelicacy around such a contentious topic which has had its share of trips to WP:ARBCOM. Esoglou should be commended and awarded a Purple Heart for his ability and willingness to step into contentious topics such as homosexuality and defend the alternative viewpoint, which is one that is vanishingly rare around these parts, and probably always has been. Wikipedia needs both of you, but there are more of you than there are of him and me, which is what concerns me the most with these frequent trips to WP:ANI and other drama-venues in search of a lynch mob. Elizium23 (talk) 06:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm curious, and I'm simultaneously too lazy to look at your contribs for this, so I'll ask you for testimony on this. What dispute resolution venues did you attempt before coming here? You've mentioned two warnings to his user talk page. Apparently this article went to WP:RSN previously, which clearly wasn't too satisfying for you. Did you try WP:DRN? Did you try WP:RFC? WikiProject talk pages? Anything else which would befit a content dispute before zooming straight into ANI looking for a drama fest? Elizium23 (talk) 06:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

RSN is not a venue for user behavior. (Nor is DR or RFC.) As should be obvious, when consensus at RSN disagreed with me, I went with consensus rather than continuing to try to undermine the sources. If the community here thinks ANI isn't the right venue, I'd be happy to try RFC/U instead. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

I think I'll let this comment, particularly the beginning of the last paragraph, speak for itself. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Even if I sometimes wonder if her declared sexual preference may underlie her annoyance That is totally out of line, Esoglou. Just unacceptable. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I concur. Roscelese and I very rarely agree on content, but the comments made about her personal life and preferences is completely over the line and unacceptable. GregJackP Boomer! 19:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I apologize to Liz and GregJackP and to anybody else offended, for saying that this is an idea that sometimes comes to my mind but that I cast aside, believing instead that Roscelese is acting in good faith. Roscelese herself has not objected to my mentioning my rejection of this idea, perhaps because she explicitly says that I do not act in good faith but am out to advance an agenda. Not even here have I said that her personal beliefs are what inspires her editing. Esoglou (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry you were offended is very different from I'm sorry I said something offensive. It's the same as the difference between I'm sorry I did wrong, and I'm sorry I got caught. There's no excuse – none – to pull another editor's sexual orientation (openly declared or not) into a content dispute. If this were really an idea that crossed your mind and then was immediately discarded, there would be no reason at all to mention it.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt before, as purely on the merits of the diffs presented here I felt that Roscelese was reading too much into your edits. Now, however, you have clearly crossed into personalizing the dispute. Drawing attention to the other party's sexual orientation as if it were in any way relevant to this discussion strongly suggests that you aren't capable of approaching LGBT-related topics calmly and neutrally, and indicates that a topic ban may be warranted after all. Frankly, Roscelese didn't do a very persuasive job of selling the topic ban; you damned yourself. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that it is shameful to be "queer", the term Roscelese herself uses? There is nothing shameful about one's sexual orientation No more than about one's religious beliefs. I think you should apologize to Roscelese for thus insulting her. Unlike you, she doesn't think it offensive to describe herself in that way, and I presume you don't think she is saying something offensive when she refers to my religious beliefs. Esoglou (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

....just...gobsmacked. Support topic ban, support block for trolling. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Support topic ban and block per TenOfAllTrades. Esoglou, it isn't about me being offended, it is about inappropriate comments as TOAT explained above. GregJackP Boomer! 23:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Well then, if the community judges that Wikipedians should be banned for admitting they had wondered whether an editor's edits on the topic of red hair were influenced by the fact of having red hair, I presume that, along with banning me for admitting such a thought but at the same time declaring my belief that the editor's edits were nonetheless honest and good-faith, it will also ban Roscelese for actually declaring that my religious beliefs are the reason for my edits. Is that the community's judgement? Esoglou (talk) 06:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

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

You misread. What I said was that Roscelese's sexual preferences were not a basis for her edits, in spite of my sometimes wondering whether it was so. Roscelese on the contrary has accused me of editing on the basis of my religious beliefs. Esoglou (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

You're only digging yourself in. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

I concur and a reading of Roscelese's page shows she lets her personal bias reflected her editing and she uses threats of topic bans in order to intimidate others. If someone needs to be topic banned I would nominate her. She plays games and is disruptive to other editors who are exercising good faith in order to push her pov. 208.54.40.234 (talk) 07:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

As another editor on this article I have to say that I share Roscelese's concerns. I think it's very important for the article to set out the position of the Roman Catholic Church on various aspects relating to the issue of homosexuality (but also including dissent and the real world impact from that position). Where Esoglou does this then his contributions are very welcome. The problem I have, however, is that he does not want to seem to summarise anything in the article. If he thinks a point is not propely balanced he simply responds by removing the whole section and replaces it with a chunk of text taken from some Vatican document of the other - thinking that only the Church's own words carry any weight. But this makes the article awkward to read. In truth these document are often long-winded and deliberately obtuse. The most salient points will easily be missed by all but the most patient and determined reader. There's also a bit of 'sleight of hand' in them in the sense that they seem to say one thing on the surface, but the intention can be actually quite different. I'd like to see the aricle be a bit more straight-talking and less "tricksy", and I'm not sure Esoglou can do that. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

If this continues to be sparsely attended and I do an RFC/U instead, I'll let you know, as you seem to have similar problems with the user. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

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

There are two POV pushing and largely SPA editors who are constantly attempting to distort the neutrality of the article with their often poorly written edits containing thinly veiled personal commentary and soapboxing as well as reliance on some highly selective and POV citations. Esolglou is *not* one of these two editors. Anyone should be able to see from the talk page who are most concerned to push their own personal agendas as well as being constantly offensive. Don't let these two editors fool you that Esolglou is somehow the culprit. Afterwriting (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I know that you think that, but you haven't actually presented any evidence, so I'm not sure how you expect anyone to take you seriously. Please don't mistake your sulking over my adding reliably cited information that you find personally distasteful for a legitimate behavioral issue. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

This is typical of the bitchy comments which Roscelese keeps serving up as her way of trying to bully and intimidate other editors on the talk pages of articles and other editors. It is her and the other idiological agenda editor who keep distorting the neutrality and factual accuracy of the article with their simplistic generalisations based on selective sources. She doesn't fool me for a moment that this is all really about her misuse of Wikipedia to campaign for her own personal agendas. We should not have to keep tolerating this kind of soapboxing nonsense. Afterwriting (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to engage with you in this thread anymore. If you're just going to complain about my personality instead of presenting any evidence of wrongdoing, there isn't exactly anything I can refute; it's all very well to claim there's a content issue, but the fact that when confronted with a request for any evidence all you can say is "she's sooooo bitchy!" should make it clear that that's not what's going on here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

For your information, as you well know, I did *not* in fact ever say "she's sooooo bitchy!". If you choose to disingenuously misrepresent and exaggerate the comments of other editors then you need to accept responsibility for this. I suppose you imagine that your own previous comments falsely accusing me of "sulking" were somewhow not complaining about my personality? Very interesting. Afterwriting (talk) 05:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

You dismissed a (female) editor's complaints by calling them "bitchy". That's actually not OK, no more than Esoglu's attempt to draw attention to the same editor's sexual orientation was OK. If these are the standards of behavior at Talk:Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism, then clearly some outside administrative oversight is necessary. MastCell ^Talk 23:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

You can impute whatever suspected motivations you imagine to my wording but your interpretation of this is still completely mistaken. Whatever connotations of sexist offensiveness the use of the word "bitchy" might have in your part of the world, which I assume is the United States, here in Australia the word does not carry anything like this weight of connotation and is unlikely to be reacted to with indignant outrage. Here it is an everyday word which is commonly used by both men and women to refer to someone's snarky comments regardless of that person's gender. For an Australian to say that anyone's (male or female) comments are "bitchy" is not anything like the same thing as calling a person a "b....". So please don't project your own culture's assumptions about language onto my moral character. Your criticism of me on this issue is 100% wrong. And I trust that this is now the end of this unecessary conflict. Afterwriting (talk) 12:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The behavior at that article has often been atrocious. To the extent that there are two sides in current debates (a useful oversimplification), each seems more interested in framing the article in terms calculated to offend the other rather than in improving encyclopedic value, and each seems intent on goading the other into making damfool offensive statements on discussion pages. This is not constructive behavior. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I've undone the completely inappropriate closure of this discussion by its initiator. If Roscelese wanted to withdraw this request and pursue related issues elsewhere, that would be one thing. But trying to terminate a discussion that's not going their way in the manner of an independent closer, marked by snarky comments about editors who dispute their positions, is uncivil and disruptive, and, in my opinion, not up to the standards of honesty and candor that should be expected of discussion here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you can't actually compel me to un-withdraw a request I do not want to pursue in this forum. If you have your own problems with Esoglou, I have no objection to your using my diffs, but you have absolutely no business removing my statement of withdrawal as though you were forcing me to pursue this issue. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: It is interesting that people like Esoglou, who does not even have the most basic grasp about the difference between sexual orientation and sexual preference, are so heavily editing an article relevant to homosexuality. Would WP:competence be relevant? Cavann (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Close this discussion without action per John Carter. I think this is a typical situation of a heated content dispute, when one of the sides brings another to the ANI. A contentious discussion on ANI follows, with one of the sides "catching" another on various "offenses", politically incorrect statements, etc. One should also remember that statements related to complex cultural issues, such as that one, can be interpreted differently by people from different cultures. Looking from my perspective, none of the sides said anything really offensive. My very best wishes (talk) 02:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Note that I already closed this discussion because I think RFC/U is a better venue. Hullabaloo Wolfowitz re-opened it without asking me. I don't think "close without action" is the right way to put it because that implies that the whole discussion has taken place and no fault has been found, rather than what actually happened: that the filing party withdrew in order to better prepare evidence since it was clear that more explanation of how they added content not in the sources, deliberately made work for other editors, etc. was required for the benefit of the many users unfamiliar with the subject area or the editing dispute, and not just the diffs of the behavior alone. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    • If you want to withdraw it, a simple statement is appropriate - not a unilateral termination of discussion with slams bordering on personal attackson editors who disagree with you. This is a community process, not your own talk page, or a place where you (or any editor) vents because discussion doesn't go their way. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 10:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Religious POV-pusher engaged in disruptive edits

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

Evidence: [13], [14], [15], [16], and [17]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Can you point to which guideline or policy says that complaints about other users must be neutral?--v/r - TP 00:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

You are right of course; a complaint doesn't have to be worded in a neutral manner. However, it makes the possibility of WP:BOOMERANG less likely if we stick to the objective facts. Ignocrates (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

What's so complicated about finding secondary sources? He does not want to do it and he scorns at it. I have nothing against his religion, since I have warned someone seemingly atheist in precisely the same terms, see [18]. So, I warned a religious POV-pusher and an atheist POV-pusher, I am not biased for or against religion. If he would have chosen to obey Wikipedia policies after being warned, I would not have had anything against him. The matter has been settled once and for all by WP:RNPOV and all editors have to obey this policy. And even more the basic policies of WP:SOURCES and WP:PRIMARY, which apply to all articles. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

And I do not have to be neutral in respect to someone violating basic Wikipedia policies. I am very much biased in favor of all users obeying them. This is a case wherein being non-neutral does not violate WP:NPOV. No editor is required to be neutral from applying basic Wikipedia policies. All editors are encouraged to apply them and correct those who fail to apply them. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry you are having such a bad experience, but I have found Davidbena to be very reasonable when not being threatened. I note that he received a warning on his user page before having WP:TPG explained to him. Ignocrates (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not hold against him his error, I hold against him persisting in error. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Well, I do not object to this solution. But, you are not an admin and here is the admin noticeboard, they decide what's to be done. Non-admins may only report problems here, they do not decide solutions. If it will eventually end in a ban, it is better that the ban is applied sooner rather than later. He has expressed the idea that the fact that he studied at an Yeshiva and that he employs "Jewish logic" (sic) gives him a blank permit to engage in original research, in copiously citing primary sources and an exemption from using secondary sources. Until he reforms such attitude, nothing good is to come from him as a Wikipedia editor, except perhaps spell-checking articles. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Not exactly true. Anyone can determine solutions. This is a collaborative project and admins are not 'leaders' in any fashion. We merely are trusted with the tools. If you and Ignocrates can devise a solution, then take it and let's close this thread.--v/r - TP 00:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Anyone is free to make suggestions for how to resolve disputes. Rather than meting out sanctions to a new editor, I propose that Davidbena abide by a voluntary 1RR restriction for the next two weeks until he gets up to speed. Ignocrates (talk) 00:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

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

WP:TLDR by Davidbena--v/r - TP 00:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Yemenite Ketubba (Marriage Contract) [Yemenite Jews] Introduction The ketubba was enacted by Šimon b. Šaṭaḥ (TB Šabbat 14b) so that it might not be a light thing for a man to divorce his wife. The enactment provides for a man's wife to receive a fixed sum of money, usually accruing from his property, in the event of his divorcing her or of his predeceasing her. R. Šim‘on b. Gamli’el, however, held the view that the ketubba was a teaching derived from the Law (TB Ketubbot 10a). Whatever its origins, the practice has spread itself since ancient times amongst all the communities of Israel, the law prescribing that the ketubba be drawn up before the night of the wedding, and read aloud during the ceremony. In Yemen, the custom was to read the ketubba before the actual betrothals took place, so that if the bridegroom wished to back down, he could still do so. The reading was performed by the mori (rabbi) who read the contract while standing. When the mori concluded its reading, he would roll it up and hand the ketubba to the bridegroom, at which time the bridegroom stood up and commenced to make the benedictions and the actual betrothals. As in most contracts made between two parties, there are mutual obligations, conditions and terms of reciprocity for such a contract to hold up as good. Thus said R. Yannai: The conditions written in a ketubba, [when breached], are tantamount to [forfeiture of] the ketubba. A woman who denied coitus unto her husband, a condition of the ketubba, was considered legal grounds for forfeiture of her marriage contract, with the principal and additional jointure being written off. (See translated text of ketubba for a broader understanding of these terms.) In former times, they would deduct seven denarii per week from the dower's price of her ketubba, for as long as she persisted in her state of rebellion against her husband by denying him to cohabit with her. The seven denarii were fixed in accordance with the number of unwritten obligations a woman was seen as having towards her husband: to grind, to bake, to cook, to launder, to breastfeed her son, to make-up his bed, and to spin wool. A man, likewise, if he denied coitus unto his wife, was formerly compelled to add an additional three denarii per week unto the dower's price of her ketubba, until at last he acquiesced to his wife's desires. These three denarii were fixed in accordance with the three major responsibilities a man was seen as having towards his wife from the standpoint of the Law (Ex. 21:10): to provide food, to provide clothing and jewellery, and to cohabit with his wife. In Yemen, the financial obligations pledged by a man to his wife were never seen as fictitious, as they are often viewed today. Rather, all obligations were legally binding and enforced by the courts. If a man divorced his wife without due cause, the court would oblige him to pay his wife the monies pledged in her ketubba. However, in cases where the woman sued for a divorce, it was sometimes seen as a breach of contract, and the husband was not always compelled in such cases to pay her ketubba. One such case had arisen in Ṣan‘ā’ where the daughter of the Chief Rabbi and President of the Court, Yiḥye Yiṣḥāq Halevi (1867–1932), was married to Yiḥye b. Nissim Manṣūra, and their marriage had fallen apart. The woman returned to live in her father's house, without receiving a divorce. Her father soon began to appeal to his fellow jurists to force the husband to dissolve their marriage by giving the estranged wife a bill of divorce, as also to make good all payments in her ketubba. The Rabbi's daughter claimed that she found her husband intolerable, or what is known in Hebrew as me’is ‛alay. The fellow jurists, R. Yiḥye Qafiḥ and R. Yiḥye Abyaḏ, contended that he ought, indeed, to divorce his wife, but not be compelled to pay her ketubba, citing that a woman was not to be believed when saying that her husband was intolerable, lest perhaps she laid eyes upon some other man. Now there arose a great dispute over this matter, dividing the community. Some said that he ought to divorce his wife and to pay her ketubba, while others said that he ought to divorce her, yet not pay her ketubba. At length, after much coercive speech and prodding, the husband divorced his wife, yet was she not entitled to any settlement. He eventually went off and was married to a different woman. The actual payment of a woman's ketubba is regulated by Jewish law. Maran (Rabbi Yosef Karo) wrote: A widow does not exact her ketubba, the principal (‛iqar) and the additional jointure (tosefeth), except by being administered a sworn oath. The purpose of the oath was to ensure that, when the widow came to exact the pledges made by her hus-band in the ketubba, she had not taken away, prior to the Court's dispensing of her husband's property, any of her husband's goods, or had forfeited her ketubba, or sold it to her husband. Even so, in Yemen, the custom was different. According to a responsum written by the Court at Ṣan‘ā’ in 1911 to R. Avraham Kook, Chief Rabbi of Jaffa: "...they (the Court) would, for the most part, strive to make a com-promise between them (i.e., the widow and the heirs to their father's pro-perty), while forgoing the necessity of bringing her under an oath. In most cases, her sons are the heirs, and are quick to exonerate their mother. But those heirs who stand on the letter of the law, they bring her under oath." The ketubba which we have selected is unique in that it bears the signature of one of the greatest Rabbis ever produced by Yemen, viz., R. Yiḥye b. Yosef Ṣāliḥ, known by the acronym Mahriṣ. Today, it is found in the Ketubba collections at the library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of New York, collection no. JTS KET 412, written on paper and measuring 32.8 x 22.1 cm. The handwriting is believed to be that of Mahriṣ. The year in which the ketubba was written was 1747 CE (corresponding with the year 2058 of the Seleucid Era, or what is also known as the year of Alexander, or the Era of Contracts), written in the city of Ṣan‘ā’, some sixty-seven years after the community's return from their Exile to Mawza‛. The old Jewish Quarter (al-Sā’ila) had been demised of its former status, while the new quarter had just been built without the walls of the old city. During that same year, the community would lose their respected and beloved Rabbi, David b. Yiḥye Ḥoṭer, who served as President of the Court at Ṣan‘ā’. So, too, the secretary of the Court, R. Yosef b. Sa‛adia Bešārī, a man responsible for making a written record of all deeds transacted in the Court, had ceased to work in this profession. בשם רחמן בְּשֵׁם אֲשֶׁר לוֹ הַגְּדוּלָּה / וּמרוֹמָם עַל כָּל בְּרָכָה וּתהִלָּה / בְּשָׁעָה מְעוּלָּה וְעוֹנָה מְהוּלָּלָה / וְיָד וְשֵׁם וּתהִלָּה / וְדִיצָה וְצַהֲלָה / וְחֵן וְחֶסֶד וְחֶמלָה / וּמִלּוּי כָּל שְׁאָלָה / לֶחָתָן וְלַכַּלָּה / וּלכָל הַקְּהִלָּה הַנִּקהָלָה / זֶרַע יִשׂרָאֵל הַסְּגֻלָּה / יָשִׂישׂוּ וְיִשׂמָחוּ / וְכַשּׁוֹשָׁן יַפרִיחוּ / וְכַבֹּשֶׂם יָפִיחוּ / וְיִבָּנוּ וְיַצלִיחוּ / כְּוַיִּבנוּ וַיַּצלִיחוּ / מָצָא אִשָּׁה מָצָא טוֹב וַיָּפֶק רָצוֹן מֵיְיָ / בַּיִת וָהוֹן נַחֲלַת אָבוֹת וּמֵיְיָ אִשָּׁה מַשׂכָּלֶת בְּמַעֲלֵי שַׁבָּא דְּהוּא תִּשׁעָה יוֹמִין לְחֹדֶשׁ שְׁבָט שְׁנַת תְּרֵין אַלפִין וְחַמשִׁין וְתַמנֵי שְׁנִין לִשׁטַרֵי בְּמַאתָּא קַאע בִּיר אַלעֲזַבּ דְּעַל בֵּירִין דְּמַיִין נָבעִין דִּילַהּ מוֹתְבַהּ בְּיוֹמָא דְּנָן בִּזכוּת אַברָהָם אֲבוּנָא אֵיך יוֹסֵף ןׂ סַאלִם ןׂ סְלַימַאן אלהשׁאשׁ אלמְכֻנָּא אלפְתַיחִי חַתנָא אֲמַר לַהּ לגַזאל בִּנתּ יוסף ןׂ סַאלִם צַאלִח הַמְּכֻנָּא אלחַידַּאנִי כַּלְּתָא בְּתוּלְתָא הֲוִי לִי לְאִנתּוּ כְּדָת מֹשֶׁה וְיִשׂרָאֵל וַאֲנָא בְּמֵימְרָא דִּשׁמַיָּא אֶפלַח וְאוֹקֵיר וַאֲסוֹבַר וַאֲזוּן וַאֲפַרנֵיס וַאֲכַסֵּי יָתִיכִי כְּהִלכָּת גּוּברִין יְהוּדָאִין דְּפָלְחִין וּמוֹקְרִין וּמסוֹבְרִין וְזָנִין וּמפַרנְסִין וּמכַסִּין יָת נְשֵׁיהוֹן בִּקשׁוֹט וִיהֵבנָא לִיכִי מוֹהַר בְּתוּלִיכִי כֶּסֶף זוּזֵי מָאתַן דְּאִנּוּן מִזּוּזֵי כַּספָּא דָּכיָא עַסרִין זוּזִין וְחַמשָׁה זוּזֵי דְּחַאזוּ לִיכִי וּמזוֹנִיכִי וּכסוּתִיכִי וְסוּפקִיכִי וּמֵיעַל לְוָתִיכִי כְּאוֹרַח כָּל אַרעָא וּצבִיאַת כַּלתָא דָּא וַהֲוָת לֵיהּ לְאִנתּוּ וְדָא נְדּוּניָא דְּהַנעֵילַת לֵיהּ מִאיַה' קַפלֵה פֻצַׂה הַכֹּל נִתקַבַּל חָתָן זֶה וּבָא לְיָדוֹ וְנַעֲשָׂה בִּרשׁוּתוֹ וְזָקַף הַכֹּל עַל עַצמוֹ בְּמִלוָה וּרשׁוּ וְדִי יָהֵב לַהּ בַּעלַהּ חַתנָא דְּנָן בְּמַתַּנתָּא קַמַּייתָּא מִאיַה' קַפלֵה פֻצַׂה וְדָרְתָא בִּמדוֹר יְהוּדָאֵי בְּמַפְּקָנַהּ וּמַעֲלָנַה וְכָל צוּרכָּהּ דְּחַאזוּ לַהּ מֵאַרעִית תְּהוֹמָא וְעַד רוּם רְקִיעָא וְרָצָה וְהוֹסִיף לָהּ תּוֹסֶפֶת בְּסוֹף מוּהרָהּ מִאיַה' קַפלֵה פֻצַׂה אַלכֻּל מִן הַדֵׂה אלקִפַאל אלפֻצַׂה אלמַדׂכּוּרַה פַוק אלַּדִׂי יַצִח פִי כֻּל מִאיַה' קַפלֵה מִנְּהַא אתׂנַין וְעִשׁרִין קַפלֵה פֻצַׂה טַיְּיבַּה כׂאלִצַה בִּוַזן אלצאגַה אלצַנעאנִי אלמַערוּף לִאלפֻצׂה פִי מְדִינַה' צַנעַא פִי סוּק אלצֻוַוג וְכָּך אֲמַר לַנָא חַתנָא דְּנָן אַחרָיוּת כְּתוּבָּה דָא כּוּלַּהּ עִיקָר וּנדּוּניָא וּמַתַּנתָּא קַמַּייתָּא וְדָרְתָא וְתוֹסֶפתָּא עִם כָּל שְׁאָר תְּנַאיֵי כְּתוּבָּה קַבֵּילִית עֲלַאי וְעַל יָרְתאי בַּתרַאי וְעַל כָּל שְׁפַר אֲרַג נִכסִין וְקִניָינִין דְּאִית לִי תְּחוֹת כָּל שְׁמַיָּא דִּקנֵיתִי וְדַעֲתִיד אֲנָא לְמִקנֵי מִקַּרקְעֵי וּמִטַּלטְלֵי מִטַּלטְלֵי אַגַּב מְקַרקְעֵי כּוּלְּהוֹן יְהוֹן אַחרָאִין וְעַרבָּאִין לִכתוּבָּה דָּא כּוּלַּהּ עִיקָר וּנדּוּניָא וּמַתַּנתָּא קַמַּייתָּא וְדָרְתָא וְתוֹסֶפתָּא לְאִתפְּרָעָא מִנְּהוֹן בְּחַיַּאי וּבָתַר מָוֶת וְאַפִילּוּ מִגְּלִימָא דְּאַכִּתפַּאי וְקָנִינוּ מִן יוֹסֵף חַתנָא דְּנָן לכַלתָא גַזאל דָּא עַל כָּל מַאי דְּכַתִיב וּמפָרַשׁ לְעֵיל קִניָן שָׁלֵם חָמוּר גָּמוּר מֵעַכשָׁו בִּכְלִי הַכָּשֵׁר לִקנוֹת בּוֹ בְּבִיטּוּל כָּל מוּדַעֵי וּתנַאיֵי עַד סוֹפְהוֹן וּשׁטָר כְּתוּבָּה דָּא לָא כְּאַסמַכתָּא וְלָא כְּטוּפסֵי דִּשׁטַרֵי אֵלָא כְּחוֹמֶר חוֹזֶק כָּל שִׁטרֵי כְּתוּבּוֹת הַנּוֹהֲגוֹת בְּיִשׂרָאֵל וְכַהוֹגֶן וּכתִקּוּן רִזִ"לִ וְהַכֹּל שְׁרִיר וְקַיָּים. דוד ןׂ יחיא יש"ל הצעיר יחיא בן כמה"ר יוסף נע"ג English Translation [We bear witness] this day, on the Sabbath eve (Friday), corresponding to the ninth day of the month of Ševaṭ, [in] the year two-thousand and fifty-eight of the Year of Alexander, in the town wherein lies the quarter known as 'The Single's Well' (Bīr al-'Azab), [a city] situate upon her wells of flowing water, by the merit of Abraham our forefather, how that Yosef, the son of Sālim, the son of Slaymān al-Hišāš, who is called [also] by the name al-Ftayḥī, being the bridegroom, said to the virgin bride, Ghazāl, the daughter of Yosef, the son of Sālīm Ṣāliḥ, who is called [also] by the name al-Ḥaydānī, being the virgin bride, "Be my wife, in keeping with the religion of Moses and Israel, and I shall, with God's help, work, and honour, and sustain, and nourish, and support, and invest you with clothing, according to the manner of Jewish men who work, and honour, and sustain, and nourish, and support, and clothe their wives in good faith, for which I have proffered you the dower's price of your virginity, two-hundred silver denarii, in which [sum] there are twenty-five denarii of pure silver coin in specie [of that kind which was formerly used in the Holy Šeqel], of which things you are most worthy, as also your sustenance, and your apparel, and your conjugal rights, that I might come upon you according to the way of the whole world." Now this bride consented [to such matters], and she has become unto him a wife. Now this largess (dowry) which she brought into him [upon wedlock] is valued at one-hundred silver-[alloyed] qaflas. All has been received by this bridegroom, and has come into his hand, and has become his possession, and he has incurred every-thing upon himself as it were a loan [given unto him], and a debt. That which the husband, the said bridegroom, has vouchsafed unto her as an initial gift is valued at one-hundred silver-[alloyed] qaflas, and a courtyard (dwelling place) amongst those places inhabited by Jews, allowing her to go out and to come him, and supplying her with all that which she might stand in need of, which are but fitting unto her, from the depths of the earth [below] unto the height of heaven [above]. And he has desired, moreover, to confer upon her an additional jointure subsequent to that which is prescribed of the dower's price, the value of which [jointure] is one-hundred silver-[alloyed] qaflas. All are comprised of those silver-[alloyed] qaflas mentioned above, which in every one-hundred qaflas of those calculated are twenty-two pure and unalloyed silver qaflas, based after the weight of the Ṣan‘ānī, jewelers, and which same [standard] is recognized as silver in the city of Ṣan‘ā’, in the Silversmiths' Marketplace. And thus did the said bridegroom say unto us, that "the guarantee given for this marriage contract, in its entirety [viz.], the principal, and the largesse, and the initial gift, and the courtyard, and the additional jointure, with all the other conditions [written down] in the marriage contract, I have taken [them] upon myself and upon my heirs that shall come after me, and have made subject [to the conditions of this contract] the choicest of property and acquisitions acquired by me beneath the whole of heaven, whether those things which I have [already] purchased or that which I stand to purchase in the future, whether it be of estates or of chattels, or the appurtenances which lie upon lands of estate; all of them shall become the collateral and security for [payment of] this marriage contract in its entirety – the principal, and the largesse, and the initial gift, and the courtyard, and the additional jointure – for the reimbursement thereof, whether in my lifetime or after death, and even if it entails being stripped of the robe upon my shoulder." Now we have purchased from Yosef, the said bridegroom, for this bride, Ghazāl, concerning all that which is written or expressly stated above, what is considered a most complete act of purchase, having the full force and validity [of all other legal transactions], taking effect from this very moment by virtue of [his taking hold onto] a decent piece of clothing with which he disavows all declarations and stipulations [that he might have made to the effect of his being compelled against his will to marry the said bride], even unto the very last statements [that were made by him]. Moreover, [the terms of] this marriage contract are not [misconstrued as] a mere 'assumption' [of things which are to be], neither like unto those pre-drafted forms used in [some] contracts, but rather like unto those which have the severity and force of all marriage contracts practised in Israel, as which is right, and in accordance with what was enacted by the Rabbis, of blessed memory. Now all [that which is herein written] has our assurances of being firm and established [In witness whereof we have affixed our names and seals:] David, the son of Yiḥye, may his name live forever The Younger, Yiḥye the son of our honourable teacher, the Rabbi, Yosef, whose inheritance is in the Garden of Eden. Bibliography text Yuda Levi Nahum, Misefunoth Yehudei Teiman. Tel-Aviv 1986 Yehudah Nini (editor), al-Misawwadeh: Court ledger of Ṣan‘ā’'s Jewish community in the 18th century; Hebrew Translation by Nissim Benyamin Gamli’eli. Tel-Aviv 2001. Yosef Qāfiḥ, Halikhot Teiman. Jerusalem 1961. Ketavim. Jerusalem 1989. Amram Qoraḥ, Sa‘arat Teiman. Jerusalem 1954. Yosef Tobi, Anecdotes on the Jews of Yemen from Responsa. A Tribe and Nation, VII (1973), pp. 271-291. Shimon Tzalach (Ṣāliḥ) – editor, Tiklal ‘Eṣ Ḥayyim Hashalem. Jerusalem 1971. Shemu’el Yavne’eli, Masa‘ Teiman. Tel-Aviv 1952.

