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

Deleting posts from other users' talk pages

Resolved

 – WP:FOOTBALLPLAYERWHOSHALLNOTBENAMED The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 22:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Vote (X) for Change (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Meletian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
81.159.32.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Jc3s5h has just wiped a message I posted to User talk:Samhastings. He has been warned about this before: [1]. Can someone block him so that he knows not to do it again? 20:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocks are not punitive, they are preventative. Blocking shouldn't be necessary here IMO. Connormah^talk 20:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

So are you a sock of User:Vote (X) for Change? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I am not a sock of Vote (X) for Change. I have been an IP editor for three years now. I'll add the message back and see how it goes. 81.159.32.4 (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

SPI has been started: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vote (X) for Change ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Putting it at its highest, a judge might decide (wrongly in my opinion) that I am a sockpuppet of Vote (X) for Change, but that isn't relevant, because other editors are only allowed to remove talk page posts of editors who are banned. 81.159.32.4 (talk) 20:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your response falls into the "non-denial denial" category. Your best option would be to go to the SPI and answer the specifics of the complaint, if you have not already done so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The message has been removed a second time. That's why I think a block is appropriate because it prevents the action being repeated. 81.159.32.4 (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The user will be alerted to the activity on his talk page, will read your comments, and if he wishes the post to be present, he can restore it himself. This is a non-issue. --erachima talk 20:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not exactly a non-issue. It's true that a user can manage his own talk page the way he wants. But when another user starts messing around with your talk page on the suspicion that the poster is a sock, then he's crossing the boundary into "nannyism". However, if the posting itself is a violation of the rules (e.g. a personal attack or BLP violation) then theoretically its subject to deletion by anyone. Did the OP's posting violate any rules? Has the IP been demonstrated to be a block-evading sock? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The removed post appears to be some form of WP:SOAPBOXing. Removal of such comments is always a gray area, but it's definitely not actionable. --erachima talk 20:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It's the prerogative of the user himself. Jc3s5h needs to prove his case at the SPI. If he does, then 81 will get put on ice for awhile. If not, Jc3s5h should either just leave it alone or else report what violation 81 has committed by posting it here. Meanwhile, I agree that 81's bringing this here is excessive and could boomerang, as there appears to be no real justification for blocking Jc3s5h. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain to me what a "non - denial denial" is? Also the gentleman I wrote to is 91 years old and shouldn't be expected to check his talk page revision history every day. 81.159.32.4 (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Something that kind of sounds like a denial but really isn't. See Watergate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

What does his age have to do with anything? --erachima talk 20:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It does appear that Sam only edits sporadically, and has only about a dozen edits since February. But unless he's asked Jc3s5h to delete "possible" sock entries from his page, Jc3s5h is getting a bit carried away. (Of course, if 81 does prove to be a block evading sock, that will be another story.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

But isn't it always up to the prosecutor to prove his case? The defendant doesn't have to say anything. 81.159.32.4 (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

At what point did you get the idea that wikipedia is a court of law or is subject to the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to do anything if you don't want to. Wikipedia is not a court, nor a democracy, there is not a legal thing. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

He soon won't be able to, as SG pointed out that 81 gave the game away in this diff[2] where he identified himself as a sockpuppet (Meletian) of the indef'd user Vote X. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Another term popularized by Watergate was "smoking gun". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, this particular IP on 81's subnet just appeared today, after a 4-year silence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked as an obvious and self-admitted sock. London based IP prattling on about esoteric calendaring issues and self-identifiying as a previously blocked sock. Am I missing something? Kuru (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Only maybe the question of whether he has other IP's. But if he does, we can probably expect to hear from them. And if not, everything's peachy. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. No disrespect intended. The office manager wanted to call it a day. When I entered the office the IP was 86.174.115.50, when I left it was 81.159.32.4. In that time nobody came in to tinker with the machine, so the responsibility must lie with the operators of 81's and 86's subnets. Baseball Bugs hits it right on the head when (s)he says

Jc3s5h needs to prove his case at the SPI. If he does, then 81 will get put on ice for awhile. If not, Jc3s5h should either just leave it alone or else report what violation 81 has committed by posting it here.188.220.41.240 (talk) 10:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The above IP has also been involved in that same calendar dispute. It seems odd that an office would have such a dynamic IP, but maybe it depends on the office. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm mystified why Baseball Bugs and Kuru are contemplating closing down entire Internet Service Providers in this country. Given that nobody has ever alleged that my edits are disruptive or illegal I am sure this would result in the ISPs affected making formal complaints to the WMF. After all, if a vandal is using a network there is a mechanism for notifying the operator of same.

WMF might then enquire why Chris Bennett has been allowed to vilify me on a daily basis over 2 1/2 years all over WP with no action being taken despite numerous requests - for example "all pretence of reason is cast aside to reveal the pitiful, naked troll beneath" and "thank you for confirming that you are our hydra - headed IP friend the Intercalary Fool". Actually, that's not totally correct - the second comment, after having been removed many times from Talk:Julian calendar has now been locked in. Bennett is "active" on the SPI according to Jc3s5h, who responded to a message with the words "THIS POST DOES NOT EXIST".

Slightly higher up this page (at least till last night) was a discussion of a comparatively anodyne personal attack by HalfShadow, which resulted in an immediate indefinite block. This contributor is regularly in trouble, and became known to me when (s)he reverted a correction I made to the SPI and then attempted to get SlimVirgin to censor my contributions. Nobody has queried the content of edits from Vote (X) for Change, which was used for two weeks back in March to promote a particular option in a ballot and then closed down with the "Former Account" template. On these facts, I fail to see how Kuru can conclude "Painfully obvious and self - admitted sock; blocked as such" 80.229.81.66 (talk)

Shutting down an entire ISP would simply be an experiment - as wikipedia itself is. It would be interesting to respond to all the complaints with, "It's because of this one guy. Find him and deal with him!" That approach is probably against policy. But it's a good fantasy. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

To which the reply would likely be "She's not causing any trouble, so leave her alone". Do you realise that the "Former Account" tag which I added means I'm not "Vote (X)" any more? So those tags added to 80.229.81.66, 81.159.32.4 and 188.220.41.240 are incorrect. And a better wording would be "one contributor who harbours a grudge against one of our IP contributors has expressed concern etc. but 74,999 haven't". 78.151.221.225 (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you the person who formerly used the "Vote (X) for Change" account? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Why do you ask? Anonymous editing is just that - anonymous. 78.151.221.225 (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Another non-denial denial, so that's a "Yes". Thank you for owning up to being a sock. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You're very good at putting words into people's mouths. The woman says I don't know how many times "I am not a sock" and you come back with "self - admitted sock". 78.151.221.225 (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

About 30 minutes ago, you posted for the 1st time on Wikipedia, knew where the ANI page was, knew how to sign your post. Looks very sockery to me. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia users, like Facebook users, don't operate in a vacuum. There are other Facebook/Wikipedia users around. 78.151.221.225 (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit early to close this discussion (1 hour 12 minutes left on the clock). Given that the guidance says it's not illegal to close an account and resume editing under a different name I would say there is a great deal left to discuss. Can someone explain why Chris Bennett has not been penalised for continuing WP:NPA violations? He can't be that useful to the project - there are a fair number of contributions on his record but they're nothing to do with improving the encyclopedia. 86.162.183.87 (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Enforcement regarding User:Mk5384

Resolved

 – Ban enacted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

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

---

• Mk5384 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is on an indefinite civility restriction, where if after four blocks, starting at a week in length, the user still persists, the block may be upped to indefinite.

If the community would please check his block log, they would find not only has he been blocked for edit warring, this block has been changed to revoke talk page access for incivility/personal attacks, and was then upped to 2 weeks for gross incivility. After all of this, the user still would not stop, and chose to evade his block just to vandalize the original blocking administrator's userpage. If there are any doubts the IP is them, simply check the IP's contributions.

This user just can't seem to abide by our rules, and frankly doesn't seem to get it that their behavior is unacceptable here. Per their most recent 4 changes, today in their block log, starting for edit warring and being upped for personal attacks, I propose this user's block be upped to indefinite.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC) User notified, not that it matters since they cannot comment here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I upped it to 6 months before I saw this, because I suspected that "indefinite" would be "infinite" given past contributions. YMMV.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Just as a point of order, the block was changed to revoke talk page access for gross incivility, but this was done at the same time as someone increased the block to two weeks for the same (see the timestamps). So that should really be read as an enforcement of one action, but with differing opinions on how to enforce. With Mk5384's actions today, I'm throwing my hands up. –xeno^talk 20:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

This is just more of the same. Those (Kww, for instance) that weren't happy that the ban proposal didn't carry have returned to finish the job. 6 months, 6 minutes, or 6 years-it makes no difference. Sarek had the opportunity to show some integrity, and tell Kww he had no right to block me. Instead, he chose to join this kangaroo court. If I'm blocked for 6 months, then that will simply mean 6 months of making trouble, instead of makijg productive edits. Well done! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alysheeba (talk • contribs) 20:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The block could have probably been lifted if it was talked out, instead you chose to resort to gross incivility and logging out to vandalize. Please start taking ownership of your own actions. –xeno^talk 20:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed community ban

Since the editor has above threatened merely to vandalise whilst blocked (I have just had to revdelete a pretty vile comment from User:Kww's talkpage), I propose that the block be raised to a community ban. I think this is fairly straightforward and standard here. Note: I have altered the block from 6 months to indefinite. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Edit warring, personal attacks, vandalism, threats of vandalism and socking, and socking.. Not a net plus to the project. It would be a plus, to ban them however.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support Today's actions were unacceptable. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - He's not doing us or this site any good while he's around. Simon^KSK 20:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Move to Support: What good will a full ban do? He's already suggested he will resort to sockpuppetry. Keep him indefinitely blocked and if he wants to reform later we can let him back in. N419BH 20:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • What good a ban would do is to take away the possibility of a sympathetic admin unilaterally unblocking him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Indefinite is not forever, an indef block has the possibility of being over-turned much sooner than a ban, which requires community consensus to overturn.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Exactly. Why would we kick someone out forever? Indefinite ban them. If they sock, tag, and more reason not to unblock. I'm inclined to chalk this up as immaturity. Let them figure it out and then we can go from there. I don't think an admin would be dumb enough to unblock unilaterally with THAT log and those tagged socks. N419BH 21:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
    • We wouldn't need to do it, if it hasn't happened before, and it has happened before. A ban is the only way to ensure this user stays blocked.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
      • As Daedalus969 said above, he does not seem to get it. He continuously cycles between being blocked and being disruptive, all the while wasting hour, after hour, of other peoples time. --GabeMc (talk) 22:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Moving to Support, a more detailed history check shows he's been given more than enough WP:ROPE and proceeded to hang himself with it. N419BH 22:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - again so soon for the exact same stuff. Off2riorob (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - The user has been mostly engaged in battles of one kind or another since he started about 6 months ago - many of them over single sentences or single words in an article - followed up by vulgarity and persecution fantasies. Plainly, he does not understand the basic concepts here. And socking is the final straw. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - looking at his actions today, the attacks on KWW (hate to imagine how made the revdev one might be considering the ones still viewable in the history), the overall history, and his immediate jumping to socking again (including above) it would seem he has made it clear that he is not going to abide by Wikipedia's guidelines and policies nor does it reflect any willingness/ability to work in a cooperative system; his reaction to his most recent block just seals the deal. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 21:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

  FWIW, Kww has thick skin and is an admin so can view the attack anyway, I don't see a pressing need to keep it revision deleted. –xeno^talk 21:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Oh, I know, but why give him the satisfaction of seeing his unpleasantness on show for all to see? Black Kite (t) (c) 21:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 5)Support indefinite ban per all above; he definitely isn't here to improve the 'pedia. -- Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support This place isn't for everybody and I think the evidence is out there that this editor is not compatible with our project. Sad to see as I know he had lots to contribute, but the ability to work with others is fundamental and he just doesn't seem to have it. --John (talk) 21:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support per above (all). Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 21:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - He's done enough today for a community ban. If he wants to explain himself, he can do so at a higher level, we should be done wasting time with him after today's actions. Dayewalker (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Mk5384 continues to disrupt Wiki articles [3] [4] by refusing to use the discussion page to gain consensus and by deleting or otherwise changing content without regard to sources. Hk5384 is not cut out for editing, as the vast majority of his actions do little more than waste an enormous amount off time for other editors. He has been given numerous chances by several editors and admins who did their very best to include, and mentor him. I can think of no other editor more deserving of an indefinate ban from the Wiki project. --GabeMc (talk) 21:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support unfortunately. I'm sorry to say it, but it seems that Mk has let his anger get the better of him again, and so soon after the interaction ban; until he can exhibit some self-control and maturity he's better off spending his time somewhere else. — e. ripley\^talk 21:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support per threats to sock if not unblocked. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support Clearly here to disrupt, not help. Mauler90 _talk 21:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support The patience shown by so many admins has been truly impressive. But, look at the total time expended by dozens of editors over one editor that simply will not or cannot abide by the rules, no matter how many chances he gets and how many people try to help. And look at how he treats people that attempt to help him. At some point, the cost expended is simply too high.Objective3000 (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support Per nom. We're all working here as adults and nobody should need that much supervision and "one more chances" from admins to edit. Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support per Burpelson. Pilif12p :  Yo  22:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I'm disappointed, but not at all surprised, since I predicted this outcome a while ago. It's really too bad that MK seemingly cannot control himself. The ban has the advantage that, being difficult to rescind, if MK makes the effort some months down the line to convince the community to overturn it, it might be a good indication that he's serious about being a productive contributor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support this behaviour is beyond unacceptable and cannot be tolerated. I agree with Beyond My Ken if MK makes the effort in the future (at least 6 months) to convince the community that they've reformed it would be a positive step--86.42.129.84 (talk) 00:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment One of those IPs that voted, should that be OK? AboundingHinata (talk) 01:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
    • About as OK as an editor whose account was created two days ago, with not a single articlespace edit to their credit, pointing it out.[5] And, BTW, this is trolling. Don't do that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support – We do not need more disruption by this user here. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I placed the banned notice on the user's userpage. Grandmasterka 02:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC) EDIT: Ban not in place, discussion is still ongoing.

Reopened

• Temporary support A long time ago, this user was better. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mary_Todd_Lincoln&diff=prev&oldid=339695702 Would encourage the person to return to Wikipedia only when she/he is willing to help out. Given the number of bad edits, I would recommend no less than a few months. RIPGC (talk) 04:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how a single diff, where the user doesn't even use an edit summary, shows how they were 'better'. They were banned for edit warring, gross personal attacks, sockpuppeting, and socking just to vandalize. A diff in the past that has no edit summary does not demonstrate how this user was 'good with others'.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Ban too fast

I object. This is WAY too quick. So make this a community ban enacted after a rush job. The editor is bad but this is way too rushed. [redacted inappropriate analogy] RIPGC (talk) 04:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I've redacted your inappropriate analogy. –xeno^talk 13:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad wrote on 17:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC) I agree that 24 hours should be a presumptive minimum for community-ban discussions, in the absence of extraordinary circumstances, and that the discussion should go on longer if there is useful dialog still taking place (i.e., input from new commenters and/or people making new points, as opposed to the same small group of people making their points more and more stridently). ...Administrators are told that "blocking is a serious matter," and of course banning is as well, even more so.

I've never seen a ban discussion (including topic bans) that I thought went according to a fair, open, and reasonable process was written by II | (t - c) 07:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC) (ImperfectlyInformed).

As you can see, less than two months ago and on ANI. RIPGC (talk) 04:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I have moved this comment to the bottom, where new comments go. As to the content of your comment, I have no comment on it, for the moment.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted my close and reopened per request. We can afford to wait 18 hours more or so... but I can pretty much guarantee it won't change anything. If consensus somehow magically changes, I'll... I'll... well, be astounded, for starters. Jclemens (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Ha, ha, then vote "keep" in the AFD of Presidential election of 2084 (citing "I can pretty much guarantee that the election will take place!"! Others may vote "delete" citing WP:Crystal ball. Good work, Jc. RIPGC (talk) 04:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

My main idea is that if we railroad someone so quickly, even if they are very bad, it makes us bad. In protest, I will quit Wikipedia for a minimum of 48 hours. Others might use this as an opportunity to criticize me thinking that I am away from Wikipedia but that just makes them look bad. Guys, let's get this right! (paraphrasing Jimbo Wales). RIPGC (talk) 04:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Jclemens. Let the guy respond then ban him tomorrow (but have an open mind and don't just do it for show). RIPGC (talk) 04:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Too fast indeed - Extensive WP:AN discussions regarding community bans established a standard of 24 hrs bare minimum for community ban discussions, with a strong community urging towards 48 or more hours duration. We must allow time for discussion including those who are not logged in at the time. SNOW and SPEEDY are specifically not applicable to community ban discussions - admins may close early to truncate abuse of proposed banees, or due to other cases under normal admin discretion - but not to speed up the process absent other abuse.

I have requested that Grandmasterka revert the closure and ban notification and allow at least the requested time period.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

In the interests of not appearing too bureuacratic or limited by red tape in this case, I don't think there will be much use in removing the notice now as of this time stamp (nothing has changed) - the discussion should be kept open for another 24 hours but based on the current direction fo the discussion, it appears that the outcome is not going to change in this case either. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The user in question (and his known socks) are currently choked off from further disruption, so I don't see any harm in leaving the discussion open longer. However, if a bunch of redlinks start voting "Oppose", someone might want to look into those. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia at its worse. Basically the action that Bugs (who admits he is subject to an interaction ban for bad behavior) recommends is that if you don't like what you hear, you accuse people of sockpuppetry. Why not checkuser all the supports because there may be socks there? Wikipedia should be a discussion of rational ideas. If the oppose votes have rational ideas, we should consider them, not accuse them of sockpuppetry. Likewise, the flood of ban votes should not be subject to sock accusations but rather each one with rational ideas should be considered. This discussion is important even if the banned user is as bad as Hitler.