This is an example of a rookie mistake. Davidbena, AN/I only deals with matters of conduct, not article content. Please respond to my draft proposal above and indicate whether you would be willing to abide by a voluntary 1RR restriction for the next two weeks. Ignocrates (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

You were attempting to persuade multiple veteran editors to renounce to basic Wikipedia policies in order to accept your fringe view as valid. You have been warned multiple times that it is fringe and that you need to make verifiable edits through citing secondary sources. If you have no sources, no amount of "logic" is going to convince other editors to accept your content as valid. Wikipedia policies are mandatory for all editors. If you want to discuss Wikipedia policies the first step would be to learn them, apply them, appreciate them, understand their purpose and only then try to improve them. You cannot claim that as a Yeshiva graduate you are exempted from what is mandatory for all editors. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Davidbena, I'm sorry if I was not sufficiently clear. A 1RR editing restriction means you are limited to one reversion on a given article page within a 24 hour period. There is no reason to refrain from editing completely; otherwise, you will have no way to continue to improve your skills. The point is to improve your skills without causing conflict in the process. So, now that I have clarified what 1RR means, are you willing to abide by a voluntary 1RR restriction for the next two weeks? Ignocrates (talk) 01:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

A 1RR editing restriction would apply only to article pages. You are free to express your opinions on talk pages and in forums like any other editor, as long as you continue to do so in a respectful manner that is consistent with WP:Wikiquette guidelines. Ignocrates (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

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

No, not exactly. You may make as much changes to the article page as you wish. However, if another editor undoes one of your changes, you may only change it back once. If it's undone a second time, you're restricted from changing it back a 2nd time. Scenario: You add into an article about Bob that "Bob likes bananas". EditorABC comes along and changes it to "Bob likes Oranges". You 'revert' back to "Bob likes Bananas." Up to now, everyone is A-Okay. However, EditorABC comes back and, once again, changes the article to "Bob likes Oranges". If you change it back to "Bob likes Bananas" again, then you'll be blocked from editing.--v/r - TP 02:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. This self-imposed editing restriction is really quite modest compared to the sanctions often handed out here, and it applies for only a short period. However, because it applies to all articles, you will effectively be prevented from edit warring anywhere on Wikipedia during your two week training period. If you find yourself right back here in two weeks for the same reasons, I think you can anticipate a different outcome. Ignocrates (talk) 03:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

This proposed solution does not appear to address an important issue. In the first diff cited by Tgeorgescu[19], Davidbena said "the Hebrew Bible, is an accurate historical record of events that transpired long ago." There needs to be evidence that Davidbena understands that is not a valid premise for making article content decisions in Wikipedia. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I think David gets the idea that his editing was problematic. We don't need to beat and mold him into the perfect editor in 1 ANI thread. He's being receptive to criticism right now so let's see how Ignocrates guidance goes and leave him to it.--v/r - TP 11:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

For a Bible thumper it may be very difficult to understand that the Bible is not wholly and objectively true. But as long as he keeps his faith in the infallibility of the Bible completely separate from his Wikipedia activities, he could be a good editor. Some years ago I did not know that one has to use reliable sources in order to edit Wikipedia, but when asked to consider it, I understood this is required from everybody and I complied with this request. For me, the decision was between complying and continuing to edit and quitting in protest; I was not willing to create problems through my edits. This does not imply that I lost faith in the truth of my contributions, but I have understood that they are required to be encyclopedically verifiable. And verifiable means having reliable sources.

Now, I did not say that theology isn't allowed on Wikipedia, what I said is that theology does not trump history and that history does not trump theology (that's the gist of WP:RNPOV: theology and history are distinct and compartmentalized, even when in dialog with each other). If he could find some theological source saying the Gospel of Mattew was written in Aramaic, he could affirm something like "Evangelicals believe as a matter of true faith that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Aramaic, while Catholics and Eastern Orthodox don't believe it that way." But I am afraid that today such view is fringe even among the Evangelicals, while in Judaism it is a non-issue. That's why he could not find sources: there is scarcely any scholar worth his salt which would put that in a book or article, i.e. in other ways than opinion hold in the past but now abandoned by scholars. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Bible Thumper That shows your prejudice and intolerance of a persons belief. Your behavior is not tolerated. I am giving you a verbal censure here and on your talk page. You definitely know better but apparently could not resist the slighting of another editor for his religious beliefs. 208.54.40.234 (talk) 08:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. We all have private POVs. Hopefully, with practice, he will learn to edit from a neutral point of view and no one will be able to tell what they are. Let's give this a few more weeks and see how it goes. Ignocrates (talk) 13:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure 1RR on the article is the restriction most called for here, considering that Davidbena hasn't edited Gospel of Matthew since 22 August. Since then, he has been writing on the talkpage only. Of course that's a better place for it; but the current problem is surely db's bloating-up the talkpage with repetitious, overlong, multitudinous posts and his certainty that he understands wikipedia policy better than experienced editors, assuring the people who explain policy to him that it is they who "misunderstand the rules of Wikipedia".[20] There's nothing quite like such confident wikilawyering from a new editor for wearing everybody out, especially when it's coupled with calls for special consideration for being new. Davidbena, please read WP:REHASH: "If your arguments are rejected, bring better arguments, don’t simply repeat the same ones. And most importantly, examine your argument carefully, in light of what others have said.". Some restriction regarding use of the talkpage seems to be called for here, since Davidbena has ignored sensible appeals like In ictu ocoli's "Now, please do not quote the Bible or the Talmud on this Talk page again" or "Please please please please stop posting WP:PRIMARYSOURCES". (Davidbena's response to that was "Why are you so antagonistic?") Nobody minds giving extra time to teaching newbies, but constructive, experienced editors should enjoy some protection from having their time and energy wasted on those who will not hear. I agree we can start by hoping that this ANI discussion has had a good effect, but if there's no improvement shown soon, we shouldn't wait long to institute a topic ban. In view of Davidbena's recent edit on Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews, perhaps it needs to be for more than just the Gospel of Matthew. Bishonen | talk 13:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC).

• Comment - agree with User:Bishonen, thank you for notifying me of this thread. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
• Idem. Nishidani (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I will be more cautious now about editing existing articles, and I will seek only the prior approval of the inner-staff of editors participating in "Talk" forums for each article before I paste any modifications. I'm terribly sorry for this misunderstanding. Davidbena (talk) 01:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Davidbena - I'm afraid that won't be enough, we don't have "forums" - see header of Talk:Gospel of Matthew "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.", in reality is much easier to deal with edits to articles, other editors can simply undo with a click, wheras with filling Talk pages with original research (and WP:PRIMARYSOURCES) is much more timewasting for everyone. I don't think Ignocrates solution is going to work and as "If anyone is interested that I cite more proofs to this effect, I shall be happy to do so. " on Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews indicates you're already posting WP:PRIMARYSOURCES(Jerome, Papias, Eusebius are primary sources not modern scholarship) on a page Ignocrates is working hard to get to Featured Article status at the same time as Ignocrates is in his own words "trying to save your ass." And this 1828 source Missing years (Jewish calendar) which I have reverted per WP:BRD. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, In ictu oculi. The irony wasn't lost on me either. Ignocrates (talk) 02:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Bishonen, one more thing, with your permission. I would like to seek your advice concerning something I posted on the Talk forum, and whether or not I should just desist altogether from asking its implementation. I have no intention to try to press my way on others. This is what I posted on the Talk: "The editors of this article may wish to consider adding a new sub-title entitled, 'Jewish Exegeses in Jesus' Teachings,' which, by the nature of its title, requires a brief look into some of his teachings, and approached from the standpoint of Source Criticism. ... Having such a sub-topic will greatly enhance the article. In my opinion, it would not have to be long, nor cover the entire Book of Matthew. We can discuss what teaching/saying might be appropriate in this regard and show where it has been diacritically analyzed, thereby bringing to our readers a more enlightened understanding." Is such a request going too far? If so, I will drop it and concern myself with other issues on Wikipedia. By the way: I would never have suggested it if I didn't feel that the general Christian public would benefit by knowing them. Davidbena (talk) 02:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• Davidbena, you've got the scope of Wikipedia's ambition a little wrong (erring on the side of modesty): the articles have to speak to readers of all faiths (or no faith), and to an international audience, not just to "the general Christian public". Anyway, I don't think such a section would be an encyclopedic addition, but that's just my uninformed opinion, my instinct as a long-time editor. I'm not at home with articles on religious subjects, and all the people who have posted in this thread so far are better qualified than me to answer you. Bishonen | talk 03:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC).

• Proposal for Primary Sources restriction - User:Ignocrates, User:Sean.hoyland, User:TParis, User:Nishidani, User:Bishonen, I would counter propose a 1 month restriction on Religion/History articles or Talk pages [against] introduction of any mention of any source prior to 1950, to see if Davidbena can work in the framework of WP:PSTS. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I support this new restriction in addition to the 1RR on article pages for two weeks. My examples illustrating the limited cases when primary sources may be used and how to use them were apparently not understood. Ignocrates (talk) 02:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• Very creative idea, IIO, though you might have mentioned the OP, User:Tgeorgescu, too, as well really as anybody else who sees this thread; the issue could do with input from more uninvolved users (such as me). I support the proposed restriction (except, what's the word "introduction" doing there?). To be clear, I support it for all articles and talkpages, not just Gospel of Matthew Bishonen | talk 03:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC).

Sorry, missed the ping. Missed out the word "[against] introduction..", fixed. See Talk:Missing years (Jewish calendar). In ictu oculi (talk) 03:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

There are concerns, including regarding copyright, on the editor's latest user space draft at User:Davidbena/sandbox/Yemenite Ketubba. I have pointed out these concerns at User talk:Davidbena#Copyright concerns. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Since it is my article which was published in an Israeli University book, entitled "Yossef Tobi Jubilee Volume," I am currently requesting permission from the University to publish it on Wikipedia. Davidbena (talk) 21:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I would understand the need to do that if you have renounced to your copyright. Otherwise, if it is your own text, do with it as you please. Although it should be said that Wikipedia is not a platform for spreading particular pieces of academic research, i.e. it is not a scientific journal and not a channel for publishing one's own research. Instead, Wikipedia summarizes the arguments from academic research if they meet the scientific consensus or if there is no consensus, then it renders all notable views on a subject. Do mind that your university may have other norms for citing sources than Wikipedia has, i.e. scholars are allowed to cite primary sources (such as the Bible or the Talmud) in scientific journals, but this is not encouraged in Wikipedia. Sometimes Bible verses and other historical documents may be cited within Wikipedia, but only to the extend that such citation are not contentious or to which they serve to illustrate points made by secondary sources. In certain matters, citing Bible translations can be highly contentious, this is why scholars need to be cited for making such points instead of citing primary sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Davidbena (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I could not see my comment, so I am re-typing it. I thank you, Tgeorgescu. I am aware of the things you said to me. Since my article was published in an Israeli book (in Hebrew), with other articles written by other writers, I am asking the publisher for permission to re-publish my own article because of its vast importance in helping us understand Yemenite Jewish culture. Davidbena (talk) 01:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

If Wikipedia were available in 1905 and Einstein chose to publish his research in Wikipedia rather than in peer-reviewed journals, it would have been deleted as original research. Even after passing peer-review in scientific journals it would still have been considered WP:FRINGE or anyway a minority viewpoint. At best, Einstein's research could have been summarized, but not reproduced as it was published in Annalen der Physik. That's how Wikipedia works with primary sources.

Another observation: the only person entitled to release a text under a copyleft license is the person who holds the copyright for the text. If you do not own the copyright for a text, you are not entitled to release it under the licenses stipulated by Wikipedia. Copyright is thus a prerequisite for copyleft. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Latest edits, chronology at Seleucid era

• Time to drop the piano? - mix of primary sources and deductive editing. Seems the same mix as the earlier edits to Missing years (Jewish calendar). Unfortunately not being interested in chronology I can't judge if the actual argument is correct, but Aulus Gellius (125–180 AD) and so on are not the modern WP:SECONDARY SOURCES that we need to see. Can someone dial a chronology expert please? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• In this instance, I would probably choose dropping an anvil instead, given the comparative newness of the editor, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to either place some sort of restrictions on the editor, and also probably encourage him to make more use of the Wikipedia:Teahouse for some help and, maybe, trying to get in to the Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user program as well. John Carter (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• Looked at the evidence presented by George.User:Davidbena has done nothing wrong. Using the talk page to get consensus is supposed to be good right? Looks like a case of article ownership and bite to me. Looks more like passive aggressiveness on George's part. Greengrounds (talk) 02:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, by "George" do you mean TGeorgescu? Hardly, he's an editor who (as a non-religious observer) is a fairly impartial and rare commentator on the Gospel of Matthew article and your own comment looks passive-aggressive. It's interesting to hear how it looks to new editor, far from any owner issues, I see how it might look but pass by the bark, and there's still a real WP:FRINGE and WP:OR issue here, which everyone has recognised. Please check not just those two guidelines but also guideline Talk pages to better understand where the community of editors is coming from on this. All the best. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

At [21] User:Davidbena has reiterated the behavior he already apologized for upon this noticeboard. He does not seem willing to learn the rules and abide by them. This time he cannot claim that he was not told what the rules are and that every editor has to abide by the rules. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Gentlemen, allow me to state my case. My edit submitted to Talk:Seleucid era has a list of references and while the suggested edit may appear to some as WP:OR, I can assure you that it is not. Rather, the content of my suggested edit is something which is agreed upon by all religious Jews (as, for example, the case surrounding the "Seleucid era" and its origins, or the case of the "Missing years (Hebrew calendar)" and why Jews have a different way of calibrating the years), and which things are largely unknown to those who are not Jewish but which should be understood. Moreover, the way in which Jews reached their consensus is really a conglomerate of many different ancient writings. Are you saying that I should just quote the author who brings down the Jewish tradition, without explaining how that tradition either developed or is confirmed by other sources? It's complicated. Is there a middle ground that I can walk so that my comments will not seem like a "synthesis," and, yet, will explain what is behind the tradition? Please be patient with me. Davidbena (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

If no professor of Judaism put that in a peer-reviewed article or any other kind of reliable source, then you are not allowed to perform WP:SYNTH. In Wikipedia articles, you are only allowed to make points if you find reliable sources which directly support the statements you make. You have been repeatedly told this and you chose to ignore such advice. So, if you want to state "something which is agreed upon by all religious Jews" find a reliable source which says it is agreed upon by all religious Jews. You are either incompetent to learn this rule or unwilling to abide by it. This is what this topic at this noticeboard is about. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps an independent third party can adjudicate between us and play the role of judge in this case, and decide whether or not the points I made in Talk:Seleucid era were supported by reliable sources. It is my view that these points were, indeed, supported by reliable sources. In any case, everything written in my suggested draft addition is written in a nut-shell in the book (Hebrew), "Gates to the Hebrew Calendar," by Rahamim Sar-Shalom, Tel-Aviv 1984. In our country (Israel), we would call his research authoritative. Davidbena (talk) 05:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The only source from Talk:Seleucid era which seemingly passes WP:SOURCES is Denis Feeney's Caesar's Calendar: Ancient Time and the Beginnings of History (Berkeley 2007), pp. 21-22. If you're going to consider Sar-Shalom's book as a reliable source, please quote it as a source instead of doing WP:SYNTH. However, if the book is self-published, it cannot be used as a reliable source, per WP:SPS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Sar-Shalom is mentioned upon [22], so I guess he is one of many authors who noticed this problem and perhaps he is not the most important. I suggest using First's book for rendering the gist of the problem. Do notice that Sar-Shalom's view isn't consensual, so all notable views have to be rendered. Rendering Sar-Shalom's view as WP:The Truth is WP:NPOV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, I appreciate your expertise on this subject, and especially your sharing with me the publishing rules on Wikipedia. I can assure you that I am doing my utmost best to comply. Actually, Sar-Shalom's view is consensual amongst all religious Jews who keep the Jewish religion. There is no dispute amongst Jews concerning calendar dates of important Jewish events described by him. It was precisely with this view in mind that I hoped to convey to our readership on Wikipedia a better understanding of Jewish mores and manners related to our calendar. For me, the issue is no different than explaining to our readership the differences between Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Roman Catholic Christianity. Since the topic was "Missing years (Hebrew calendar)," there was no better venue for explaining this relatively "little-known" topic than there. IMHO. The Seleucid era article is different in that there is a consensus about its commencement. My hope was to show our readership a few "Jewish" anecdotes about that particular dating method. Be well. Davidbena (talk) 18:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

You don't have a monopoly on Judaism, there are many orientations in Judaism and speaking in the name of "all religious Jews" seems dubious/hybris/fringe, especially seen that First quotes other religious Jews who disagree with Sar-Shalom. That there is no dispute is just your opinion, First begged to differ. Take care with such bold assertions which cannot be substantiated by reliable sources (actually they are contradicted by a reliable source). Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed sanctions on Davidbena

To formalize the discussion, I am adding this section in which I hope individuals will succintly and clearly indicate whether they would or would not support sanctions, and of which type.

• Support topic ban from all content relating to early Christianity, broadly construed. Ban can be appealed later, should behavior be demonstrably improved. John Carter (talk) 21:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support As long as he does not abide by WP:NOR, WP:VER, WP:SOURCES and WP:PRIMARY we cannot expect that his edits will improve Wikipedia, instead of getting reported here. It is either a problem of being unable to learn the rules or he is willfully disruptive. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Tgeorgescu, my recent comment on Talk:Gospel of Matthew concerning the quote that you brought down from Duling, p. 302, was not intended for publication, but was only in response to what he had written. Disagreeing with a man's opinion is not necessarily being disruptive. In fact, I never used insulting language against you, but was as cordial as I could possibly be. But since now it is all too plain and evident that my comments are not wanted on Talk:Gospel of Matthew, I will desist from discussing any more about this matter on that Talk venue, nor will I submit any new edits for the article, Gospel of Matthew. I have tried to engage in a discussion without feeling inhibited, in accordance with a rule set down in WP:NOR that "this policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages." Even so, my opinions have been stymied. Good-bye.Davidbena (talk) 22:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

For reasons unknown to me, I see that my recent comment made on Talk:Gospel of Matthew has been deleted.Davidbena (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The point is not that you have used original research arguments in the talk page, but that you are not willing to desist from pushing the fringe view that the Hebrew Gospel of the real Matthew (if it ever existed) has anything to do with the Gospel wrongly attributed to Matthew. Besides, you cannot at the same time show acceptance of Duling as a reliable source and reject Duling as a reliable source, i.e. cherry pick one paragraph from his work which describes Papias' view and reject the next paragraph which manifestly states the scholarly consensus. The impression one gets is that you are pushing a fringe thesis based upon original research because you don't accept the rule that the scholarly consensus defines what Wikipedia considers fact. So, you seem to have a problem with a basic Wikipedia policy, you were repeatedly told that you have a problem with it, you have apologized for this, but you have then pushed again the fringe view which all other editors are fed up with. Why else debate it in the talk page? One debates issues in the talk page because one thinks his view will help improve the article. Wikipedia is not a forum for venting your disagreement with the academic consensus. Talk pages are meant for improving the articles. The other editors told you that you original research does not improve the article and whether you make such edits in the article or advocate making such edits in the talk page displays the same contempt for the scholarly consensus. Your knew that your edits were unacceptable, therefore you had no reason to believe that advocating unacceptable edits in the talk page would be in its turn acceptable. One's patience has a limit and you have repeated ad nauseam the same fringe arguments which you were told are in conflict with the basic Wikipedia policies. You were warned that your edits were tendentious so advocating intended tendentious edits was not a good idea. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The view that you wish to perpetuate is still a view that is contended by many. Not all of us here on Wiipedia see eye-to-eye on this issue. Fringe or not fringe; original text penned by Matthew or not the original text penned by Matthew - everything is still disputed by good men of good characters, and all of whom are learned men in their own right. Remember that the world can learn to live with our differences. The School of Hillel and the School of Shammai were divided about many issues, and, yet, they still got along with each other and respected each others views. My impression on the Talk:Gospel of Matthew is that there was mostly intolerance about the other guy's view, even though he cited sources (Primary or Secondary) to support his view. Bear in mind, Tgeorgescu, in REAL LIFE, "primary sources" are often more important and more reliable than "secondary sources." In Judaism, at least, it is. Davidbena (talk) 18:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't lecture me about "real life", since I don't need to be educated by you. As long as you realize that Wikipedia is Wikipedia and has its own rules, you are welcome to edit. However, I would like that you desist from advocating the use of primary sources. You have already apologized for doing it but you are unwilling to abide by your own apology. This shows that you have scorn for the rules of Wikipedia and that's why this ANI topic is necessary. As I have repeatedly told you Wikipedia is not a forum for spreading your own views. If you want to bash the academic consensus, you are unwelcome to edit Wikipedia. This you have to understand very well: as long as you insist on the use of primary sources in order to support fringe views, the topic ban is getting closer and closer. You are perfectly described by Wikipedia:Competence is required#Bias-based: being schooled in Judaism does not confer you special rights for editing Wikipedia articles, especially as you are unwilling to abide by the use of academic sources. Don't push your luck and desist forever from advocating original research inside religious-historical Wikipedia articles. It is of course my wish, but it is also the wish of the whole Wikipedia community, as formalized in policies, guidelines and essays. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support Wow...I agree with Tgeorgescu on this. I've been over the week or so's worth of arguments back and forth with this user and I have to support. He either lacks competence or is editing in bad faith. ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 03:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban, broadly construed per John Carter. Little investigation of the articles and their talk pages is required as evidence of unfamiliarity with Wikipedia's procedures is amply demonstrated above. Lack of familiarity is not itself a problem, but being unwilling or unable to learn is a show-stopper. The comment just above that 'in REAL LIFE, "primary sources" are often more important and more reliable than "secondary sources"' (with the implication that such should apply here) shows that an indefinite topic ban is required. Johnuniq (talk) 10:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Disruption by User:Wer900

I'm getting really tired of being insulted and defamed by this user. Every time he has a problem with anything he finds some cheap excuse to drag my name into it. Here's just the latest example [23]. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

And here's another thread [24] from a week or two ago where he again dragged my name into a discussion that I had nothing whatsoever to do with. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) also see diff and diff of disruptive editing. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 00:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

And here's a link to another edit I just found because it was revdeleted, (so, admins only, sorry) in which he tries to drag me into a discussion of a recent arbcom ruling that again, I had absolutely nothing to do with. He has also been involved in a thread on "that other website" where they have been badmouthing me on andf off for about six months. "Harrassment" would be the word i would use for that. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• For a long while, Wer900 has spent a disproportionate amount of their time on wikipedia casting aspersions on other editors. Away from their content edits on astronomy and the possibility of extraterrestial life, their project space contributions have been problematic. I first became aware of Wer900 when the wikipedia notification process picked up a series of disruptive edits they had made on behalf of an arbcom banned user on User talk:Viriditas.[25][26][27] Wer900 asserted that I had "taken ownership of Poland-related articles." That wholly false assertion—inaccurate enough to be called "stupid"— resulted in an ANI report just three months ago. Wer900's conduct during the Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds case gave further examples of that kind of editing, directed at other targets. Several of their contributions during the case were removed by arbitrators/clerks and they came close to being blocked. The current report concerns recent malicious and unjustified comments on Resolute. These disruptive personal attacks on others, delivered with great self-assurance and no self-doubt, happen too often. Mathsci (talk) 02:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

  ROFL! Well, if it means anything Beeblebrox, I am honoured to be held in as low esteem by Wer900 as he does you. Tells me right away that I must be doing something right. Wer900 is pretty much WP:NOTHERE at this point and he's pretty much cruising to go down the same road KW did. Resolute 02:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

And, the icing on the cake, that he is basically trolling Jimbo now as well. "Personal attacks or harrassment" ... where have I seen those words grouped together... some list of things... oh yes, it was standard reasons in the drop down menu for blocking a user. I don't think we need an arbitiration case here, this case is uncomplicated, and WP:HARRASS or WP:NOTHERE or WP:BATTLE would all do nicely as block rationales. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the club Beeblebrox. After I got an editor waging a vendetta kicked off the BLP of his target, he has followed me around WP for years using an alternate bad hand account to make disparaging comments about me on noticeboards, my talk page, and administrative forums. No one has done anything about it even though he hasn't been hiding what he is doing. It seems you administrator types only complain when it happens to you. When it happens to us non-admin schmucks, you could care less. Cla68 (talk) 05:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow. I was impressed by all the diffs, so I loaded them all into tabs and read them. The baloney is being sliced reaaal thin, so thin you could read a newspaper through it. Synopsis of diffs: using diffs of edits to the same paragraph, which turns one incident into three, using a diff where Beeblebrox insulted Wer900 first, using a diff from May (!), and using multiple diffs from the same discussion. All of these from editor talk pages, where discussion is supposed to be vigorous. No disruption to the job of building an encyclopedia. Pah. You made me look and it was stale cheese. →StaniStani  05:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Edits making personal attacks on Resolute on a very public wikipedia page precipitated this report. As usual at ANI, if there is a wider picture, other users will comment. Stanistani's comments are not even vaguely helpful. That could be because he is editing on behalf of a site-banned editor.[28] Mathsci (talk) 07:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

As for the diffs I presented myself, they show a pattern of Wer mentioning my name in a series of discussions over the last several months. Not one of those discussions actually had anything to do with me, Wer just mentions me each time as an example of a horrible, corrupt admin. I defy anyone to say that's ok and we should just let users act like that. It's inexcusable and indefensible. We have dispute resolution processes for a reason. If he, or anyone else, wants to have a conversation about how horrible I am they are free to turn this link blue and we can have that discussion instead of just sniping at me from afar. If i am really so horrible, surely others will line up to endorse the validity of his concerns and whatever evidence he has of wrongdoing on my part. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I have no real complaint about Wer900's comments directed at me, other than to note my amusement at how he and his cohorts dish it out a hell of a lot better than they take it. But it is often true that those most willing to criticize/attack are least willing to accept criticism in return. Wer900 themselves has been in full conspiracy theory mode for some time now, and I take their commentary within that context. Which is to say, I was not aware that working away in the glamourous world of hockey player articles was "the right cabal". Resolute 14:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't really care about them much as individual remarks either and i doubt anyone gives Wer's conspiracy ranting about cabals much credence, but, what bothers me is the pattern of repeatedly bringing up my name in discussions that have noting whatsoever to do with me, as his go-to example of a terrible person and abusive admin. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

@Mathsci: I edit here, at this moment, on behalf of myself. I noticed Occam's post, but do not advocate on his behalf, any more than my response to him in other topics is on your behalf, you being a banned user there. Don't create bogus diffs. People might click on them. →StaniStani  19:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

As far as bans go, my understanding is that Occam, who approached Wer900 on wikipediocracy in late May to start an RfAr about me, has not been successful in having his arbcom site-ban lifted. Stanistani is ignoring any problems with Wer900's edits. But in that case, why comment at all? Mathsci (talk) 06:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

In fact, quite recently, Wer900 made edits right here at ANI that were quite similar to those cited by Mathsci. At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive809#A new accusation, he announced that he and the currently-blocked Viriditas had determined the real-life identity of another editor, and it was oh so very bad. At Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Genetically Modified Food Controversies, it all turned out to be a lot of garbage. But I do note that Wer900 did apologize subsequently. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I apologize unreservedly to jytdog for that incident. However, I have evidence on others, which I believe (in my best judgment, after the jytdog incident) to be unshakeably sound, including one self-identification. I digress, though; Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), you have gone beyond the pale with this. You have been hounding me for the better part of a year now, I think, if not more, and are slowly inching towards the proverbial topic-ban button for me (I think you know what I'm talking about, I don't want to bring it up here). You are following the classic AN/I-dweller's technique—posting a large number of "teh diffz" in order to "conclusively demonstrate" that I am a "disruptive" individual, all the while ignoring the context of one of my statements.

Sure, my changing of the hatnote on Jimbo's page was "disruptive". But wasn't Jimmy Wales's systematic (WARNING: SITE IZ TEH BAD) hatting and deletion of critical comments even more so, especially given that Jimbo seems to "hold court" on his talk page? Moreover, aunva6 (talk · contribs) deleted my statement against Resolute (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), which was not "disruptive", merely critical. Why was that done? If no coherent answer can be given, then I ask that that particular comment be restored to its rightful place.

I see more at work here, Beeblebrox. You are attempting to divert attention from Wikipedia's failings and channel it into cultic worship of yourself, your friends, and Jimmy Wales. If you want to take this to ArbCom for a show trial, then you will prove that that committee is nothing but the high priesthood of Wikipedia, performing sacrifice of critics and sending them to the Wikipediocracy netherworld. Wer900 • talk 04:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I was tempted to reply to this, until I realized that Wer900's unadorned words were more damning to his reputation that anything I could possibly say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• User:Wer900 has to be joking if he's hoping for this to be taken to Arbcom. There's enough here for an indefinite block without any further ado.WP:NOTHERE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• I obviously agree, but in the interest of giving Wer one more chance to actually explain themselves instead of just spoutiong conspiracy theories, I wonder if he would care to comment on why he brought up my name twice in discussions of the Keifer Wolfowotz/Ironholds arbcom case and once in a discussion on Jimbo's talk page about the child protection policy? What connection is there between myself and either of those discussions? Beeblebrox (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Beeblebrox (talk · contribs)—tell me what content work you have done for the encyclopedia; in your honest opinion, do you think that it is enough to qualify you for a position of power on Wikipedia? Regarding Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds, I commented on you because you were brought up as a potential party and because you are an administrator I have found, many times, to be crass, abusive, and undeserving of power, not unlike Ironholds (talk · contribs) himself. To the others, you are merely opportunists who have decided to jump on to the dogpile. Kudpung (talk · contribs), I do not wish to bring this case to the Arbitration Committee—as a word of future advice, taking the time to read a comment can lead to greater enlightenment on the issues it discusses.

    And to all, remember that my statement on Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s talk page was in response to (administrator) Resolute (talk · contribs)'s comment about "attention whores" disliking email because it does not give them the "attention hit" that they purportedly "need". Resolute's statement, like your own presentation of this AN/I, Beeblebrox, is nothing more than a perversion of the facts through the elimination of context— Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk · contribs), the clear object of Resolute's ire, used a public forum to voice his concerns about Demiurge1000 (talk · contribs) only after ArbCom tacitly made clear its laconic approach to child protection by failing to respond to his emails in any substantive fashion. Furthermore, Resolute's comment constituted blatant degradation of an individual; with that in mind, why aren't you submitting administrator Resolute to the same extraordinary tribunal you have created for an ordinary editor like me? Is Resolute beyond policy? Isn't justice supposed to be blind? Wer900 • talk 23:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

  • With regard to my "disruption" on Jimbo's talk page, I changed the hatnote on one of the statements in order to highlight his instinct to hide any uncomfortable comments. This is entirely incongruous with the image of a "constitutional monarch" "hold[ing] court" on his talk page. I linked a Wikipediocracy article, of my own writing, about Jimmy Wales's talk-page deletions (in the present case, of a lively, vigorous, and candid discussion), but apparently the light of truth is too bright for you. I hope that is not indeed the case. Wer900 • talk 23:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you can't even be bothered to log in anymore demonstrates (to me at least) your impatience to leave yet another TL;DR rant. You appear to possess such an antipathy for Wikipedia I suggest you go and leave your comments on your beloved Wikipediocracy because what you are doing here and over the rest of Wikipedia is purely a drain on our resources to have to read through all your screeds and personal attacks. A preventative indef block would be the best solution for Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I was about to say something critical about Wer900's edits, but then I read this moronic statement, full of textbook smug admin bullshit, and decided that Kudpung and his ilk are probably bigger dangers to WP than Wer900. Can't do anything about it though, cloaked as he is in his admin invincibility cloak.

Wer900, stop dragging Beeblebrox's name through the mud in threads unrelated to him, or you'll be blocked. It's unfair, uncool, and unproductive. If you have a complaint, use RFC/U or ArbCom or something. Otherwise, complain about WP in general, not about one admin you're pissed at in particular. And please remember to log in, or some moron will start screaming "sockpuppet!". --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, Floquenbeam. Regarding Beeblebrox, I'm not "dragging his name through the mud". I've taken crap from him several times in the past, and decided, by analogy, to compare him to Ironholds in the recent ArbCom case (incidentally, there was a discussion about adding Beeblebrox as a party, but that ended up in nothing). More recently, on the talk page of Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), I drew attention to his massively hypocritical User:Beeblebrox/fuck off essay, which he disingenuously tried to brush off (Canens eventually deleted the entire thread because it criticized him, too. Beeblebrox deleted his essay, though he still appears to reserve the right to tell people to fuck off).

Kudpung (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), you have no right to critique my actions. You are typical of admins, focusing only on the meta-details surrounding the post I made—the fact that I didn't log in (that was due to an incidental lack of cookies on that computer, in case you must know)—and having the audacity to state that I am WP:NOTHERETOBUILDANENCYCLOPEDIA when you yourself have only 27% of edits in article space and 19% automated edits via Huggle. Again, reading my statements and my grievances is key. It is you and your ilk who are not here to build an encyclopedia, but merely to argue, debate, and create drama. Furthermore, it is evident that you have heard nothing about loyal opposition—the (anyway moronic) assertion that Wikipedia is not a democracy does not mean that it is a dictatorship of power players. I support the aims of Wikipedia, but would like it to have nothing to do with you and your friends. Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs), you are using the same WP:ICANTHEARYOU tactics as Kudpung is using, and like him you are also feigning anger and disgust.

Floquenbeam, I suggest you get out of here. You are going to be confronted by the same persons who are confronting me, and you will systematically be mistreated and driven out of the encyclopedia you helped to build by these self-serving administrators. Wer900 • talk 01:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

You continue to do an excellent job of making yourself look foolish, in fact, ridiculous. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, in all honesty, I'm in favor of Wer900 being blocked permanently if they won't stop dragging Beeblebrox around everywhere possible. A solution might be either a Wer900 stays away from Beeblebrox in all forms, or Wer900 gets blocked. 173.55.185.222 (talk) 00:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Unsurprisingly, the answer to my direct question was more nonsense, with no supporting evidence. I don't see any reasonable way to reply to this continued defamation and harrassment other than a block of Wer, which I hope is forthcoming in the near future. Of course, if I actually was a member of an all-powerful cabal that would have happened already... Beeblebrox (talk) 01:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• You are not being harassed or defamed. He brings you up because you are a high-profile admin with a reputation for being ill-tempered and domineering. Perhaps you should consider why said reputation persists and contemplate ways to improve it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I wonder how much of the the above comment was influenced by those Wikipediocracy goats. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 01:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Lol, "goats"! Honestly, the whole "I reserve the right to say fuck off if you annoy me" thing kind of speaks for itself as to why he might have a bad reputation.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• • Remember that time you threatened me with a topic-ban, Beeblebrox? That also kind of speaks for itself. So does this and the "Fuck off" essay mentioned earlier. And this. And this. Wer900 • talk 03:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Ahha! There it is. I was trying to figure why you had such a grudge against me, thanks for clarifying that this all goes back to that. what was the issue again? As I recall you were rapidly re-submitting proposals for some sort of formal government structure loosely based on the same seperation of powers used in the U.S. federal government, and I said if you kept doing it I would... what, uh , ask the community if it might want to topic ban you? Something like that. And.. what, you've held on to your anger over that all this time, and done research into what a jerk I am, and these links are all you've got? seriously? Well, you tried again to make this about me instead of you. Anybody convinced by those links that I am a horrible ogre and an abusive admin? Please, look at at them and behold the infernal horrors I hath wrought. It's truly terrifying. Goodbye Wer, whatever happens I don't think I shall waste my time communicating with you ever again, but it has been mildly interesting. Best of luck in your future endeavors. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed block of User: Wer900

Ugh, back from break and this is the first thing I see? Clearly a block would be in order on grounds of the WP: SOCKing alone, among more disturbing offenses. Before things get even uglier, I propose that Wer be blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia, per WP: TE, WP: NOTHERE and WP: IDIDNTHEARTHAT. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 01:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support As proposer. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 01:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment by accused: I didn't "sock", I just forgot to log in. Nowhere in hell could my use of the IP, clearly referring to myself, have been an attempt to sway opinion unduly. I have taken ownership of the comments here under that IP, so your socking accusation is moot. Wer900 • talk 01:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Clearly you can see I struck that "accusation". The other points still stand. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 01:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Der Kommisar (talk · contribs): Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has reported me for refusing to cease and desist in criticizing his demeanor as an admin. I had taken shit from him in the past, and then transformed that experience into analogies in the Ironholds case and later ones, using comparison. Beeblebrox, the abusive administrator, was used merely as an example of an administrator who had special power and protection.
        • While you're at it, why don't you just name him as a member of the Illuminati, an agente of the CIA, and the leader of the Mafia. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 05:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose as silly and excessive.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Wer900's latest rant above (in response to Floquenbeam), in which it's pretty clear Wer900 doesn't understand (or refuses to understand) why their behaviour is problematic. The WP: IDIDNTHEARTHAT is strong in this one. For what it's worth, I don't consider the IP edits to be socking, as it doesn't appear to be an attempt to imitate another user. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support - I believe this fracas has gone on long enough, after reading more data regarding the incidents. 173.55.185.222 (talk) 03:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

**Whoever you are, why is it that your sole two edits are to this AN/I? That *totally doesn't* look suspicious. Wer900 • talk 03:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The guy who keeps complaining that there are different rules for different users wants to discount someone's opinion because they are an IP from Verizon and probably get automatically assigned a new IP every time they log in. Nothing ironic there... Beeblebrox (talk) 03:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

That's three edits, and my (now three) sole edits are to AN/I because that Is all I have to say. I speak when I wish to speak, I wished to speak at this AN/I. Once what I wish to speak is spoken, I shall be silent. Simple logic. 173.55.185.222 (talk) 04:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment rescinded.

• Obvious support per WP:NOTHERE. Wer's comments are being stage-managed for him by other users at an offsite forum, and he still comes across like an angry, unreasonable troll who seems completely unwilling to even consider the possibility that it was not appropriate to harrass me in the manner he has been. If I were the only target of this nonsense I (and maybe the community) might not care all that much but pretty much all he does is deliberately agitate other users, up to and including Jimbo. This is simply not the correct approach to trying to actually solve a perceived problem, on Wikipedia or anywhere else. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • So a police officer gets to act like a juror? What is this madness? You make further disingenuous statements; my comments are not being "stage-managed" at all; other users saw my case and commented of their own accord, at least as much of their own decision as Kudpung's and Beyond my Ken's decisions to go against me. Is any criticism now considered "harassment"? Has the doctrine of loyal opposition been revoked? I would like to work with you productively, but your demeanor on this forum has not been conducive to that at all. Wer900 • talk 03:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

(ec with below) You need to get over your terrible analogies. I am neither a police officer nor a juror, merely a member of this community who is being harassed.. by you. You get all on your high horse about my "fuck off" essay, when you are acting far more nasty and out of line than someone who just feels like sometimes, when someone is being a persistent, deliberate, pain in the ass, it is ok to tell them to fuck off. I don't know why I am even replying to you as it is obvious you are determined to stay the course, which suits me fine because, as others have noted, every time you speak you make yourself look worse, not me. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Beebs, stop claiming harassment and go learn the meaning of the term. You are insulting actual victims of harassment by continuing to count yourself among them. Some random person on the Internet mentioning your behavior several times as an example of the problems with this site is not harassment.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support - When an editor under sanction consideration has significant contributions to the project, it's always a balancing act to decide if the degree of disruption is worth the improvement to the encyclopedia. In this case, Wer900's POV regarding Wikipedia is so clearly off the deep end, that the degree of disruption we've seen to this moment (which is not insignificant) is obviously only a tiny harbinger of what will come. Given this, it's not worthwhile to allow him to continue editing, as he is a net-negative right now, and will only get worse. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, Beyond My Ken, this is not the House Un-American Activities Committee. My membership at Wikipediocracy does not indicate any particular viewpoint on Wikipedia; our members run the gamut from Arbitrators to Gregory Kohs. As for me, I support Wikipedia and its goal of bringing free knowledge to the world, but do not believe that the separate-but-equal system enshrined here is beneficial for it or any of its members, and only find it to be helpful for a small group of power users. I have put up examples of Beeblebrox's abuse; this is a directory to yet more examples of his failings. I tried to refrain from posting too many diffs in order to reach concord with Beeblebrox, but if he wants to rub salt into old wounds, then I must do that.

    Moreover, why hasn't a tribunal of this sort been set up for Resolute (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)? His comment about "attention whores" is merely the tip of the iceberg of his incivility. If you want to try me here, then you must try Resolute. Heck, why don't you try Jimmy Wales for a blatant misrepresentation of his "open door" policy that I pointed out earlier? Is he now above policy too?

    I came here to write about astrophysics and astrobiology, and found the governance of this site lacking. I made some comments and proposals here and there about it, but you have decided to drag me into the depths of Wikipedia drama. If you don't want me to be "harassing" you, then stop bringing me into frivolous cases like this one. Wer900 • talk 04:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

    • Wer900, I have only ever read one article on Wikipediocracy, and it wasn't by you, so I don't know what you're on about with that remark. My conclusions about your behavior and attitude are fueled entirely by your behavior right here on Wikipedia, and what I see is not "respect" for the project, but complete disdain for everything except your own very warped POV about it. (And, BTW, I'm not "feigning" my opinions, which you accused me of above, I honestly think that you are a danger to the project and should be indef blocked.) That's the last response I'll make to anything you post here, so please enjoy your free bite of the apple: make it good and cranky, please, so it'll be obvious to even more people why we don't need you here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support some type of block or sanction until Wer900 develops a modicum of WP:CLUE and shows some recognition of the problems he has been causing. His project space/public pronouncements are out of control at the moment. One editor removed his hatting and attacks on Resolute and Beeblebrox on User talk:Jimbo Wales. Before that, AGK removed Wer900's finding about Flutternutter and Ironholds from the workshop page of the Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds arbcom case. It is this kind of highly inflammatory stirring, usually irrelevant and often offensive and highly inappropriate, that is the problem. His content contributions to astronomy and extraterrestial life-forms (a topic not in urgent need of editors) do not outweigh this disruption. Mathsci (talk) 05:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Pretty clearly yet another attempt to sacrifice a victim for a bountiful corn harvest. What ever happened to the good old fashioned interaction ban? The topic ban? Nope, straight to crazy-eyed lynch mob howling for blood... Glorious. This is a productive editor (astronomy) who has dipped his toe in the drama tank rather too frequently in the past month. Measured response, please. Carrite (talk) 06:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Interaction ban with who? Beeblebrox? Jimbo? Resolute? Kupdung? All admins except the chosen few? The "cabal"? Anyone he decides is against him or whose "governance" of Wikipedia is lacking? Topic ban from what? Jimbo's talk page? All talk pages? Wikipedia space? Everything except astronomy and exobiology? Practical solutions, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

See below. Jimmy Wales can take care of his own page. Carrite (talk) 06:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Unless Wer900 were to repeatedly present false evidence at AN, AN/I (or ArbCom but then ArbCom can handle that themselves). Quite a few editors (including myself) have experienced far worse things than what Beeblebrox is experiencing and when that happened were told that we should just get used to it. This despite that this typically did have consequences (like being blocked because of false rumors or otherwise restricted). In this case, given the balance of power, whatever Wer900 is saying can be ignored by Beeblebrox. He just has to say once that Wer900 is talking nonsense and he doesn't have to bother anymore. Count Iblis (talk) 15:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Complaints should be brought to the appropriate venue. This isn't a complaint, this is a campaign of harassment. Gamaliel (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not close to being necessary, at least yet. Also, going from a clean block log to an indefinite block is a pretty drastic escalation. However, Wer900 does need to calm down. If he continues like this he might soon merit a short block, like 24 hours, for disruptive editing or personal attacks. Cardamon (talk) 19:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of a block is to prevent disruption. If a user refuses to acknowledge that there are problems with their behavior, which you seem to concede is the case, a 24 hour block is only going to prevent that behavior for 24 hours. An indef block does not mean blocked forever, just until such time as they can manage to own up to their own problems and give some indication of how they would prevent similar issues in the future. Escalating blocks are appropriate for other issues such as edit warring, but I don't think they are the right remedy for a problem like this. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem with this approach is that it leads to crazy situations. E.g. You asked Coren to block me because of a dispute about a proposal which is now an essay. Just because I didn't see things your way, you called that continued disruption and you asked for intervention. Count Iblis (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Sure Wer900 can be a bit strident, and he tends to stay focused on a perceived imperfection a bit too long, but looking at the parade of personalities on this very page, I'm not convinced he's any more block-worthy than the rest of us. Wer900, lay off mentioning Beeblebrox. Holster your towel. Relax and have a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster. For the rest of youse: If Wer900 is blocked over apparently being a misguided crusader, it won't look good that some of the case (see above) is cooked up from low-quality evidence. →StaniStani  02:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

  As Newyorkbrad pointed out,[29] this edit of Wer900[30] criticized Timotheus Canens' arbcom voting using the language of racial segregation. Without evidence, Wer900 also accused Timotheus Canens of operating meatpuppets to rig arbcom elections. Those kinds of statement are unacceptable. Warped or evasive arguments will not alter that. Harassment and bullying (including outing or threats of outing) might be part of the ethos of wikipediocracy, but please, Stanistani, don't try to import it over here on wikipedia. There is no need for references to crusaders/martyrs/whistleblowers, when this is just a question of trolling edits. The diffs of Wer900's edits speak for themselves: they cannot be dismissed as "low-quality evidence". Mathsci (talk) 06:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

  While I do think that Wer900 has gone a bit overboard with some of these accusation, ArbCom and some Admins have in the past engaged in underhand dealings. It's a bit similar to e.g. the US making accusations about Iran's nuclear program, this is also not all supported by evidence. But then according to the US, Iran cannot be trusted because of its past behavior leading to Iran not getting the benefit of the doubt. ArbCom and some high profile Admins who have been involved in AE will similarly not always get the benefit of the doubt from all editors here because of a similar cloud hanging over this system. Count Iblis (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'd just like to note that it is the last holiday weekend of the summer season here in the states and it may be easier to see a consensus one way or the other once it is over. And on that note I am opening a delicious bottle of locally-made mead and checking out for a day or two. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• support, but perhaps an indef is a bit extreme. I say a month to a year, and then let WP:noose handle the rest. per WP:TE, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:Harassment, and WP:BATTLE . the user has had several troublesome iteraction issues previouslly. however, NOTHERE doesn't appear to me to apply to this. wer has made quite a few good contributions to articles, from waht I can see of his contribs. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 07:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC) indef after all, indelfinite isn't permanent, just undefined. the standard offer and noose cover unblocks well. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 18:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The thing is, an indef block doesn't necessarily have to be for even as long as a month or a year. I think that Wer900 just needs to get hold of himself, calm down, and gain a little perspective of how he's been behaving. Once that happens, and he can say to the community "I shouldn't have done that, and I'll try my best not to do it again" he can be unblocked -- and how long that takes is totally up to him. It could take a week or less, or a month or something in between - that's the beauty of the indef block, it allows for a response to the specific situation, and doesn't set a hard and fast totally artificial number. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

You know and I know and we all know that indefs of perceived "enemies of the people" (vragi naroda, a Stalinist term) are permanent. Once indef blocked there will be a ready chorus to keep blocked, and that's the way that story ends. No, not quite. What this does in the long run is create embittered "to the death" style warriors out of disaffected, sometimes-productive editors. Some of the inner core of The Site That Can Not Be Mentioned have received just this sort of treatment. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. Of course, the drama fans on both sides love this because it assures perpetual new chapters in the soap opera so they can play instead of working on an encyclopedia... Carrite (talk) 00:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Your lack of AGF is ... astounding, and the assumptions you are making about editors' motivations show a disconcertingly battlegroundish orientation. Not everything is about Wikipediocracy, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support - for some sort of limited block or ban, pretty much per MathSci. The behavior of this editor is clearly problematic and unacceptable. But we have a history of being a bit lenient on such matters, whether I really like that or not. Should the problematic conduct continue after the block ends, of course, then sterner steps, probably including at least consideration of a site ban, would be reasonable and called for. John Carter (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - There doesn't seem to be enough evidence, some of the evidence is speculation, from the earliest accusations there were clearly two or three people involved with personal attacks, there is evidence of warlike behaviour from some accusers and there is evidence of possible long term history between the users. If anything, all three of them are guilty. The accuser, the accused and the "witness" who bared testimony. Greengrounds (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cardamon and Stanistani. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 02:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose As per ~  TUXLIE  11:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Carrite and others. Frankly I find the whole rush to silence any discussion of issues with Wikipedia disturbing. Very disturbing. Intothatdarkness 14:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

If all Wer was doing was discussing general issues with WP we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. What he is doing is repeatedly insulting specific users in multiple threads without actually attempting to resolve whatever issues he has with them. Not the same thing at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

That's your view, of course, which is fine. I see it somewhat differently, hence my oppose. Intothatdarkness 15:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

So picking another user and deciding to mention their name in every discussion of what is wrong with Wikipedia without ever attempting to actually address the perceived problem directly is how we are going to do things now? You wouldn't mind if every time a disruptive editor was under discussion I chimed in with "that remonds me of Intothatdarkness, another useless user who needs to just leave"? That would seem ok to you? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

My governance models, and now my membership and work for Wikipediocracy, are meant to "actually address the perceived problem directly"; don't accuse me of not doing that. And frankly, Beebs, I wouldn't care if I was spoken about negatively a few times here and there—for all I know, Teh IRC™ hates me with a vengeance. What I really don't like is the numerous false accusations put out by your side on this AN/I; you know what you've done. Wer900 • talk 03:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Please explain more carefully what your "work for Wikipediocracy" entails? How exactly does editing in project space on behalf of site-banned editors like Captain Occam figure in your plans? It is you that are offending others by unjustified finger-pointing, not the other way round. Mathsci (talk) 07:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Close

Note, I closed the above discussion as no consensus; despite the fact that there had not been a new supporter of the block in nearly 3 days, Mathsci, having already expressed support for the proposed block, reverted the close stating premature conclusion. Monty₈₄₅ 14:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Alternative Proposal: Proposed interaction ban of User: Wer900

User:Wer900 is hereby warned in no uncertain terms that the community's patience is wearing very thin and that future accusatory disruption or battleground behavior is apt to be dealt with harshly. In addition, User:Wer900 is hereby subjected to an interaction ban with User:Beeblebrox: he is not to refer to Beeblebrox directly or indirectly in any thread on Wikipedia, to respond to comments made by Bebblebrox in any thread on Wikipedia, to communicate with Beeblebrox directly or indirectly on Wikipedia or by email, or to link to off-Wiki comments about Beeblebrox made by Wer900 or any other person. Violation of this unidirectional interaction ban shall bring a block of no less than 30 days. Carrite (talk) 06:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support - As proposer. Carrite (talk) 06:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

  What about Kudpung and Resolute? What about Timotheus Canens? Wer900 made a prolonged and unprovoked attack on him.[31] These are problems Wer900 has with mutliple users, many of them administrators. Your solution does not address these problems. Mathsci (talk) 07:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe it you read it again slowly, it does address these things. Carrite (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, Wer900 does not seem to have acknowledged that there are problems. So your proposal—a warning and a one-way IBAN with one particular administrator—does not seem to go far enough. Perhaps he might develop a little more self-awareness: that would certainly change things. Mathsci (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• No real need to include me I was offended neither by his comments on Jimbo's talk page, nor by his obsession with me here. Though I did find it amusing that I kept getting pinged in this thread by him when I had long since moved on and was, you know, writing articles. Resolute 20:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

If i thought an interaction ban would solve anything I would support it. And perhaps it would solve the problem with Wer harassing me, but in order to make it broad enough to stop all his unacceptable behaviors he would pretty much have to be banned from doing anything besides editing articles as everything else he does is disruptive. Of course I also strongly object to the proposer's comments in the above section, this is not a crazy-eyed lynch mob looking for a victim, Wer brought this upon himself entirely through his own actions. Only he has the capacity to demonstrate that he has some modicum of self control and can attempt to resolve whatever disputes he may feel he has in a more acceptable manner and he has shown absolutely no indication that he even believes there is a problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, you are not being harassed. Bringing you up a few times as an example of an admin who can be seriously uncivil without consequences as contrasted with regular editors who are dealt with harshly for even minor acts of incivility is not harassment.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Try to look at it from the recieving end. Let's say every week or so when you logged in you got an echo notification saying I mentioned you somewhere. Curious, you click on it only to discover that in the middle of a discussion of an issue in which you have zero involvement or interest there is a comment from me saying "TDA is the perfect example of a terrible contributor to Wikipedia and he should just leave." You might ignore that if it only happened once, but what if it was happening about once a week, yet I was not pursuing any sort of direct conversation with you or trying to engage in dispute resolution, just bringing you up once in a while to let everyone know that I think you are an asshole. (I don't think that actually, but just for purposes of this discussion let's say that's what it is) How would you feel? Remember now, you are not involved in these discussions. You are not even aware of them. Your name has not previously come up. We are not currently engaged in any sort of dispute or other discussion whatsoever. I did not invite you to participate, you just get an echo notification letting you know I am insulting you without provocation again. How would you feel? Like I was trying to solve a problem, or like I just wanted to let everyone, including you, get a once-a-week reminder that I think you are an asshole? That my friend, is indeed harassment. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

No, actually it is not. Even if the complaints were not legitimate as they are here, someone talking shit about you every now and then to other people is not the same as harassment. You are cheapening the meaning of the term "harassment" by using it to describe this situation.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

We believe in escalating blocks at Wikipedia, do we not? Carrite (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

After writing that I checked. Wer has a completely clean block log. Carrite (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support Gamaliel (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Not sufficient per my comments above, and per Mathsci's comment in this section. When a single user has consistent difficulties interacting civilly with multiple editors, an I-Ban concerning only one of those editors is logically not the best response, as it only addresses one portion of the problem, and, further, assumes that the interaction problems are mutual and not originating primarily from one side. Wer900's comments in this very report are more than enough to establish that he is the locus of the problem, and therefore the solution needs to be more general, and focused on that user only. I might support a "reverse topic ban" which restricts Wer900 to editing only in the astronomy and exobiology areas, since his disruption to the project seems to be occurring only on talk pages and in Wikipedia space, but that's as far as I'm willing to go away from an indef block, so my !vote in the section above stands for the moment, and I favor an indef block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support broad IBAN: Support unidirectional interaction ban in interacting with Beeblebrox, Jimbo Wales, Resolute, Kudpung, Beyond my Ken. Or at least a strongly worded suggestion that he ceases to engage them. For reasons of WP:ROPE this effort seems prudent rather than a straight out block. I would suggest that if a further unidirectional interaction ban is required at some future time that it would indicate that it is time to cut our losses. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Such a unidirectional ban would merely allow these editors to continue to torment me in the same way that I have (purportedly) "harassed" Beeblebrox. All editors involved in this dispute should be placed under a mutual probation, whereby their interactions are monitored by an outside administrator. As for the citation of the essay "Give 'em enough rope", are you serious? You have no right to embellish its citation to make it look like policy, because it is an essay and especially because one of the primary writers is none other than Beeblebrox himself.