The value of this discussion in this case is that we must do bans correctly so that we maintain our integrity. The second value is that the ban of this person is now completely valid. RIPGC (talk) 04:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I saw what was happening after it initially closed, and was disturbed by it. We should not be banning people in less time than it takes to watch a sitcom, and I don't care how many people voted in favor of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This ban, in my observation, has been a long time coming, based on the previous escalations, sanctions, and whatnot that have gone on before. Six hours, twenty four hours, forty eight hours... whatever the community wants to assure itself of its own impartiality and fairness is fine, but the fact remains that the extra time has resulted in no real change to the discussion. Jclemens (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to sincerely apologize for my actions. I should have allowed the user to speak on their behalf before I did that, and I was unaware of any minimum time a ban discussion had to be open, as long as it was clear where it was headed. I'm sorry for this, and it won't happen again. Grandmasterka 01:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

As a side note...

The user is now abusing their email. I suggest it be revoked. They basically emailed me a threat, warning me 'not to fuck with them, or else'. If you want the exact email, I can easily send it to you, simply email me in kind and I'll forward it to you from there.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I've communicated with Daedalus969 privately, and we've come to a conclusion that, for right now, we should leave email enabled. There needs to be a more severe and persistent pattern of disruption which there hasn't been, and that email is currently the only way for Mk5384 to appeal the imminent ban. Moreover, if we yank email at this point, it's likely that many will forget the email revocation (as most indef-blocks, talk page revocations, etc. are basically "set it and forget it") as a result. –MuZemike 07:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

For those of you who like to assume bad faith.. sorry, but this is indeed the case here. I am in agreement with Mu.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I also received a very amusing email calling me all names under the sun (Mk does appear to have a scatological bent) which I couldn't care less about, but more importantly included the following - "As I have explained to others, via e-mail, I have a new username, and will be making no further edits from my Mk5384 account, whether or nor it's ever unblocked ... I have no plans to sock. (Of course, you probably consider starting a new account to make productive edits "socking", but you're an asshole anyway, so I don't really care.)" Black Kite (t) (c) 12:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Considering User:Alysheeba above said "If I'm blocked for 6 months, then that will simply mean 6 months of making trouble, instead of makijg productive edits.", I think we know what the alternative account is (and can block it accordingly). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It's been blocked. I have a feeling it isn't the last one we'll see. Get your WP:DUCK alarms tuned. N419BH 14:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I had already blocked his e-mail access before seeing this discussion, upon receipt of a little gem from him myself. As for MuzeMike's comment, I don't see why anyone would ever reinstate e-mail access for this account. Because of the socking threats, I've initiated an SPI to see if there are underlying IPs we can block to nullify the threats.—Kww(talk) 16:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Interaction Ban

I would like to ask the community if this total ban on MK nullifies the interaction ban which was previously placed between MK and myself. I hope my question itself is not a violation of that same ban, but I was not sure who to approach about this. It would seem the point has lost itself since MK is now completely banned from the site. I have no problem, however, if the community wants the IB to be continued. -OberRanks (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't see why it would necessarily do so (though presumably it would be somewhat moot), and yes, this is probably a violation. In future, please use the EmailUser function to ask questions such as these. –xeno^talk 13:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I see this as a request to review the restriction based on the last 2 sentences (so probably not a violation). That said, I'd note that bans are never permanent, and in the event that the ban is lifted at any point, the interaction ban and Mk's civility parole would still remain in force. Standard practice has been to keep restrictions in force even where an editor is banned so that these clearly form as absolute minimum conditions if the editor returns (though usually more conditions are attached on top of this). But all those procedural notes aside, to be very clear, I make no comment on whether it should be lifted in this case or whether it should stay in force in this case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I am currently on an interaction ban with a particular user who is currently generally banned from wikipedia. Once someone is banned, there is no need for any interaction, so the interaction ban becomes irrelevant... unless they get un-banned, in which case the interaction ban should still be there, unless they have mutually agreed to get along. That's mine opinion, anyways. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for clarifying. No problem at all adhering to this and I will make no further posts on this issue except to report direct attacks or abuse. I haven't checked my private e-mail yet, but I would put some money down that I have probably recieved some kind of e-mail by this point based on my history with this user.I did have one final question, though, and that is that MKs page has been restored with a notice "revert ban". Is he no longer banned? Thanks again and I'm out of this now. -OberRanks (talk) 13:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This is explained above (users felt that it was closed to quickly) and has nothing at all to do with your interaction ban, and thus, the above is a violation of it. Please leave the administrative sundries to other users who are not under an interaction ban. –xeno^talk 13:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Since you told him that discussing this was a violation of his ban, and he still felt compelled to get in one last swipe at Mk, blocked for 31 hours. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Sock drawer

Anyone mind doing a CU on this guy? He just sent me another email, saying that he's created another account. He says it will be impossible to find... but with his knack for insults and edit warring, I don't think so. To the end of the CU, it would be best to quell the disruption before it starts.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Administrator BrownHairedGirl's badgering of User:Boleyn

There might be something going on with administrator User:BrownHairedGirl and her relentless attacks on User:Boleyn. It really is time someone looked at how badly this looks and get BrownHairedGirl to back down, go away, redirect her angers.

If User:Boleyn's edits really are a problem, the community can take care of her edits in the proper location. However, at this point, BrownHairedGirl's behaviour is a far bigger problem than Boleyn's edits, and BrownHairedGirl's behaviour appears to be escalating.

Last 250 User talk contribution of BHG

Please stop this. This is an encyclopedia, and User:Boleyn is not BHG's personal punching bag. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 02:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I tried to sift through some of the edits but wasn't sure what I was looking for or at. Do you think you can provide some specific examples? Basket of Puppies 03:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Boleyn could stop creating unsourced stubs? That would be a good first start. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 03:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression this was already discussed. Wasn't there some kind of restriction put in place, banning BHG from interacting with Bol?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I was wrong, they weren't.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a vendetta. Looking at the edits by BrownHairedGirl to User talk:Boleyn on 18 and 19 July, anyone would be struck by: the repeated hammering by multiple repetitive postings; the assumption of bad faith (repeated); the misuse of reference to an editing guideline by inaccurate reading; a blatant personal attack; misuse of an edit summary to back up the personal attack; disregard of the comments of three concerned outside opinions; lack of anything constructive to say, and interference with a thread that offered some way forward. See Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding. I have gone to User talk:BrownHairedGirl and been met with nothing but combative self-justification. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Diff for personal attack? Exxolon (talk) 10:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Here: "experienced but lazy editor", repeating a slur from the past, in fact. The same diff shows misdirection as to "verifiability", considering that much unsourced but verifiabkle material is in WP. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I made the point last time that calling an editor with over 100,000 edits "lazy" was disingenous at best. Exxolon (talk) 10:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

And I stand by it as fair comment on the stub-creation work of an editor who repeatedly creates sub-stubs which require cleanup by others because they are either unreferenced, factually inaccurate, miscategorised, or misleading. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, an attempt to damage a reputation, rather than explain the situation properly, or move ahead on any front. Whatever is said below about Boleyn, and the stubs are not "ideal stubs" if people are wanting to make a point there, BHG has not established that Boleyn's edits violate policy, despite many arguments, and BHG's conduct has simply been outrageous in the past couple of days, violating several conduct policies. At minimum BHG should be told that, frankly, you are not treating Boleyn as a colleague, and therefore you are the wrong person to be addressing the issues here: posting carping messages to her talk page every few hours looks more like an attempt to drive an editor away than to resolve anything. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

As noted below, if the ongoing creation of large numbers of sub-stubs which fail WP:CSD#A10 is not a problem, then let's have a community decision to that effect, and remove A10. If the creation of large numbers of unreferenced stubs is not a problem, then let's clarify the matter by adding an explicit statement to that effect in WP:V, and let's remove the section of WP:STUB which warns that wholly unreferenced stubs may be deleted.

You are entitled to your views, Charles, but your comments would be more likely to lead to a resolution if you acknowledged that their adoption would require significant changes to existing guidelines. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I really wasn't sure what to do about this, as it's been going on for a while. I was taking information on notable people from different Wikipedia articles, e.g. constituency articles, and collating it into a stub. I would then look for a reference and add it if possible. Since BHG started her campaign, I have gone back over most of the 700-odd articles I've created, seeing if I can add more to them, and I'm continuing to do this. I have merged my watchlists as this was the reason given by BHG for giving me an indefinite block, and now use the one log-in. I have also stopped creating stubs if I can't find a reference to go with the information I've found in existing, and usually very accurate, Wikipedia articles.

Even with references to the ODNB, some articles I've created have been nominated for speedy deletion by BHG on grounds of brevity, so referencing was presumably not the main problem for BHG. At the moment, she seems to check through all my contributions, looking for mistakes/things that could be improved and then sending me a long and usually rude message each time she spots something. I am trying to stop replying to her as I have answered all her points before, but the messages just keep coming, despite a recent ANI about her behaviour towards me. BHG is on here pretty much literally 24/7 and has made a great contribution to Wikipedia. Her time could be better spent returning to that than stalking and insulting other editors. Boleyn (talk) 08:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. The sort of content Boleyn has been creating like James Chaine is being attacked. Brown Haired Girl has persisted on tagging unversally accepted articles from the Oxford National Dictionary of Biography as non notable and even trying to speedy delete her efforts. To me is looks like petty victimization and deplorable behaviour from an admin. Nobody is obligated to add a single thing to wikipedia so to yell at somebody who is generating traditional, much needed content in whatever form is a little off. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Dr B, that comment on the DNB is simply untrue, and I wish you would stop repeating the same falsehood.

AFAIK, the only DNB-referenced article which I tagged for notability was Sir Henry Russell, 1st Baronet, and at the time it was not referenced to the DNB.

However, I have tagged several others for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#A10, which is not related to notability.

As the James Chaine, it would be more helpful if you linked to the article as Boleyn created it, rather than the article after I and others had expanded and corrected it ... and if instead of hysterically saying that the article was "attacked", you noted that the concern I expressed to Boleyn was about the apparent unreliability of the source, a web-forum. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I can see now that the articles was unsourced at the time, it initially appeared you had tagged a ONDB article for deletion. May you are frustrated that Boleyn has created unreferenced stubs when you had asked her several times not to. this is a bit harsh. The stub wasn't that bad, it needed some sourcing and expansion that's all. There is also nothing major wrong with James Chaine starter article. It has some basic facts, established notability and requires minimum cleanup. Echoing what Black Kite says below, if Boleyn starts articles with sources and some content in a manner which is desirable to Brown Haired Girl and our guidelines then maybe BHG will back down and calm down. There are always two sides to every story. Boleyn can you ensure you reference your stubs to avoid future conflict? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Dr B, for promptly accepting the correction. However, since many other editors are commenting on conduct, may I suggest that when you criticise another editor on the basis of something which you hadn't checked but which was demonstrably false, that a little bit of an apology is in order? And that it might be a nice idea to go back and strike out some of the other comments you have made which were also based on the same lack of checking? Just a suggestion, but since conduct seems to be a concern here, I think it's relevant.

Anyway, I'm glad that you can see the merits of Black Kite's suggestion. If Boleyn raises the quality of her stubs, then the problem is solved and I will be delighted to see more new stubs rather than frustrated to see so many more bad ones. In any case, as noted below, I have at this point documented the many problems well enough that there's no point in my drawing more of it to Boleyn's attention. Either she starts seeking help to improve her output (rather complaining that raising problems with her is "unnecessary"), in which case problem solved ... or she continues to ignore the problems, in which case I or someone else will eventually open an RFC. But at this point, it's quite clear that my notifying her of problems is an utterly futile exercise, so I will desist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• There's an easy way to make the issue go away, and that's for Boleyn to stop creating unreferenced sub-stubs that often contain less information than is contained in other articles and/or fail WP:CSD#A10. As soon as she stops doing that, there will be no need for anyone to "badger" her to fix the issues she creates. Especially when given the subject matter that most of her articles are about, there should never be a problem with referencing them. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Copy-and-pasting comments I made earlier on BHG's talk page:

I don't think it's personal for BHG: I think the despair about Boleyn's editing is probably shared by other editors who regularly sort stubs or otherwise interact with Boleyn's work. For example yesterday, I came across this. In the course of one short stub this very experienced editor manages to (a) link Plowden to a dab page; (b) create a red-link for Baron Plowden (a later editor created a redirect which links back to this page, the only sensible place for this link to point - so there was no point making it a link in the first place); (c) create duplicate references to one source. She added this person to the Plowden dab page, with no dates or description. All this would be fine from a new editor, but this massively experienced editor should not be leaving so many loose ends for other people to tidy up. (Yes, I got hooked and spent too much time yesterday creating not only Plowden, Shropshire but also Bridget Plowden). She obviously does a huge amount of work on Wikipedia, but I and BHG, and probably other editors too, wish she would improve the quality of her work even if at the expense of some of the quantity. PamD (talk) 07:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

And I've just noticed that she added Category:Barons in the Peerage of England which I think is only for early titles - I'm not an expert in this area, but I think more recent titles are at Category:Barons in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, and a note there says to use Category:Life peers instead for such people. PamD (talk) 07:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Response from BHG

Boleyn's comment that "I really wasn't sure what to do about this" is at very best disingenuous, because she knows exactly what to do about it. She should stop creating:

1. pointless sub-stubs, which do nothing but duplicate some of the content of an existing article, and are therefore speedy-deletable per WP:CSD#A10
2. shorts stubs which despite their brevity are full of problems and require cleanup even if they are not expanded, because they are one or more of: wholly unreferenced; factually inaccurate; misleading; referenced to an unreliable source; miscategorised.

She's quite right that I have better things to do with my time than pointing out the errors in her contributions (such as completing a draft list of MPs elected in 1832, in which I am experimenting with a new format that probably doesn't quite work). However, as well as creating new content myself, I also routinely monitor a series of categories of other articles in the areas I edit (esp UK MPs), to look for anything that needs correction or cleanup. At this point, by overwhelming majority of newly-created or newly-expanded articles in that area requiring cleanup are the large numbers of sub-standard sub-stubs created by Boleyn. I am not the only editor to have identified this problem (see comments on my talk from Choess and PamD). I raise the issues with Boleyn precisely because I have better things to do with my time than to cleanup articles created at high speed by an editor who prioritises quantity over quality.

This is NOT stalking. WP:HOUND says clearly: "Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles." That's what's happening here: related problems are occurring on multiple articles.

The messages have kept on coming because the problems have continued to recur. For example, despite the problems having been raised by me a month ago, and discussed at ANI, Boleyn created over the weekend two new wholly unreferenced stubs: 1& 2.

User:IP69.226.103.13 is quite right to point out that "this is an encyclopedia", because that's the core of the matter here. Wikipedia is not a blog or myspace: it's an encyclopedia, whose purpose is to publish verifiable, reliably-sourced information for readers.

That's why articles which waste the reader's time by adding nothing at all to the content of the articles from which they are linked are and speedy-deletable: they are pointless, and waste the reader's time.

That's why articles which are wholly unreferenced are tagged as such, because they do not meet our most basic quality standards, which readers have a right to expect that we editors will strive to uphold.

That's why articles which assert untruths or mislead the reader are problematic, because we create this encyclopedia for the readers.

And that's why I routinely use RelatedChanges to monitor a series of categories of articles in the areas I edit, to look for new articles and for potentially problematic changes. In the course of reviewing those categs a month ago, I found several article created by Boleyn, which led me to review her contribs and find that they were the tip of a large iceberg, so I made this post raising the problem with her. Her lack of response and her continued creation of factually untrue stubs (such as James Christopher Flynn, comment here) led that situation to escalate to an ANI thread in which there was widespread concern about Boleyn's make-work sub-stubs.

After that, I took a break from monitoring her work, but when I checked again I found serious problems continuing. Since then Boleyn has repeatedly defended one-liners-pasted-from-a-dab-page by saying that anyone else is free to expand them ... and when factual and other errors in the stubs she creates are pointed out, she insists that she doesn't want to know about the problems. If she doesn't see the problems herself, and doesn't want to be informed about them, then how is she either going to correct the errors or avoid repeating them?

There has indeed been some progress since I started trying to tackle this, but the fact that even after four weeks of scrutiny, she was still creating wholly unreferenced new stub articles over the weekend (1& 2) shows how far there is to go.

That's why I have ceased to assume good faith wrt Boleyn. Per WP:AGF, "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence".

I think it's also important to correct some of the untruths being stated by a few editors on Boleyn's talk page. For example, my concern about one-sentence articles referenced to the DNB is not (except in one case) notability, but the fact that they are waste of reader's time, but create a pointless blue-link from an existing article yet say less about the topic than that other article does. That's why WP:CSD#A10 exists (and no, AFAIK I had no hand in the creation of A10).

At this point, I'm quite satisfied that my notes to Boleyn about her latest additions document very well how her contributions fall below the standards of quality required for an encyclopedia, so I do not intend to add any more. The problem is clearly documented, and at this point a community decision of some sort is required.

As far as I can see, there are two issues for the community to decide

A) Is it acceptable for Boleyn to churn out large numbers of new articles which either add nothing to existing articles, or have persistent failings of quality (unreferenced, factually inaccurate, referenced to unreliable sources)

B) When an editor creates hundreds of abysmal sub-stubs, apparently prioritising quantity (see her articles-I-created counter) over quality, should other editors:

1. ignore the mess, and leave readers to be misled by untruths or have their time wasted by following link to articles where the two major facts asserted are untruejust a bare factoid lifted from a list; or
2. devote huge amounts of time on each of these rapidly-created sub-stubs: checking the references which the creator didn't bother to check, then correcting the errors and misleading statements, and say nothing to the editor concerned
3. Inform the editor of the problems in the hope that they will try to avoid such errors in future.

This is a serious issue. Boleyn creates so many stubs, so full of problems, that another editor could easily spend many hours every day doing nothing but clean up the newly-created stubs of this one contributor. My understanding has always been that every editor takes responsibility for the quality of what they add to wikipedia, and has a duty of care not to introduce factual errors or mislead readers. If I am mistaken in that, then I'd like to be directed to the relevant policy or guidelines, or to see some policy or guideline created out of this discussion which clearly states that editors are free to churn out large qauntities of sub-standard new articles, and should not be reproached for this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You fail to appreciate, it seems, that your chucking your weight around and insulting another editor is damaging (concretely, in real time) to Wikipedia, while substandard stubs have always been with us, and always will. I support the idea that your conduct (including use of admin tools) would properly be examined in a conduct RfC. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Charles, you seem to have been consistent in your view that the creation of large quantities of sub-standard content, despite many concerns expressed by multiple editors and explained in detail, is not a conduct issue which needs to be addressed, and you have repeatedly criticised me for invoking WP:CSD#A10. At this point we need to see whether or not there is a consensus of uninvolved editors to support your view that WP:CSD#A10 should be ignored wrt Boleyn's articles which meet A10, and that it is inappropriate to criticise another editor for consistently creating sub-standard content and for denouncing posts explaining her errors as "unnecessary".

At this point I dunno which way this will go. As above, I thought that the over-riding purpose of editing here was to build an encyclopedia, and that contributions which did not meet our quality standards were problematic. It may turn out that the consensus takes your very different view, in which case so be it; but if that's the case, it's a very big issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Here we go. It is not true that anyone who advocates against onsite harassment is commenting on anything else. You misrepresent what I wrote on User talk:Boleyn, which related only to stubs I have personally sorted through. You attack me for calling you on your bullying approach, which would rather make my point. You misdirect, systematically, from your own violations of basic principles, such as AGF, NPA and a collegiate approach. Even if there is a serious issue here on content, that provides not a scrap of justification for the line you are taking. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, that's the core of the issue to be decided here. When an editor repeatedly creates sub-standard content in large quantities, you believe that it is wickedly inappropriate for another editor to point out the problems: e.g. in this thread, where you object to me drawing Boleyn's attention to yet another wholly unreferenced stub.

My idea of a collegiate approach to editing would have been for you to examine ways of encouraging Boleyn to stop doing that, rather than to simply criticise the messenger. As a matter of conduct, your insistence on ignoring the content problem and instead looking for ways to criticise my attempts to solve the problem is not a collegiate approach and fails to AGF. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You forget, I think, that at User talk:Boleyn#Just a thought I made a good, solid suggestion, to which you added a nitpick, plus a reiteration of your assumption of bad faith in Boleyn. You had no business in there carping and adding to your invective on that page. You can clearly type fast, but higher standards are required of admins. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, Charles, I didn't forget that I had commented there. It seems to be you that forgot that I specifically supported the principle of what you suggested, and that I replied not to you, but to Boleyn, who had misprepresented my position ... and to clarify that I would not object to her creating DNB stubs, and that if they contained "a few sentences, referenced to the DNB, and checked to endure that the facts stand up ... that's fine".

However, you are right that I do not at this point AGF wrt to Boleyn on this issue, and I won't repeat my explanation above of why AGF is not required in such situations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You forget that you dragged a spoiler right across someone else's suggestion that would actually address the issue? Looks very like an assumption of "ownership" of the issue right there, and that view of mine seems to be reinforced by comments elsewhere in the thread that you might consider an RfC on Boleyn. The issue here and now is your conduct, in fact. The end does not justify the means, and for Wikipedians to say that it does is short-sighted in the extreme, denying nearly a decade of building a community to be proud of. The issue of "good faith" clearly removes from you the right to interact with Boleyn on this matter, doesn't it? No amount of intransigence on your part changes that: call people names and deny that they are working for the common good (a position flatly contradicted by others here) and you necessarily have to back off and let others clear up the mess at the personal level you have created. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Charles, you made an apparently constructive suggestion, Boleyn's reply indicated that she thought it was probably doomed because I'd object, and I responded to clarify what I did and didn't object to, leaving the path clear for your idea. If that's a spoiler, I'm a banana and you're a milkshake. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions

(I'm moving this down as it might have been missed due to BHG's lengthy post just below it)

BHG should consider alternative ways of handling this. Regardless of the merits of her stance, it's coming across as a personal crusade/vendetta. Suggestions :-

1. Open a user conduct RFC and get wider community input on Boleyn's editing style and stub creation
2. If BHG feels Boleyn's edits require any admin attention or action, report here for a neutral admin to evaluate and act if required.
3. If there is an appropiate Wikiproject devoted to stubs, let them as a group take a look at Boleyn's edits and come up with evaluations/proposals.
4. If BHG feels that experienced editors should be held to higher standards on stub articles - propose this policy through the correct channels.

Additional suggestions welcomed. Exxolon (talk) 11:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If, as BHG suggests, there is a broad body of opinion with similar concerns about Boleyn's edits, it shouldn't be that hard for BHG to find a proxy in dealing with Boleyn. This sort of minimum cut-out might allow for a more reasoned and problem-solving approach; and would deal with the current fracas. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, many editors who identify problems such as this simply don't want to put the time into tackling it, so although there are several other editors who share my concerns (some of whom have already posted in this thread), that doesn't mean that they are likely to commit the effort to setting up an RFC or whatever.

I will be winding down my own editing over the next few days, before going away (and offline) for about 5 weeks, so I don't intend myself to open an RFC at this point. (It would be unfair to set it up and then vanish)

At this point, the points I have documented on Boleyn's talk page are quite sufficient to provide ample evidence that there is a problem and that attempts have been made to resolve it, which provides the basis for an RFC. As noted above, I do not intend to continue for now the time-consuming process of documenting them all ... but if when I return in September, I find that Boleyn is still creating the same sort of substandard new pages, I will see if I can find time to gather the new evidence and add it to the existing bundle to open an RFC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• No experienced editor should be creating uncited stubs. Doing so is nothing but trouble, that is what I expect from new accounts. Off2riorob (talk) 12:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Very true. As Black Kite mentioned above, the problems would go away if Boleyn started citing articles appropriately. It's not difficult. It's not a race to create as many new articles as possible. I agree that it's definitely a problem, and I think BHG's efforts to clear this up have been responded to badly, which has naturally caused her frustration. I think an RFC is in order, as people are clearly divided over the issue. Aiken ♫ 12:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I see BHG as being in a bit of a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation. She's got a problem with Boleyn's articles, seeing them as a diffuse web of useless, unsourced and frequently inaccurate microstubs. From what I've seen, this perception of the stub is accurate at least a high percentage of the time. BHG's taken it upon herself to clean up or repair the mess, continually following Boleyn around begging and demanding that they show some restraint and responsibility. This, coupled with the fact that the job is apparently too big for anyone else to even think about attempting, can make it look as though BHG is on some sort of anti-Boleyn harassment campaign. Getting snippy obviously just reinforces that perception. But I think that going "pretty please with sugar on top" would have even less effect in stemming the crapflood. In any case, I think it's obvious that an editor introducing inaccuracies into Wikipedia that take much longer to repair than they do to perpetrate is far more problematic than the manners of the person telling them to stop.Reyk _YO! 13:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Rediscovering the wheel, isn't it, to say that admins can behave as they goddam please as long as they don't keep a cool head? I though we'd nailed that one around 2004. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that, and you know it. Please stop twisting and misrepresenting the words of others; it isn't the first time you've done that on this thread. Reyk _YO! 00:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Where to from here?

Seems a few people have some bugs up their asses, but there isn't really anything here that demands admin action. The best course would be a WP:WQA or WP:RFC, rather than clogging up ANI with "yes you did/no I didn't" posts. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, given that it says in WP:HOUND that If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions, it's rather important to discuss exactly what has been happening. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That's what WQA or RFC are for. Unless its clear hounding, ANI can't do a damn thing with it. And this isn't clear, as both sides have some disruptive behavior. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Please read the bit in WP:WPA that makes it clear that they are complete forbidden, no matter what the other party has done. And then tell me why there is any need to dicker about this. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Facepalm Yes, harassment is forbidden. But I don't see that this is clear harassment. It's a behavioral issue on both sides. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I will be taking an indefinite wikibreak as I just can't take any more of this. This has recently started to feel like a job I'm not doing well enough, rather than me volunteering my time because I enjoyed it and thought it was important. I have spent many hours, especially over the last few days, going back over articles I created and adding to them, but as far as I'm aware I broke no policy in creating short stubs. I apologise for any and all mistakes I have made in my editing, but as I've said before, I spend many hours a day editing and there will be some errors found, especially if someone checks every edit I make - I believe the amount to have been exaggerated. I may pop back on to look at messages but am unlikely to edit for a while, and will see if I think I still have anything to contribute to the project. Thanks for all the support I've received over the last two and a half years, particularly in recent weeks. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

No, please, disregard the rather callous comments by a few above who apparently are not prepared to hold an admin to basic standards. Instead discuss with Dr. Blofeld and me a way ahead that will be more fruitful, ignoring if you can the personalia that have been aimed at you. I uphold the view that you did not break policy, and have been harassed. The appropriate policy is cited above, and it looks like three strikes against BHG to me, at least. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's advisable for both users to take a non-permanent break, and that both users should read all of the following.

With respect to BHG, even during difficult situations, admins are expected to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another, and to engage in proper conduct. That requirement is not optional purely because one becomes involved in a dispute and is technically not permitted to use their tools in that dispute; it applies because that's part of the responsibilities that come with becoming an administrator (or any other position of trust on Wikipedia). Remember that it would be counterproductive if an user felt that the only way they can contribute is through new accounts so that their content will not continue to be subjected to an unusually high level of scrutiny. I appreciate the concern about the quality of content that is being generated, but know yourself, and take breaks when you find you cannot maintain the standard of behavior that is expected.

With respect to Boleyn, clearly the perceived conduct issues and approach can overwhelm any user - especially when it either appears or feels like an user is consistently trying to find fault with whatever you do. Similarly, you should also remember that where an user appears or feels that their concerns about your approach or content are not being heard, not responding to the comments is hardly going to deescalate the situation either. If necessary, slow down or take breaks; chances are that it will help both you and the project.

I think everyone would like it if both users constructive contributions are retained particularly as both users want to or have in some way (tried) to improve the project. But sometimes, it is better both for the individual and for the project that they take a temporary break when things are going too out of control (too much to handle) or things are getting out of perspective. When it is taken in appropriate circumstances (like here), this can be the best form of dispute resolution - better than a solution that any editor, admin, community or a bureaucratic committee can provide. It's also a preferrable option to a WQA or a RfC in this case. Come back refreshed after you've both taken enough time off; work on the issues that others have identified with your approaches (even if this means talking with others or working with others to address these), and finally, continue helping the project - that's all we want, and that's what the project will benefit from. My 2 cents anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Can I just say quickly here that

1. it is not, and has not been, either my aim or desire for Boleyn to stop editing wikipedia, and I would encourage her not to quit. All I have sought is for her take some steps to acknowledge and learn from problems identified. I have more than once suggested several ways in which she could do that (e.g. mentorship, engaging with concerns when they are raised, creating new articles in userspace and seeking a check before they go to mainspace), and I hope that when she returns after her break, she will find some way of seeking assistance from other editors so that she an do this without raising concerns.
2. For myself, I will be taking a summer break from next week, and have in any case already committed to staying clear of Boleyn other than possibly than to raise an RFC if problems persist on my return.
3. One of the issues revealed by this discussion has been a divergence of views about the applicability of existing clearly-worded guidelines on the sort of content creation in which Boleyn has engaged. One of the factors which escalated this dispute was the intervention of editors who appear to me to reject clearly-worded relevant guidelines such as WP:STUB#Basic information and WP:CSD#A10, although they seem sincere in their readings. I suggest that a review of both those guidelines is now needed to test the degree to which they still reflect consensus, hopefully leading to some sort of clarification one way or another, particularly with regard to the distinction between the welcoming assistance we should give to new editors learning the ropes and the different issues which I (and several other contributors to this thread) believe are raised by experienced editors who create many new stubs.

There is a lot more which I could say on this topic, and I will say them if Charles Matthews or anyone else wants to pursue the matter further ... but in the spirit of ncmvocalist's posting I will leave them be for now in the hope that everyone can move on. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say once again it is WP:AGF which is central to this. Boleyn was doing what she thought was right for the encyclopedia and didn't see a problem with small, unreferenced stubs. Brown Haired Girl took Boleyn's continued unsourced articles as an insult so proceeded to harass her and tried to make her to get the message and not to create more without a source or content. Above all I'd say a solution could be found where everybody is happy; it largely comes down to referencing and some levelof basic starter content. If Boleyn can take heed of the guidelines and BHG's concerns and generate articles even if shortish stubs with proper sourcing, (that means more than just a bare URL) and she is happy to do so I'm sure BHG, if she is really keen on wikipedia development, does not really want Boleyn to leave, and has some level of decency, then I think she would not continue to go on at Boleyn and stalk her articles. Take some time away from wikipedia Boleyn but I think it is unnecessary to depart from wikipedia when its obivous its something you enjoy. The key is to edit in a way you and other people are happy with. I do believe the extent of the mistakes she has made are highly exaggerated. and that overall the content she has added to the site is encyclopedic and can be built upon. The worst thing I think is the fact that one of the editors in this debate (not Brown Haired Girl) added more fuel to the fire by prodding and sending ANOTHER deletion warning to Boleyn, as if she didn't get the message which I thought was particularly cruel and unwarratned. The article, Arthur Ingram has since been expanded and is awaiting DYK. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

So an unsourced, one line, biography stub was PRODded as unsourced, and as a result the article has had sources and information added to it and has now been nominated for DYK? That certainly sounds like a positive outcome to me. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 18:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

While we have some users feverishly creating minimalistic, unreferenced articles, we have other users feverishly marking minimalistic, unreferenced articles for deletion (particularly due to BLP concerns). And I'm not talking about BHG, either. I think there is actually a project dedicated to rubbing out unreferenced BLP's. So what are the rules? Is it valid to add unreferenced articles? Technically speaking, isn't any unreferenced stub essentially "original research" if it lacks a reference? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Just dropping in a comment here in the middle, responding to the above comment. Three things. One -- In April, due to BLP concerns, there was indeed a project to delete BLPs that, after notice, lacked even one ref. That sounds like a "camel" of a solution -- a compromise that was not perfect, but was an improvement to what was then a disturbingly high number of non-reference BLPs. Second -- my own practice is to not add a sentence of prose without adding a footnote. Third -- the AfD policy does not require that there be refs in the article, or that there be refs in the article that reflect notability, but just that they exist. So, in an AfD discussion, it is not uncommon for the nom to say -- hey, well if those sources exist, you have to put them in the article for me to agree to a "keep", and for the older (if not wiser) hands to respond ... that's not how it works. Of course, the good souls go about putting the refs in the articles. When those editors come up for admin (and that's not infrequently a subtext), they of course almost invariably receive my support.

Bottom line -- our policies, for better or worse, allow for unreferenced prose. If questioned, however, refs must be supplied. Or the material is (after how long? not sure there is a standard) deleted. Is this a good approach? It may be a "perfection is the enemy of the good approach". I should point out that as to lists, some editors believe that they should (though they generally don't) have a ref for each entry. Which is of course curious, given how it is inconsistent with cats -- which can't of course have refs.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

In response to Dr Blofeld above, I'll repeat that I didn't want Boleyn to leave, and don't want her to leave. I do think that having Boleyn staying and creating good stubs would be the ideal outcome. I'm pleased to see other editors (including Dr B) now taking up the baton of advising her on how to achieve that, and I'm even more pleased to see that she seems to have moved on a long way from telling them to go fix it themselves if they want to.

I also think that Baseball Bugs is right to raise the issue of a wider problem wrt to the role of stubs. Wikipedia's priorities have changed over the years, and it does seem that some very divergent views on the role of stubs have currency in difft corners of wikipedia. This really does need some attention as a systemic issue, rather just leaving individual disputes to be resolved on a piecemeal compromise basis. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Which being translated means that you at last realise that your attacks on Boleyn are founded in no policy as such (as I have said all along) but in an opinion you hold of what policy should say (as we all realised quite some time ago). I think we do need to discuss with you why you exaggerate the harm done by stubs, when they are not unreferenced BLP (which [[WP:V}} singles out prominently) but may contain unattributed material (which is not particularly desirable but not always subject to the first para of WP:V as is clear to anyone who actually reads it), or of the seed type that may duplicate material already in an article but allow for expansion of a topic. The latter type may be subject to CSD A10, but really shouldn't when there is a clear case for expansion. The difference between may and must is key in understanding where the growth points are: it is much more likely that Wikipedia is harmed by having too few stubs to expand, than too many. (None of this excuses any aspect of your behaviour, naturally. Those who dismiss it or accept your self-excusing version of a display of petulant aggression with gross exaggerations and "tendentiousness" are, I would say in your style, conniving in harassment.) Charles Matthews (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Charles, considering that you have repeatedly criticised my conduct, that level of vituperation from you doesn't help your case.