    In response to Beeblebrox's comment on my evidence—I do not hold a "grudge" against you. I am not following the usual psychology of AN/I dwellers. More than once have I seen your gross incompetence with the tools, and hence I have identified you several times as an example of a bad administrator.

    On my "obsession with Resolute", why is the AN/I madhouse not submitting him to a show trial for his not-so-veiled branding of Kiefer.Wolfowitz as an "attention whore", while I am receiving one for comments in response? Why does an administrator party to the dispute get special treatment?

    There isn't much more I have to say. Wer900 • talk 19:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

    • I see no need for Wer900 to have a unidirectional interaction ban in regard to myself. I cannot recall ever interacting with him in the past, and the give and take in this discussion is hardly sufficient to justify an i-ban. I continue to see the value in an indef block of his account, until he learns that framing discussions with other editors in terms of "show trials" and throwing around phrases like "gross incompetency" while simultaneously refusing to use the mechanism we have in place to address such alleged behaviorial problems (i.e. RFC/U and then ArbCom) is disruptive and not condoned here. His argument that his harrassment of Beeblebrox (yes, TDA, "harrassment" is indeed the correct word, stop being so unnecessarily pedantic) should be answered by a "probation" of everyone who has called him on his behavior is totally ridiculous, and a pretty good indication that W900 has absolutely no perspective on what he is doing. Such perspective can frequently be regained through an enforced time-out, which is why an indef block (which can be as short as it takes for W900 to regain his equilibrium) is the best option here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Nothing pedantic about it. You have no understanding of "harassment" if you think someone saying bad things about another person behind the person's back is harassment. When the girls at the salon gossip about Miss Susan and her promiscuous ways, they are not harassing her any more than any person talking shit behind your back is harassing you. This is just another instance of a long line of controlling egocentric personalities on Wikipedia feeling that any repeated criticism of them is harassment and said personalities tend to be the most malicious harassers in the bunch.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• • • Interesting, Wer900. Given it was the anon IP that I was calling an attention whore, should I take your statement as an admission that it was KW evading his ban? Resolute 02:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
      • You know the broader context in which your comment was made, Resolute; yours was a thinly veiled attack against Kiefer.Wolfowitz, even if the anon was not Kiefer. Nobody thinks that your comment was not directed toward the most recently banned prominent child-protection whistleblower. Your ridiculous assertion that the anon is Kiefer is truly Kafkaesque™. Wer900 • talk 16:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
        • These statements about Resolute are not based on evidence (one edit about an anonymous IP posting on a highly visited WP page). Nobody has so far agreed with your hunches, which are just prejudiced personal attacks. An RfAr is certainly not the way forward.[32] Mathsci (talk) 02:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
          • The arbcom banned user Captain Occam has given Wer900 more advice over on wikipediocracy.[33] As Wer900 disclosed on-wiki, Captain Occam asked him in May 2013 to start an RfAr about me. Since 2010 Captain Occam has engaged in editing through others to continue a campaign of harassment, which included his request to Wer900 and later included outing. Captain Occam has now suggested that an RfAr is advisable to handle Beeblebrox and "the other problematic users who are involved" ... There are no prizes for guessing what that might mean. It is a much better idea for Wer900 to follow Carrite's advice and to ignore Captain Occam and his enablers. Mathsci (talk) 07:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC) As predicted Captain Occam has now suggested that Wer900 should start an arbcom case with me as a party.[34] Occam writes, " you and I both know that ArbCom (and more specifically AGK) has given you explicit permission to do that, and permission to do it on my behalf." Occam's going cranky in his old age. Mathsci (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
        • Well, since you claim to know what everyone else is thinking, I'm not certain what you need the rest of us for. You seem happier having conversations with yourself anyway. Resolute 14:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose one, it's double jeopardy. Original motion likely opposed. 2, if he was in fact guilty, he should have had the original punishment. 3 If he's not guilty he's not guilty and there should be no reprimand. There were other people here that were attacking users battleground mentality allows us to pick favourites and eliminate editors we don't like. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Recommend mediation.Greengrounds (talk) 02:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Sadly, there is no "mediation" procedure. It's not "double jeopardy," it's an alternative proposal. Nobody questions that Wer has been over the line, the question is whether he will wake up and what should be done about it if he doesn't... Carrite (talk) 02:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose  TUXLIE  11:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The suggestion has been made, presumably Wer900 has seen it. If you think he hasn't, drop a note on his talk page. No need to discuss this. Hatting
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
ArbCom? Wer900 may have exaggerated things and may have made accusations against some editors that cannot be fully supported. But many of the points he has made do have merit, they do point to a serious problem. That's why I think Wer900 should start an ArbCom case. That would also force him to fully support every accusation he makes. I would suggest Wer900 to immediately start such an ArbCom case before some Admin imposes a block based on the above discussion, he'll then have immunity against blocking for the issues discussed here. Count Iblis (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC) A curious suggestion given Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Beeblebrox remains a redlink. Also one where the absolutely best case scenario for Wer900 would be a pyhhric victory given their own conduct would also be evaluated. Resolute 19:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC) Could somebody please hat this sub-thread? Mathsci (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC) It's up to Wer to decide what to do next, I think it's better to start an ArbCom case than to start a RFC/U because part of the community is already complaining about Wer's complaints. So, it seems to me that if Wer wishes to continue with his arguments against Beeblebrox and some other Admins, he should do so in an ArbCom case. Count Iblis (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC) Could somebody please hat this sub-thread? Mathsci (talk) 20:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC) It's better to wait with that until Wer starts an ArbCom case. Count Iblis (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Anti -religious POV-pusher engaged in disruptive edits

I regret feeling the need to come here re a user,Greengrounds, who has in the last couple of days, turned his attention to various articles on Jesus and has made it quite clear in numerous talk page postings that he is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but to fight for the truth. He started off by altering the lead of Historicity of Jesus, [35], and when this was reverted he reverted it straight back again with no discussion. He has appeared on the talkpage of the user who did that asking him if he does not realise that the source for information about Jesus, the Bible, says "he flew in the air like a zombie spaghetti monster" [36]. He removed a whole properly sourced section of the article "Historicity of Jesus" because he didn't like the subject header, with no discussion on the talk page [37]. He changed the opening sentence of the second paragraph of the lead of Historicity of Jesus, a sentence that has been arrived at after years of discussion from "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed" to "Apart from fundamentalist Christians, all experts agree the Jesus of the Bible is buried in myth and legend", [38],ignoring an edit notice requesting that changes not be made to the lead without discussion on the talkpage and consensus achieved first. He insists on inserting a tendentious and ungrammatical section at the beginning of the article - Ehrman lays out a the framework that historians can only establish what probably,and that miracles by their very nature are the least likely explanation for what happened [39] explaining that miracles cannot happen when the article does not discuss miracles. Just in the last few minutes, he reverted another article Christ Myth Theory,to a version from some time ago, with the edit summary "reverted to older version before apologists erased the whole article. It is for showing the theories, not for showing mainstream scholarly opinion" [40] undoing the entire, painstaking, excellent revision of the article undertaken only a few days ago by User PiCo and has slapped neutrality tags all over both articles. There is much, much more, I will supply further diffs if requested, this is only a little taste of his activities altering articles over the last two days. On talk pages, he has repeatedly made it clear that he is on a mission to proclaim the truth that the Bible states that Jesus was a "flying space zombie" [41], an expression he is very fond of and uses over and over, and accuses any one who challenges him about anything of being a Christian apologist [42]. Once again, this is a mere sampling of his talk page activities and he has made it quite clear that he is only just beginning [43] [44]. I have tried to staunch the flow of his frenzied tendentious editing of these articles to some extent but have not got the time or energy to keep doing it, something needs to be done to put at least a temporary halt, or slowing down, of this, it is turning these articles into disaster areas. I am not necessarily requesting blocks or bans right now, I would at least like an admin to explain WP policies and guidelines to him (I assume it is a him) and I feel we need to undo the damage he has done to these articles and prevent any more.Smeat75 (talk) 04:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Smeat, you do not regret coming here to plaster me. This is not the first time you have done this to an editor you don't get along with.Greengrounds (talk) 11:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The wiki on the christ myth theory was decimated by Pico, a move he did right befre he ritired that user name. sMeat has undone my previous edits on that article where I restored some of the 60,000 letters pico erased without discussion. So I restored to an edit from before retired user Pico erased most of the article. The material removed by pico and smeat (by way of her own reversions) was well referenced and remvoed without discussion or good reason.

The lead on wiki on the historicity of jesus was not changed in a way that changed the citation, but was a citation from the same author which presents the undisputable fact (amongst scholarly historians) that jesus life is infact enshrouded by myth. No historian beleives the resurrection actually took place, and that is why it was worth mentioning. To my own credit I have made some bad edits that have been reverted with good reason, and those I left alone. But please while your looking at my edits, please look at Smeat's edits as well. Since her own style of bullying and POV pushing is quite evident in her lack of gathering consensus or using the talk page, and right down to this very article she brought up here. She is not getting her way, and she's mad. That's all this is. Please see the talk page on Historicity of Jesus you will see how I have been engaging and discussing with other users, some of them agree with me, and there has already been posts on that page pertaining to the POV. I discussed the NPOV tags before I put them in. See this post on the talk page: Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#Obnoxiously_point_of_view. Smeat had many opportunity to object, and as you can see, I am not the one who started the discussion, nor am I the only one who has an issue with the article as is. Also, this user Smeat seems out to get me. She has already started grievances with other senior editors. Seems more like the behavour of someone who is mad because there are people on Wikipedia who have different evidence to present than what she is used to seeing. But every edit I have made has been from scholarly peer reviewed sources, sources already being used and accepted by smeat with no problem... that is, until she doesn't like what they have to say. Other than the one edit on Tacitus, which smeat was actually right about, and I backed off on that one. As you can see, I am not being unreasonable, it is just a case where one user is being a squeaky wheel trying to save face and get her way. --Greengrounds (talk) 05:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

For the further information of administrators, Editor Greengrounds entered similar conflicts with longstanding editors in relation to Religious views of Adolf Hitler and to a lesser extent Catholic Church and Nazi Germany a few months ago, leading to this request for comment by User:Hcc01. Ozhistory (talk) 05:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

"Since her own style of bullying and POV pushing is quite evident in her lack of gathering consensus or using the talk page"[45][46][47] Talk pages where I have had many discussion with Greengrounds over the last two days.Smeat75 (talk) 05:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Greengrounds is actually an anti-religious POV pusher. I think he is merely trying to counter what he perceives as bias, not trying to impose his own view on others. And though he makes some good points, he is making them badly and ignoring normal Wikipedia procedures and guidelines. That does qualify his edits as disruptive and it needs to stop. I think a warning and an offer of coaching would be appropriate. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

GG said, I thought that was common knowledge. Well it is, but not amongst Wikipedia's christian apologetics community. I'd say that rather than being anti-religious, he would seem to be more anti-Christian. That's my $0.02. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

These are preposterous accusations to make against Smeat75. We need as a community to find a better way to deal with these kinds of situations before they become cesspools that drain time and energy. Greengrounds may or may not have the capacity to contribute constructively, but the first step would be to willingly stop crusading and proceed with more encyclopedic detachment. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Cynwolfe. Some of Greengrounds edits are proper, correct, and needed. I've personnally seen many edits (and he and I seem to follow the same Christian Wiki pages) that I agreed with a thought "now why didn't I see that..."

That being said, his actions and words all speak to having a huge axe to grind against some editors (I specifically remember him calling out PiCo as a problem which I thought was laughable considering I always saw him as a middle of the road voice for reason) and against Christianity in general. He does this by sometimes wholesale changes and then challenges all desenters as "Christian Apologists". At the very least he needs to tone down his clear bias & non-NPOV against Christianity and instead focus on gaining concensus for his revisions. Because right now there is NONE - he comes in, ticks everyone off, and then claims to be the injured party on Talk. You don't get anything done that way. Another point is that Smeat75 only captured a few of the pages this is simultaneously happening on - there are others with Miracles of Jesus & Tacitus on Christ‎ being just two of them. Ckruschke (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

His conduct certainly indicates some serious problems being able to contribute in a non-disruptive way. I'm not sure I would necessarily support an edit restriction yet, neither am I sure I would oppose it. But at the very least I believe an extremely strong warning is called for. The recent, rather ridiculous, claims against PiCo, one of the few editors I personally trust to deal with contentious material regarding Christianity, speaks volumes to me about Greengrounds' possible very problematic views, and his ability to conduct himself in accord with policies and guidelines. John Carter (talk) 22:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

A fairly unimportant point about the thread title - there was already a thread "Religious POV-pusher engaged in disruptive edits" so rather than trying to think up a section header I just put "Anti-" in front of that one.I don't know if he is really anti-religious, I do know that he is not editing from a neutral point of view and is causing disruption, and as Ckruschke says, to more articles than I mentioned in my first post here, I did not want to produce a wall of text.17:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I had already warned him once and the second time told him to read the ANI notice about User:Davidbena, saying that if he does not take heed from it I will begin an ANI notice as "Atheistic POV-pusher engaged in disruptive edits". User:Greengrounds and User:Davidbena are mirror images of each other, one thinks that the Bible is totally worthless and the other thinks the Bible is infallible and they both push such POVs. User:Davidbena said he understood that his behavior was problematic, and I hope he tries to better his ways. If we get User:Greengrounds to admit that much, it would be a progress. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Watching the debates with User:Greengrounds has become hilarious. He displays the sort of nonchalance like that displayed by William Foster from Falling Down who only when getting close to his demise is considering the possibility that he was the bad guy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Topic ban. Without prejudice to any issues that may have been raised here about Smeat75 I suggest a topic ban for Greengrounds to start with Religious views of Adolf Hitler, Catholic Church and Nazi Germany, Historicity of Jesus and their talk pages. Your inability to respond in a rational manner on this subject indicates your own clear bias, and the manner in which Greengrounds frequently expresses himself is a clear indication of carrying on ideological battles (a policy) and an inability to attempt to work together in the spirit of a collaborative environment. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment Um, the quote you linked to is from me, not him. John Carter (talk) 01:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I know. Sorry if it wasn't clear - must have been an error in my punctuation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Support; I think a topic ban on the above listed articles is Religious views of Adolf Hitler, Catholic Church and Nazi Germany, Historicity of Jesus is more than justified, though Greengrounds has also been actively seeking to revise Jesus, Historical Jesus, Miracles of Jesus, and Christ myth theory among others. As other editors have said across different talk pages, not every point Greengrounds raises is invalid, but the frantic rate of his interventions is not conducive to good editing, and the disrespect he is showing to multiple editors, and disregard for multiple wikipedia policies is highly disruptive.Ozhistory (talk) 06:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose for now, I think a stern warning, preferably combined with an offer of coaching, should be given first. The warning should spell out that the next step would indeed be a topic ban. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, what was irrational about providing a Bart Ehrman reference saying that historians don't actually think the resurrection of Jesus happened? That is as rational of a response to support a claim as I could get, no? Ehrman is an expert, a scholar and is already being used widely to set the tone of the article which states a quote from ehrman that All scholars of antiquity think jesus existed. The other half of that statement really is that no scholars of antiquity think jesus was resurrected from the dead. So who is exhibiting the POV bias here? Is me or you and the two or three other editors that seem to have a problem? Secondly, two users have already come out saying that I am not POV pushing. I have modified my behaviour already in regards to using people's talk pages the wrong way. Just because I think that Jesus is no more than a mortal man, and I'm trying to introduce scholarly opinion (which overwhelmingly supports this.)into the articles which reflects this. It seems to me there are only two or three people (smeat being the main one) who are taking Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and who are undoing people's edits without using the talk page. Smeat has been involved in getting other users banned who disagree with her, on the same articles, and she undoes their edits without using the talk page just putting in the comments undoing so and so's "disruptive edits" here's an example of her past behaviour with other editors:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus&diff=569079678&oldid=569036514

Here are some examples of her comments: Greengrounds, you are making very contentious changes, it is unacceptable to say "the Jesus of the Bible is buried in myth and legend", that is totally non neutral POV and is not supported by the sources cited. You ignored the edit notice that comes up whenever anyone tries to alter that section,which is not to say that no one must ever alter it, but it does need to be discussed on this talk page and consensus arrived at first. I have changed it back to a neutral statement (which was arrived at after years of discussion).Smeat75 (talk)

The reference she is referring to is one supported by Ehrman, and the citation showed this. This is Ehrman's opinion, the same guy who's opinion is being used to say "all scholars agree jesus existed". Her exception to this comment is because of her own Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. From a neutral, secular, non christian POV Jesus' life is buried in myth in legend. This is the view supported by mainstream scholarly opinion from a historical view. The view that jesus is not surrounded in myth, is the view of fundamentalist Christians, is encyclopedic, and is NON NEUTRAL POV pushing. Greengrounds (talk) 04:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course I did not mean "it is unacceptable to say "the Jesus of the Bible is buried in myth and legend" in conversation, or in other "real life" context, or on wikipedia as a direct quote, but that it was unacceptable for the article to say that instead of what Greengrounds changed it from - altering "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed" to "Apart from fundamentalist Christians, all experts agree the Jesus of the Bible is buried in myth and legend", [48], with no discussion first, when an edit notice actually appears whenever anyone starts to edit that sentence specifically asking any change to it to be discussed on the talk page first.Smeat75 (talk) 13:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I must clarify and apologise to a certain extent as I see that he did not delete "virtually all modern scholars agree that Jesus existed", he added the "buried in myth and legend" sentence before that one but the sources cited still do not say "buried in myth and legend".Smeat75 (talk) 13:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

As has been pointed out here, but I was not aware of, Greengrounds has been engaged in very combative conflicts with editors on other pages, including Religious views of Adolf Hitler, where another editor left this comment back in May : "perhaps you should steer clear from articles which touch on religion. Your hatred of Christians is palpable, and bringing out your animosity towards any religious group is not appropriate here. Assigning your opponents to that religious group is also not appropriate."[49]Smeat75 (talk) 04:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Greengrounds is now attempting to portray Smeat75 as a "lone ranger" objecting to his behaviour. This not the case, and though I am not overly familiar with Smeat75's record, he/she deserves to be defended against this false portrayal. Far from Smeat and "one or two others" complaining, I personally have never seen such a storm of editors challenging one editor's behaviour across multiple articles in such a small space of time. Greengrounds ran a similar "persecution" line of defence when challenged by multiple users for his interventions on Religious views of Adolf Hitler, where he started an edit war in April (wanting to lead that article with "Adolf Hitler was devout Catholic") and was soon after warned by user:Deadbeef: "stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Religious views of Adolf Hitler. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Deadbeef (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)" As editor User:Hcc01 submitted in his Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Greengrounds of 1 June "Greengrounds' entire talk page is awash with attempts to resolve" disputes. That comment still holds - only more so. Ozhistory (talk) 06:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Not only that, but he began to hatch down another decent article, see [50] and [51], the later edit with the preposterous reason that reliable sources are not allowed to do OR:Synthesis. I think the world has been warned enough about religious fundamentalism, now we should consider warning it of atheistic fundamentalism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, rather than slowing down his hectic pace of contentious changes to a whole range of articles, Greengrounds is expanding to new articles, including Josephus on Jesus where he has said on the talk page that he wants to remove any material cited to any theologian because theology is Pseudo-scholarship[52]. Greengrounds has already received a warning from an admin, now I think some intervention by an admin is needed, so as others above have called for a topic ban, I support a topic ban for Greengrounds to cover Christianity, broadly construed. If there is not consensus for that, I think he should be blocked for twenty-four or forty-eight hours to prevent further disruption to a whole range of articles and see if he can return in a more collaborative frame of mind.Smeat75 (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have to agree with Smeat75 - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Greengrounds, moving on to Historicity of Jesus with the demand that anything sourced to a theologian must be removed [53] "We can't use John Painter as a source here. He is a theologian not a historian" and deleting material from the article Relationship between religion and science for no other reason than that it quotes an archbishop [54], edit summary "removed soap boxing statement by Habgood. This is not a place for preaching. Habgood should be removed entirely. He's an archbishop, not a scholar". I note that on this thread there has not been a single comment from any editor except Greengrounds attempting to defend his edits or behaviour and three editors,including me, have supported Kudpung, an admin I believe, in calling for a topic ban. Time for action in my opinion, what's the point of not dealing with this disruption and letting it continue?Smeat75 (talk) 03:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Ozhistory is guilty of Wikipedia:Harassment#wikihounding. He has followed me from another dispute. He follows me from talk page to talk page, denouncing my edits, good faith and ethics and posts links to this board He has also been guilty of Wikipedia:Edit warring in the past, as witnessed by User:Deadbeef and is not a good member of Wikipedia he has also been accused of Christian POV pushing. User:Smeat75 has a history of bringing other non religious editors to trial here on this noticeboard. She is warlike in her reverts, comments and talk page contributions. To a lesser extent than Ozhistory, she has been guilty of wikipedia:harassment#wikihounding having followed me to more than one talk page and posting links to this board. Not only that, user:Smeat75 is guilty of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles with a small group of others especially on JesusHistorical JesusHistoricity of JesusChrist myth theory. Just my two bits on them. And for my part, I am not a revert king or queen like others, I make my edits, provide sourcing and reasons, and use the talk pages. I do not personally attack users, though I have been guilty of it twice. Since this post was made about me, I have not had any complaints other than from Ozhistory who has been wikihounding me. It't time for you to take this down and everyone go about their Wikipedia editing. Use those talk pages, people. And "Reverted disruptive edit by greengrounds won't cut it." And Smeat's and others getting offended because I don't hold the never take thy lord's name in vain stuff literally has nothing to do with Wiki policy. It has more to do with Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEYOU

And you know what else, I'm a NEUTRAL POV PUSHER, not an Atheist POV pusher. If I see something that is non-neutral POV, like so many religious articles are, I will flag it, and I will make edits to try and fix it. AFIK that's what NPOV tags are for.Greengrounds (talk) 11:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

You know, I honestly don't think anyone other than you would come to the same conclusion. Your previous comments indicate a rather amusing statement that because students of early Christianity are often Christian, that they can't be counted as neutral reliable sources, I am aware of no policy or guideline which supports such a contention. John Carter (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

[User:Smeat75]] has a history of bringing other non religious editors to trial here on this noticeboard. This is the first AN/I discussion I have ever initiated though I have participated others.Smeat75 (talk) 11:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Greengrounds above says I have "been guilty of Wikipedia:Edit warring". The solitary occasion where I was linked to an edit war in four years was over Greedngrounds attempt to rewrite the Religious views of Adolf Hitler page to describe Adolf Hitler as a "devout Catholic" and delete extensive sourced material, leading to this request for comment by another user. His statement above that I have been accused of Christian POV presumably again refers to his own interactions with me, where he has called me a "Christian apologist" (but then this is an accusation he has directed against most every editor involved in the above discussion). His claim that he has "not had any complaints other than from Ozhistory" is bizarre in light of the lengthy dissertations from multiple editors above and on every talk page on which he has been active over the last week. A quick viewing oh his talk page reveals that user:John Carter; user: Tgeorgescu and user:Smeat75 have all complained directly to him since 29 August. This is not to begin to count those who have complained above, or complained on the talk pages of the articles he is attempting to re-write. His accusation that I have been "wikihounding" him apparently refers to my participation on this thread, and advice to the editors at Talk:Relationship between religion and science that this thread existed, following contentious edits by him on that page. Ozhistory (talk) 12:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I note that this thread has already had two !votes for and 1 !vote against a topic ban. If there is an intention of using this thread to discuss such issues, I think creating a separate subsection to specifically deal with it is probably a good idea. John Carter (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Ozhistory (talk) Funny you should bring up the Hitler article, the one that you had rewritten so that the opening line is "Hitler was an Atheist". But your wikihounding is a little more rampant than you'd care to show, isn't it? And your previous edit warring, justify it however you want, but It is still edit warring, and an admin did warn you about it, remember? He warned both of us.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Relationship_between_religion_and_science&diff=prev&oldid=571040206 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Relationship_between_religion_and_science&diff=prev&oldid=571026956 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus&diff=prev&oldid=570470133

wikipedia:harassment#wikihounding Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors,CHECK and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contributeCHECK, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their workCHECK. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor.Only for virtuos reasons, not to annoy or distress, right? Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.CheckGreengrounds (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC) Martijn Meijering (talk) I'd be open to coaching if you know someone or have your own regimenGreengrounds (talk) 00:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

(e-c with Martijn Meijering) Please read WP:HA#NOT, as well. It is generally considered acceptable, and in some cases even encouraged, for one editor who sees a consistent pattern of misconduct in a group of articles they watch to see if the same problematic conduct is exhibited elsewhere. While, to the editor engaging in the problematic edits that might appear to be harassing, WP:AGF also has to be considered. Basically, Greengrounds, for the almost paranoic insinuation you give above, and I quote, "Only for virtuos reasons, not to annoy or distress, right? it would be more or less incumbent of you to present some real evidence, which you have to date not presented. That being the case, the comment above could perhaps reasonably be seen as being itself a form of personal attack as per WP:NPA, and it really does not help your case in any way for you to engage in such unsupported insinuations or attacks. John Carter (talk) 00:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I would like to return to a comment Cynwolfe made earlier in this thread - "We need as a community to find a better way to deal with these kinds of situations before they become cesspools that drain time and energy." Somebody who goes barging into several different pages almost simultaneously proclaiming that the Bible says Jesus was a zombie spaghetti monster [[55] or became a space zombie [56] and whose response to anyone who challenges him about anything is "let me guess, you're a Christian, right?"[57] is clearly, clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. It is so juvenile, so presumptuous, is it any wonder that serious actual scholars do not spend their time on wikipedia, who wants to deal with that sort of childishness all the time? User History 2007 and User PiCo, invaluable editors in this area, recently both retired for the specific reason, so I am told,[58], that they got fed up with constant POV pushers. This is a terrible loss to the project. The procedures you have to go through to try to do something about these kinds of editors are time consuming, drag out for weeks or months or years, and wear patience to the bone. I don't see any reason why it should be tolerated at all past one warning, which Greengrounds has already had.Smeat75 ( talk) 00:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

List of persistent breaches over several months

Thank you John Carter. Greengrounds is in breach of multiple policies. Greengrounds has repeatedly attacked me personally for challenging his contentious edits, and you have correctly identified his accusation against myself and two other editors of wikipedia as a personal attack per WP:HA#NOT. I propose to list a few of the worst examples of Greengrounds' breaches below, and if other editors could add to the list with edits they have noted so that we have a maximum clarity and evidence, and then return then place there comments on the proposed topic ban against Greengrounds in the next subsection. The following list is not exhaustive. Please expand as appropriate (but keep it brief and support with link):

Personal attacks

• Calling an editor 'truly retarded' @19:10, 22 April 2013 for querying an edit
• He received an admin warning and ban threat for personal attacks [[59]] @ 21:22, 22 April 2013.
• But a month later he called an editor a [Holocaust Denier] because the editor requested that he provide "good sources that have survived peer review". This one may well take the cake: " If you can't handle reality (which you can't if you deny the Christian link to the killing of 6 million Jews), then of course you will be offended when reality bites you in the butt. You go around acting like a hypocrite, from time to time you will get called one." @ 09:29, 29 May 2013
• [60]]
• [[61]]
• Another admin warning 29 August [62]

Use of unreliable sources

• see here
• here.