I am trying here to seek a win-win outcome to all of this, so I don't intend to intend to discuss these points with you while you are ranting ... but I'll just note that you grotsequely misrepresent my position in a number of respects. I do not "realise that your attacks on Boleyn are founded in no policy as such", and it would be helpful for you not to put words in my mouth; what I do acknowledge is that it has become clear that some clear and well-established guidelines are not supported by a number of editors, and I don't know how widespread that dissent is, which is why I suggest a wider review. In an appropriate forum I will be quite happy to expand in much greater detail on the problems of bad stubs, with plenty of evidence to support that, but I'm not going to bother trying to do that when you simply shout about "exaggeration" rather than looking for some evidence, and when you try to misrepresent my position as being opposed to stubs per se. If anyone is inclined to take that comment of yours at face value, then I urge them to take a look at my own article-creation over the last 4½ years of editing here: the number of stubs I have created probably runs into the thousands. There are external tools which help in finding such articles, though it takes them a long time to process my contribs list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• We had proposals in place the last time around to deal with this. They were quite reasonable, though people were worried about Boleyn being restricted in unreasonable ways and BHG didn't think those restirctions went far enough. All that said, I don't understand why WP:STICK isn't invoked here. If there is a serious problem, there is no reason why BHG needs to be fixing it. Let others try. It seems to have become a pretty clear case of badgering. Badgering with good motives, but badgering none-the-less. Hobit (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Maybe let the deletionist projects find them and deal with them? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
    • (hi Bugs!) comment - Where's the RfC? We're out of behavioral territory here (which is what administrators are supposed to be enforcing), and probably out of most policy space - most content policies govern what is suitable for individual articles, whereas this is a meta-question of setting policy: should we be creating placeholders / sub-stubs en masse for notable historical people based on biography databases, or should we wait for people to create viable articles? The content issue is similar to a number of historical debates: articles for all models of cell phones? articles for every town and geographic feature in the world? articles for x-y relations, where x and y is the set of all countries in the world? The result is sometimes yes, sometimes no, depending on the circumstances... it's best to have a prior discussion before any mass creation or mass deletion of content, rather than making content decisions like this through the tenacity of individual editors or the success of their complaints about one another. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
      • RFC for what? Deletions of BLP's with no sources? I don't recall, but probably discussed on the BLP talk page. My point overall, though, is this: If you create an article, of any size, it can't be from thin air. It has to have a source. But if there's no reference given, then what is the source? The creator's recollection of something? Maybe that's OK for a given isolated article. They could start to create it and come back with references. But if you're mass-loading stubs, you have to be getting them from somewhere. Where? And why isn't in the article? And if it is, What's the problem? Ya follow? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I, personally, would request that Bugs stop going up other people's asses.

Seriously, man, that's sick. HalfShadow 01:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That's way too Freudian. I think he was channeling LC when he posed that question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Supporting Bugs's point about sourcing, recent comment by Boleyn confirmed what I suspected, that she was sourcing the content from existing wikipedia articles and then looking for external refs to back up some of the article. That's an understandable approach, but it's dangerous, because it leads to the replication of errors ... and it's important to remind editors doing this that wikipedia is not a reliable source.

Here's an illustration of the danger, which I just encountered a few minutes ago whilst building a draft list of 1832 MPs: in the list of MPs for Winchester, William Bingham Baring is listed as a Tory, and the same label appears in his article. But a little scrutiny shows that in neither case is the party affiliation explicitly referenced, and F. W. S. Craig's British parliamentary election results 1832–1885 shows that Baring was elected a Liberal/Whig for Winchester in 1832 and 1835, but as a Conservative MP for North Staffordshire from 1837-41, and for Thetford from 1841 to 1848. I know exactly how that sort of error arises, through a good faith but mistaken assumption that if he was a Conservative in the 1840s, he must also have been so in 1832 ... but party-switching was much more common then, making such assumptions dangerous. This sort of mistake can linger for years in under-scrutinised articles on relatively obscure MPs, and even tho Baring was more notable than most MPs, rising briefly to ministerial office, it has remained in the article on him since this edit in Sept 2009, and in the Winchester article since this edit in Nov 2008.

Both edits were good faith mistake by an experienced and careful editor, but it illustrates the dangers of relying on existing wikipedia articles as a source. Rapid-fire-creation of stubs based solely on existing articles not only replicates existing glitches such as these, but risks compounding them with further misunderstandings of various subtleties: the chinese whispers syndrome of content degrading as it is passed on down the line. That's why the use of reliable sources is not just an adornment to be added later, but is supposed to be the basis for adding new content. When that sort of error is made in an uncategorised sub-stub on an obscure back-bencher, it can linger for years; even well-linked and categorised articles on backbenchers often get only a dozen or so hits per month, and a surprising number of stubs which I created four years ago on 20th-century backbench MPs have seen no substantive content changes since then. The high error rate in Boleyn's sub-stubs on MPs is likely to persist for a looong time unless checked, and there is a very limited number of editors with access to the scarce reference books required to check these points for obscure mid-19th-century MPs. With this sort of obscure topic, the sort-it-out-later approach to sourcing just doesn't work ... and we have over 700 articles created in this way by Boleyn. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense. I do think from a process perspective it's better to get a community consensus (or point to a prior one) than to tackle this as a solo administrator. I know we already have WP:V, WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, and also WP:CIRCULAR. Has anyone ever written an essay to the tune of "don't mass-create articles based on a single source"? - Wikidemon (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The thing that has surprised me in all of this has been that when we already have WP:V, WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, WP:CIRCULAR, WP:CSD#A10, WP:STUB#Basic stub etc, there seems to be a view in some quarters that we do not have a prior consensus on this. I have been very surprised to be accused by a few editors of pursuing a novel interpretation of existing guidelines. I accept at this point that a wider discussion is needed to settle this issue, but now that Boleyn has confirmed what was apparent already, viz. that she was creating sub-stub articles without reference to any external source, I think we could usefully start by clarifying whether existing guidelines do (as I believe) explicitly and clearly deprecate that ... and if they don't already, whether they should be amended to provide more clarity one way or another.

It seems to me that the question you pose could be broken down into two parts: a) whether multiple stubs should be created solely on the basis of existing wikipedia articles, and b) whether and in what circumstances a single external source can be used in that way. (Personally, I think I would be in favour of A but opposed to B if it were to impede, for example, the use of the DNB as the basis for creating stubs). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

More light, less heat please

I've noticed several comments in this discussion that get very close to crossing the line here. I understand that tempers are high, but let's back down a bit on the incendiary rhetoric. Let's DISCUSS what the problem is, and how to fix it. If necessary, let's go to a RfC, but I'm hopeful that the participants will agree to discuss, and not accuse. SirFozzie (talk) 20:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Boleyn should be given mentorship by an admin who can coach them through the etiquette of acceptable article creation. BHG should try and keep her distance from Boleyn because its obvious she dislikes her editing style and so cannot be neutral in new situations. Furthermore BHG needs to bring up her concerns about stub creation elsewhere and also about CSD#A10. To prevent such reports in the future both users need to make use of the help available in terms of neutral administrators, third opinions and mediation. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 04:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Certainly BHG should undertake (a) to avoid Boleyn, not to make personal attacks on her under any circumstances, not to employ admin tools against her under any circumstances, not to repeat the allegations of bad faith and "laziness" (absurd) in any circumstances; (b) to respect interventions by third parties in this matter, rather than ignoring them; (c) not to deflect from the conduct issues into theorising about what should be going on with stub formation. All this could be done quite simply as a voluntary self-restriction. Of course I should also like to see responsiveness to informal mediation, a complete cessation of the accusations that anyone who is try to mediate is somehow a proponent of "low-quality additions" to the encyclopedia, an appropriate apology to Boleyn, and a change in the apparent attitude that BHG has some sort of veto in all arrangements or proposals to do with Boleyn as editor. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see pigs fly, personally. I think you should see by now that there's no call (outside yourself) to enforce such restrictions on BHG. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to remind both parties of the statement I made at the top of the section please? SirFozzie (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The primary parties (Boelyn and BrownHairedGirl) will be taking a break (which is incidentally in line with the advice I provided earlier rather than as a result of that advice), so at least for now, all conduct concerns are on hold. Everyone else here who has an opinion is simply going to be restating their opinions over and over, but nothing is going to change about those opinions. If there are concerns about stubs and the relevant deletion criteria, discussion should occur at (or be moved to) those policy/guideline pages. Other than that, this discussion is hold, and I don't think that keeping this thread open is going to accomplish anything useful in such circumstances. Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Article titles debate closure

In an unusual turn of events, this will be the second time in a week I have used AN/I to report my own controversial actions.

There has been a discussion on WP:AT about a proposed rewrite of the policy by User:Gavin.collins, proposed on the 9th of June in the section Descriptive & segmented article titles. Approximately one hour ago, I concluded that the proposal had been soundly rejected for over a week, and that the discussion was being held open solely by the proposer's tendentious refusal to listen to any of the other editors on the page. I informed him of this conclusion, and then collapse-archived the discussion with the summary "proposal rejected".[6][7] This is an obviously controversial action, and has met with the expected complaints (and a WP:WQA[8]) from User:Gavin.collins. I am requesting a review of my assessment of the consensus present in the debate, as well as my action to personally announce the discussion closed.

User:Gavin.collins has been notified of this posting, of course.[9] --erachima talk 16:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Although I am clearly not an uninvolved participant in these discussions, I was pleased to see Erachima make the move he did. It was entirely appropriate as the Flogging a dead horse was getting a bit tedious.--Mike Cline (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Gavin Collins doesn't get what Gavin Collins wants, quickly posts an inappropriate Wikiqutte alert. Looking over it, you weren't wrong in your actions. Vodello (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The ongoing promotion of "descriptive & segmented article titles" is in opposition to fundamental policy. Fundamental policy endorses sourcing. "Descriptive & segmented article titles" are at bottom workarounds to compliance with policy calling for sourcing at all levels. Article titles indicate article scope and/or article topic, which should be adequately sourced. Adequate sourcing means that the overarching theme of an article should be found in sources, or it is debatable whether that article should exist or not. I have acknowledged that in many instances inadequately sourced article topics can be allowed to stand. But this should only be the case if no one objects to them. In the instance in which voiced opposition is heard, and if inadequate sourcing can be determined to be the case, appeals to such novel concepts as "descriptive & segmented article titles" should be deemed illegitimate excuses. Fundamental policy should reassert itself in such instances. In essence, "descriptive & segmented article titles" should be regarded as tentative descriptions of a certain type of article title type. But when controversy arises, they should have diminished standing. The concept of "descriptive & segmented article titles" can have the effect of weakening Wikipedia under certain circumstances. Bus stop (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the fact that Bus stop's post immediately above is carrying on the debate is fair evidence that the discussion wasn't actually ended by either proponents or opponents of the proposed change. I suggest relaxing a bit, rather than looking for "End of discussion!" as a solution. The problem of non-neutrality in article topics as people break apart one-sided sub-topics of an overall subject, which this discussion touched upon multiple times, is one that has been discussed on and off for years. Here's a proposal from 2005, for example, which I am positive isn't the first. (I vaguely recall that Ed Poor had one at one point, for example, but I don't remember off the top of my head where it is. There have been mailing list discussions, too.) And this wasn't, looking at the recent edit history of Wikipedia:Article titles an edit war that had to be stamped out. It was a proposal, boldly enacted, reverted, and put forward on a talk page in line with Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss, and discussed. So it was discussed for 10 days. So what? The overall issue has been discussed for more than six years. Relax. Uncle G (talk) 23:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I've uncollapsed the debate, that's over the top. I've left it archived. Fences&Windows 00:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I collapsed the discussion because it was 60 pages long, as an alternative to moving it to an archive sub-page, because I know moving discussions to subpages is often viewed as attempting to obscure the discussion. Apparently, it didn't have quite the effect I intended. --erachima talk 00:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Uncle G. I am well aware that the underlying issue of how to properly divide up articles and still satisfy NPOV has been a subject of debate since the Wikipaleozoic, it was in no way my intent to suppress discussion of that crucial issue, and it was in large part due to that knowledge that I closed the proposal.
You mention BRD, but remember, as the page itself says, it's Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss, not Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss, discuss, discuss, discuss, discuss, discuss, discuss, discuss, discuss, discuss, discuss, discuss, discuss, discuss, discuss, discuss, discuss, and further that the cycle only works so long as the discussion is moving forward (emphasis mine). When the larger debate has been going on for six years, and it has become apparent that the wheels are just spinning in place in the current discussion (particularly when the wheels appear to be spinning because one of the participants has jacked the van off the ground), it's time to label the attempt a failure, archive it for future participants to learn from, and wait for the next person with a clever idea to come along. Interminable discussion of specific proposals just encourages mental entrenchment, which is not how problems are solved. And again, I appreciate your perspective. --erachima talk 00:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It was an interesting debate, it's been thrashed to death, and your close was correct. Bus stop and Gavin Collins beating the dead horse doesn't mean there's any life in the debate. Fences&Windows 19:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Amendment to general sanction on British Isles

A general sanction was approved at the weekend to topic ban any editor found to be systematically adding or removing the term British Isles to the encyclopedia. The sanction itself can be seen here.

Since then, the spirit of this sanction appears to be being broken at a page called the Specific Examples page. Some of the concerns have been raised and discussed at Black Kites talk page. With specific relation to the sanctions from last week, the page appears to be being used as a device for a small number of editors to continue to make systematic addition/removal of term in contrary to the spirit of the sanction.

The request to amend the general sanction as follows:

Any editor who systematically adds or removes the term "British Isles" from multiple articles without clear sourcing and justification, or systematically initiates discussions to add or remove the term, or who edit-wars over such addition or removal, may be added to the list of topic-banned editors. For the purpose of this sanction, "systematically" will be broadly interpreted. ...

And the following an additional topic ban to add to the list of possible topic bans under the sanction:

TB02 (Topic ban two): User is banned from adding or removing the term "British Isles" on a Wikipedia wide basis. The user may not initiate related discussions but may still participate in related discussions so long as they engage in appropriate conduct, and do not add or remove the term.

The purpose of this change would be to close off the "back door" of the Specific Examples page as a means to make systematic changes. It would also prevent the systematic activities of the Specific Examples page from spilling out onto general talk pages. The proposed change received broad-ish support at Black Kites talk page from editors contributing to/observing the Specific Examples page. --RA (talk) 21:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The issue needs to have a location for centralised discussion. 'Specific Examples' is not a 'back door'. RashersTierney (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Centralised discussion, good. Systematic changes, bad. Superficially, the SE page looks fine. Good even. Beneath the surface, it's just another way to play out the disruption that the community said 'no more' to last weekend. --RA (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You can't ban someone from proposing changes to Wikipedia if they discuss them and don't edit war. The previous sanction has only been given a few days to run and aside from one quickly corrected failure on each side to comply has stood. Nothing has spilled over to general talk pages The proposed ban is so general it will just initiate multiple debates about what is or is not systematic. What is needed for editors to engage with the content issues and not come running to ANI every time they find life difficult. A sanction to band SPAs would be a different proposition, not to mention a ban on bringing the issue to ANI come to think of it--Snowded ^TALK 03:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see where it's appropriate to ban reasonable discussions. But maybe they keep bringing up the same stuff - like the birthers who kept turning up and raising the same old discussion points, an endless loop. Conentious discussion could be targeted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I have engaged from time to time in the discussions about the use of the terminology, but not recently, so I'm not up to speed about where the alleged problems lie with Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples.

However, I am very concerned about the principle of banning centralised discussion of a contentious issue. I guess that there may be some cases where it is appropriate, but I don't yet see the grounds for applying such a sanction here. AIUI, the concern appears to be that the specific examples page is being abused by repeatedly proposing the same changes. Is that correct? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If you go through the various tortuous threads you will see that suggestions have been made (and accepted) of a limit on the number of changes that can be proposed in a given time period. That is much more sensible and there could be an argument for amending the ruling to formalise it. We have had old resolved cases raised since the last ANI ruling which is a pain, but the discussions have been interesting and good tempered on that. At the moment I haven't seen monitoring admins intervene to resolve polarised debates which are going no where - that would help considerably --Snowded ^TALK 04:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

BHG, Centralised discussion is good. I don't want to see an end to discussion of any sort. The problem with the page is not the discussion, it is the changes.

Last week, we banned systematic changes on this topic. The disruption that led to the general sanction of last week originated with this page. Since then, we've had threads opened on this page making changes to topics as diverse as Angloromani to The Complete Peerage to BS 1363 to Keith Floyd to Artemisia vulgaris to Celtic Christianity to Atlases of the flora and fauna of Britain and Ireland ... there is just no end to it!

Those who are involved have entrenched views on this issue. I don't believe their views are reflective of consensus in the community on this issue. They are making changes (or want to make changes) to a large number of articles from the perspective of those entrenched view but without any substantial knowledge of the topics that they are changing. To make matters worse, it now appears that the editors involved have taken it upon themselves to decide that any addition/removal of this term (by anyone, anywhere on the 'pedia) must pass through them on this page for approval i.e. it has turned into a cabal.

If the page was a go-to point with questions on individual examples that would be fine but that is not how it is being used. The sanction last week was to stop systematic changes being made across the 'pedia on this issue. This page is a way around that sanction by wrapping it up in a tissue of "consensus" among a small cadre of editors involved in this issue over the heads of the rest of the community.

Individual problems with use/non-use of this term on individual pages can be resolved at individual pages in the normal wiki fashion. The editors involved need to stop making systematic changes on this issue, per last week's sanction. That does not preclude them from discussing the topic or agreeing to common guidelines. But, please, no more systematic changes on this issue. --RA (talk) 08:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain that fully, RA. I see the problem, and have no objection to amending the sanction. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I support this proposal, although it would probably be easy for us to do this on a voluntary basis if its not possible to get support for sanctions to be changed here. If that is not possible then voluntary agreement from "Involved editors" on the BISE page should restrict the number of cases each editor may bring forward. If one involved editor refuses to obey the limit, then rather than a sanction being imposed on that editor for raising it, all other involved editors who are prepared to follow the rule could simply dismiss and oppose the persons additional proposals beyond the agreed limit. No sanctions for "discussions" would then have to be enforced which some clearly have concerns about. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually RA, the proposal stops anyone proposing a change to the use of BI, or it shifts it back to the talk page of the articles concerned (and that was a disaster in the past resulting in multiple long running edit wars). As has been established there are clear cases where BI has been used improperly, and cases where it is illegitimate. There are lots of wikipedia issues where there is no end to the topics, none of those has been resolved by preventing people raising the issues. They have been solved, or disruption has been minimised by content based discussion using evidence. Here rationing the number of cases overcomes the issue of volume. Enforcing a process by which any central discussion is notified on the talk page of the article (something I proposed months ago) prevents discussions not involving the wider community. Calling people a cabal is name calling and not helpful. Making general accusations against groups of editors without being specific is unhelpful. Running back to ANI a few days after a ruling without trying to get things to work is also unhelpful. Just for the record I have not initiated a single proposal for change, but I have been prepared to work away at individual cases, we need more people doing that review process--Snowded ^TALK 10:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

@Snowded - the proposal does stop anyone from proposing a change to the use/non-use of British Isles in any article. What it does is propose to stop those who "systematically initiates discussions to add or remove the term". No-one has any problem with anyone opening a discussion on changing use of this term or that in any article or any central location. Just not one-article-after-another-after-another-after-another-after-another-after-.... The community said 'no more' to this kind of behaviour last week.

@BW - a voluntary basis would be infinitely better - but how long do you think the editors involved would be able to stick to their promise? I wouldn't like to see anybody sanctioned under this proposal but a stick is needed IMO to remind editors to abide by their promise.

--RA (talk) 11:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Define systematic --Snowded ^TALK 11:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Well [10] and [11] come to mind. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

RA, i think a voluntary agreement would work and it would be alot easier to get agreement on because some do seem worried about limits on the right to propose changes. Most people we consider "involved editors" never go around adding, removing or even asking for a change, we simply join in with the debates one way or another. There for if we were all prepared to agree that everyone has a limit to how many cases they can bring. The few editors that do seek to have lots of changes be it to add/remove, would be vetoed if they exceeding their limit by the clear majority of us. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the limit? Five a day? So there'll be a hundred request in twenty days? Or five a week? And there'll be a hundred requests in twenty weeks? --RA (talk) 12:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)A limit won't work. The proposals for deletion would still keep coming, but at a slower rate. Ultimately there's just one solution to this problem. LevenBoy (talk) 12:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

lol i was thinking more like 5 a month per editor, or say that each editor is only allowed about 2 open cases at a time. That way we dont have to debate lots of different topics, we wait and see if its closed because there is support or opposition to a change, or if the editor in question wants to withdraw the request so they can bring something else forward they can. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

systematic: Proceeding according to system, or regular method;. Regularly checking Special:WhatLinksHere/British_Isles for 'violations' would seem to me to meet the definition of systematic. MickMacNee (talk) 12:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

We need to separate political topics from non-political topics and stop non-political topics from being dragged into what for some is obviously a politically motivated campaign.

If you search at Google Scholar (click here) for British Isles, over 201,000 papers arise (probably only a fraction of the total). Basically, none of them are political in nature. They are geographical, biological, ecological, health-based, oceanographic etc. Political conflicts just do not come into it. It took me until about page 15 until I found one that just about did. British Isles is a convenient, widely used academic terms for a geographic region.

The author above is correct. There will be no end of it unless we separate the non-political and non-nationalistic topics out of the debate --- except to stop those editors like the Irish nationalist HighKing or the Welsh nationalist Snowded from carrying Wikipedia wide campaigns or making needless and deliberately provocative full revisions.

For any one focused purely on geographical, biological, ecological, health-based or oceanographic topics, it is an unfair burden to insist they pass through the gauntlet of nationalistically inspired editors for every damned weed or cottage on the Wikipedia. This is what is happening now. OK. Agreed. Political topics require sensitivity and neutrality. But that is all.

Do the Scandinavians having the same bickering matches? It is a shame those on the fringes of the British Isles cannot adopt the same mature attitude. --Triton Rocker (talk) 13:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I am getting really fed up with personal attacks from this editor (its part of the overall problem). He was warned for personal attacks here and yet we get name calling again above. On the BI question I am one of the few editors who can show a balanced approach on both support and removal of BI. --Snowded ^TALK 14:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm with you on the personal attacks Snowded, if you make a change to remove BI or resist it's insertion you are accused of being a nationalist extremist. Please please please comment on the edits and not the editors. WP:FIVE Bjmullan (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Those of us who simply seek to prevent the continued campaign to remove British Isles from wikipedia get called a few things too, this aint all one way. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The fact remains that removers are also gaming to remove editors and this is what Snowded is doing here (again). Bjmullan has previous worked in cahoots with HighKing on this.

Personally, I am not the snitching type so I am not going to make any personal issue out of it. So, instead, can we pleae return conversation to the serious focus of 'separating political issues from non-political issues' such as those relating to geographical, biological, ecological, health-based, oceanographic --- or even mythic --- topics mentioned above.

Or is that what you are trying to distract from by engineering an personal attack or block against me? --Triton Rocker (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Just address content issues and stop making accusations against other editors and you will have few problems. I am not gaming to remove you, I was (and am now) responding to yet another personal attack and speculation on your part as to motives of other editors. --Snowded ^TALK 17:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Evidence of Snowded gaming again (WP:3RR) over a tiny British Isles related edit regarding to references he has obviously not even read, here.

I am sorry, I cannot accept this. I am doing the work digging out the references --- which in the case include the oldest and one of the most well regarded in the field --- and all he is doing is repeat reverting. --Triton Rocker (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

An edit you have made has been questioned. WP:BRD applies and you should discuss the change not simply reinsert it. You were bold, I reverted when you did not respond to the talk page question but simply used the edit summary to assert your position. After that the idea is you DISCUSS. This is nothing to do with British Isles, its about the location of Avalon. --Snowded ^TALK 19:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Wrong venue

I previously expressed my concern about the "general sanction" being discussed and implemented on ANI, and I am again concerned about the "amendment to the general sanction" again being discussed at ANI. ANI is a triage, a place where incidents requiring immediate administrator attention are handled, and in that respect many users do not watch it very closely or expect wide-ranging general sanctions to be implemented here. I think this really belongs at WP:AN and the discussion should be publicized at relevant locations. –xeno^talk 19:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Suspicious behavior at Leland Yee again

Leland Yee's article has had COI issues going on for a long time. I noted this at COIN here but essentially two "new" editors, User:Hookahsmoker and User:Salerachel, are just beyond suspicious to me. They have been adding very sophisticated accomplishments and awards sections [12][13], removing controversies[14], with Hookahsmoker's first edits being to keep a cleaner version of the article for his user page [where the "new" awards language came from] (which got some help). I want to block those two until I get some explanation (as I've worn out any good-faith as what's going on) but I'm too involved to want to get into it. At the very least, can I get some more experienced eyes to keep watch on a seriously problematic politician's article? If people think semi-protection is the solution, it wasn't a long-term answer in March 2009 when last tried. Also, please, someone else inform them, I'm tired of watching that article getting "cleaned" up every few months and I probably won't be nice about the notice. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, note that most of the additions are, if not direct copy-and-pastes, but substantially similar with, language at Yee's official website. Again, AGF is waning. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment Both users notified [15] [16]. Mauler90 _talk 03:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Didn't do much good at the COIN board either. Instead, we got some more socks try to mess with the actual notices. If there's no response from either of them, I'm going to remove all the language as copyright violations (or just as terribly POV nonsense) and really start being drastic on the article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

BWAA. Nobody cares! This will truly be a fun campaign season. I can't wait to work on the GOP candidates' pages! Yee's got some opinions on them too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.172.216.135 (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Harassment by User:Epeefleche

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

---

In May I raised an incident here where I was running into opposition when deleting unsourced items from Lists of Jews. While I was supported here by a large majority of editors, I ran into very vocal opposition from a small minority of editors, including Epeefleche (talk · contribs), who insisted that inline citations were not required for every item, and that one should not delete unsourced items, only tag them. The AN/I discussion can be found here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive613#Wikidemon, WP:V and WP:BLP.

The issue spilled over onto other pages, including onto the WP:RS/N board, where Epeefleche asserted that at least one of the GAs I had written was "poorly worded" and lacked footnotes, and asked "How would Jay feel if an editor came along and deleted all of them, and all similar sentences in all FAs and GAs he worked on? Rather than tag them?"[17] I pointed out that everything in the article was cited, and that "Footnotes sometimes cover two or three sentences in a row, or even a whole paragraph. This is the standard way of writing good articles; one does not repeat the same footnote at the end of successive sentences."[18] However, he now insisted that a citation at the end of a paragraph wasn't good enough, that every single sentence in every single article needed an inline citation, and stated rather ominously "You really have to stop being lazy, and start adding refs, or else assume your material will be tagged or deleted."

Since then, I have slowly been tagging unsourced entries on the List of Jews in sports (and in some case, deleting unverifiable ones). Epeefleche, in turn, has been providing sources for some of these tagged items, but under protest; last month, for example, he again protested having to cite the list, claimed "the articles that you wrote themselves fail to properly ref each sentence."[19], and later stated "I also challenge you to attribute all items in the articles you created."[20]

Today I noticed that dozens of the sources in the article were merely to the name of a book, not to any specific page in the book where the information could be found, so I tagged them with {{page required}} tags. "Retribution" was rather swift; later in the day, he suddenly started editing an article I had written and recently submitted for Good Article Review. Whenever a citation covered an entire paragraph, or more than one sentence, he added various spurious {{fact}} and {{by whom}} tags to cited material, 16 tags in all. When I removed them as spurious, and warned him I would be taking him to AN/I if he continued, he restored them, and then continued to edit the article, including adding dubious sources that were literally poor copies of reliable sources already in the article (see Talk:Congregation Beth Jacob Ohev Sholom#Emunah magazine source/Matzav.com). On the Talk: page of the article he insisted that every single sentence in the article needed to be sourced, and opened his first section with the rather threatening title "Improving citations; Bar to promotion to GA until addressed". While pretending that he was simply trying to fix my "failures to agree to follow wiki guidelines here" and "poor editing" so that the article could achieve GA status, he was obviously actually trying to disrupt that nomination. I invited him to confirm what I said about citations at the Talk:FAC page, which he did not do. I, however, did, and there they (unsurprisingly) agreed with me: Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Are citations required at the end of every sentence?

He has now yet again tagged statements which are cited at the end of the paragraphs they are in.[21] Can I get some relief from this harassment? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a little off the track, but I wonder if both you and Epeefleche would mind weighing on the discussion about sourcing, farther up the page:[22] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I dont really want to get involved and but I must say that I've also experienced some of this from Epeefleche. During an AfD where I nominated IDF Tick Tock for deletion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IDF Tick Tock which led to this discussion between him and another editor. The he was engaged in the following debates with User:L-l-CLK-l-l at [23] and me at [24]. The jist of my issue with the user was that he was appear to suggest that myself and User:L-I-CLK-l-l where somehow less qualified to give a POV or that our POV was less valid due to our age. I mentioned that his behaviour was patronising and that I felt an apology was owed as I felt it was uncivil to disrespect others on the grounds of age discrimination. The response was to go on the offensive. I just feel that in light of what has been written above I should make the incident known to admin. I must note that the user has made lots of good contributions to many articles but in light of my experience, L-I-CLK-l-l and Jayjg's run-ins with these editors perhaps Epeefleche is a little heavy handed. Note also that he went out of his way to find an article in poor state that I am attributed: James Wright (music producer) and nommed it for deletion but missing out the step which places the discussion template on the article and then tried nominating the page for speedy deletion. I don't know if it was deliberate or not, Possibly in retaliation as suggested above. (its not even an article I edit, instead I merely moved it from its old name). --Lil-unique1 (talk) 04:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Jay asked me out of band to take a look at this.

In the game of WP:OWN vs WP:STALK, who loses? We all do...

This is complicated, and without breaking WP:AGF it's not clear if either party actually has less than impure motives here, nor without staring at diffs for another hour is it clear if either is more precisely right on the sourcing / citing issue.

What is clear is that the two parties involved are not getting along, and the article is becoming a battleground for that conflict.

Epeefleche - I don't want to "blame you" here, but it's an article he started, and your participation there, even if well intentioned, seems to be becoming something unrelated to the content. Would you consent to moving on to other articles, or at least finding someone else you trust on source citations to help on this and restrict yourself to the talk page there for a while?

Jay - Do remember WP:OWN. If a neutral citations expert can be found, or at least one who isn't Epeefleche, please take their inputs seriously.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Violations by User:Jayjg of wp:own, wp:admin, and wp:civil, and wp:agf

• Some facts:

1. Jay had a difference of view with half a dozen editors, including me, between two and three months ago. He claims that is the proximate cause of a wikipedia MOS dispute he is having with me today. It isn't. At least on my part.
2. His claim isn't simply wrong. It's nonsensical. In that discussion, half a dozen editors criticized Jay strongly for his deleting on a mass basis, rather than tagging, text he felt should have citations. These included Equazcion, Baseball Bugs, Wikidemon, Rich Farmbrough, and Greg. Jay was deleting text. Even when there was every reason to expect (which he never denied) that he knew the information he was deleting was true. He was encouraged to instead tag the text (or even move it to the talk page). He never expressed any appreciation of their concern.
3. Note: While Jay was mass-deleting information, failed to take any constructive steps to improve the article.
4. Oddly, Jay now claims that because months ago I suggested he should tag (rather than delete) certain content, my tagging (note – tagging, not deleting) unreferenced content months later, on a wholly unrelated article, is somehow retribution. That makes zero sense.
5. Even more peculiar: Jay and I had a great deal of contact over the past three months. We made dozens of edits at articles in overlapping fashion, and had a number of talk page discussions. Almost all of his editing involved him tagging text. Almost all of my editing involved me supplying the refs he called for. All without incident.
6. Now to today's events. I was making myriad improvements to an article. Fixing all manner of errors. The article, for example, mentioned only one of the two names of the institution it describes. A rather fundamental piece of information missing. I supplied the other name. The article violated a number of wikipedia MOS rules, wp:overlink (badly), grammar rules, ce rules, MOSNUM, mixed tenses, used "who" when it should have used "whom", used "until recently" which is not appropriate, said a living person was known as x (without saying "know by whom"), etc. I fixed nearly all of these errors myself. I supplied new, appropriate text. I supplied new refs. All my editing was geared to improving the article.
7. I also pointed out that I felt that some sentences should have refs, using the fact tag. I didn't, however, delete one word of "his" material (Jay's approach). Even when unsourced.
8. Jay's reaction? He expressed ownership of the article. He threatened me. Writing: "if you screw around like this with one other article I've written, it's straight to WP:AN/I". Violating wp:civil. Violating wp:admin, which requires that he model proper behavior. And he deleted the tags.
9. He did not discuss the matter on the article talk page.
10. In the face of Jay's hostility and reversions, I brought the citation issue to the article talk page. There, I explained at length the common sense reason for refs to be supplied; especially, as we are seeking GA status for the article. I emphasized how this is especially the case with quotes. I quoted for Jay the relevant guidance: "Wikipedia:Verifiability says: "All quotations and any material challenged ... should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." And furthermore: "You should always add a citation when quoting published material.... The citation should be placed either directly after the quotation... or after a sentence or phrase that introduces the quotation." This couldn't possibly be clearer. I suggested that, to make it easy, we work together and address those instances where there were quotations, but not refs.
11. I asked Jay to please stop being uncivil with me, being hostile, and edit warring.
12. Some of his response was: "And what exactly would you know about writing FAs and GAs? I've written 13, how many have you written?" [The answer was that I've worked on a number of FAs and GAs; possibly more than he has. But the real answer is that his question was a completely inappropriate response to my pointing out the guideline that required refs for sentences with quotes.]
13. I reiterated my above points. And closed with: "Let's work together to resolve this dispute about the article, and improve it to GA status".
14. In response, Jay brought this AN/I against me.
15. Jay's threats, behavior, edit warring, and retaliatory AN/I with regard to an MOS dispute are, IMHO, violations of wp:civil, wp:own, wp:agf, and wp:admin. And whatever guidance that I am missing, that covers bullying and using AN/I for an MOS dispute (one in which, as the above guideline quote demonstrates, Jay is without question wrong as to references for quotes), in an effort to bully and cow other editors into not speaking up. I would appreciate it if his behavior were reviewed in this regard.

--Epeefleche (talk) 06:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, not really credible. You didn't like my tagging the refs you (I assume) added, so you ended up at an article which I created, and was almost the sole editor, one which I had just taken for GA review. How was it, exactly, that you found that article anyway? Are you really trying to claim it had nothing to do with the fact that I wrote it? You also threatened to start tagging statements in articles I'd written,[25] even though it has been explained to you that they were properly cited, and you went ahead and did so.[26] You suddenly claim you are interested in bringing the article to GA status, and are showing me what will stop the article from attaining it, but apparently have never actually been through that process (much less the FA process) before, much less having written a GA or FA. Why the sudden, new interest in bringing this specific article to GA status? Also, if you really only wanted the sentences with "quotations" cited, why did you tag all those sentences that had no quotations? And why didn't you just duplicate the citations yourself, since you knew they were at the end of the next sentence or end of the paragraph? And finally, I've been all over the Talk: page of the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Completely absurd. You have been tagging articles I work on for many weeks. Dozens and dozens of tags. Perhaps hundreds. I've done nothing more than dutifully supply refs where you have left tags. For weeks. In the vast majority of cases, they haven't even been to material I added.