Breaking up comments on talk pages (ie an action that could be considered vandalism

• here

Deletion of reliably sourced content

• [[63]]
• [[64]
• [[65]

NPOV

• Greengrounds is embarking on a campaign to remove any material in two different articles sourced to a book published by an academic press, "Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition", published by University of South Carolina, by NT scholar and theologian John Painter because, Greengrounds says, theologians are liars [66] -" Theologians are good at "Painting portraits" of lies, myths, misconceptions, and forgeries in scripture. That's where their use is done." - an argument about on the same level as the Bible says that Jesus was a "zombie spaghetti monster." He hasn't made any changes to the article texts yet, to give him credit, he does appear to be discussing proposed contentious changes on talk pages first, but his bias and pov could not be more obvious.Smeat75 (talk) 12:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually I realised that what I said about Greengrounds not removing material based on Painter from articles is not true, he did just that on the Historicity of Jesus article [67] with the edit summary "Removed "John Painter" references. A theologian is not a historian please see Wikipedia FRINGE sourcing" but it was restored by other editors (not me). Smeat75 (talk) 12:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Votes/discussion for topic ban of Greengrounds

Please vote here so that we can all keep track of the state of play. Please be brief.

Hmm, the people taking part in discussion here are the same people as on the Talk pages of the articles in question. I don't know what the rules say, but it doesn't seem right that we should have a vote of just involved editors. Maybe the involved editors (myself included) shouldn't even be voting at all. Martijn Meijering (talk) 08:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

That's the MO of wiki article owners, and it is the reason that WIKI is loosing editors en masse. A little group doesn't like what I'm doing, and since I have been able to get consensus for my propositions, (which they write off as fringe editors of they don't value their opinions because it's a new editor), and their attempts at blocking all of my edits have been unsuccessful, since as I said I have been able to get some consensus. There are 1800 Watchers of the jesus pagewatcher, 228 wathers of "historical Jesus, and 311 watchers, the list goes on and this small group is offended because they can't get consensus to block all of my edits, so they'd rather try and slander and ban users. This is the behaviour that makes Wikipedia lose editors, and turns Wikipedia into a battleground. "If you don't agree with us, we'll kick you out, we won't allow you to edit, and if you take the lord's name in vain, this is heresy and you will be apostatized."Greengrounds (talk) 01:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

It is meaningless to suggest that the number of people watching an article equates to a number of editors with a particular bias. There are 1,114 people watching the Cat article too. What motive are you assigning to them? Many editors use the setting to automatically add a page to their watch list whenever they edit a page, without necessarily having any intention of ever actually returning to edit the page. The claim that Wikipedia is 'losing editors en masse', or that they are doing so for the reason you've suggested, is also unfounded.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban

• Support Kudpung
• Support Ozhistory
• Support Smeat75
• Support Ret.Prof
• Support Bill the Cat 7

• Oppose for now, I think a stern warning, preferably combined with an offer of coaching, should be given first. The warning should spell out that the next step would indeed be a topic ban. Martijn Meijering
• Oppose agree with what Martijn Meijering says and more generally, in my experience, anyone who tries to contest a strong pro-Christian pov on articles gets a rough time - ozhistory slagged me off as a negative editor and told a friend he/she would support 'any action' to get me banned or blocked for ages, - I don't think greengrounds methods or arguments are always sound by any means , but then who is without sin. Cerainly not Ozhistory imo. Sayerslle (talk) 14:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • "The source says he flew in the sky like a zombie spaghetti monster"[68]- this is your idea of contesting a strong Christian pov? Accept that the Bible says Jesus "became a space zombie", or you must be a Christian pov pusher, it is ridiculous.Smeat75 (talk) 16:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Well said Smeat75. As to what Sayerslle says of me, the precise quote from me to user:Integrityandhonesty was that Sayerslle was: "generally not constructive. I will support any further action by way of referring him to administrators, as it is clear from his talk page that he is a serial offender, who has been banned often." So the accusation that I said I would support "any action to get him banned or blocked for ages" is quite inaccurate. But this is a digression. Ozhistory (talk) 00:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I can see why you'd try and smear another user because of his talk page. I guess that's why you really see the importance of keeping your talk page clean by Removing ADMIN warnings from your own talk page. Anyone can edit their talk page, but it's really un-wiki like. Remember when we agreed not to edit the lead, but you went ahead and did it anyway? Your holier than thou attitude is not appropriate.Greengrounds (talk) 01:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Greengrounds, you are making more false allegations and topping these off with further personal attack! Disgraceful conduct. Firstly: " Remember when we agreed not to edit the lead, but you went ahead and did it anyway". No such agreement was reached, proof of this is confirmed by admin Deadbeef's explanation at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard of [6 June 2013], wherein he says: "I attempted to mediate this issue myself by crafting a draft... However, it was never fully agreed upon...". I demand an apology and retraction. Furthermore, you again insinuate that I have been involved in more than one edit war, when in fact there was only one - and that was over your conduct on Religious views of Adolf Hitler. Finally - you are again responding to questioning of your conduct with a personal attack: "Your holier than thou attitude is not appropriate". At which point in this process will you modify your behaviour?" Editors please note, despite the good efforts here to encourage him to modify his behaviour, this editor continues to employ personal attack. Ozhistory (talk) 02:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support I am completely uninvolved, not a Christian, and agree this user has a serious problem playing well with others. Ultra Venia (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose From what I've seen of him he is open to reasoning and sources when approached in discussion. I think he should perhaps be reminded not to break WP:POINT, to stick to reliable sources and not to describe editors (or the rest of the world) as divided into "pro" and "anti" religion, but give a nuanced and fair descrition of the relation between science and religion. I think he is able to follow that if given a chance.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose pretty much as per Martijn Meijering above, particularly if he shows a willingness to take part in coaching, and maybe told rather clearly to tone down the rhetoric a little. The topic of "science and religion" is a pretty complex one, with, if I remember right, a two volume encyclopedia about it, and several journals. If we had someone willing to work on developing content related to this topic, and this editor seems to maybe be interested in that broad field, I could see him becoming a very valuable editor. John Carter (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

John Carter, could you clarify, are you opposing a topic ban for Greengrounds on any topic, or just on Science and Religion?Smeat75 (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I oppose the proposed topic ban on religion, while noting that, as Manus said above, he may be particularly useful in the field of science and religion, which is honestly, hard to differentiate clearly from the broader religion field. But, like I implied, if he doesn't take part in coaching, or tone down the rhetoric, I think there is a very real chance he will be back shortly, and I am far from convinced that I would not be less lenient then. John Carter (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support it unless User:Greengrounds apologizes for his behavior and abides by his apology. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I've been slowly working through copyediting one of the affected articles (Historicity of Jesus), and observed a degree of 'pro-Christian' bias in the article content. Articles such as these benefit from having editors with varying views. However, Greengrounds should tone down some of his comments that are needlessly offensive, and also needs to keep within the scope of individual articles rather than trying to make broader points.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Diversity of views is not an excuse for disruptive editing. The needlessly offensive comments are the issue here. Martijn Meijering (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support echo Martijn Meijering's thoughts. Considering all but one of his edits have been in the past 4 months and more than half were made in the last 10 days, seems to me he has a serious axe to grind which is "brand new" to him or something else is going on. Ckruschke (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

disruptive editing at WP:COI

as much as i feel like i generally agree with hir, Cantaloupe2 is, i feel, disruptively editing the CoI policy page. moving around to different sections, but unwilling, despite my attempts to engage on either page or user talk, to come to consensus before making substantial edits that affect the entire WP environment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎UseTheCommandLine (talk • contribs)

response I asked for explanation and discussion, but I have not been given any explanation beyond that you feel that you disagree. I have explained the edits quite thoroughly. I would like each objections hashed out, item by item, but so far you have not done so and you brought the issue here. What would you think is an amicable resolution here?

I have provided a thoroughly explanation in the TALK page discussion. I provided you with Wikipedia's definition of consensus and some citations that clarifies my premise. I'm unclear as to what exactly it is you find objectionable and your response seems to rather philosophical and ambiguous. The definition of consensus came from Wikipedia's cosensus policy page. In response to your statement "Look, while not a core policy, this is a significant and substantial one. " , I asked why it is significant and substantial, but no response was provided.

Cantaloupe2 (talk) 08:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

immediately after responding here, this editor went to my most recently edited article and was rather hasty in removing ELs, removing at least one RS. But i'm hoping most admins are the sort to immediately look into commenters' editing history, making this comment unnecessary. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 09:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The external links we add here must adhere to WP:EL. The San Francisco Chronicle you claim to have been removed was dead and it was replaced with a new URL that is alive. Please stay on topic. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 09:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

the EL in question, from this revision of the page, works just fine for me, thanks. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 09:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Please reference edit. The San Francisco Chronicle is a good source. The pre-existing link, however was found to be stale as-found. I therefore, located the currently live URL and replaced it in source, then I removed it from the external link seciton per WP:ELRC but you accused me of removing a reliable source and re-inserted the old dead URL in an incorrect format hindering improvement effort. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 10:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

This user has also been rather disruptive on WinCo Foods. While (s)he is in the right to bring up bias issues, they appear to be misusing the WP:COI template because they suspect, with minimal(1) evidence(2), that the anonymous editors are affiliated with the company. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

For context, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cantaloupe2 from January 2013, with some similar concerns about editing process and application of the COI guideline. Dreamyshade (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

That seems pretty significant. Given what I've seen (and acknowledging that i might be biased, i did fly off the handle there a bit in an edit summary or two) I think this is a situation in immediate need of both a short term solution by administrators, and a long term solution up to and including arbitration. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 20:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Yet more context, not related to this particular incident at WP:COI but related to this particular editor: On another article in recent weeks, I have observed and been subject to disruptive editing by Cantaloupe2. Since not explicitly a part of this discussion, I'll hold the topic out of this thread for now, but would be happy to document if asked by an administrator to do so. Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

This user has continued their pattern of hostile editing and repeated changes to the WP:COI page without consensus. I have taken it to AN3 for now. Given the number of other editors who've chimed in about how this editor's behavior is clearly problematic, though, I still believe it will require more significant/sustained administrator attention than AN3. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 02:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

request for response Please followup to the response I provided on the matter of the issue you raised. Thank you, Cantaloupe2 (talk) 03:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Break/Proposal

In light of the additional information presented, I would like to make the following suggestions.

Proposal: Editing restrictions such as WP:1RR or WP:0RR for a limited duration (1 month?). I think some kind of civility restriction or warning may also be warranted^{* see addendum below} given that this user has demonstrated a propensity for retaliatory behavior, which Drmies described in in this user's RfC/U from earlier this year as a "tit-for-tat, borderline personal-attack style of communication"

I make this suggestion also acknowledging that this user has made a number of what i would consider good edits, and in the hope that slowing things down, they would be able to become a more productive and collaborative contributor over time.

* addendum: as I acknowledged earlier in the thread, i flew off the handle in one of my edit summaries, for which I apologize unreservedly.

-- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 09:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Continuing WP:BATTLE at WinCo Foods

Same user, same apparent inability to negotiate in what I would recognize as good faith. now threats of an RfC, which is consistent with the behavior previously noted in the RfC/U. Edit warring at WP:COI has apparently ceased, thankfully, though this editor brings much the same mentality to the talk page there. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 19:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Counter-complaint. This is a counter complaint against the complainant, user UseTheCommandLine for the behavior of inappropriate consensus building effort, offtopic discussion and disruptive talk page behavior.

• The complainant used the talk page of an article which I had been involved in long before our encounter to solicit input on contentions he's raised on ANI on the topic besides the contents dispute on the talk page. DIFF The basis of this complaint is per WP:Canvassing Spam: "users with no significant connection". The users of the article talk page has no significant connection to complainants contention about COI policy page. Campaigning: discussion to a persuasive complaint that the complainant initiated. Votestack: I assume so as the complainant is bringing this to the discussion on which I've had editorial disputes with which appears to indicate the intent as a hope of someone to support the user's argument.

• Offtopic agenda pushing. Disruptive editing. Seeking RfC is the proper procedures for editorial disagreement involving more than two users where WP:3PO is not recommended. This user used the article talk page as a ground to express personal disputes which detracts from article discussion and it is a personal attack as the contention is based against someone, not topic. The complainant contends that notice of intent to seek RfC, which is to get editorial input for the purpose of neutral consensus building as a "threat" and a "battle ground mentality". Cantaloupe2 (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

This has been Cantaloupe2's MO for a long time. Once an editor disagrees with him, he begins Wiki-stalking that editor, making bad-faith accusations, baiting and battlegrounding on all the articles that editor has contributed to. It would be unsurprising if Cantaloupe started showing up on lots of articles UseTheCommandLine has an interest in. This formula was common among those voicing concerns in the RFCU.

Any editor that engages with Cantaloupe, as UseTheCommandLine has done, or any editor that posts here, puts themselves at risk of being the target of similar behavior. I also noticed Cantaloupe2 has started editing again on a lot of articles on my watchlist, suggesting he is stalking my contribution history yet again.

In User:Drmies close of the RFCU he said "There is sufficient indication of battleground behavior, non-neutral editing... edit warring, tit-for-tat behavior, and a general abrasive and uncooperative manner." And this behavior was started in 2011. Then "I find no indication that their behavior has changed: in January 2013 they were still at it."

Drmies also concluded that RFC/U was "a somewhat toothless venue" and that a block, IBAN or other solution may be needed at AN, but to the best of my recollection, nobody pursued it. That RFC/U was back in March.

I think there is widespread consensus that his pattern of editing is disruptive and it's a major Retention problem that we allow it to continue. Plenty of warnings and civil attempts, especially by User:Dreamyshade and User:DGG have been made to help him edit within consensus. When an editor cannot be reasoned with, that is the appropriate time to use the admin tools. CorporateM (Talk) 23:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

(Disclosure: I have a COI on some of the articles in which I have had disputes with Cantaloupe, though in most cases he was accusing me of having a COI, where I did not)

• Arbcom was suggested as a possible venue. A topic ban is another. So is block for incivility or disruptive editing. Considering where we are right now (ANI), a topic ban might be an option to pursue. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I would support taking this to arbitration. especially after some of this editor's recent history (to wit: arguing about whether an edit can be considered minor, starting an RfC in an apparent attempt to evade what is pretty clearly consensus on how to describe the ownership of a company -- see also this edit, which i think demonstrates this editor's contempt for consensus).

But I also have relatively limited experience with this editor. I think someone else could be much more useful in making a case for WP:ARB. Or, some other admin action might work if there was someone willing to take some before it gets to that point. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 04:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand your opposition to the use of RfC. It seems to me that you have limited understanding of the procedures used here. When there is a conflict involved involving more than two editors, 3rd opinion can't be used and RfC is one of the next go-tos, which facilitates inputs from random participants. It is a tool designed to bring about more perfect neutral input. Would you care to explain your allegation "which i think demonstrates this editor's contempt for consensus)" for TRYING to achieve consensus? Repeated making contentious assertions and refusing to support them doesn't help the cause. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 08:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no opposition to the use of RfC per se. I oppose the way you are using it here, where the consensus of everyone (at least 3 other editors) but you is to use "employee owned" as a descriptor. It is hard for me to see how your repeated explanations of how consensus works on WP are anything but disingenuous, especially given your willingness to disregard it at (most recently) WP:COI, Talk:WinCo Foods, and Talk:Monster (company). -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 08:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Stating that I am "threatening" for expressing my intent to moving up to the next step of problem solving process is uncivil. Call out for "battleground" for articulating my stance on contents concern AND not participating in the discussion is not justifiable. It says that "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear." Much of this discussion is grudges, from users and some from users I haven't interacted in a long time.

"Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion." Driving this thread into ad-hominem attack and calling out "battle ground" is just a way of avoiding having to address the real discussion on the topic of contentions this discussion was started for. The complainant more or less abandoned the discussion. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The central problem with starting an RFC was that consensus had already been reached. While consensus is not a vote, all other things being equal there were at least three (four?) editors in favor of classifying the company as "employee owned", and one editor (you) who insisted it shouldn't be. Dispute resolution, which is what an RFC is, is only useful when there is still a dispute. There wasn't one, but you effectively dragged it out on your own and in a disruptive fashion by forcing the debate to continue. Couple that with the insistence that nearly every single word be sourced and verified (which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I think you've gone overboard when viewed with the COI angle you've taken on things (everything seems to be either a veiled attempt to make the article favorable to the subject, or is just "PR puffery" as you put it)), and you can see where this would be problematic. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed ban of Cantaloupe2 (talk · contribs)

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

---

I propose Cantaloupe2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) be blocked for a period of one week due to continuous edit warring, incivility, wiki-lawyering and now wiki-hounding (this last one just recently occured when the editor followed me to Walmart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to "correct" my edits there without having ever edited that article before).

• Support as proposer. I think a week is charitable given the previous RFC/U and the edit warring he's engaged in, but I think it might get his attention. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfounded allegation. The said is a spin off involving an article which compares WinCo Foods, which we've been extensively involved in and the addition to WalMart by Locke Cole is specifically about this. The problem specifically is about POV presentation in article regarding Winco Foods which is an article I've been working on this article after I spotted a style that looked like PR puffery. Monitoring and editing edits relating to the same problem is a correct use. In the guideline, WP:HOUND, this practice is perfectly legitimate, and even encouraged.

• edit Locke Cole made.

• edit of their contention point.

As clearly evident, this revolves around the same matter. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 05:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support the need for action A temporary ban is purposeless in my opinion. Given that it took me and several other editors an entire month to reach a resolution where Cantaloupe voluntarily took a Wikibreak, clearly something more long term is called for (to prevent any other editors from feeling the same frustration and to ensure Cantaloupe understands the errors of his ways and is personally willing to rectify the issues). While Cantaloupe has produced some beneficial edits, his behaviour and overall attitude to the policies of Wikipedia has overshadowed any improvements he has made to the project. Cantaloupe's treatment of good faith editors and his paranoia-like approach to every editor who has edited an article on a company or consumer product has by far been the most concerning aspect of his presence. God knows how many good faith editors he has driven away. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 06:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • My interactions with this editor have only been very recently (in the past week or two), and while I was made aware of the RFC/U I didn't read it top to bottom, only noted that it clearly didn't have any effect on his behavior. WP:RFAR may be the next step, or another RFC/U, but clearly something needs to be done.. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support, but agree with YuMaNuMa that this cries out for a longer term solution. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 06:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Tentatively support, but agree with YuMaNuMa on something more long-term I added tentatively, because I would normally avoid "voting" where I have a COI. After posting on ANI, Cantaloupe began battlegrounding here, on an article where I do in-fact have a COI. That is an awkward position where an issue spans both my volunteer and COI roles, but I think this vote is fairly obvious anyway, for anyone familiar with the entire saga of his editing. If anyone is uncomfortable with me voting in this case, I will withdraw. CorporateM (Talk) 12:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support block - Editor seems unable to assume good faith and/or follow with policy. A mere few days after a move discussion was made at Talk:Monster (company), Malik Shabazz moved the article to another name after Cantaloupe claimed it was a non-controversial move (have not found the request, perhaps Malik can help?). When this was contested, Malik moved the article back to where the discussion had agreed on. Cantaloupe came to the talk page (suggesting it's possible they knew of the consensus), and has variously tried to claim that a unanimous agreement is not a consensus and "someone" bullied Malik. I think this editor is not here to build an encyclopedia. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Disclosure: I was aware of the Monster discussion as the admin who performed the first (consensus) move. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Further clarification, per request at my talk page: block for at least one week, though longer if needed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support block I am completely uninvolved, but I agree the user shows a battleground mentality with is antithetical to a collaborative environment. I think an indefinite clueblock should be considered, but that can come if the behaviour doesn't change. Ultra Venia (talk) 16:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• I suppose I'm not uninvolved, and I just closed the useless thread below, but I don't really see the point of having Cantaloupe active here. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • now involved and by declaring my counter response as "useless" and having used your admin tool, I don't think you're totally "uninvolved". Cantaloupe2 (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

That might be debatable, though I doubt it. What, it seems, is not debatable, is your wikilawyering, disruptive approach to disputes, as further evidenced by that response to an opinion. You need to understand that this discussion exists because of that behaviour, and demonstrating more of it really isn't likely to help you much. Begoon ^talk 02:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• I haven't used my admin tool. Anyone can close a discussion, and just about everyone can see that your "counter response" was useless. Also, blegh. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support If there's credible consensus that a week is likely to make a difference, and subsequent disruption will be prevented by that short block, then I'd support that. However, the sensible option to me seems to be to block indef until the user convinces an admin that no further disruption of this nature will ensue, and then that admin can unblock. On balance, if blocks are to prevent disruption, the indef is what makes sense to me under the circumstances. Begoon ^talk 17:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support some kind of action - I was involved in disagreements with Cantaloupe2 several months ago, and I created the RFCU. I agree with User:CorporateM that this is an editor retention issue; I haven't been editing as much since that experience. What about asking for Cantaloupe2 to be limited for some time to only editing talk pages, not mainspace pages? Ideally that would encourage Cantaloupe2 to build consensus with other editors (and to try to be friendlier), and at least it would prevent the controversial edits and edit warring. Dreamyshade (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Was going to be neutral but the section below changed that. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 21:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Just because this editor has moved on to articles that have fewer active editors, such as employee stock ownership plan, does not mean that they have been dealt with. They continue to stoke previous battles, and there is seemingly no end to the number of reliable sources they are willing to remove. All of those links are just in the past two weeks, and you can say what you like about linkspam, but what i see is someone not making an effort to try and refine language or integrate existing sources more clearly into the text of articles. This, to me, signals someone more interested in removing text than building an encyclopedia. I consider myself something of a deletionist, and rather intolerant of CoI, but this is just too much, and is disruptive, and I don't see why something hasn't been done about it already. Is it time to take it to arbitration? -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 05:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

and if these edits are not indicative of contempt for consensus i dont know how anyone demonstrates anything here. i searched all of the RfC archives and could not find a single example of this structure, so it's not like there's precedent. my suspicion is that as soon as this editor's name is no longer on the noticeboard, they will ratchet up their aggressive and battleground edits to the previous level, especially since no action has yet been taken. from what i gather that's exactly what happened before, demonstrating just how trivial it is to evade sanctions here. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 05:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree, perhaps a one week block will prevent further disruption for the time being and allow us to find a more long-term and maybe even permanent solution. Currently, the vote in favour of a block or action of some sort is unanimous. Unfortunately due to the nature of Cantaloupe's behaviour, I don't it would be possible for us to negotiate with him, which obviously makes it much harder to reach a resolution. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 06:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef block. Paranoia against "adverts" he sees everywhere has reached a very disruptive level in Cantaloupe2. Based on long-term WP:IDHT track record (RfC/U etc.) it doesn't seem likely he will spontaneously change his mind, so a time-limited block is inappropriate in this case. He should be unblocked only upon giving a clear signal that he is going to change his approach to "policing" Wikipedia. Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support longer block or ban I originally encountered this editor in an extremely frustrating run-in over at Social Security Disability Insurance. In looking into his background, I found that he'd recently been the subject of a RfC/User with 9 editors who tried to work with him and failed and an additional 4 who certified the cause for concern. It appears that nobody defended him. II | (t - c) 16:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Proposed ban of UseTheCommandLine (talk · contribs)

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

---

Complainant raised different contentions on several occasions, yet still have not provided supporting premises to their assertion. I feel that raising complaints, then hopping onto making another one without resolving the one that was started is not an act of good intent. Substantially effort was expended to explain why I was making the edits I was making on the COI policy page which the complainant originally complained about. As my edit history show, I edit in different areas, including technology articles with aim of neutrality and clear of puffery.

The user complained that I was editing the article they edited. That said edit was mostly to purge unambiguous WP:ELNO. This is described as fine and even encouraged WP:HOUND If this was such a point of contention point for them, I do not understand this edit of them: diff. Did the user UseTheCommandLine ever edit in electrical area? UseTheCommandLine (talk · contribs) did not have any prior edits and adding links and referencing another organization gave a pretty good clue of WP:SPAM. The reversion didn't appear to be based on good editorial judgment. Review.. then decide. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 07:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

[69] -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 07:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

That I expressed that I find their interpretation of policy is incorrect and denying their allegation? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 07:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

FTR, I think the edits that are at issue here are these two. I saw an RS being removed, and attempted to address the issues Cantaloupe2 raised with it in the edit summary, since they did not raise any on the talk page. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 07:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, of course. Nothing more than a tit-for-tat reaction, and further demonstration that this editor, Cantaloupe2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is unwilling to accept that their behavior is bad. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly what I'm referring to. It does not click logically with me as far as what you're doing. COI TALK was your cause for complaint. It does not appear to me that you've been proactive in it. As you've been active here raising additional contention points, I take it that you're not following through with the complaints you started even though my good faith attempt to discuss it. You then started complaining that I was editing the articles you edited first. You did not retract your allegation, yet you're seen doing the exact same thing here

diff:::diff2

The very acts of your refusal to participate in consensus building and trying to derail the discussion into an ad-hominem attack against me are my supporting causes for calling you out on Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing. "repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits " You've raised a plethora of additional contentions, yet you've made zero progress on the original issue. I asked you very clearly, several times that you present your premises. Please show me your participation on WT:COI. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 08:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Continued policy violations from User:TonyTheTiger at WT:FOUR

• I know, we're tired of reading these. However, over the past two days Tony has not only edited another user's talk page comments (diff), which fortunately he has not repeated, but implicitly accused editors who disagree with him with be racists (i.e. personal attacks). He uses the term five times in describing a proposed closure with which he disagrees, implying that the editor who formulated the suggested closure (Cdtew) is racist. One of the most telling quotes from this is

"Item 1 of the above closure goes way beyond any non-racist interpretation "Should this project's criteria (and the eligibility of articles for those criteria) be determined by community consensus or by an elected project director?" Yes there is consensus not to have the director determine the criteria, but how racist do you have to be to say that means there is consensus that the director/leader will be relieved of all other responsibilities.

When challenged to support his PAs with diffs, his reply was "Racism in this case is like pornography. I know it when I see it.", with a lengthy diatribe against the proposed closure which seems to imply other editors are likewise racists: "They have cleverly waited until after the traffic from the less involved participants has died down before making their outlandish suggestions." When given a final warning, his reply was "I don't know what else to call it. I could say that everybody is playing dumb if you want". Though Tony may be right that the proposed closure is irregular, he has yet to provide any support for his claims that the opposition he faces is racism.