It's frankly absurd that you suggest that once you passed some threshold of tagging – what was it? ... 300 tags? ... 7 weeks of tagging every other day? – that suddenly I would completely reverse course. And exact "retribution" by editing an article, improving it greatly, fixing all manner of errors, and requesting that the article comply with the requirement that sentences with quotes have a ref in the sentence itself. Utterly absurd.

And as to the talk page, you threatened me in an edit summary, and called the article your article in an edit summary, and completely ignored the article talk page until I started discourse there.

And then as you had threatened you brought this wholly baseless AN/I. About an MOS dispute, no less. Where you are without question completely wrong on the merits – something you seem to have an aversion to ever admitting. But read the guideline; I will quote it for you a third time, as you keep on ignoring it -- this is the entire basis of our dispute that triggered your AN/I ... the guidelines says:

The citation should be placed either directly after the quotation... or after a sentence or phrase that introduces the quotation.

That couldn't be clearer. Your reaction when I quoted it to you? You brought this AN/I.

You also continue to have an illusion, which your raise here yet again, that you are uber-special and your opinion is one that others must bend to because you have worked on one dozen FAs/GAs. As I told you before, I've done so as well. So what? But more to the point – your trotting that out as a reaction to me quoting the guidance suggests that you misunderstand the issue. "Jay" does not get a "whatever I says goes" card if he works on 12 more, or 5 more, or 2 more FAs than the next editor. That's not the way it works. What matters is adherence to the guidelines. Which, as to refs in quotes, are indubitably clear. Your response to my quoting the guideline to you ... of ignoring the guidelines and saying "mine is bigger" ... is completely off-base.

You are IMHO doing a less than commendable job in adhering to your obligations under wp:admin. I'm troubled by the thought of how you might be treating our newbie editors, and how many of them we will lose if you take this haughty un-admin-like approach with them.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I wrote this article. I brought it to GA. A few hours after a GA reviewer agreed to review it, you start tagging it, and adding inconsistent citation styles and dubious sources. Now the GA reviewer has suspended his review. Well, that really helped the GA process. As for "my obligations under wp:admin", you're an experienced editor, with over 40,000 edits, so you well know that I neither used my admin tools, nor even threatened to use them. So, that dog won't hunt. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have some experience with wp:admin. Including discussing wp:admin at arbitration with regard to the behavior of an admin. So I'm well aware that wp:admin does not only apply to abuse of admin tools. I'm frankly surprised that you are not aware of that. Some of the relevant language of wp:admin is as follows:

Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner.... [and] to follow Wikipedia policies ... sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators should especially strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility .... Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community may be sanctioned or have their access removed. In the past, this has happened or been suggested for ... Breach of basic policies (attacks, biting/civility, edit warring... etc) ... Repeated/consistent poor judgment.

--Epeefleche (talk) 08:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You're the guy who recently told me that removing material that violated WP:BLP was "abusing [my] powers", after I stated it was an administrative duty.[27] I don't think you are a good judge of when people are or are not complying with wp:admin. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I've got to say that jayjg's account looks correct here. Epeefleche's account of the previous action is completely inaccurate, and ignores that many people could see nothing wrong with what jayjg had been doing (removing unsourced entries from lists). Epeefleche is completely wrong in their interpretation of the MOS - their latest point is talking about quotations, not general prose. (WP:CITE says " If the material is particularly contentious, the citation may be added within a sentence, but adding it to the end of the sentence or paragraph is usually sufficient.") Jayjg has been working on these 'List of Jews' articles for a while now, and there is not evidence that he went there to follow Epeefleche. It seems pretty clear however that Epeefleche only went to this article by following jayjg, and proceeded to tag-bomb the article, with spurious citation needed tags. Quantpole (talk) 07:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

And since he did it just after the GA review started, the GA review has now been scuttled. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The reviewer gave the fact that this AN/I is taking place as the reason for delaying the review. I, of course, was not the one who brought this AN/I, so Jay's above suggestion that the GA review was scuttled because of me is perhaps somewhat less than accurate. Nor was it really scuttled; rather it was put on hold while the AN/I is still being discussed. But for the referencing issue, IMHO the article is now in GA-shape.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

An article can't pass GA if it's unstable, or has unreliable sources, or uses inconsistent citation styles. For example, if someone slaps 16 {{fact}} and {{by whom}} tags on an article just after it starts GA review, and adds sources of dubious reliability, and cites them using completely different styles, that's going to disqualify it. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Quant--hello again. I think what I said was completely accurate. Half a dozen editors, who supplied most of the discussion, said in "long" what I said in "short". Others largely weighed in with "there should be refs", which begs the question. But the discussion is linked to, for interested parties to refer to. As to my discussion of MOS--perhaps you misunderstand. In my edits and talk page discussion that immediately preceded Jay bringing this AN/I, I focused (and invited him to join me in focusing on) solely those instances where there were quotations. Jay's reaction? He told me that he had worked on 12 FAs and GAs, suggested I hadn't worked on as many (likely, false, but that's besides the point), and followed up on his threat by bringing this AN/I. Now, if your are focusing on the facts, and not just supporting Jay, I would hope that you will say ... "Gosh, you're right ... I apologize, retract what I said, and say the opposite". I'll be interested in your reaction. BTW--if you look at my edit history, the articles that I work on, the articles that I worked on that day, you will note a strong connection to the article in question.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe jayjg didn't react in the best manner, but you barge into an article in a very combative manner, writing long screeds, which are largely wrong. I see nothing in your recent contributions that linked to this article, so how exactly did you come across it? Your actions and manner in dealing with this were making it a battleground from the start. Quantpole (talk) 08:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Ummmm ... I fixed perhaps two dozen MOS violations, grammar errors, spelling errors, etc., while supplying new info that touched on the basic--such as the name of institution the article describes. Barged in? Combative? You're tossing around characterizations, without substance. But the point of the matter is I've been a productive contributor to the article. And Jay brought this to AN/I because I suggested enforcement of the rule requiring that refs be supplied in sentences that have quotes. That's a bit beyond Jay "didn't react in the best manner".

As to how I come across the article, as you will note from my DYKs and articles created and my 46,000 edits of 7,600 articles, this article deals with both Jewish topics and New York topics, which you can see from my edit history is a crossroads of some of my top areas of interest. I've edited other NY and Brooklyn synagogue articles before, including another one today I believe before I touched this one ... the Union Temple article. I believe I went from that article to the Category: Synagogues in Brooklyn, thought of editing East Midwood (which I believe I edited before), it seemed in good shape, went back to the category and turned to another synagogue with which I was familiar (there are only a dozen in that cat) ... this one ... and edited away. So -- that's the answer to your question.

As to your characterization, i's completely false. Is it your prior relationship with me or with Jay that would have you so dramatically mischaracterize the facts? Anyone can see, from the edit history and from the talk page, that I have been civil with Jay, and he has been -- from the outset -- threatening and completely uncivil, and now brought this AN/I against me in reaction to me quoting him the rule that supported my edits.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no prior 'relationship' with either you or jayjg. The only previous interaction I can think of with you is here, and when the 'List of Jews' articles got discussed at ANI last time. Insinuating that I have some history or grudge is manifestly incorrect. You are welcome to disagree with my opinion on the matter at hand but can you keep your ponderings as to my motivation out of it. The only reason I looked at this was because I was aware of the previous discussions regarding the list articles, and saw your misrepresentation of what happened. Indeed anyone can look at the talkpage, and see your heavy handed approach, misinterpretation of policy and what I can only think as baiting behaviour (inserting spurious citation needed tags, and saying that it would not meet GA until your hoops had been jumped through). There may be a reasonable explanation of how you came across the page, but it certainly has the appearance of you following jayjg to it, and your approach once there has been far from collaborative. Quantpole (talk) 10:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If people wish to judge who has been "civil" with whom, they might want to read this recent Talk: page interchange:Talk:List of Jews in sports#Owners, coaches, sportcasters in the article but not in inclusion criterion. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Balderdash. Everything I said was accurate. The policy requiring a ref in or at the end of a sentence that contains a quote is not a gray one--it is perfectly clear. And your misrepresenting it as a misinterpretation of policy is bewildering. It says that plainly. The citation should be placed either directly after the quotation... or after a sentence or phrase that introduces the quotation. How in the world you view a plain reading of that as a "misinterpretation" boggles the mind. So we know your mis-statment is not due to bad faith. And we know further that it is not due to biases against me (for the incident you cite to above), or for Jay. What is left? Because the language is indubitably clear.

An article should conform with MOS before it meets GA. How you interpret that as "jumping through my hoops" leaves me (nearly) speechless. This is wikipedia 101. It's not my hoop. It's the guideline. Which is clear. "Spurious" citation tags? Ridiculous. The sentence is clear. This feels like the big lie technique. I wasn't collaborative? Nonsense. Did you look through all my fixes, of perhaps two dozen errors, that were bars to it being a GA-level article? That's not disruptive behavior, my friend -- that is proper editing, improving the article, and helping it reach GA status. Precisely the opposite. My pointing out the MOS? That's not disruptive behavior either. It's the way we get an article to GA. "Far from collaborative"? You have it backwards. Jay was the one leveling threats, uncalled for, and not opening up discussion on the talk page. I was the one who opened up discussion on the talk page discussion. That's collaborative. I quoted the MOS rule for him. That's collaborative. He replied by telling me how many GAs he had worked on, and asserting (incorrectly, likely) that I had worked on fewer ... You think he is the collaborative one? Forgive me if that made me wonder as to the reason for your mis-characterizations, one tripping over the other. And your failure, when I pointed out your misunderstanding above, to say "oh, in that case, you were quoting the MOS correctly, and were in the right, and I apologize for incorrectly maligning you". You have this all backwards.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You added 16 citation needed tags (I believe). In some places you split paragraphs and then inserted a tag, rather than add the citation yourself. There were only 2 or 3 places where there were quotes, and even those it seems clear to me that the quote is from the book that is being summarised. Those two or three may be worth discussing, but the rest were entirely overboard and heavy handed. That's it from me for now, there is little point us carrying on in circles, and I would rather other people have a look and contribute. Quantpole (talk) 10:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I added tags. (BTW, Jay himself--as I'm sure he will be happy to tell you--has added perhaps hundreds of tags to articles I've worked on these past few weeks ... and I've not complained, simply calmly filled in refs wherever he applied tags, so in the scheme of things 16 (if that is what it was) is not a cause for alarm or at all heavy-handed). I discussed with Jay the rationale behind the refs, in a discussion I opened on the talk page. I then limited myself to the clear violations vis-a-vis the sentences with quotes, where the MOS without question requires refs either in the sentence or at the end of it. That's where the discussion stood. His response? To tell me how many GAs he had worked on. And bring this AN/I. The only thing at issue at that point in time were those sentences where we had a clear direction from the MOS.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I have not worked on any of these articles but I find many of Epeefleche's edits bizarre. For example this: she changed Torah Umesorah – National Society for Hebrew Day Schools to Torah Umesorah–National Society for Hebrew Day Schools. Now, if MOS really compells us to change the hyphen (which seems odd in an encyclopedia where the #1 rule is ignore all rules), isn't the solution to ifx the hyphen in the title of the article being refered to? Here we have a paragraph on one specific topic (a hostile relationship between two men) with a citation at the end, but epeefleche felt the need to stick in the middle a tag asking for a citation. In fact, she seems to do this a lot, adding "citation needed" tags in the middle of paragraphs that already have tags.

I do not think that Epeefleche's edits are all bad and even think sometimes that she really just wants to improve articles, but some of these edits are hard to explain, except that they all involve calling into question in some way Jayjg's work. Now, none of us are perfect and all of us do work that can be improved upon but in my experience Jayjg is an impecable researcher, this is one person who really takes our content policies seriously and strives to write serious well-researched articles. I do not know why Epeefleche is on this vendetta against Jayjg but it is the only thing that I see that explains this pattern of editing. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• SLR -- don't you think this is going a bit off track? Are we really going to discuss the fact that MOS:EMDASH states: "Do not space em dashes"? And that you find that bizarre? Or that you find bizarre that when I first sought to comply with MOS:EMDASH, the edit gave me a red result, and as my computer was slow the faster fix was to fix the article (as I wanted it to pass GA) than to worry about the greater world of wikipedia, and not get to my next meeting? Would you find it bizarre to learn that I've received the "don't space em dashes" comment in GA reviews in the past, citing MOS? And that what I was doing was in the interest of the article passing GA review? Perhaps you would even be surprised to learn that personally, I prefer the look of spaced em dashes, and often fail to space them in talk page discussion, and that the only reason that I conformed it was to hue to MOS. Would you be surprised to know that I in no way thought that that edit was calling into question Jay's work (did he really write the underlying article? I had no idea -- nor would I have thought that the case). But that it was all about improving the article, per MOS, which is what GA reviewers happily refer to in my experience? (and no, they are not generally keen on the "ignore all rules" response to their request that MOS be complied with). And if you have really looked through my edits on that article, you have seen a host of MOS errors, grammar errors, spelling errors, etc., that I fixed (not knowing who made them). That is all geared to making it a better article. BTW -- I don't expect, that for some tens of thousands of edits now -- I've added any sentence with a quote that was bereft of a ref. That happens to comport with MOS as well. I think that this entire discussion of dashes is, quite frankly, silly. Are you taking me to task for conforming with MOS? As to whether Jay is a great researcher, I'm sure he is. That's not been a question. But I fear this conversation is straying far afield.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Greg L

Tags can be used two different ways on Wikipedia. They can be used to alert the community to a ‘sleeper’ of a problem with an article that should, in one editor’s opinion, be improved. These are typically used by editors who lack sufficient understanding of the subject material to resolve the situation them self. In edit wars, tags can also be used as “neener-neener” graffiti to frustrate editors who are laboring on articles. We’ve all had this happen.

These two editors have now encountered each other in the alleyways many, many times. It strikes me that Jayjg rather enjoys driving along, planting little flags that say “This lawn needs fertilizer” and “This lawn is too mossy”. It seems too that Jayjg rather enjoys it when Epeefleche takes offense and tries to stand in front of Jayig’s car in opposition since that provides Jayig an opportunity to run over Epeefleche’s toes.

In short, this is an edit war between two editors who don’t like each other. That much is clear. Either we have an attitude transplant or we separate the editors. Wikipedia is a collaborative writing environment where cooperation is required for the good of the project. It is clear that it is exceedingly easy for an editor to slap an article with a tag; doing so creates an attendant time-consuming duty on what we might call “shepherding editors”, who care about certain articles and who therefore want to have *clean* articles free of tags. Shepherding editors must (*sigh*) and address each tag as it comes along. It is clear that Epeefleche is the shepherding editor on these Jewish-related lists and has been willing to step up to the plate and do the heavy lifting.

It would be very nice if, instead of tagging articles, Jayig might instead volunteer to do some of the time-consuming duties of better citing entries in these Jewish-related lists. Perhaps, if he had to devote that much effort, he might lose interest in these Jewish-related articles. Or, perhaps not; the project as a whole would greatly benefit from having two shepherding editors hell-bent on ensuring these lists are accurate. If a time investment of that magnitude is not so palatable, then I wonder if Jayig would alternatively be willing to walk away from the Jewish-related articles so far as tags and deletions go; there are plenty of other editors who are capable of using tags when they see shortcomings and are at an utter loss as to how they might solve it on their own. Greg L (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. That last paragraph is really a challenge and a solicitation to Jayig. Can you edit in either of the two alternative fashions I suggested? I would appreciate a response. Greg L (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

(*sound of crickets chirping*)

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

Christian SPA's Team-warring on various articles

I am getting pretty frustrated of accounts whose contribs logs show 90% Jesus-promoting edits tag-teaming on Jesus-related articles. For example: [28]. ReaverFlash and Ari89 are aggressive to the point of ridiculousness in pushing religious slant. The majority of sources they add are Christian theologians and Evangelicals. They revert every attempt to identify some of these sources to the reader. They mass-delete referenced text that doesn't promote their view. They are not their to build to consensus , and they will revert every edit I make. They will canvass from other articles [29], and they will (probably) follow me around to other articles to revert me there. (I say "probably" because it is very plausible that they just have every single Jesus article in their watchlist). So what, exactly, are editors supposed to do against tag-team editing and the most fervent bias known to Man? Please do not tell me it is possible to build consensus that the existence of a real Jesus is controversial with a group of Evangelical Christian editors. Of course, I supposed what's really going to happen is that this plea for help is going to be ignored, I am going to be unable to edit the article, and I am going to get fed up and blocked again. Thanks for the help. Noloop (talk) 06:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I have notified the two editors of this discussion. Basket of Puppies 06:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm open to discussing proposed changes in the talk page. Both me and noloop, as well as Ari, among others, have discussed this on the talk page. Noloop's assumption that I and other editors are POV pushers makes collaboration extremely difficult: [30] His characterization of sources as propoganda is also problematic: [31] especially since I'm fairly sure E.P. Sanders is Jewish, and not Christian per his edit. Flash 06:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It's quite difficult to discuss the articles with someone who hostilely labels everyone else as Christian fundamentalists and "a group of Evangelical Christian editors". That kind of propaganda and argumentum ad hominem will accomplish nothing. But I guess that's the kind of tactics you resort to, when all other arguments have dried up. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 07:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion is that for a week all editors editing in this area edit only in the Israel-Palestinian area, and vice versa. And if that goes well, we extend the experiment.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what Rose and RF said about Noloop's accusations of Christian POV pushing. Here's an example, where Noloop implies that Christian scholars can't be trusted to be unbiased, and therefore must be "outed" in any Wiki article having anything to do with Jesus. I provided a huge amount of quotes correcting his misunderstanding, but I guess he missed it. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 09:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

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

It has its own article: Christ myth theory. Anthony (talk) 11:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Which sums it up nicely: "the BBC's Today programme once asked N. T. Wright if he would appear on-air to debate Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy concerning the thesis of their book The Jesus Mysteries. Wright, whom Newsweek once deemed "perhaps the world's leading New Testament scholar",[125] declined, saying that "this was like asking a professional astronomer to debate with the authors of a book claiming the moon was made of green cheese."--Scott Mac 11:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It would help the credibility of these articles if editors could cite, wherever possible (and it usually is with historical Jesus stuff), sources who are historians rather than biblical scholars, and avoid priests and known Christians. Not that there is anything wrong with Christian historians . But if the same point can be made using known atheist or even CMT proponents, well, we wouldn't be here now. And we won't be back here every month until someone finds the video of the sermon on the mount. Anthony (talk) 11:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's another quote that shows how silly the CMT is:

What about those writers like Acharya S (The Christ Conspiracy) and Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy (The Jesus Mysteries), who say that Jesus never existed, and that Christianity was an invented religion, the Jewish equivalent of the Greek mystery religions? This is an old argument, even though it shows up every 10 years or so. This current craze that Christianity was a mystery religion like these other mystery religions-the people who are saying this are almost always people who know nothing about the mystery religions; they've read a few popular books, but they're not scholars of mystery religions. The reality is, we know very little about mystery religions-the whole point of mystery religions is that they're secret! So I think it's crazy to build on ignorance in order to make a claim like this. I think the evidence is just so overwhelming that Jesus existed, that it's silly to talk about him not existing. I don't know anyone who is a responsible historian, who is actually trained in the historical method, or anybody who is a biblical scholar who does this for a living, who gives any credence at all to any of this. (Bart Ehrman, interview with David V. Barrett, "The Gospel According to Bart", Fortean Times (221), 2007)

And, Anthony, your "video" comment had me ROFLMAO!!! Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 11:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Clearly the claim/theory that Jesus, historically, never existed is not worth much credit in an article about the historical figure :) unless of course it can be backed up... which it can't. On the other hand, as I commented on the article talk page, it seems logical to include references to the consensus from a broad range of scholars, just to avoid such headaches :D --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 11:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

@Bill the Cat 7: Your quote by a professor who is convinced the historical Jesus existed does not show that CMT is silly. It mainly shows there is an ongoing debate in which both sides have serious problems in accepting each others arguments on face value. Naming it silly based on this one interview would actually support the feeling of Noloop that (s)he is fighting an uphill battle against editors who simply discredit any sources that do not align with their belief..