Could we please have a non-involved admin deal out the necessary reprimanding? I'm too involved with the WP:FOUR issues to do any blocking or otherwise use the admin tools. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Who said this "Though Tony may be right that the proposed closure is irregular"?---TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• That was me. Don't split up my post. Irregular here should be read as "not according to current consensus on the process", not as "there is ill-dealings going on", and "may" is "perhaps". You raise a fairly decent point, but immediately render it moot by playing the race card. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Is it just me or does Tony appear to have a complete lack of clue as to the use of the term "racist"? I remember a thread some years ago where Tony made the same accusations of racism again using his complete misinterpretation of the word. However, when challenged on it, he'd obfuscate as to his definition of it thus leaving participants unwilling/unable to sanction him for what is a personal attack in every way, shape or form. Quite frankly, regardless of his interpretation, the litany of racism accusations should be grounds for a block of some sort. Blackmane (talk) 09:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Crisco, like I said. You can read the RFC, it asks two questions. You want to expand it to grant you permission to change the administration of WP:FOUR around in all other ways. It was an RFC about one element of my claimed director role and you want to use it to usurp all other roles. You have been playing games for a month trying all kinds of administrative actions to put pressure on me for this and that. You have failed at several MFDs and now you have baited me into actions at the current RFC by pretending not to understand what it was about and pretending not to know what an appropriate close is based on the questions put up for discussion. If you act as a racist, I will call you one whether I can prove it or not. No amount of reprimanding will ever silence this portion of my personality. Stop pretending not to know how to read in an attempt to bait my into another ANI.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

?!? How in the world is he acting as a racist? Please, illuminate us to your thought process here. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Tony, you need to define your meaning of "racist". Are you saying that Crisco is making some sort of biased judgement against based on your ethnicity? Blackmane (talk) 09:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm assuming that's what he means. Odd, being called a racist after all the articles I've written on non-white subjects (significantly more than articles I've written on white subjects). Seriously, is that not a blatant enough PA for Tony to be blocked to calm down? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Racism isn't limited to "non-whites".--v/r - TP 12:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Facepalm - I have seen some stupidity over at WP:FOUR but this just has to be by far the most stupid remark from TTT that I have EVER seen! They seem to be trying to play EVERY card and cling to EVERY straw to stay in "power" as director of WP:FOUR but it's just not working. If anyone wants to revive a topic ban discussion then go right ahead... I just looked in the mirror and my face is probably going to bruise! PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 09:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Who acknowledged that the suggested close at FOUR was irregular?---TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Who keeps on trying to FORCE editors to stick to a "my way or the highway" mentality? PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 10:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

PantherLeapord, here is something for you to think about: Who has done more to maintain the Four Award? You or Tony? I'm guessing it is Tony. That leads me to another question: Why did you take it upon yourself to rip the project away from the user who has done so much of the maintenance work there? AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 17:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Here's a question for you, AS. What's with assuming bad faith? Panther and Cdtew only began to be involved with the discussion after Tony's last trip to ANI, and neither seem to be specifically targetting Tony. They want to reach a community consensus, as required by policy, and not have any individual with ownership issues abuse other editors for sport. I don't think either have a personal grudge against Tony, and if (for instance) I were in Tony's position and acting as Tony has acted they would still act the same. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, here I am, waking up and reading the news and Wikipedia, and I find that I've been accused five times of being a racist. I'm not quite sure where the accusation stems from (unless "self-appointed Four Award director" is a race, in which case I suppose I'm guilty). TTT, I don't know if you're white, black, asian, Native American, Pacific Islander, hispanic, time lord, Dalek, dog, cat, or a who from Whoville. Nothing that's I'm aware of wold even suggest to me what your race is. I have never made a single comment that casts aspersions on anyone due to their race, and I am personally deeply offended at your accusation. It appears to me that you are yet again resorting to senseless distractions because you're clearly losing the RfC. I ask an Administrator to take some form of action against Toney because I simply won't stand him slandering my name further. (FYI, I warned him about altering my comments on his talk several days ago). This occurred thereafter. Cdtew (talk) 11:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Let me also add, I was a completely uninvolved editor until I (perhaps stupidly) tried to come up with what I thought was a common sense resolution. I've never had more than a sentence of interaction with TTT before this, and have never made a personal attack on him. In fact, I've defended him from personal attacks! . Cdtew (talk) 12:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• I second the request to have sanctions brought against Tony for this series of egregious personal attacks. I do not take false accusations of racism lightly, and view it as no less a personal attack than any of the words filtered on most talk boards. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• When I read the latest changes on the RFC myself, I wondered what to do about it. I agree TTT is completely overboard with his accusations. He is also stonewalling the discussion about closing the RFC. Tony is absolutely welcome to hold any position in any RFC. But vehemently opposing any close that does not agree with his reading is crossing the line. I support a topic ban for editing anything related to the FOUR award for at least the duration of the current AfC. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban for FOUR award. Last time I argued that TTT should be given a third chance despite his previous block for edit-warring and then his massive canvassing and accusations of bad-faith. Only days ago after he tried to ping me back into the discussion, I urged him again to disengage for a while. It seems clear at this point, though, that he's either unwilling or unable to behave himself in basic ways, and is going to continue to keep finding new ways to cause drama the situation until banned from the page. There was no reason for a user page icon to turn into WWIII; we need to start de-escalating. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Disruptive behaviour / personal attacks by TTT again, throwing around the word "racist" completely inappropriately, as he did in June 2012, which led to a block for 48 hours. AN link, TTT talk page link. Instead of backing down when the matter is brought to ANI, TTT keeps going: "If you act as a racist, I will call you one whether I can prove it or not." This is well over the line and I am blocking TTT for a further 48 hours. Bencherlite^Talk 12:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse block I was actually about to do it myself, but indefinite. I would have blocked TTT until he either identified which remarks were racist, what his definition of racism is, or retracted the remarks.--v/r - TP 12:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse block I've been thinking about indefinitely blocking Tony too. I'd support the block being extended if no progress is made in resolving this clusterfuck in the next 48 hours. The behaviour over WP:FOUR is getting to the stage where it's going to deter editors from creating content if they feel they're going to be dragged into messy drama about awards when they're quite content editing, making good content and avoiding the usual drama areas (i.e here). Nick (talk) 12:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Observation – the only reason I know TTT's race is because Crisco has chosen to nominate for deletion a page about Tony in his user space whilst also in conflict with him at WT:FOUR. Tony's racism comments were over the top and likely reflect that he has been subject to racism offline, but I think Crisco has contributed to Tony feeling that he is being attacked. Tony has been treated badly in the FOUR discussion, which does not excuse or justify his comments, but it does explain his frustration. Maybe some genuinely unbiased and dispassionate eyes on the FOUR discussion might lead to some of Tony's valid points being recognised and separated from the unreasonable posts. EdChem (talk) 13:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• @EdChem: First, the racism comment was directed at me. Second -- "some genuinely unbiased and dispassionate eyes on the FOUR discussion" -- begs that you review my contributions to the discussion, which I believe were entirely fair and neutral. I've never had a cross word with Tony or Crisco, and Tony awarded me the Four Award for Fort Dobbs (North Carolina), while I've had limited interaction with Crisco, but all very positive (off the top of my head) -- so I thought highly of both prior hereto. I called out other users for attacking Tony, I recognized that he was right about the first proposal and my first alternate proposal being a little off-base (hence the striking-through), and then I get my comments edited and called a racist. That sort of capricious nonsensical battleground behavior is why Tony has no excuse for what he's done, regardless of his race, color, creed, or gender. Cdtew (talk) 13:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• @Cdtew:: I have no reason to believe anyone has actually been racist, Tony's claim in that regard was over the top and I will not attempt to justify or excuse his actions. Your contribution has been much better than most and I was not seeking to criticise you. Unfortunately, most contributors have declined to recognise the validity of anything Tony has written, which has not helped to produce a reasonable outcome. EdChem (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• @EdChem:: I had no knowledge of Tony's race until I stumbled across that user page (after looking through his user space, piqued by his comments about racism), and the MFD came not long after that for reasons that I've outlined there. I think Cdtew has been dispassionate here — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• @Crisco 1492:: I have no reason to believe anyone has actually been racist, Tony's claim in that regard was over the top, unjustified and more than a little bizarre. Your decision to nominate his userspace page was unwise given the surrounding conflict and I am disappointed that you did not recognise it as likely to be provocative. As far as dispassionate goes, I've watched the debate at WT:FOUR since before I was invited by Tony to participate and I think your "side" has behaved poorly and not taken on board some of Tony's reasonable points. EdChem (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• @EdChem:: Re: MFD: Perhaps, but I was concerned that if I let it be I would forget (I'm somewhat notorious for that). Re: Behaviour: I was not speaking about any "side", and admit that there were transgressions on both "sides". I was saying that Cdtew has been acting quite dispassionately. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Crisco: I maintain that your decision to nominate was poor, having come after the racism accusation just makes it worse. Regarding behaviour, I did not refer to Cdtew, I referred to you - and your actions have not seemed dispassionate to me, they have seemed partisan and TTT is far from the only one who looks bad. TTT has acted foolishly and made an unjustifed accusation and deserves sanction, but it is sad to see that his actions are concealing from notice the poor behaviour of others. EdChem (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Support block - I also note from his block log and talk page this isn't the first time, he has been blocked previously for making accusations of racism against other users and warned a few times. If he isn't learning this lesson then perhaps we should consider longer than a 48 hour block. Canterbury Tail talk 13:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Block for quite a while This isn't the first time I've seen TonytheTiger here. Y'all need to be thwapping him for flagrant WP:CIVIL violations too; falsely accusing users of racism is something that needs to be seriously discouraged. Jtrainor (talk) 13:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Accusations of racism don't need to be discouraged, they need to be treated much more seriously; especially by those making the accusations. When accusations are flagerantly thrown around, it desensitizes us to real racism. Discouraging it is an effect of that desensitization and the effect of discouraging it will be that legitimate cases will go unheard. We need to step up our responsibility to both be non-discriminatory and treat racism very seriously. Those making the accusations need to realize how serious the accusation is and provide serious evidence so those of us reviewing the accusations can also treat it seriously.--v/r - TP 13:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• FYI: He was blocked about an hour ago for 48 hours by User: Bencherlite. Rgrds. --64.85.215.190 (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Up block to a week 48hrs for the first block makes sense, a repeat of the same behaviour should be met with the obvioius escalation. Thanks to Bencherlite for finding the AN link. That was the one I was referring to in my original comment. Randomly throwing out accusations of racism have the same chilling effect as legal threats and should not be tolerated at all. @IP Bencherlite posted notification of their block above. Blackmane (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Hunh, must of skipped over that somehow in all the text and clicking on the diffs, etc., sorry. --64.85.215.190 (talk) 14:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - since he's blocked, it really needs extending. He was blocked for this exact offense just over a year ago, and clearly hasn't learned, so I think the block should go up to a week, just like Blackmane says. I would support an indefinite topic ban from WP:FOUR (as I've said a few times) but not an indef block this time - however, if he ever repeated the unfounded, abusive accusations, then I would definitely support an indef block. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support Topic Ban If memory serves me right, something like this happened with Featured Sounds as well. Ban and hand over FOUR to someone else  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  16:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Topic Ban It is disappointing that TTT restored to accusations of racism. It is also disappointing that some people felt it necessary to try and wrest WP:FOUR away from TTT, basically pushing him to the side and acting like his years of contributions didn't matter. This was handled brutally and not just by TTT. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 16:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Like I said before, I didn't have a personal stake in this discussion, just brought my relatively neutral viewpoint to the argument. I wouldn't be disclosing everything if I didn't say at this point I'm less neutral, and have been personally offended. That being said, if there's one thing history can teach us, it's that when someone appoints themselves the sole arbiter of anything, they assume the risk of being deposed, violently or otherwise. In that vein, several editors sought to have a policy changed/a circumstance accommodated within existing policy, TTT held himself out as the sole arbiter or the policy and denied the request, and now appears to be losing his grasp to the democracy of the editorship. So, wrest away. Cdtew (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• If he is indeed abusing his position, then that needs to be dealt with. It may be that sanctions are necessary. However, it almost looks to me like some people, not necessarily including you, can hardly wait to completely remove Tony from the Four Award. I really hope it doesn't have to wind up turning out that way. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 17:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• We are not trying to tear TTT from WP:FOUR; we are rather trying to make it clear that personal attacks, constant ABF and abuse will not be tolerated! PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 22:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Precisely. No matter who the editor was, if my first attempt to negotiate a solution (note that I was decidedly neutral at the time) was greeted with "How many MILHIST guys are going to come here to tell me how to run this page?" without any attempt to address the meat of my suggestion, then followed it with a month of edit warring, ABF, canvassing, and personal attacks, I'd be pushing to have the rules determined by consensus. Tony can stay involved with FOUR if he wants, as one of the community, and I don't think anyone has said he shouldn't. There is just no room for a self-declared director who attempts to ignore consensus and assumes bad faith on everyone who doesn't agree with him or her. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Support indef topic ban - It's time to say "Enough is enough" and put our foot down. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 22:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Endorse block; honestly since this whole thing started I've been waiting for the racism accusations to appear, having observed Tony's past behavior at ANI, so this is not surprising in the least. It really should be extended to a week as this is the exact same behavior that drew a 48hr block last time and clearly nothing has been learned. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Indefinite Block While TTT was out of line with his charges of racism, I can't believe someone tried to delete one of his user pages. That is a provocative act and as long as it didn't have libelous content on it, it's out of line to try to delete it. My question is whether this has been taken to Dispute Resolution. This is a case that is desperately in need of an unbiased third opinion. Use a mediator, this has gotten way too personal. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• @Liz: Check the timeline. Tony's racist attacks came before the page was nominated for deletion. First racist attacks at 13:43 my time, second claims of racism at 14:17, then the MFD at 14:48. Tony cannot claim the MFD as setting him off, unless he's a time lord. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Crisco, the time line also demonstrates the remarkably poor judgment that you have exercised in starting the MfD, as you made the nomination after giving a 'withdraw or face ANI' ultimatum. Liz is correct, the MfD was always going to be provocative in effect (regardless of your intent) and I am disappointed to see an administrator who failed to anticipate that the nomination was a poor decision. EdChem (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• And I have already given a reason why my nomination was immediate, rather than wait a week. I did not intend it as "payback" for anything here or there (though I did understand it could be taken poorly, I expected editors to look at the policy and not "just leave Tony alone"... damn I'm naive). If I found such a page the user space of anyone here I would likely have MFDed it: the policy says keep it short, after all. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Support extended block, including indef until they withdraw their remarks and assure us they will not use the term inappropriately again. I would support a topic ban on TTT using the term racism or anything the implies the same thing like racist, racial bias, racial discrimination, racial bigotry etc against other editors or if not that a clear understanding an indef block will result if they use it inappropriately in the future. This previous discussion [70] did not previously understand what racism even means, it sounds like they still don't understand so I don't think they should ever use the term. I would also support a topic ban on TTT from FOUR. Nil Einne (talk) 02:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Endorse block, reserve judgment on other issues, because I do think Tony can use a little breather and step back while still being involved. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 09:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I take no position on blocking and have worked collaboratively with Tony in the past. I do agree, though, that Tony needs to cease recklessly throwing around charges of racism. He has been doing that without any basis for years. At DYK, he threw such accusations at me and others back in September 2010 and April 2012 at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 80#DYK date request and Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 58#Michigan basketball overload, part 2. Cbl62 (talk) 17:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose sanctions TTT is not more at fault than some of the other editors, but I do agree he should retract his accusations. I think we are at the right point though where everyone will walk away and leave it behind them. Xrt6L (talk) 17:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose any sanctions per AutomaticStrikeout. The MfD is clearly a payback even though Crisco claims it's not. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Strange new meaning of "clearly" I was previously unaware of. also, what it has to do with Tony's behavior seems unclear. --Calton | Talk 05:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support sanctions, especially topic ban and current short-term block. This has been a long-term problem. I suspect he uses the "racism" charge because he is utterly unable to understand -- or possibly incapable of understanding -- why his egotistical behavior is causing problems and thinks, therefore, it must be racism at its root. --Calton | Talk 05:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support sanctions (block, topic ban, whatever) - I didn't want to weigh in here, but Tony's response to a request for an apology here suggests he does not understand how false claims of racism can be considered personal attacks and/or libel. Until he realises what he's doing is really not cool (for lack of a better word), I think something needs to be done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support the current block (duh), perhaps a longer one (though blocks aren't supposed to be punitive and I think he gets the point). I do not support an indefinite block at this point. Tony has contributed a lot of content and that makes up for some things--though not for accusations of racism, but no doubt any future such accusations will be met with an indefinite block, per admin's discretion. I'd like to see some sort of topic ban somewhere. From Four, for starters. Plus a real short leash on canvassing and other lawyerish disruption.

  Tony, I don't understand why you felt you had to resort to that low kind of insult, but it's obviously coming back to bite you. Did you expect otherwise? I'm sure you won't leave Wikipedia and I for one don't want you to leave (though Lord Jimbo knows we barely ever got along), but it can't go on like this. At some point you'll have to swallow your pride, maybe. I don't know. I wish you the best, but if for you continued contributions to the project means continued disruption, then your glowing career will come to a speedy end. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks like activity has died down here over the last couple of days, partly because of the tangential thread over on WP:AN. Would an uninvolved admin please sum this up and close it? Blackmane (talk) 09:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Request temporary interaction ban or other measure

Withdrawing my request -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I need a break from Tony. As a quick recap, I started a brief RfC at WT:FOUR after voting against Crisco's proposal for deletion and a failed attempt to get Tony to moderate his own draft RfC. Like Cdtew, I thought I was something of a neutral outside party on this--I'm not involved with MILHIST and have never won the award--but both us of quickly learned that anyone who's not 100% behind Tony gets on the enemies list in a big way. I believe Tony's now approaching 200 posts on more than 150 pages accusing me of bad-faith rigging of the RfC. Ranging from: "In case you are wondering why both of these RFC questions are getting unanimous support, you have masterfully conflated two issues with each one making impossible for anyone to give you anything but the meaningless answer you seek. to this a few hours ago: "*I continue to feel that this is one of the most disingenuous processes I have been involved in on RFC... this sneaky process seems to have been used to make statements about having any leadership without any discussion of the rest of the organization of the project. There seems to be no interest in discussing the organization of the project other than to use an RFC about one role of the leadership to make statements about the overall leadership of the project. This all seems to be an attempt to throw the project to admins who have never expressed an interest in the project" [71] Or see the 150+ posts he made between 6:00 and 8:00 on 20 August, all copies of his claim that I had deliberately crafted my RfC "to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions". Simultaneously, he's shown up at another project I'm initiating; he's already made about 15 posts critiquing it at WT:GAN, going so far as to spend hours creating a massive dataset in his user space to prove his points. Finally another user had to tell him to lay off there, too.[72] Despite direct and explicit requests from me that we not interact with each other for a while, Tony's pinged me back into the debate ("All along, I have said that Khazar2 either did not understand the issues or purposely conflated them so that they were not really posed to the audience"), continues to post at the Million Award page, and continues to post his accusations at WT:FOUR. I've turned the other cheek on most of this--I voted against the last proposal to topic-ban TTT, for example, and I've voluntarily withdrawn from further discussion at WT:FOUR--but now that we're approaching hundreds of posts, his persistence is starting to wear me down. Is it possible for me to request here that Tony leaves me in peace for just a few weeks, or is the best solution to simply take a break from Wikipedia until this blows over? As a third alternative, is it allowed for me to simply withdraw my RfC? Frankly, the FOUR debate strikes me as a fundamentally trivial issue, and it's not worth this level of harassment. If there's no administrative will to police something like this, I'm prepared to just say he wins, take a break, and then get back to regular editing. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the fact that I'm posting here at all is a clear sign that I need that wikibreak. Sorry for my own role in this drama, and I'll see y'all in a month. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Note: Discussion on this topic has moved to WP:AN — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Expanding Earth

Florian N is advocating the Expanding Earth theory and is currently edit warring the page. Several attempts have been made to discuss with this contributor, both on the article talk and the user talk without fruitful outcome. The same user is involved in similar edit warring on the French Wikipedia and (apparently) on related forums. No arguments seem to bite. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Fama Clamosa never discussed the content of the references introduced in the article to balance the view presented, as can be seen in Talk:Expanding_Earth and systematically blindly reverted my contributions. I do no think I'm the one who is not accepting an open and rational discussion on the topic. Besides, the recent tracking of my activity on the topic looks more and more like a witch hunt.Florian N (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Obvious Florian N sock: User:Flatus XX. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

AGF failure much? Hope you like Boomerangs Go and put in for an SPI if you think I'm a sock of Florian. Flatus XX (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Nope - you are a sock of Technoquat. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Fully protected for 2 weeks. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I have warned Florian N that the topic is under discretionary sanctions (because it falls under fringe science). --Enric Naval (talk) 23:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

If I believe the wikipedia article about fringe science, then at least, you do not label the Expanding Earth theory as a pseudoscience. It is already a step forward. Florian N (talk) 21:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE is what you want. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Editor(s) adding categories from strategy games to articles

I'm copying posts below from my talk page. No action has been taken yet

Hi Doug (or Substitute Doug),

Something extraordinary is happening to Wikipedia! I have noticed that over the past week or two, government categories from the Europa Universalis III/IV strategy games have started being used for real world articles in Wikipedia.

Articles defining the terms, such as Noble republic, Merchant republic, Administrative republic, Despotic monarchy etc. have been expanded or created (with, it must be acknowledged, relevant references showing that they have, at least to a limited extent, already been used in real world contexts), and these categories are beginning to appear in infoboxes (e.g. Corsican Republic has been changed from Constitutional Republic to Administrative Republic; the Republic of Venice from Oligarchic Republic to Merchant Republic).

While the new designations tend to be quite appropriate, I am concerned that Europa Universalis, well-thought-out though it is, is not what most people would consider a Reliable Source- and is indeed not being credited as the source anyway.

Even more intriguing, the person who seems to have started this, User:Turgeis (named after a character in the Myth II game) ceased activity and blanked his user page at 22:54 on 26 August. At 23:01, User:Ceiscoran (also named after a character in Myth II) appeared and is continuing the work at a rapid pace.

I have no idea what the procedure is for reviewing and responding to such an ambitious and audacious effort.

David Trochos (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Must get to bed, but... not SPI at the moment as no overlapping edits, although they seem to be the same person. I'm concerned about [73] which is copyvio from [74]. [75] looks like copyvio also, see [76]. I'd warn both accounts - ah, Turgeis was warned and continued copyvio (the link above), so I think an SPI is in order to link the two. Ceiscoran needs a warning - can you raise the SPI (not really hard, similar user pages (show Turgeis's old one), similar edits, times, and copyvio from both) and warn Ceiscoran? And maybe post this to User talk:Moonriddengirl? Bad sources need to go to RSN. Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a clear misuse of Wikipedia plus copyvio issues (including perhaps the use of the categories but I'm not sure). Dougweller (talk) 05:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad this was noticed. Tenacious prolific copyvio's lacking competence. The cut and pastes often incomprehensible blocks of text pulled out of context, then engages in reverts. Who knows how many other articles involved. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

A lot - I'm fed up with the amount of copyvio, I've wasted my afternoon on them and may not have picked it all up. Loads of page moves also. And now a new sock has appeared. see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Turgeis. Dougweller (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The worst of it may be that a lot of their edits seem to be only made to wikilink their favorite articles, eg [77] which is there to add a link to Revolutionary empire now up for AfD, and surprise surprise, is from the strategy game![78] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 16:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I've indeffed all three accounts for copyright issues based on the precautionary principle. MLauba ^(Talk) 16:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The puppetmaster and 2 confirmed socks, and there's a third confirmed plus two more likely! Dougweller (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Can another Admin please deal with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revolutionary empire which was basically copyvio?

These socks have added a lot of copyvio to articles, including this one they created, which is now one sentence and a quote. I'd have deleted it if it hadn't gone to AfD, where we now have 5!votes for delete, none for keep. Dougweller (talk) 20:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. This has been an interesting ride. Dougweller (talk) 08:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Levineps violating topic ban, again

Levineps (talk · contribs) is yet again violating his editing restrictions/topic ban (documented on his user page, which has links to the ANI discussions as well as a log of his four blocks to date for violations). He is prohibited from, among other things, creating new categories or recategorizing articles or categories, but judging from his contributions, it looks like he's been doing little but these kinds of edits for days now. postdlf (talk) 12:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Am I banned for life? I think I've made many valuable contributions.--Levineps (talk) 14:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The ban stays in effect until you appeal and get it lifted, so while it is not for "life", it will last an indeterminate period of time. To successfully get the ban lifted, you have to show that you are in compliance with the ban while at the same time doing good work in other areas. It can be done. I was topic banned from Climate Change and on an editing restriction for New Religious Movements but got both of those lifted after time and doing good work in other areas. Good luck, GregJackP Boomer! 14:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to formally apply then. It's been two years apparently since I was last sanctioned. I'm more than happy to learn from my mistakes and would like to improve to be a productive member of this community.--Levineps (talk) 17:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Levineps knows quite well, from experience and from the editing restriction express terms, that the ban will remain in place indefinitely until he demonstrates he has earned its removal through formal petition. His excuse the last time he was blocked was that he claimed he thought the ban was over.[79]

It's been awhile since his last block for violation, but I have to wonder if that's only because I haven't checked his contributions since then to see if he's been in compliance, but I just noticed he recategorized an article on my watchlist. Now how many hundreds of times has he violated his restrictions, just in the past several days? I scroll through his contributions and I see little but category work. The reason why he was topic banned was because he had a long history of making a huge number of changes quickly and without discussion, both in categories and page moves. He would then ignore every attempt by other editors to get him to stop and discuss. And so we wanted him to demonstrate that he could discuss edits with other editors to achieve consensus, For him to now claim that the ban should be over just because time has gone by, and no one until now had noticed him violating his restrictions, would obviously be exactly the wrong result. For that matter, I see there are two recent complaints by other editors on his talk page that he has apparently not replied to.[80],[81]

As the last violation block was for a month, I propose Levineps be blocked for six months. Or indefinitely might make sense given that we have to keep policing him and he's shown no sign of even trying to build the communication skills we expected him to. postdlf (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement of ban, violation [82]. Recommend indef block per banning statement. NE Ent 17:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I've also just noticed all of this today and asked Rockpocket, who is mentioned as haven given clarification in the community sanctions against Levineps, for comment here. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

That's insane it's been over two years. I didn't realize these bans were indefinite. I didn't start doing these kinds of edits until recently because I was pretty sure my ban was over. Like I said I'd like to reapply to make these kind of edits. I very much enjoy this community.--Levineps (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The editing restrictions are still on your user page. They plainly state that the restrictions will last indefinitely until they are formally removed. And the last time you were blocked for violating them, you were told the restrictions do not "expire", certainly not just because no one has noticed you violating them until now.