@Tmorton166, of course the problem with finding support for the non-existence of things is that it is impossible to find (see e.g. Russell's teapot. The Christ Myth people do not look for backing of their claim of non-existence, but take the position that non-existence should be default unless proven otherwise. With that start they scrutinise proof of Christs existence. As such their efforts are extremely valuable, because if they succeed in eliminating all current evidence of existence this will prompt believers in the existence of Christ to look for newer and better evidence; and if they find arguments they cannot disprove this will strengthen the case for a historical Jesus very much. Again naming this as silly or irrelevant may give the view of a POV. Let's keep this discussion on the facts. Arnoutf (talk) 11:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Arnoutf, I just dumped a whole bunch of quotes (by both Christians and atheists) on your talk page that clearly demonstrate that the CMT is not simply rejected, it is rejected with contempt by essentially all of academia. I hope this clears up the misunderstanding that only a few Christian scholars are the only scholars who reject the CMT. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Arnoutf, the "Christ Myth" theory is separate, if related, to an article discussing historical research/evidence into christ. My last girlfriend was a religious history student so I read pretty extensively on these topics; there is a pretty broad consensus that a historical figure Jesus exists (dispute over who he was and what he did is also broad :)) amongst the relevant scholars. I'm simply arguing that it cannot hurt to comprehensively source the fact that there is consensus so that the casual reader is able to see it does exist (rather than rely on a single source). --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 12:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

let's not overdo this, my main point is that calling some POV "silly" is not going to help cool down the debate . I am aware that at the moment the vast majority of scholars are convinced of a historical Jesus, and that attention to Christ myth theories is undue with our current knowledge base. Arnoutf (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I do agree :) I don't think I ever called it silly. My only argument is that it seems fair to back up that statement with more than one source - particularly if the sources could be broad/varied & respected --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 12:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Sorry, Scott. I meant the branch of theology of that name. I know that the religious affiliation of a genuine scholar doesn't matter. I'm suggesting Ari and Bill choose, when they have a choice, sources whose ideology is not going to leave any doubt about their neutrality. Bill can cite 2 or 3 CMT proponents who say unequivocally CMT is very fringe/held in contempt by the mainstream. If the articles cited those scholars, this thread (and countless others) wouldn't be happening. Anthony (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

SM said, ...I will not edit any such articles because some agenda pusher with a Jesus-was-a-man-from-mars theory comes along and demands I interact with his crazy marginal nonsense. Then I strongly recommend against doing anything on the Christ myth theory page. You would be surrounded by POV-pushers who have attempted, and are still attempting as we speak, to raise the CMT from a crazy-ass fringe theory to one of being a respectable minority theory. And reasonable people like Anthony, who made some excellent contributions, were the exception, not the rule. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban for Noloop?

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

I can feel the frustration of Noloop as putting critical notes on religious articles tends to be extremely difficult because these articles tend to be guarded by believers. Nevertheless that does not make the behaviour acceptable. So I tend to agree a topic ban would be well suited WP:OUCH. Arnoutf (talk) 12:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If you want to feel frustration, then try editing the Christ myth theory page to say it's a fringe theory!!

Don't think this is necessary yet. Noloop is not just - not even mostly from what I've seen - advancing a Jesus=Myth position. He/she is also making some very valid points about sourcing (see my comments below), because this is an area which it is almost impossible to approach without a personal viewpoint that lies in the emotional spectrum rather than the scientific, both for editors and sources.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No, he doesn't seem to be advancing it yet. However, he is implying it. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a rather biased position to take Elen. What makes this subject matter particularly difficult to study in a dispassionate manner? Every time editors make these types of proclamations about human behavior based on their own intuitions they're discrediting the social sciences. I get it (please read the next sentence facetiously). In the hard sciences we have real neutral experts but when you start talking about literature and history its just opinion, and when you start talking about human behavior and human emotions everyone is an expert. I happen to disagree with that and I happen to believe that unless there is valid evidence to back the type of assertion you have made (in good faith I have no doubt) then its just one editors opinion. Let's stop assuming we're all psychologists here who have done detailed studies of the correlation between religion affiliation, emotion and academic bias. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Ho Griswaldo. I disagree with you here. First of all, natural scientists are as biased (if not more because they think it does not influence them) as social scientists (see for example an editorial in Nature a few years ago where the editor acknowledged that Nature had rejected breakthrough papers of many (later) Nobel laureates because they were unacceptable to the beliefs of the reviewers). Secondly I agree social scientists (at least good ones) are trained to keep track of their own beliefs, how this may influence their vision on events and how to separate fact from opinion. However, Wikipedia editors are in majority not scientists, neither natural nor social. And I do agree with Elen of the Roads that the majority of editors take their personal POV with them in these discussions. Arnoutf (talk) 13:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Arnouft my whole point was that I do not think this academic context is any more biased than the natural sciences but I believe Elen was saying that this one was indeed inherently more open to bias in her comment -- "because this is an area which it is almost impossible to approach without a personal viewpoint that lies in the emotional spectrum rather than the scientific, both for editors and sources." Hence my disagreement with her. I also agree that Wikipedia editors are not social scientists which is what bothers me about statements they consistently make about human behavior and psychology as if they are up to speed on the relevant literature when they are clearly not and simply commenting based on their own opinions. No one is unbiased, we had this discussion already, but there are better ways to know how bias plays out in human practice than simply to make assumptions. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I thought it was merely an observation of human nature. It's been a premise of the meta theory of science for some time that even apparently 'pure' scientific theories are always affected by the viewpoint or belief of the proponent. The normal way one conducts any scholarly work (thesis, experiment, archaeological excavation) is to advance a theory and see if the evidence supports the theory, not to assemble a pile of evidence and then attempt to sift a theory out of it. All I'm saying is that for most editors and scholars, where something like Jesus is concerned, the theory they choose to advance is based on their viewpoint - their meta-interpretation of the object of enquiry. There's nothing wrong with that. WP:NPOV does not require that editors have no point of view, nor does it require that sources have no point of view. It does require that one recognise where there are conflicting points of view, and take care to adequately reflect them in articles. There are a lot of conflicting points of view over Jesus, and in many cases the conflicting points of view arise from well defined meta-interpretations held by those advancing the views.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless there is a correlation between a specific "meta-interpretation" and types of scholarly conclusions we should be very weary of this kind discussion. It is one thing to recognize the general principle that we are all biased, or that "scientific theories are always affected by the viewpoint or belief of the proponent" and it is quite another to make insinuations about specific viewpoints and specific conclusions. As I've pointed out elsewhere there appears to be no significant correlation between holding the mainstream viewpoint about the historicity of Jesus and personal religious affiliation. It would be highly misleading to mention the religious affiliation of scholars who take this stance because it would suggest a meaningful correlation where there is none. What you mention generally can be tested in specific situations giving us much better understandings of how bias might actually play out in certain situations. Until we have good evidence we should not be insinuating bias based on such general principles.Griswaldo (talk) 13:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Not intending to insinuate bias. Just observing that this is a topic where views are frequently contentious, and one source may not be adequate to support a position that an apparently contentious view is in fact mainstream.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with a topic ban. Noloop's edit-warring, complaints to ANI and POV-pushing are disruptive. I noticed the same behavior on Anti-Americanism, although that article has far fewer editors involved. TFD (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

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

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

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

Elen, if there are legitimate gripes to be had then Noloop has pretty much sabotaged his own credibility in making them at this point, and that is a shame, but its true. Noloop tried to insert the Christ myth theory into the second paragraph of Historical Jesus. That's starting in the fourth sentence of the lead of that entry. As I pointed out in the last disruptive thread he started here on ANI, Noloop has also made statements that are only a hair separated from the Christ myth there. See my comment to Cyclopia at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ari89:_Repeated_bad_faith.2C_personal_remarks.2C_etc.. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem is that everyone is moving to extreme positions. Unfortunately, I agree that if Noloop is moving faster that everyone else s/he is the one going to end up topic banned. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Elen, there is a clear bias in what you just presented above. For example, you are stating that a reliable academic in the field is not able to provide a consensus statement because they are a Christian. Good for you if you personally disagree with the consensus of scholarship, but that is no reason to out of hand dismiss Christian sources. To again repeat the WP policy on academic consensus:

"The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing. Without a reliable source that claims a consensus exists, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. The reliable source needs to claim there is a consensus, rather than the Wikipedia editor. For example, even if every reliable source states that the sky is blue, it would be improper synthesis to write that there is a scientific consensus that the sky is blue, unless sources cited also make such a claim (e.g. a reliable source states, "consensus is that" or "the literature shows that" the sky is blue)."[32]

I fail to see the exclusion clause regarding Christian scholars or those that disagree with Elen of the Roads. --13:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

While not wishing to rehash the argument here - you have this one source that says that ALL scholars in the field agree that Jesus "proclaimed the Kingdom of God". That seems very unlikely, given that it is couched in specifically Christian language (indeed, it is a piece of Christian 'shorthand') that is unlikely to be used by a scholar not from a Christian background. But when asked to provide more sources, you tried to turn it into an argument about anti-christian bias, rather than a request for more sources, and tried to argue that questioning the POV of a source was equivalent to questioning the reliability of a source - which it plainly isn't if you read WP:NPOV, which recognises that reliable sources may represent multiple mainstream viewpoints. It is this behaviour which is leading to accusations that you are a Christian SPA, and while I think that is unreasonable, I cannot agree that there is no issue with your behaviour.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said, we go for verifiability not what Elen of the Roads personally believes. Your argument here (other than innuendo against myself) is your own personal doubts about the acceptance of Jesus' kingdom preaching. When we test your personal opinion we find out that it is factually wrong. James Dunn writes that "The centrality of the kingdom of God (basileia tou theou) in Jesus' preaching is one of the least disputable, or disputed, facts about Jesus." (Dunn, Jesus Remembered p.383) --Ari (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, "Kingdom of God" is a wide-spread first-century Jewish shorthand, used by many contemporary with Jesus. Just to quibble.--Scott Mac 13:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, although 'proclaimed the Kingdom of God' is Christian shorthand. It was the fact that 'Kingdom of God' requires unpacking because it has a Christian meaning that is different to that Jewish shorthand (and subtly different in the different denominations of Christianity. I think I said at the time that you'd have to first write a book defining the term) that made me want to see another source that supported the contention that ALL scholars agreed that Jesus 'proclaimed the Kingdom of God'. If the source had said all scholars agreed that Jesus 'made statements relating to the Jewish belief in the Kingdom of God', it might not have been so contentious, although even so, a number of scholars do not believe that either Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, or that his disciples believed he was the Messiah. On that basis, it was my opinion that there would be numbers who would not sign up to 'proclaimed the Kingdom of God'. WP:V and WP:NPOV both agree that the thing to do where a statement is contentious is to get more sources. Had more sources been forthcoming to support the position, I would of course have accepted this as the mainstream view.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"it was my opinion that there would be numbers who would not sign up to 'proclaimed the Kingdom of God'." Yes, your opinion. And your opinion does not trump verifiable sources as Wikipedia is about verifiability (yes, actually read the policy you link to.) That you view your personal opinion as superior to reliable sources is completely ridiculous. --Ari (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You're still not getting it, are you. I'm not saying my view is superior to reliable sources. I'm not even saying your source isn't reliable. I'm just saying your source isn't reflecting the mainstream view (even though it says that it is). I am entitled to do that. If I think something looks hinky, I am entitled to ask for more sources. In the case of contentious views, more sources are better. If only one source exists, a contentious view cannot be regarded as mainstream. In this case, others in the debate found sources which did not support your source, which supported a much more limited consensus, or which did not venture to state what consensus if any there might be (other than perhaps the assumed 'the man existed'). That's how Wikipedia works. Someone says - that looks odd/wrong/suspect/like it needs sources. Can you provide more sources.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, your personal opinion disagrees with the source. Your personal opinion has no place on Wikipedia, while reliable sources do. Your personal opinion was that the source was incorrect because you do not believe most scholars believe Jesus preached the Kingdom. Even when I entertained your attempt at granting your personal opinion supremacy over published sources, it turns out that they were wrong. I note you have constantly refused to deal with WP policies, including those extracted for your convenience.

Furthermore, all the information on what most scholars believe in the article is backed up by multiple sources so your personal distaste for Dickson and pov complaint is pointless --Ari (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That's nicely disingenuous. I think anyone reading the thread can see how the debate actually went, and anyone reading the lede can see that it doesn't say what the starting statement was. Better sourcing has shown that the starting statements made on the talk page needed to be tempered before making it into the article. I'll say it again. THAT IS HOW WIKIPEDIA WORKS. Nothing to do with my opinion or your beliefs. More sources are the way to go.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, you have (again) resorted to calling me a liar. Your personal opinion against the source was not just shown to be incorrect, but your personal opinion is meaningless in trumping reliable consensus statements. You don't have a clue what you are arguing about. --Ari (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

As Tank Girl put it "I win!" Really, do stop it with the twisting other people's words. You did it on the talkpage as well. I'm not calling you a liar. You're just putting the best possible gloss you can on an argument that you lost -you said one source was sufficient, but it's evidently better with more. So Wikipedia wins, because more sources are always better, I win, because there are more sources, even you win because there are more sources. Remember, more sources is the way to go. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

And I thought this could not get any more pathetic. (1) "More sources" - there are five or so other sources in the article backing up what other scholars believe. As I have said before, you haven't a clue what you are arguing about. (2) One reliable source on a consensus statement is sufficient. Try reading wp:rs on consensus statements. The fact that you see this as a game of "I win" where you don't hesitate to repeatedly call other editors dishonest is pathetic. Your personal opinion about the "mainstream" such as with the Kingdom preaching were wrong, deal with it. --Ari (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, seeing as you've amended the PA (yes, I did see it) I'll leave you to have the last word. Like I said, other people can read and come to their own conclusions. :) Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Ari is correct—one RS source on a consensus statement is sufficient. Here's the specific part of WP:RS that speaks about academic consensus. Additional statements can be added, throughout the article as well as in a FAQ, but only one is necessary. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I emphasised that multiple times but, sadly, it fell on deaf ears. I even extracted the entire section on multiple occasions but received the same rhetoric. The editors have either not read wp:RS or the source provided. Which one I am not sure, but what is certainly clear is they haven't read a word I have said! --Ari (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Hey! I have not called you dishonest even once. And didn't your mother tell you a million times not to exaggerate. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You only said I was intentionally repeatedly misrepresenting everything, right? Massive difference. I wonder when you are finally going to come to the realisation that (1) not once I advocated copying the Dickson list into the article; (2) the Dickson citation has been in the article all along with multiple other references and (3) that the citation meets the requirements for consensus statements per wp:rs. And this is without having to revisit the issue that academic consensus statements > your personal opinion. --Ari (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Great, now Ari's mom is being brought into the discussion. What's next? Allegations that he's anti-Semitic, followed up by implications of pedophilia for good measure? Hey, why not go for broke and throw in Nazi too? LOL. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

And yeah more evidence for Godwins law. Arnoutf (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

...grandma is lying in the gutter

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

Sympathises. Stick to editing articles on Dry glue or High shear mixers and save yourself an(other) ulcer.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops! Forgot to sign previous comment. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify a few points