So I don't remotely believe your claim of innocence here, not that it's relevant anyway whether you unreasonably thought that the restrictions had expired notwithstanding all evidence to the contrary or are lying. You have done nothing to demonstrate that you've learned from your past mistakes or have even made any effort to engage in community discussions to achieve consensus. You continue to ignore complaints other editors have about your edits, which you continue to do at a rapid pace and without using full and accurate edit summaries (you've also marked many as minor, itself another violation of your editing restrictions). So I think the community should just be done with you. postdlf (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

And you've continued making category edits (and nothing but category edits) even after participating here in this thread! Incredible. You've illustrated quite well why you were topic banned in the first place, continuing to chug along without regard to the community. I strongly urge an indef block. postdlf (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef block per continuing with cat edits even after responding here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Blocked for a month. The creation of Category:1928 establishments in Ohio came after their comments here, so it cannot but have been clear that they were in violation. I blocked for a month since indefinite is quite a jump: sure, they have a block log, but the last block was a few years ago, and it involved page moves. I'm somewhat of two minds about this: for the life of me, I don't understand how they think they could get away with it (and I don't buy the "I didn't know" stuff), but on the other hand they are not harming the project, at least not with that last edit. If Levineps can see the light, they can file an unblock request which could be granted. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • His edit restrictions were expanded to page moves after he showed the exact same problem behavior in that area as he had previously in categories, so it isn't like that block was for a different thing, substantively (see ANI discussion here, a WP:BOOMERANG when Levineps requested an end to his edit restrictions just because time had gone by). Nor do I think he hasn't been blocked in two years because he complied with his topic ban(s) in that time; I'd bet you'd continue to find violations the further back in his contribution history you look. Search the archives to see how much of a time waste he's already been in really pesky areas (categories, page moves, page splits...), plus the recent complaint on his talk page about him wasting edits just to remove whitespace... He's clearly not changed one bit, nor improved his communication skills, nor shown any understanding of what the problem was. So I suggest we continue to discuss expanding the block to indefinite, for which we already have support. postdlf (talk) 18:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
    • If there is a consensus to extend the block to indefinite, I won't stand in the way. Drmies (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
      • A month long block could actually be shorter than indefinite -- wouldn't indefinite imply "until editor" makes a decently unblock request and swears never, ever to do it again? Unless, of course, we're using "indefinite block" as a euphemism for site ban. NE Ent 19:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
        • Hmm. Well, perhaps I have faith in the editor's inability to make a decent and persuasive unblock request, thus making "indefinite" effectively permanent. I'm fine with calling it a site ban, however. postdlf (talk) 19:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Does this conversation look familiar? It took place back in May 2011:

Sorry, I forgot I was banned, I thought the period was over. It was a completely innocent move on my part.Levineps (talk) 02:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Really? Why would you think that? postdlf (talk) 02:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Levineps: Your sanctions are specified in a drop-down box on your user page. For your future reference, they are in force permanently, or until such time as the community sees fit to remove them. That time is unlikely to come if you keep "forgetting" that they exist. [...] Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

How many times is he going to use the "I forgot" excuse? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

That's part of why I suggested an indef -- I'd like them to have to type an explicit statement that they understand the terms of the restriction. (Postpdf shouldn't have to make a career out of monitoring his edits.) NE Ent 00:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I would support an extension of his current block to indef, for that reason. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

We can make it indef, with the further restriction that Levineps may not request unblocking for a month (or for six months, my preference) just to make sure there is a minimum "time served". postdlf (talk) 19:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to modify Levineps' community sanctions

I took a look at some of Levineps' earlier contributions from a few months back, and I think the community sanction needs to be altered somewhat (check the 100 edits he made between December 24 2012 and end of March 2013). I would like to propose 1 addition and 1 modification to the sanction:

1. Add: Levineps may not perform any edits solely for the purpose of removing white spaces, due to complaints seen on his talk page (he may remove white spaces as a part of another edit but must state so in his edit summary that he has done so);
2. Modify Levineps must [n]ot mark his edits as minor to Levineps may not mark his edits as minor with the exception of very obvious spelling and/or grammatical mistakes and must clearly identify what he's fixing in those edits via edit summary (his sanction already requires him to use manual edit summaries; Levineps has done a good job using the summaries when he's fixing mistakes and I'd like him to keep doing so). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 21:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

As the admin who formulated the original terms, I have no objection to this amendment. Rockpocket 20:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I mean, sure, why not ban him from making yet another annoying kind of edit... But then that compels the question of why we are continuing to bother with him at all, as the list of things he is prohibited from doing just keeps increasing, as does the number of times he has violated those restrictions. Just more to have to monitor, from an editor who has proven himself a net negative. postdlf (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Mafia state article disruption

the article mafia state is in an edit war by a user who keeps inserting many unessesary categories and irrelevant pictures, can someone stop this? 90.129.66.100 (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I wonder who could that be. Anyway, I'm here to report the users from the same Norwegian IP range, who have repeatedly deleted the demonstrably relevant picture and several categories. The blanking was done without any prior solicitation on talk, and followed by a WP:IDONTLIKEIT edit summary only. One should note definite and substantial harm to the article from such blanking since replacements for the deleted material are not suggested at all. The deletionists have been firmly warned by me at article talk as well as at their IP talk [83], [84]. I also stopped short of violating the WP:3RR in hopes for a civil resolution of the dispute where my position is utterly righteous per regulations. Wishes, Ukrained2012 (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

you dont seem to know much about wikipedia policy, READ Wikipedia:Overcategorization and that picture shows some cultural show nothing to do with the article 90.129.66.100 (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I think enough is said to judge the attitude and intentions of this user( Too bad they don't say a word at article's talk so far. Happy edits, Ukrained2012 (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

i suggest somone look into this issue by therought examination from a neutral user by simply looking at history page itself among other things 90.129.66.100 (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I suggest the both of you discuss this content dispute on the article's talk page, because content disputes are not what AN/I is for. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

No "content dispute" on my side BTW. The user in question ceased his edit warring for now. Ukrained2012 (talk) 21:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

you are edit warring 83.180.192.50 (talk) 08:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm forced to ask that page to be protected since anonymous editors have resumed their edit warring( today. Ukrained2012 (talk) 11:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

that would not help the dispute why shall he get his poor recent edits protected, and the ukrained2012 edits must be first reverted before any protection, they are against wp:overcat and that irrelevant picture removed, he is cluttering the whole article with massive amount of categories and irrelavant picture 83.180.179.15 (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Articles are always protected at The Wrong Version. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

if protection is nessesary then go with full protection because the other user can continue reverting in a semi protected state 83.180.179.15 (talk) 17:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Disruptions of DrSeehas

DrSeehas continues to violate the Manual of Style; mores specifically the introduction lead, paragraph 3,

Style and formatting choices should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole. Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a substantial reason. Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable. If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.

They continue to remove the font-size on two articles, even after I had informed him of this violation (diff1).

• Snapdragon (system on chip): diff2, diff3, diff4
• Sony Xperia: diff5

They also continue to add a bottom header to the Sony Xperia article, while ignoring the discussion on the talkpage & yet again a violation of the quoted policy. diff6, diff7, diff8, diff9 Additionally, the article was locked on by Mark Arsten for 24h during the first disagreement on the style of the article (diff10) and 8h later DrSeehas ignored the ongoing discussion & readded the bottom headers (diff9). 「gu1dry」⊤ • ¢  17:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Drseehas has been discussing on the Xperia talkpage, where, I note that Gu1dry has said he does not want to "answer to" people. A bit of WP:OWN going on here in addtion to the edit warring? LadyofShalott 18:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, that conversation is old, with no discussion from either of them in over a month, yet both of them continue to edit war. LadyofShalott 19:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

You may have missed this "attempted" ....um, "discussion" ES&L 16:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

EatsShootsAndLeaves, that would be diff1. My point with all this is I feel harassed by |, especially when they have not provided any real improvement to the project & just change things with disregard to the WP:MOS. 「gu1dry」⊤ • ¢  17:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

DrSeehas continues to war edit diff11. 「gu1dry」⊤ • ¢  16:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by HistorNE on Kurdish and Iranian related articles

I would like to report user HistorNE's disruptive behavior on article Kurdish separatism in Iran and other related articles (Kurdish nationalism, template:campaignbox Kurdish separatism in Iran, 1979 Kurdish rebellion in Iran, Iranian Kurdistan etc.). I have noticed HistorNE's refusal to obey wikipedia guidelines, his engagement in a clearly inconstructive manner of editing and complete refusal to recognize other WP:RS-supported opinions, other than his. As an experienced editor, i tried to find a common ground with him (he is claiming to be a newbie from June 2013 [85]), but all my attempts to find a compromise have so far failed. His recent actions were most clearly disruptive - in an attempt to bypass his previously failed WP:RM procedure on Kurdish separatism in Iran (protected article due to his previous disruptive attempts), he created an "alternative" article Rebellions in Iranian Kurdistan, and tried to downgrade the existing article on Kurdish separatism in Iran, by major deletions [86], replacing the campaignbox [87] and removal of intewikis from the original article [88].

1. HistorNE's involvement in editing Kurdish separatism in Iran article began in late July early August, when HistorNE renamed the article from Kurdish separatism in Iran to Kurdish insurgency in Iran (see [89]) and tried to completely change the scope [90];

2. I opposed his actions, renaming it back, and requested a WP:RM procedure on the talk page Talk:Kurdish_separatism_in_Iran#Problems, as initially some sort of conversation between us did occur;

3. HistorNE refused to discuss WP:RM and kept trying to rename the article with no procedure despite my requests, which resulted in article renaming back and forth, until intervention of an administrator returning it to original Kurdish separatism in Iran title [91] and protecting it.

4. Urged by lack of choice, HistorNE did eventually issue a WP:RM procedure at Talk:Kurdish_separatism_in_Iran#Requested_move, but got no consensus for his proposal (closed by an uninvolved editor) [92]. I must also emphasize he continued attempts to radically change the content of the article on the course of the rename procedure to fit his newly proposed title [93].

5. At that point the discussion moved far away from a purely academic dispute to aggressive responses - he started naming me a manipulator [94], propagandist, and "Israeli manipulator" [95][96] in clear violation of WP:CIVIL and without any relevance to the subject and of course refused to acknowledge any academic WP:RS (for example here) other than his few favorite sources written by "high-level Iranologists".

6. Most recently HistorNE tried to bypass the previously failed WP:RM of Kurdish separatism in Iran and tried to create a "competing" WP:FORK article Rebellions in Iranian Kurdistan, while degrading the existing article Kurdish separatism in Iran by removal of much information and sources [97].Greyshark09 (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

From this edit history alone, not to mention this one or this one, I would say that both HistorNE and Greyshark09 are acting problematically. This appears to be a classic case of "both users are convinced that they're right, and that therefore edit warring guidelines don't apply". While these are not direct 3RR violations, the bulk of both of their edits appears to be them going back and forth reverting each other's changes. In the interest of fairness I would suggest either a stern warning or a block for both users (i.e. same response for both of them). I consider them both equally at fault in this mess. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Please notice that i did try a WP:DRN here, but nobody answered the application. Further, i did agree to insert all sourced edits of HistorNE into the article, including his proposed title into the lead (as secondary name), as long as he agrees to keep other sources per WP:NPOV. However, i didn't get any cooperation on his side (see Talk:Kurdish_separatism_in_Iran#Problems), as he did constantly remove sourced paragraphs and sources - in his understanding WP:NPOV is basing the article on a single rationale (his own of course). HistorNE didn't even agree to your restoration of the original stable version [98] from July 2013. I should emphasize that HistorNE's apparent effort is to destroy the existing article, no matter what; I however would not care if it is renamed per WP:RM, with WP:RS sources added - i've already stated so and acted in WP:GF (like here).Greyshark09 (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Short review:

1. User Greyshark09 has started writing article about Kurdish revolts in Iran, firstly it was named as "Kurdish-Iranian conflict".
2. Few months later, he has proposed renaming to "Kurdish separatism in Iran", and by one vote (his own) he redirected article to new name.
3. In early August I come to talkpage and explained not all of listed conflicts were "separatism" (see Table) so either name or content should be changed.
4. However, Greyshark09 disagreed and insisted on various foreign-backed or tribal revolts as "separatism", he was mostly engaged in edit war not conversation.
5. Since no serious editor or administrator participated at talkpage and POV-template stood for almost a year, I completely rewrited article according to it's name (during rename proposal).
6. You can see rewriten version here: everything is based on most reliable academic sources, comparing to completely different and biased Greyshark09's version which misused sources and violated OR & SYNTH.
7. Administrator BDD has reviewed article at 18:26, 19 August 2013 when 'mine' version was present, and voted for "no".
8. Greyshark09 interpreted voting as sign of approval for keeping his own version, so he restored it once again, and he was persistent in forcing it during past 10 days.
9. In meanwhile, I created new article for general conflict named as Rebellions in Iranian Kurdistan so I transfered content about all revolts there. Still, on two places I saw Greyshark09 disagrees with it and still insists all conflicts are "separatism".
10. Now, he's started with accusations again.

Personally I don't see any good faith here and I don't know what to do any more because this person is avoiding conversation, even accused me of being "sock" or for "disruptive editing" (?!). There are similar issues on few other related articles, like Kurdish nationalism, 1967 Kurdish revolt in Iran or Iranian Kurdistan - every time when I found some POV, I put explanation on talkpages refering to WP:RS and then remove or correct biased content, but Greyshark09 never discuss and simply undo my edits. It's more then clear he's trying to force his own POV anywhere. Our dispute has been taken on talkpage of two admins (see it here: JHunterJ and BDD), but these two guys aren't much familiar about theme so they didn't participate in finding any solution. Few days ago I've already informed two administrators about this issue: Dougweller and Dbachmann. --HistorNE (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Blocked both for 48 hours due to the fact that they were basically edit warring all summer, and protection would lock down a number of articles. I am unsure that this will solve the matter, and that we may need to topic ban them if this continues. --Rschen7754 22:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Questionable copyright claim

User:Cnsuperhuman uploaded a bunch of images and added them to Chad Netherland [99], claiming to own copyright. Most look like official promo images. Based on the editors name they may be the subject so may own copyright for most. But one (File:Chad Netherland 05.jpg) is a magazine cover. The magazine would own copyright to this one. What should be done here? duffbeerforme (talk) 08:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the images for now. It looks like the images are stored on Commons, so you'll probably have to raise this issue there. — Richard BB 08:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I've tagged the images with {{No permission since}} on commons and notified the uploader. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 08:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

You missed the Magazine cover one, PL. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 12:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Got it. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 22:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Problem IP, attempts at discussion without success

For the past several months, I've had on-and-off dealings with the disruptive edits from IP address 222.237.20.155, whose mainly edits articles on video games, especially arcade games. With some edits, like those to Giga Wing and Giga Wing 2, he randomly removes the arcade system board info from the infoboxes despite multiple revisions and multiple warnings. (And I have checked, the information is accurate and the paramater for arcade boards is supported by the infobox used.) Other edits are... odd. On the article on the Namco System 12, the five edits he makes over the course of over two weeks ends up not changing the article at all. Some edits are actually a little helpful, with some minor article work done here and here. I honestly don't know what the IP is trying to do and why, and all messages placed on his talk page all appear to be disregarded and ignored, so I was wondering if I could get someone to intervene and try to get him to explain himself. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 13:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or reference by user Y45ed

User Y45ed has been making mass genre changes to many music related articles. The behaviour has persisted despite multiple warnings informing the editor that consensus and reference are required. Perhaps administrator intervention will get the message across to this editor, as warnings obviously have not.

Diffs:

• [100]
• [101]
• [102]
• [103]
• [104]
• [105]
• [106]
• [107] In this instance he removed the previously existing citation with no explanation

Y45ed has also demonstrated a willingness to edit war over these genre changes:

• [108]
• [109]

ChakaKong^{Let's talk about it} 14:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked 48 hh. --John (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

altering the record

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

---

hello;

what is the policy for an admin who removes discussions/complaints on their talkpage, BEFORE archiving it?

i.e.: to "bury" the complaint in a way that makes it as close to hidden as possible, without doing a history-wipe?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ohnoitsjamie&diff=571382874&oldid=571294936

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ohnoitsjamie&diff=571383192&oldid=571382874

Lx 121 (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Any user is free to remove comments from their own talk page. Archiving is preferred but not required. ChakaKong^{Let's talk about it} 15:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

thank-you for the fast reply. good to know! the tl;dr i take away from that is "talk-page archives are UNRELIABLE, & should never be trusted as a user-record; ALWAYS check the history". i'm not sure if that's the best way of doing things, but i accept the wiki-reality of it. Lx 121 (talk) 15:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

(1) ChakaKong covered by first point. (2) The archiving was only up to the end of July; the comment in question was left last week; as such, the archiving is UNRELATED to the removal of this comment. (3) The comment thread concerned Lx 121 being outraged over my not notifying a user regarding an prod and subsequent AfD of a ridiculous article that was later speedied; note that comments regarding Lx in the AfD discussion. I routinely remove large sections from my talk page that I consider to be wastes of space. (4) As evidenced by the links the Lx managed to create above, the comments are indeed readily available in the history and note "wiped." OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

a) the only reason i noticed it had gone-missing was because i was the one who left the comment in the first place, & wanted to have a re-read through of the discussion & decide if i had anything further to add to it.

& b) i couldn't find it on your talk page

& c) also couldn't find it in your archives

which d) also doesn't currently include a link for august material archived from your talk page.

also; e) i was asking a "general question" about policy; i only mentioned you because your talkpage was the example i cited, & it was necessary to inform you of the mention, as per relevant policy. please don't take it personally.

cheers, Lx 121 (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Given (e), how on earth is this a topic worthy of an ANI report? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

because f) it seemed the easiest/fastest way to get an answer.

& g) if it was an improper action (a point which i was unclear on), then in all honestly, i would have asked you to reverse it.

i still don't think it's good policy to allow "tidying" of one's own (or anyone's) talkpage, in this manner, & i will most certainly make a point to use talkpage histories, rather than "archives", when looking for something, or assessing a user's record. but i accept that it is the existing policy, for better or worse.

i sign this with a lucky 13 indents Lx 121 (talk) 16:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm boldly closing this. Lx 121, please indent correctly in future. Blackmane (talk) 16:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

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

The LCH Block Evasion Story (IP hopper + collection of IP vandals + particular unblock requests = Resurrection of LordComputerHero)

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

---

Continuing the sockpuppet report of LordComputerHero, here's a collection of IP vandals I have spotted on sight:

• 87.115.38.227
• 87.113.220.212
• 87.113.230.153
• 87.114.24.54

All of these IPs are blocked, but the worst-case scenario is that they're in the same IP range and they post unblock requests to unblock LordComputerHero (IPs who've done this are highlighted in 'Bold). New ones keep checking in.

First, 87/227 was blocked, but then he said to me and Dlohcierekim that he has a new IP address to keep vandalizing as he pleases, which is considered evading all of his blocks he earned for vandalism.

Next, at 87/212, I posted this warning to newly created 87/212,

Oh, no you don't! Your message on Dlohcierekim's and on your previous IP, 87.115.38.227's talk page indicates that you are trying to evade the block for vandalism. However, if you're making up for this incident by adding useful contributions, I will allow that. But on the other hand, if you use this IP for vandalism, you and future IPs you use will be blocked from editing for block evasion.

Same thing for the other IPs that I'm trying to monitor. I opened an SPI report, but it was quickly closed because the suspected sockpuppetier was already indef'd.

Meanwhile, both 87/153 and 87/ 54 harassed me one time, so I requested my user and user talk page to be protected. Finally, I'm here, exhausted and discouraged at ANI reporting these 'stinky socks' to you.

The solution? It's quite obvious. StormContent 17:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

No, the solution isn't obvious. 146.90.106.233 (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you proposing a soft block on the entire PlusNet Dial-up and ADSL pool? --Orlady (talk) 18:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I've protected your userpage for a month. Maybe the best plan is just to lower the drama and get on with editing without further action. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I know next time to not feed the trolls. Should we even block on sight? StormContent 18:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Without revealing all of our resources that others may not be aware of, I checked the range around 87.115.38.227 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and found no recent edits from that range. I blocked the recently vandalistic IP's and consider the matter closed unless they crop up again. Their activity is brief and easily dealt with. A range block is not needed. Dlohcierekim 18:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I have a simple solution if you want me to stop vandalising Wikipedia and make useful contributions. Please lower or remove the ban on LordComputerHero. 87.112.162.245 (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• No. Black Kite (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) No.  IP blocked - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Privacy of personal information

I am not sure what to do so I am bring this here. To my dismay this morning I found that we have article(s) about youths (including under age kids) listing all there names and birth dates as seen at this version of the article Canada men's national youth soccer teams. Also discovered the same problem at United States men's national under-17 soccer team. I am currently trying to remove this info at Canada men's national youth soccer teams but this has been reverted a few times. I dont really care about the edit war or the editor involved - because I am here more concerned we may have this type of personal youth info in many articles. I can assure all here my non-famous grandson that plays soccer in Canada does not what his date of birth and name for all the world to see. We have many policies to protect children and we need to have a good look at articles of this nature. We have an obligation to protect children. -- Moxy (talk) 18:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

See WP:DOB. I can't see any reason why we should be including the full date of birth in such circumstances. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

There are hundreds of youth (both under-age and of-age) football pages on Wikipedia and age is documented on all of them. Moxy has already destroyed two pages rather than make targeted age edits as they desire - this after transgressing the three-revert rule.

The grandparent story is clearly fabricated; I instructed them to remove specific info to allow for my continued update and cleanup of a messy page in need. They have not. If Moxy continues to ravage more popular football pages rather than make constructive edits and suggestions, countless users will inevitably report them. -- Nonc01 (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Could we get you to read over WP:BLPNAME and WP:BLPPRIVACY. After reading those policies do you really think its a good idea to post personal info of non famous minors and young adults on Wikipedia? Does it help people understand the topic better having there dates of birth's, full legal name and the places they are from listed? We try to protect children here not give out so much info that can lead to identity theft of non-famous people and harassment. -- Moxy (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Many youth soccer players are well known. Considering they are playing in age restricted competitions, their date of birth is easily accessible on the internet outside of Wikipedia. I suggest you go ravage the 3-4 football pages every country has and see how fast you are reported multiple times. If the admins take your side then more power to you. Until then people are going to be very aggravated that you are ruining pages of the most popular sport on Earth. -- Nonc01 (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I will note that of the two sources given in the article, only one includes DOBs, and only the year. So that's exactly the information that should go into the article, if at all. Ideally not even that, for privacy. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's the bottom line here, Moxy: are these dates of births sourceable to reliable, secondary sources? If so, Wikipedia is not censored; if they're not already "out there" in such sources however, they fail WP:DOB - and possibly even WP:V - anyway, as FreeRangeFrog points out. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The bottom line is per WP:BLP the birthdates of minors should NEVER be included in articles and removal is exempt from 3RR. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything in WP:BLP that says that dates sourced to reliable third-party sources must be removed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

just because someone else spewed the private information of a minor all across the netz, Wikipedia should not even secondarily be an accessory. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Nobody said "all across the netz". What was said was reliable, secondary sources - for instance let's say ESPN The Magazine prints an article on "The Next X" sports star in high school, who passes the relevant notability WP:ALPHABETSOUP for an article, and their birthdate is included in a "who's X?" part of the article. Are you seriously suggesting that Wikipedia should censor the birthdate in the article in that circumstance? I agree completely that randomly plucked dates from Facebook X are veboten and the "when in doubt, leave it out" principle applies, but we need not to be throwing the baby (no pun intended) out with the BLP bathwater. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes ABSOLUTELY we should not. It is not in any fucking consideration of the process part of WP:NOTCENSORED and even if it were, BLP trumps NOTCENSORED.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? Where exactly at WP:BLP does it say the birthdates of minors should always be excluded? Do you even realise how silly that sounds?--Jac16888 ^Talk 19:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The only mention of minors at WP:BLP, for the record, is "minors are discouraged from disclosing identifying personal information on their userpages". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you realize how silly it sounds to state that Wikipedia should be participating in the mass distribution of private information about minors? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

No sillier than it sounds to claim that WP:BLP says things that it demonstrably doesn't.—Kww(talk 20:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

(ec)I am not commenting on the issue of this discussion, rather your ludicrous statement that "birthdates of minors should NEVER be included in articles and removal is exempt from 3RR". Would you like to apply that rule to Prince George of Cambridge, Justin Bieber or Chloë Grace Moretz?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jac16888 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Do we really need to specifically name minors in our policy that is about all people young and old alike. Commons sense is telling us that if a policies that cover non famous adults then it should equally apply to children if not more so. So lets look at our policies WP:BLP says "If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year" and we have WP:BLPNAME saying "Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. ". Do people really think that playing for a youth soccer club is notable enough to list there personal info here? I understand some go on the be pros and get famous but listing ever players name and date of birth that has ever played for a youth clue is simply nuts to me. not one person listed here has there own article or even a reference to there age.... To be honest I was so upset because it looks to me like someone is releasing personal info collected during the registration of theses minors. -- Moxy (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Moxy, these are non-notable players for the most part and this is not even their bio; as such, listing year of birth is sufficient, but we should not add month/day.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The part of WP:BLP that actually is relevant is that sourcing is required for this information. That's actually just a plain old WP:V issue. The earlier versions of this article included a litany of birthdates that did not indicate that they had been previously published in reliable third-party sources. They can be removed on those grounds alone without reference to false statements about WP:BLP.—Kww(talk) 20:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Nothing to see here, the information for the under 17 U.S. soccer team can be gathered off the official website. This isn't Wikipedia "posting private details of minors", so move along. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 20:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

So to be clear you believe that theses children are notable enough to the subject at hand that they should be listed with there personal information. -- Moxy (talk) 20:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Their* So, you believe that people who are on the team are not notable because they are youth? If that is the case, their names wouldn't be listed on the article, much less any other information. Yeah, they are notable enough to be listed there. Being on the current squad of a national team does merit some notability, and all the information posted on Wikipedia matches the roster information posted by the national team websites. If you have a problem with their birthdates being out there, you might want to have a chat with the webmaster of those websites who posted names, birthdates, where they are from and what local squad they were with. Also, you are getting dangerously close to WP:3RR, so I wouldn't keep reverting. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 20:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's another thing, though: isn't including the birthdate on the list of players in the team article statistical overkill anyway regardless of whether they're 15 or 50? Including a publically-known, reliably-sourced date in a person's article is one thing, but as part of the list of the team? Not so much. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Not really, their age (not so much the exact date) is pretty important because these squads are divided up by their age (U-23, U-21, U-20, U-17, etc.) and hence why the roster websites post this kind of information. At any rate, Moxy, I don't know what you are you talking about when you are calling these people minors. We aren't talking about a pee-wee squad of 10 year-olds. The date of births you wiped out on the Canadian article were mostly people between the ages of 18 and 24. I don't know where you have been all your life in Canada, but you clearly have a misconception of who a child is. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 21:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Its concerning that people dont see a problem with publishing youth info of this nature here on Wiki or other places. Its also concerning to see reverts being made without any sources leading to the same original problem. Think we are going to need a policy on this matter. We seem to need some guidelines for the basic of child protection here. Like jaywalking or hot warnings on cups in the real world some laws are in the books simply because some dont see a problem. -- Moxy (talk) 21:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

There's correct applications of BLP, overreactions to BLP and then there's stupidly blanking articles based on BLP, which is what I saw there. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 22:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Moxy, looking at the original diff you provided with a more critical eye now, it's true - not one person on that list is a minor. 2013-18 = 1995, and the youngest year given there was 1992. Now, since that is supposed to be the "U-18" team that means the article is seriously out of date(!), but it also means you need to be more careful about what you are referring to when you refer to "child protection". - The Bushranger posting as Aerobird from a public computer ^Talk 22:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

You are correct I stand here with egg on my face. I should be saying youth in that case. Sorry for me under 21 was a minor...after looking at this I see legally its 18 in Canada. -- Moxy (talk) 23:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Chill pill @The Red Pen of Doom: If you cannot calm down, then you should find something else to do for a time. This here is why Wikipedia should be concerned with the ages of youths who participate in sports at a national or international level. It is relevant and WP:BLP is not a trump card that you can just throw around and say "It doesn't say so specifically, but ITS A BLP!!!" You must clearly explain your rationale why it should not be included. Screaming BLP is not a rationale. I agree with TheBush - if it's sourcable to secondary sources, like ESPN, and it is relevant to a particular sport where age is restricted, and it exists at a highly competitive level, then ages should be included.--v/r - TP 21:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing to "chill" about when Wikipedia is actively participating in the mass distribution of personal information about minors. Anyone who is NOT upset about such crass and careless actions should be taken OFF their pills. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, take off your "I have a righteous cause behind me" sticker and then ask yourself how far your "passion" (read battleground behavior) will get you when you act like you did above. I've seen you make far more rational arguments in the past, step it up.--v/r - TP 11:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• There is a danger here of being a little too mindless in application of the guideline/policy here. When we come across things like this, then yes, birthdates should be removed, as an article subjects' children are definitely non-public. In the case of these national junior team lists, however, the dates of birth are generally quite public because their ages are very highly relevant as that is the second most important factor in their being named to these squads after their talent level. If official sources are giving birthdates, then there is no reason why it should be forbidden here. That, however, is not to preclude the possibility of going down to just a month-year format or even just the year in some instances. Resolute 21:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Simple part of the answer: WP:DOB (part of WP:BLP) says "If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year" (emphasis mine). This is true even if the DOB is reliably sourced, or even if the player is over 18 (or whatever age cutoff you want to use for "minor"). As a rule, individual players on U-17 thru U-21 teams are either non-notable, or borderline notable. Especially if their names are redlinks, but even for the odd case where they're blue. Don't include their DOB in the team article, just list the year. I don't see a critical problem with listing year of birth or hometowns, perhaps that is worth discussing further somewhere besides ANI.

The more complicated issue of where to draw the line for DOB inclusion for articles about specific minors in general (how famous do they have to be? What age? etc.) is not clearcut, and isn't going to be decided by a discussion at ANI.

So, if you see such a table, removing the month and day from the DOB's falls clearly within BLP policy, and is immune from 3RR. Removing the year of birth, hometowns, or (worse) the whole table, is not clearly within BLP policy, and probably is not immune from 3RR (of course, neither is restoring it). Discuss it first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Note the link provided above to the official team website which lists the full date of births. Shouldn't that count as a source linked to the subject publishing the information under WP:DOB. Monty₈₄₅ 23:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

No, because the website belongs to the team, not the individual... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, removing the day and month clearly does not fall within the WP:3rr BLP Exemption. The exemption does not apply to everything in the BLP policy, it applies only to Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). The information in question is well sourced, and undisputed as to its accuracy. How then does the 3rr exemption apply? Monty₈₄₅ 23:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The source(s) you see above are not in the articles in question. -- Moxy (talk) 23:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

You are correct as per WP:Burden...but the info was being removed on the grounds of WP:DOB and WP:BLPNAME. Thus those doing the reverts were not aware that sourcing was also a problem. They should be added now that we have them...but like me I am assume most are waiting to see the outcome here first - as in are the names and dates of birth even going to stay there. -- Moxy (talk) 23:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I guess that's true; one person would be following BLP, one would be violating it, but an admin who wanted to could technically block both for 3rr, not just one. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, an admin better be very sure they know what they are doing before blocking someone attempting to carry out BLP policy. But we need to be careful not to let BLP become a license to edit war, lest we end up in a situation where both sides of an edit war believe they their warring is exempt. The actual exemption works well that way, because adding back content can't qualify for the exemption, but could still be required or encouraged by BLP Policy. Monty₈₄₅ 01:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:DOB also says "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object." So there's a valid argument for inclusion, which should be resolved by discussion, not an individual editor's interpretation of the BLP policy. NE Ent 02:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Give me a break. The suggestion that only the year be used obviously modifies the part you're quoting. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

"Err on side of" does not BLP violation make. Out of curiosity, I googled the first player on the US men under 17 article -- Wikipedia was only the sixth link -- omitting a youtube vid, two of the higher ranked websites lists DOB, and now I even know the kid's GPA and what church they go to. So this concept that if it's not on Wikipedia it's not public is overwrought. Is it necessary? Is it encyclopedic? Arguably not -- but claiming BLP violation is an overreach. NE Ent 03:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The whole "its out there on the interwebs so we shouldnt care if we spread it too" attitude and rationale is bullshit. just because other sites are negligent in their care of personal data of minors in no way becomes an excuse for Wikipedia to actively engage in such careless practices ourselves. The "we are not responsible for the stuff that happens on our watch" is the same attitude that lead to the scandals in the boy scouts and catholic church. Wikipedia's reputation demands better accountability. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

IOW the only reason to do it is so that we can feel that we're Doing Something Good and we can Feel Good About It, then. If somebody's DOB is "out there" in reputable third-party sources, that in all likelyhood were given the date by the subject or the subject's parents, removing it on Wikipedia "for the children!" does nothing except make Wikipedia look stupid. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Would be best if all worked towards implementing our BLP policies with even greater care when possible in regards to youth over worrying what others think of the website - WP:MINORS (essay) -- Moxy (talk) 05:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that Wikipedia is regarded in some quarters as a laughingstock, and doing pointless things that will have no effect other than making it more of a laughingstock is not something we need to be doing, at all. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

And the inclusion of information that you personally do not like does not make us "negligent", TRPOD. I'm not saying that we need to retain full birth dates in this specific instance, but your black and white all-or-nothing stance is unhelpful in the extreme. Resolute 14:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Most of these players are not even borderline notable, independent of their team - or at least, they are currently red-linked. I also looked at a few of the articles for the players who have them, and at most they are borderline notable. So personally I don't think we should have exact dates of birth for any of these people, either in a list or in an article. But especially for the players who are red-linked, it doesn't seem right. (Regardless of whether they are actually minors.) Neutron (talk) 03:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Remove — I think it is more appropriate to err on the side of caution and not include such info per WP:IINFO: simply being true doesn't itself merit inclusion, and in this instance the privacy issue is paramount to verifiability. More saliently: is this info necessary for understanding the subject and would its removal be detrimental to the article as whole? In this case, it's a solid "no" and I think the info should be removed. (NOTE: page specifically states: "If the issue concerns a privacy-related matter...do not post it here.") DKqwerty (talk) 04:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

DOB is standard information in collegiate sports and all non-senior sports teams especially football. 1) It is self explanatory why it is relevant; playing in age groups/age-restricted tournaments makes DOB important, this is why it has been a standard forever. Stating factual opposition to this is like saying the weight of a fighter is not important in relation to the weight class they are participating in. 2) Info is not replicated from facebook or a host of random or fledgling websites. DOB is accessible from the official websites of the various football associations, no doubt directly copied off forums signed and released by the parental figures or adult youth players in question. This is also replicated on large well known websites such as transfermarkt. (Unnecessary) partial DOB removal should only be accepted if there is a plan for a swift continuity of editing and research (who is notable vs. who is not - which is a laughable warring standard to maintain btw) of these hundreds of youth football pages, not to mention thousands from other sports and non-sporting individuals. Even that will be met with counteractions and grief. A small percentage of random edits over weeks and months would be outrageous and ineffective. With current literature and guidelines benefiting both viewpoints, just try and edit the youth pages of prominent Spain, England, Brazil, Argentina, USA, Australia, Germany, etc and see the kind of warring shitstorm and confusion it creates. Nonc01 (talk) 11:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• remove The wikipedia policy on this is pretty clear - if they are borderline notable, delete the birthdate. This should be an open/shut case. There is a huge difference between wikipedia publishing something and a random website doing so - those random websites are not mirrored/archived, and they rank much lower. If those random websites came to their senses and decided to unpublish the information (1) We probably wouldn't even notice and (2) It would be too late for us to unpublish it, it would be in the record and in dozens of wikipedia clones. There is such a thing as security through obscurity, so unless you can demonstrate some sort of encyclopedic reason for needing date/date of birth (vs year), and can demonstrate that these kids are worthy of note besides being members of a team, why not just drop the stick and do the decent thing and not publish the birthdates? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
• This is one of the most ridiculous threads I have ever read. Are you saying we really have to wait until a person's 18th birthday to reveal a sodding date of birth, information which is freely available about notable (albeit young) people? Theo Walcott represented the England national team aged 17 years and 75 days, becoming one of the most prominent sportsmen in the country, regardless of age. Should we have waited a further 290 days to publish his DOB? No, we would have rightly been a laughing stock. Wikipedia is not censored, and this information is freely available in reliable, secondary service - it stays. Get a fucking grip. GiantSnowman 08:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
• Remove the non-reliably sourced birthdates, and the birthdates of non-notable players. However, I fail to understand what the fuss is about a birth date for a minor. All it does is tell you how old they are, nothing else. I've publicly displayed my birthdate for years, and most minors do. If we started including things like address, or whatever, then of course it should go. But the claim that a minor's DOB should never be present is indeed ludicrous, as per the highly notable people being referenced (one more being Rebecca Black) - partially because, in some places, a person is still a minor at 21; and yet, in others it may be 16. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  • My thoughts exactly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
• I have my own view on whether precise dates of birth should be given or not, but frankly the question is of marginal importance. What is more important to me is the florid and overheated language and argumentation style from both sides here. Please calm this discussion down. It's not urgent, or life threatening, or even very important which result we get here. Heightening the rhetoric on both sides is making a sensible discussion and an agreed consensus less likely, not more so. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the list again and I'm locking the article until there is a clear consensus that this isn't a huge BLP violation here. Gamaliel (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Does context affect personal information?

After reading the discussion above, I can see there is general agreement that protecting the release of a child's personal information is preferred yet it seems if the information is presented in context as the parent's personal information the collateral release of the child's personal information is treated as inconsequential. Based on 84,000 hits, a conservative estimate based on my observations of emerging trends suggest we have at lease a couple thousand articles like this GA which contains the following content: "Spears gave birth to her first son, Sean Preston, on September 15, 2005." and "On September 12, 2006, Spears gave birth to her second child, Jayden James.", both being reliably sourced. Is this acceptable?—John Cline (talk) 13:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I think in the case you just gave, the detailed dates of birth add nothing to the article. They could be cut down to just years. I think context does matter based on if it matters in the wider subject area. In certain areas of sports, the dates of birth matter. We shouldn't care for local sports where this matters, but on a national or international level, we should give just as much weight to dates of birth as the sources do.--v/r - TP 14:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism from IP-Range 182.189.xxx.yyy

182.189.107.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) A lot of vandalism from a whole range of IP addresses starting with 182.189 like for instance 182.189.107.197, 182.189.70.67, 182.189.77.122, 182.189.65.22, 182.189.44.202. Not sure, if all are listed. Author(s) not notified. Florentyna (talk) 17:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Youtaijiaofaguodui disruptive editing in Backstreet Boys In A World Like This — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khaledd01 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Stratos Tzortzoglou

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

---

Can I get some admin assistance with Stratos Tzortzoglou? Stratosalkis (talk · contribs) and Mxantho (talk · contribs), whom I believe is the actor in question, is dumping his resume onto the article with loads of unsourced testimonials from famous people and reviews in order to name-drop as many people as possible to make himself look famous. Since I stubified his article, I am therefore WP:INVOLVED and need another admin to step in to put a stop to the resume dumping. My attempts to get his attention have gone unheeded. Thank you. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I blocked Stratosalkis for a week and protected the page for a week. Legoktm (talk) 00:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Stanley Galt

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

---

Stanley Galt (talk · contribs) continues to replace the Charles Payne (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) contents with copyvio material after several warnings: [110] Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Let's use this board for serious matters. It was already reported at AIV, and the user is blocked. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Problem Article

I think something weird is happening with User:Garion96 and User:Cyberbot II on the article: Subway Surfers. It was requested for protection and was put protected in the page but not on the request page. Therefore User:Cyberbot II removed it on the page I THINK. It also still has it requesting on the request page. Bobherry talk 04:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

There were previously 2 protections active at once, Garion96 removed the pending changes protection, which triggered the bot to remove the pending changes protection template. He also extended the semi-protection to indefinite, the page still had the old semi template, so the bot didn't add a new one, though the expiration date is now inaccurate. The WP:RFPP request is for human use, and doesn't effect the bot activity. Monty₈₄₅ 04:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Fabricating information and POV-pushing by User:The Discoverer

I need administrator help to deal with User:The Discoverer, who made a number of edits contradicted by neutral sources, in a way that advances the Indian agenda in several articles about places that are claimed by both India and China.

For example, in this edit on Khurnak Fort, he added "The international border between India and China used to be to the east of the fort until the end of 1962, with the fort within Indian territory", purportedly supported by two Indian sources. However, the Indian source he cites says "The Chinese claim line ... included the Chip Chap valley, Samzungling, Kongka La, Khurnak Fort and Jara La. ... the Chinese were in occupation of all this territory by the early 1950s.", clearly contradicting his edit.

In the same edit, he added "this traditional boundary was also followed by the Johnson Line" (the Johnson Line is what India claims to be the traditional border), citing this US Navy source. However, the source has this to say about the Johnson Line: "Johnson's work has been severely criticized for gross inaccuracies, with description of his boundary as patently absurd. ... Johnson was reprimanded by the British Government for crossing into Khotan without permission, and resigned from the Survey."

He also created or modified several articles including Lanak Pass, Sirijap, Galwan River, Spanggur Gap, Spanggur Tso, Chip Chap River, etc., quoting almost exclusively non-neutral Indian sources while repeating the same fabricated information. He also created the Category:Areas occupied by China after the Sino-Indian War using the biased word "occupied", and added all the articles into that category, including Khurnak Fort and Lanak Pass that even Indian sources admit were controlled by China before the war.

After noticing his POV edits, I nominated the category for deletion and reminded him on his talk page to follow the NPOV policy, and he agreed. However, pretty soon he added even more one-sided pro-Indian POV to several articles, citing exclusively non-neutral Indian sources.

I then tried again and again to persuade him to follow the NPOV policy, yet he refused to listen. On 2 September he again added Lanak Pass and Khurnak Fort to Category:Areas occupied by China after the Sino-Indian War (diffs: [111] [112]), even though all sources, including Indian ones that he added himself, say they were controlled by China in the 1950s, clearly before the 1962 war.

User:The Discoverer is no stranger to ANI. Last year he was reported here for copyright violation. I request that this user be topic-banned for repeatedly and persistently violating WP policies. -Zanhe (talk) 06:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Following are some comments regarding the points raised:

• Regarding Khurnak Fort: "The international border between India and China used to be to the east of the fort until the end of 1962, with the fort within Indian territory" is supported by the text at [113] and [114]. I know these are not reliable sources, but my statement is not a fabrication. Later, I provided four sources (available in the current revision) that state that the fort was controlled by China since June or July 1958.
• My full sentence was "This traditional boundary was also followed by the Johnson Line and the Macartney-Macdonald Line, which were proposed by the British." This is an objective and true statement and I stand by it. I have never, ever made any attempt to justify the Johnson line, as implied by Zanhe.
• I have explained all my edits in edit summaries and in the discussion we had at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 August 28. I have been willing to consider all Zanhe's objections, and have repeatedly offered to rename the category to a more suitable name.
• Zanhe objected to including Indian sources, while my argument was that since the same Indian sources had criticised India, and since their statements have not been disputed by any other source, they have some reliability and neutrality. At the end of our discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_August_28, I suggested that we discuss our disagreement further at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard in order to get other editors' views.
• On the occasion when my edits were reported for copyvio, what had happened was that I had split Sport in India into smaller articles, and the copyvio had originated from the original Wikipedia article.

The Discoverer (talk) 09:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding Khurnak Fort: you admit that all four Indian sources you added say the fort has been controlled by China since 1958 (another source says early 1950s), yet you still insist on re-adding the article to Category:Areas occupied by China after the Sino-Indian War. Your personal bias has obviously impeded your judgment to the extent that you're unable to accept the simple fact that 1958 was before the 1962 war. Your behaviour is a perfect example for WP:COMPETENCE#Bias-based, which says that "a topic ban is generally appropriate" in such cases.
• Regarding the Johnson Line: how can you deny that your sentence ""This traditional boundary was also followed by the Johnson Line and the Macartney-Macdonald Line" is a justification of the Johnson Line? In territorial disputes, each country usually describes its preferred boundary as the "traditional" one. Your claim that the Johnson Line followed the traditional boundary is clearly an endorsement.
• The main problem with Category:Areas occupied by China after the Sino-Indian War is that not a single neutral source says any of the places was occupied by China after the war. On the contrary, all neutral sources I've read say China withdrew to the prewar border after the war, which is also what the main article Sino-Indian War says. You're completely replying on non-neutral Indian sources and your own fabrication.
• I did not object to the inclusion of all Indian sources. I only insisted that non-neutral sources need proper attribution per WP policy, and that you cannot draw conclusions solely from non-neutral sources. (diffs: [115] [116])
• As for your previous incident on ANI, the discussions involved allegations of copying content from other articles without attribution, as well as copyright violation. As a result, your original creations were deleted by admins.

-Zanhe (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Reinstatement of sockpuppet's work - 0RR request

User:DeFacto received an indefinite block many months ago and has since opened many sockpuppet accounts. He used one such account User:Ex-Stanley to take part in a long-running dispue regarding on the Talk pages of the Falkland Islands. Once this account was identified as a sock-puppet account, I struck out his "contributions" to the debate thus. This striking-out was reverted three times by User:Kahastok - here, here and here. I reinstated the strike-outs, explaining to Kahastok that my striking out did not count towards a 3RR ban. I also gave him a 3RR warning here. This was followed by User:Apcbg reinstating the striken out text with the comment "I agree with Kahastok's reasoning so I've had that text un-striken. For technical purposes, please regard the un-striken contributions as having been made by me; for all I know I am not banned and therefore am in a position to contribute such comments.". I request that

• That I (or some other third party) be permitted to strike these comments out again and that reinstatement of these comments be subject to a WP:0RR block.
• That User:Apcbg be warned about his provocative behaviour.

Martinvl (talk) 06:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

User Martinvl has a very strong POV on units of measure, in favour of metrication in the UK. He has been trying to force this POV into Falklands articles for the best part of half a decade. By now, we have reached the point where his argument rarely rise above the level of WP:GAME. From insisting that geography is a science and that therefore miles are effectively entirely banned from Wikipedia under WP:UNITS (a highly novel interpretation that has never been applied anywhere else), to announcing that WP:UNITS requires metric units in all contexts in UK-related articles (when anyone who can read it can see that it does not) to deciding that because we was withdrawing his consent to a consensus that consensus no longer existed. He cannot be trusted to edit Falklands articles without pushing this point. For example, by the time he posted this, out of the blue, he'd been pushing the point for four years and it is totally inconceivable that he didn't know it to be controversial. More diffs later if people want them - no time now.

He has been the only one pushing this point in recent months. The continual repetition of the same arguments, over and over, and the continual campaigning, reached the level of being disruptive to the topic and to the encyclopædia some time in around 2010 and has not dropped down from that level since.

Nobody else would start these discussions if Martin were not present and if a newcomer did the point would likely easily be resolved. Nobody else wants to discuss units of measure continually instead of actually improving the encyclopædia.

In this case, he's trying to remove the edits of an editor that he does not agree with, edits that were endorsed by others, in such a way as to make it very difficult to follow the discussion. There is nothing in policy that requires the reversion of banned editors' comments, and I believe nothing that even allows the alteration of banned editors' comments as Martin demands. He claims that striking out others' comments - even where that means reverting a non-banned editor - is protected by 3RR: this is yet another novel interpretation of policy that would not be accepted anywhere else. There is no good reason to strike these comments - it just looks like he's trying to get rid of comments that disagree with him.

I am calling for a topic ban that will prevent Martin from adding, altering or discussing units of measure on Falklands articles, including the rules that govern them. I have become convinced that this is the only way in which the encyclopædia can be protected from this disruptive POV push. Kahastok talk 07:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Kashastok, your behaviour is suspiciously similar to that of DeFacto... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Luke, at one point I was so bothered by DeFacto's multiple socks that I examined the contribution histories of a batch of editors including Kahastok that were then involved in another issue. The comparison showed me that DeFacto was using socks in tag-teams and they were ultimately blocked as socks, but it also showed me that Kahastok was a different person. NebY (talk) 11:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Putting the possibility of Kashastok aside, unless Apcbg is suspected of being a sock as well (which I'm not saying they are) then they are certainly able to take on the comments as if it were their own. There is precedent in the past that when banned/indef'd editors come back with a sock and contribute something that is meaningful, which is subsequently reverted, another editor in good standing may, at their own risk, take ownership of that contribution and add it back in. So unless the material is blatant trolling, which it doesn't seem so to me but it is rather tangential and not really germane, I don't really see the justification for a final revert with a 0RR and a warning. Blackmane (talk) 08:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

<- Regardless of policy, guidelines and the intent of people who re-implement edits by blocked/banned editors, the effect is that it becomes impossible to enforce blocks and bans. It enables and encourages block evasion, a problem for which Wikipedia does not have a technical solution, or any effective solution in my view. I think using the term "in good standing" to describe editors who, in effect, facilitate block/ban evasion is counterproductive. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's the right way of looking at it. There are instances (I'm not talking hypothetically, a wikiproject I'm on had to deal with this a few weeks ago) where the (laudable) desire to discourage block evasion has, through deletion of a sock's work that other users would have been happy to "adopt," put a massive dent in the project's work and in the integrity of Wikipedia as a whole. All someone is doing by "adopting" an edit is saying that they would make it themselves; if the content of the edit is problematic, that can be sanctioned itself, but making a perfectly legitimate edit taboo forever because a sock also made it in the past is counterproductive. Now, in this case, Apcbg was wrong. "Adopting" an article edit and "adopting" a talk page comment signed by another user aren't the same thing. If he wanted to say the same things, he should have done so in a new comment (even copying and pasting the text if he felt like it, as long as he signed it himself). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin assistance needed

Can an uninvolved admin please consider and close (one way or the other) the discussion above at Proposed ban of Cantaloupe2? Thank you! —Locke Cole • t • c 09:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning/Bradley Manning

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Manning

 – NE Ent 23:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Enkyo2 making everything personal and being completely incoherent

I have started two ANI threads on Enkyo in the last few weeks. The first had 3 participants other than me, of whom one agreed with me on the substance, one asked for more info, and one dismissed my concern and closed the thread before I had a response to give the second their answer. The second saw the previous closer return and continue to dismiss my concerns despite an abundance of evidence, despite four other editors either agreeing with me or requesting that user to at least listen to me. It ended by getting archived with no result. I decided to take some of Rjanag's flawed advice and take one of my issues with Enkyo to RSN. In this case my concern was his misrepresentation of very old, primary sources, some of which are in neither English nor Japanese and can't easily be checked by other users.[117] Enkyo then came along and posted a 700-word rant that had almost no relation to the topic of my post, was largely composed in incoherent moon-speak, and made numerous assumptions of bad faith against me.[118] The thread immediately went into TLDR territory, so I can't see it getting resolved there now, but this most recent post proves my earlier complaint that Enkyo needs to start discussing things in plain English (i.e., discussing things coherently). Could someone please help me with this? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

When I read AN/I threads that start "I've raised two threads here in recent weeks..." my heart sinks, because the inference I draw is that having failed to get the desired result twice over, a third equally unproductive thread is going to result. Hijiri, you plead for administrative help: what admin tools or action would you like to see deployed here? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

This topic isn't sexy, and so while all but one participant agreed with me the threads got archived before anything was done. That one participant mistakenly assumed this was about content and sourcing rather than user behaviour. I decided to let ANI go for a while, and took one of the issues (which by itself was not a user issue) to RSN. Enkyo immediately proved that one participant wrong, by posting a very long, incomprehensible and completely off-topic rant. My first thread was closed because I had used bad wording: I wanted Enkyo to speak coherently on talk pages (i.e., use plain English) and some other users misinterpreted me as complaining that he was speaking a language other than English. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I want an admin (i.e., someone Enkyo can't just dismiss as a troll or a POV-pusher) to tell Enkyo the same thing I (and numerous others before me) have: discuss issues like this coherently and stop misrepresenting sources. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

This new thread is a pretext in a pattern which is not easy to parse neatly -- see here and here. At the same time, Hijiri88 continues "framing" a difficult-to-understand conflict, e.g.,

• revenge? -- see here? and here?
• grudge? -- see here?

This needs to stop.

Perhaps the fact that this is a pretext needs to be made explicit? I only hope that the mere act of naming it may diminish its power to cause harm. This targeting pattern does not help our wiki-project. --Enkyo2 (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I had been really hoping this wouldn't happen again, and I know that Enkyo2 has useful things they could contribute...but this is the exact same behavior that has lead to this editor being sanction in the past. In 2009, Enkyo2 (then editing under the name User: Tenmei) was topic banned and mandated to edit under guidance of a mentor, a process which was never very successful (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty#Tenmei and dispute resolution, and the first four Remedies). In 2011, as a result of Tenmei's editing in Senkaku Islands and related articles, Tenmei was topic banned from the subject indefinitely, banned for one year, and "advised that his unusual style of communication has not been conducive to resolving this dispute. Accordingly, Tenmei is urged to develop a different style of communication, which is more similar to that used by experienced Wikipedia editors." (see the first three remedies for the case). The statement above, which Enkyo2 also put on his talk page in a response to the OP, is the exact same style that has been a problem for Enkyo2, seemingly throughout his entire Wikipedia career. Perhaps one of the most irritating aspects (at least for more), is the attempt to "illustrate" disputes with graphics, as you can see in User Talk:Enkyo2#Enkyo PLEASE be coherent and stop making unrelated rants on talk pages. I honestly cannot figure out why Enkyo2 writes this way, and I do believe he is sincerely trying to communicate...but the result is invariably the opposite. Sadly...I'm simply not sure that there is a place for Enkyo2 in Wikipedia, which simply requires the ability to collaborate with other editors. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Enkyo, you've pasted the same reply above as appears in at least two other places. Copypasting makes it look as if you can't be bothered to address the actual question being asked. Would you leave the question of Hijiri's motivation aside for one moment and consider whether your communication style is optimal? Several editors seem to agree that it isn't. Can you see why this might be? Would you be able to change anything about it? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

user jerry pepsi continues to be make malicious edits

Please prevent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jerry_Pepsi from editing on the wiki page for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory:_Married_%26_Dating#Season_2

He just undid our edit "megan is their girlfriend of 3 years and they call themselves a trio" This is factual information that is on the showtime website yet he continues to maliciously undo this edit. We ask that you review his edits and stop him from editing on the PMD page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvfanatics (talk • contribs) 15:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

No opinion on Jerry Pepsi's edits (I think I briefly looked at this last time it was here) but did you (Tvfanatics) just admit to using a shared account? No one's going to criticize you for simply having an s in your username, but "He just undid our edit" (emphasis added) seems to indicate that you are violating WP:NOSHARE. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

TVFanatics has routinely addressed themselves as a collective, leading to some asking if the (apparently) SPA is associated with the article in question. Having seen the previous threads, TVFanatics has brought this complaint to ANI repeatedly, this being the third attempt. The second caused the page to be fully-protected. During that time TVFanatic made no efforts to engage in talkpage discussion (other than requesting his changes be restored) and then waited for protection to be removed until editing again. 192.76.82.89 (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

While: Polyamory: Married & Dating was fully protected, I advised TVFanatic that if he did not engage Jerry Pepsi in meaningful discussion and simply waiting for the protection to run out before continuing on as he had before, I would strongly recommend that he be blocked. TVFanatic ignored my advice and did exactly that, he did not engage Jerry Pepsi in discussion and waited for the protection to lapse, then continued as before. For this reason, I strongly recommend he be blocked for not editing collegially, for WP:IDHT behavior, for bringing disputes to AN/I without engaging the other editor in civil discussion, for personal attacks (on Jerry Pepsi's talk page), for probably having a WP:COI in respect to the program, and for possibly being a shared account. Until TVFanatics can explain what's going on, and assure the community that he understands how things work around here, his disruptive editing needs to stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Edits (vandalism?) on my talk page User talk:Qed237

Hi

Did not know where to turn so I went here. Just tell me i I should take this somewhere else.

I just logged in after being away from computer for a couple of days and saw disturbing edits on my talkpage. Even if i have not (yet) made any posts since 2 September i got several warnings (level 3 and 4) today (4 Sept) from different IP:s all of which belong to the same address in Liverpool, and these are my first warnings ever. Also I looked at the contributions for these IP:s and their only edit was on my talkpage. Probably I somehow got this IP user angry for about a week ago when me and several other users started removing some unsourced statistics on 2013–14 Liverpool F.C. season based on WP:OR and a reached consensus at WT:FOOTY. The IP user never said what articles the warnings relate to.

Is it okay for me to just remove them or should someone else do that so I dont get blocked for some warnings i dont understand? Do these IPs need to be blocked? Maybe semi-protect the talk-page (but that is not great either if i need ta talk with some friendly IP). I would not be to happy if these warnings got me blocked.

The IP-users are [119],[120],[121].

Thanks for every help i can get! QED237 (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

It certainly appears to be a single dissatisfied editor who is logging out in order to harass you anonymously. You are certainly entitled to remove anything you wish from your own talk page. You can archive it if you prefer. Here's some further info. ChakaKong^{Let's talk about it} 16:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. My concern is that if I do remove these edits, next time someone will look at the page-history and see that I removed a level 4 warning. Then that person gives me a level 4 or put me up for a block. Therefore i thought i should ask here and I have seen warnings been removed by admins when they where wrong. QED237 (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Blatant socking, spurious AfD nominations

Secret blocked a sock of Ron Gates (talk · contribs) recently, AdamSmithUS. Over the last few days, a loudly quacking counterpart has surfaced, CharlesWhiteUSA. I've filed an SPI report already, but honestly, I'm not interested in waiting for the editor to perform more disruptive AfD nominations, pretend to be a host at the Teahouse, and generally speaking, waste everyone's time. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 16:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello {{User:I_JethroBT|I, JethroBT}}, I would like to know why you are being the king of Wikipedia and tries to rule, let me remind you this is Wikipedia started and founded by Jimmy Wales for anyone wants to contribute. So, I would like to request you that please stop blaming or sticking allegations on me. CharlesWhiteUSA (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know who this joker is or what they're trying to do, but they can't do it from this account anymore. Drmies (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I was wondering why I was being notified about this. Considering Drmies has apparently already taken action, should we close this thread? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 18:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes. Also, do I get a crown? I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 18:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    • The editor accidentally transcluded JethroBT's user page here (and on JethroBT's talk page). I'm mentioned on it (though with a caveat, sadly), and I suppose you are as well. I assume that CU will confirm JethroBT's suspicion, which would be useful. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

86.18.173.194 continues to make racist edits

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

---

IP editor 86.18.173.194 (contributions, talk) was warned on 14 May 2013 after he/she made racist edits to the article on Katie Leung.[122][123] He replied to the warning with a message telling the editor who warned him/her that they were a "pusscake".[124] He/she has now made an edit to the article on Lvov, denying the Holocaust (which in many countries is illegal).[125] Given that this is a vandalism-only user, please can he/she be blocked.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Persistent disruption in Talk:Windows XP

Hi.

We seem to have a trolling issue in Talk:Windows XP. Someone there thinks if you are using Windows 8, you are a "retarded moron". Actually, I have no idea how to handle such situations, even I don't know if I am in the right place; only I strongly feel an entire community should not be offended that grossly.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Seems a basic WP:NOTAFORUM violation. If they do it again, a 24 hour block should give them a clue.--v/r - TP 18:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with TParis's assessment and suggestion. It's not a constructive comment and does not serve the purpose of improving the article. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)