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

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

This is the allegedly neutral source for the claim "scholars have used the historical method to develop probable reconstructions of Jesus' life." I didn't try to delete the source (although that's clearly defensible). I just tried to explicitly identify the source for the reader.[33] It was immediately reverted. In Talk, Antique Rose — Drop me a line tendentiously denies that the text above supports describing the source Evangelical and fundamentalist. [34]

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

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

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

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

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

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

By all signs the baseline position that he was an historical figure cuts through religious bias. : Exactly. Why do you refuse to make this explicit by providing sources with different backgrounds all agreeing? --Cyclopia^talk 17:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

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

The problem is that some of these sources are historians who happen to be pastors. I think that's what's tripping up this whole debate. And what's getting people upset with Noloop. Insisting that you must dismiss sources that happen to be Christian is like dismissing Jewish scholars from articles discussing the Holocaust. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

While we should accept sources who "are historians who happen to be pastors" we should be extremely cautious about accepting sources who are pastors who claim to be historians. The holocaust comparison is not flying here (if ever), as we are no longer talking about all Christian scholar but specifically about those who are also pastors. Arnoutf (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• How many times do I have to say this? I am not DISMISSING theologians as sources. I am IDENTIFYING them as sources. When theolgians are used as sources for factual claims, I want that CLARIFIED for the reader. In this entire debate, I think I've tried to remove one source, and it was a non-notable person who is the head of a MEDIA company dedicated to (his words) "promoting" Christianity.
• They do not "happen" to be Christian when they are writing on whether Jesus existed. Christians are biased on whether Jesus existed. Is that really disputed? The existence of Jesus is not analogous to the Holocaust. A better analogy would be to question the near-exclusive use of jewish scholars when discussing whether God gave Israel to the Jews. Noloop (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• @HandThatFeeds, for every priest- or pastor-historian cited in these articles, there is an atheist- or agnostic-historian just as notable and authoritative, saying the same thing. Why won't editors agree to use atheist or agnostic sources when they are available? We (most of us) get the point: Nothing wrong with genuine scholarship from Christians, per se. But for our sake (look at the time consumed on this crap), if you have a source that is not out of a seminary, use it. Anthony (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• That is a fair consideration for those editing the article. Cut down on the BS by making sure that you cite non-Christians whenever possible. Don't cut the Christians out but just add extra references to non-Christian sources. If it helps to keep people like Noloop from doing this then its a great idea.Griswaldo (talk) 17:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• That's exactly what I am trying to convince you since a couple of days ago. Good to know that you agree now. --Cyclopia^talk 17:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• OK, fair enough, but what we have been arguing about, I think at this point in a pretty silly fashion but maybe you are less self-deprecating than I am, is whether or not they need to be attributed inline as Christian, etc. Anyway I need to stop the senseless bickering over this. Time for me to move on. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Please avoid referring to the religious affiliations of genuine scholars in the article, because it actually is irrelevant. Use it on the talk page, if necessary. Anthony (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• It is not irrelevant at all. It is relevant context. Scholars do not live in a vacuum, a Christian priest will have a definitely different perspective on Jesus than a Jew, or an atheist. --Cyclopia^talk 21:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Noloop, while I can agree with favoring secular sources, there is no reason to exclude "religious" sources. And I seriously object to in-line identification of the sources religion or heritage. We don't identify scholars of works on the Civil rights movement by color, do we? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This time grandma IS lying in the gutter

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

Are you going to explain exactly what is the problem with material that is 1) referenced, 2) related to the historical Jesus in an article on the historical Jesus, 3) based on reliable, notable sources, 4) based on non-religious sources in an article that suffers from a shortage of non-religious sources, 5) placed where the context is the consensus (or not) of theories on the existence historical Jesus....? And, why exactly I should be banned for placing such material in the article? It is telling that you will start a section calling for a ban, but you have never started a section to discuss the content. Noloop (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You mean other than it is blatantly false? Did you miss this entire thread? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Noloop, the problem is that it is overwhelmingly considered a fringe theory. It should be discussed as such. Putting it in the lead violates WP:UNDUE. --Cyclopia^talk 19:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Document that with neutral, reliable sources. Until that is done, mass deleting referenced material based on content is POV-pushing vandalism. Noloop (talk) 20:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

In the edit you made, you used this reference for Bertrand Russell. It says very clearly that Russell's statement was incredible and it lists a few reasons of why. That's a plain misuse of a source. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you seriously trying to argue that it's not a fringe theory? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Noloop, sorry but you are completely and utterly wrong bringing in Christ Myth theory to that page; regardless of any merits of the theory. It documents solely historical records/reconstruction of Jesus as a historical figure. It is like adding elements of that page to the Christ Myth page :) which, clearly, is not required. See also links are fine --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 21:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

At this point, what I am seriously arguing is that nobody has documented it meets the definition of fringe theory. I can certainly believe that it is a minority theory, and an extremely unpopular one, but neither of those features make something fringe. As for "Christ Myth theory" as far as I can tell, that's just a POV fork. Theories that challenge historicity are immediately classified as "Christ myth theory" and moved to a different article. A violation of Wikipedian principles. Obviously legitimate scholarly theories that Jesus is not historical are part of the topic of historical Jesus. Noloop (talk) 23:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

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

This seems to be covered at Historical Jesus#Criticism as myth (which links to the main Christ Myth theory page). Anything more (especially a full paragraph in the lede) strikes me as giving undue weight to a fringe theory. Maybe a slight expansion of the section I listed but I am not convinced that is necessary. Mauler90 _talk 23:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Noloop, the correct place to discuss those theories/research is on the relevant page with criticism (as there already is) on the other pages. I don't see how this is even contentious! --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 08:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Typical example of objectionable editing

Here is a typical example of the sourcing in these articles. Wanting to disclose and limit it is proposed as grounds for banning me. Consider this paragraph from Jesus [35]

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

• 119 is just a Web site called "http://www.rationalchristianity.net" It is non-neutral, and also not reliable. There doesn't even seem to be an author for the page.
• 120 is "Dr Robert E. Van Voorst a Professor of New Testament Studies at Western Theological Seminary, ... received his B.A. in Religion from Hope College ... his M.Div. from Western Theological Seminary ... his Ph.D. in New Testament from Union Theological Seminary "
• 121 is published by Trinity Press (sounds secular, huh), and the author is a theologian [36]
• 122 is something called Christianity in the Making: Jesus Remembered, published by eerdmans.com an exclusively religious publisher [37]
• 123 is a book called An Evangelical Christology: Ecumenic and Historic, by a publisher that self-describes as "seeking to educate, nurture, and equip men and women to live and work as Christians"
• 124 is Marcus Borg, A Vision of the Christian Life, who states: "God is real. The Christian life is about a relationship with God as known in Jesus Christ. It can and will change your life."[38]

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

Totally agree with Noloop on this -this is a clearly biased collection. 119 should be removed on sight, and 123 and 124 are problematic as well. 120,121,122 don't know, but should be put together with other sources from other backgrounds. That said, Noloop, editors gave a multiplicity of sources about the consensus on the existence of Jesus on the various talk pages. --Cyclopia^talk 19:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Does no one even bother to find out what the overwhelming majority of scholars think? I don't know how often I need to post this, but I guess if I post it enough, someone will take the time to inform themselves. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You miss the point. This has nothing to do with what is actually the consensus, but with the sources used to document it in the article. The information may be OK but the sources used there are not. Since you collected a lot of sources in your FAQ, you can take outstanding ones from across the spectrum and substitute them to the ones currently present. --Cyclopia^talk 21:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Cyclopia here. There is no reason to have poor quality sources in this article.Griswaldo (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Also agree, I highly doubt there is a lack of sources out there. 119 should be removed and probably 123 and 124 as well. If possible it would be best to either replace the other ones with better sources or supplement them with some good reliable sources. Mauler90 _talk 00:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Topic Ban 2

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

• Agree To a topic ban for Noloop from all entries related to Jesus. Whatever the legitimacy of the more general debate going on here I think one thing is clear. Noloop is being disruptive.Griswaldo (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Agree per Griswaldo. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Disagree. While Noloop behaviour is concerning, I doubt a full topic ban so soon would help. I would appreciate an "half-ban", on the lines of "Noloop is required to propose changes on the talk pages and discuss them there, and edit on the article only when absolutely certain that consensus between editors is reached on his edits". Despite all the noise, he also gave some useful input and seems to act in good faith. We could try that, and see if it helps. --Cyclopia^talk 17:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Some kind of article probation of a sort? Do you want to draft an alternate proposal of a sentence or two and put it below? I think this might be a fair compromise depending on what you're thinking.Griswaldo (talk) 18:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Given that he has ignored the abundant references I, and others, have provided, I don't think it will do any good. But, I'm open-minded. What do you have in mind? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Disagree - This whole thing seems like a gigantic content dispute to me. I don't see why Noloop can't add the sourced content he tried to add (as discussed under the heading a couple spots above). It doesn't immediately strike me, as a third-party with no dog in this fight, as pushing a POV or disruptive, it actually looks like interesting, scientific material to me. Kindzmarauli (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• What you describe as "interesting scientific material" is a fringe theory -- Christ myth theory. I'm sorry you didn't realize this but that's a fact.Griswaldo (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose pretty much per Kindzmarauli. This seems a very complex content dispute that should be sorted out through mediation and not by simply topic banning someone. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 19:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. The historicity of the figure of Jesus is open to debate - banning someone who wants to add reliable sources that discuss this looks very much like religious censorship. This isn't Conservapedia. Asking for sources from genuine scholars rather than Christian evangelicals seems reasonable! Sure, you can mention that Christian apologists believe that Jesus was an historical figure, but it's the academic view that should hold weight in articles. As for the Christ myth theory, surely Wikipedia isn't presenting the events in the Gospels as fact, is it? And are Thomas L. Thompson and George Albert Wells fringe theorists, or are they rather academics? I rather think it is the latter. Their ideas might be inconvenient for Christians, but that doesn't make their arguments at all "tin-foil hat". Fences&Windows 19:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose As this thread evolved it became clear that all parties here go way beyond what we would like to see. Noloop seems to be in the minority position who demands to see more evidence for the actual existence of Christ, but on the other side editors are pushing their POV that Christ not only existed but conducted indeed (historically) a lot of things attributed to him. I think all involved editors should probably stay away from these articles for a few weeks to cool down, but singling out Noloop is too harsh. Arnoutf (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Most of the points have been made above, but most importantly there is considerable academic opinion that questions the historicity of Jesus and it is legitimate to note this appropriate articles. Frankly I find it worrying that a ban or limitations should even be suggested.--SabreBD (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• It was suggested because it is usually thought to be disruptive when people try shoving fringe theories into the leads of legitimate entries. Apparently you all don't think it's a fringe theory. That's news to me.Griswaldo (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• oppose - disclosure, I found a link to this on the fringe theories notice board, where such issues usually start. This is a good faith content dispute with name calling. EVERYONE needs to do better both with sourceing and clearly keeping to the edits and material and not each other. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

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

• Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#If_a_majority_.28or_all.29_of_the_sources_for_factual_claims_about_Jesus_are_Christian.2C_is_it_proper_to_mention_that.3F
• Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources#Are_there_guidelines_for_conflict_of_interest_among_sources.3F
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive626#Ari89:_Repeated_bad_faith.2C_personal_remarks.2C_etc.

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

• Oppose and as mentioned above, seek mediation Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Mediation only works if both parties agree. I don't see that happening here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• Partially oppose - I don't think a topic ban is necessary at this point but I would support that Noloop be required to take it to the talk page first (per Cyclopia). Frankly I don't think mediation would work at all. Mauler90 _talk 22:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Return to original topic

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

There are several issues in the last couple of days that intertwine. I try to summarize most of them (my POV on them included).

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

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

I'm not sure disclosing one's POV or background vis-a-vis a religious topic is necessarily going to help anything. The very religious and the radically atheist editors tend to make it pretty apparent what they believe, and those editors tend to make up their own minds about what you believe if you don't fall into one of those categories. I highly doubt that the POV warriors on either side would take me seriously if I disclosed my own background so why bother.Griswaldo (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I ignore your bickering, Noloop, yet you cannot help bringing me up in everything you say. The fact that mainstream academia does not agree with your perspective is not my problem so do take the grudge somewhere else. The reason I believe no one but you has concern with your accusation of inappropriate canvassing is because only you seemed to see me stating "all input appreciated" on the exact same issue on a directly related page per wp:canvassing as a conspiracy "to oppose my perspective". --Ari (talk) 04:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Move it to an RfC

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

• Agree. --Cyclopia^talk 12:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Agree . Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Agree - Starting an Rfc seems for the best, as this ANI issue has reached WP:TLDR. Jusdafax 12:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Agree: WP:TLDR, taking up half of ANI (As Xeno says, this board is for problems requiring immediate admin attention, not long drawn out discussions. N419BH 13:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Concern: Request for fake third-party websites

On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J-sKy, an astute editor noticed that the page's author has requested fake third-party websites to make a topic look notable. There seem to be lots of issues here. How to handle this? — Timneu22 · talk 12:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Not much we can do. I don't suppose it happens much. The advantage is that such requests are likely to be discovered by wikipedians and cause us to take a long hard look at the article in question. We're more likely to identify bs if people post like this than if they simply fill the article with invalid sources that are never reviewed.--Scott Mac 12:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Given that any deletion discussion would result in people checking the references to make sure they were reliable (i.e. not plasterboard mockups), I agree that this doesn't need special treatment in general. In this particular case, where the author has already been found out, it's even less likely to escape scrutiny. I have notified the user of this thread, though. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, unless he gets his fake pages hosted by reliable organisations (e.g. on hte NYtimes pages) editors will easily see that the pages are indeed fake, hence not reliable, hence of no relevance to the notability issue. Arnoutf (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

There's a bid on the request: "I am User:SqueakBox on wikipedia with over 50,000 edits to my name..." (User is already notified of this thread.) MER-C 14:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• SqueakBox has apparently previously written a Wikipedia article for payment [39] [40]. Not immediately obvious who the artist was, so don't know if there's a problem with the article - it might be an impeccably sourced offering on a notable artist that just didn't have an article. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Looks like it's Mario Zampedroni. The dates (The bid was on March 18 and the article created on March 19) and the fact it's an Italian artist fit perfectly. Now, how notable does that article look to other people? The phrase I'm reaching for already is "borderline". Black Kite (t) (c) 14:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I was thinking more along the lines of this, actually... NW (Talk) 14:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Agreed. The only thing close to a claim of notability there is the six art prizes, and for all we know, that just means he was voted the top artist in his high school class. If not A7, I see a Snow AFD delete in that article's future. As to the original topic, the requester obviously doesn't understand Wikipedia's rules for reliability. He can pay to fake any website he wants, it wont be notable, and he can't fake real coverage in reliable sources. Resolute 14:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
        • And the six art prizes aren't referenced, apart from that it doesn't actually make a claim of notability. The one third party reference is just a listing and I can't find any decent 3rd party sources that aren't similar. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
          • ...and it's gone. That really wasn't a clever idea by a seasoned contributor. I wonder if he does refunds? Black Kite (t) (c) 14:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Well, OrangeMike has zoomed in with A7. Might have been better to leave it for a few minutes if a debate on SqueakBox was going to follow, but if those who saw it confirm it was A7, I suppose that's good. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• [41] sounds like those art prizes were just for coming top of the class.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • ...and that was the only (possibly) 3rd party ref in the article, and to be honest it looks user-generated as well. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, I was going to drop SqueakBox a note suggesting that it would be prudent to withdraw that bid immediately. But I didn't find the article that Black Kite found above, and in light of recent events was wary that this might be someone impersonating SqueakBox outside of Wikipedia. (It's already happened, after all.) The assumption of good faith leads to the conclusion that SqueakBox simply mechanically bids on everything that contains the keyword "Wikipedia", and hadn't paid too close attention to the tender. (It's not even a request for a Wikipedia article, notice.) This would be reinforced by SqueakBox taking immediate action, as soon as xe becomes aware of this, to withdraw any bids for writing fake articles. I hope (and indeed expect) that we will see exactly this happen. Uncle G (talk) 15:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • It appears that Squeakbox has also won a bid for another undisclosed article. It may be better for him to come clean about this one as well (he also has outstanding bids for 3 other projects). Black Kite (t) (c) 15:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
    • It has been discussed before on the editor's talk page. [42] Anthony (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, and given that he said "I am happy to say I wont use this or other accounts to do work for payment now or in the future without being transparent about what I am doing" ... Black Kite (t) (c) 15:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
        • It might be the case that bidders have no control over whether the projects they bid upon are made public. Uncle G (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
          • Indeed; in which case he needs to make the other article (if it is a Wikipedia article) which he has won the bid for public. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
            • The other bid was for Roozz, which has already been taken care of. ThemFromSpace 16:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Thank you for that confirmation. That statement there, as well as my own experience of SqueakBox, supports my hope that SqueakBox's immediate actions, upon learning of this, will be to reject any requests for fake articles. In fact, based upon past experience, I fully expect xem to do so in quite strong terms. ☺ So let's see. Uncle G (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• Unfortunately solicitation such as this isn't too uncommon. Our best defense is vigilance and we need to point it out whenever we spot it. As regards SqueakBox, I've spoken with him about this in the past and he has given his word that he will edit within our guidelines. Since that time I haven't seen any disingenuous editing coming from him, although I have found it odd that he continues to bid on freelance jobs. I suppose we can't prevent him from doing so, as long as he abides by our guidelines when on our site. ThemFromSpace 15:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• freelancer.com is absolutely acrawl with bids from employers to create Wikipedia articles. As an impoverished freelance writer myself, I admit I'm both fascinated and nauseated by the idea that people are doing this and getting away with it. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • No problem with that, I would say, if the work is 100% policy compliant. If a really notable person wants some experienced editor writing a neutral, sourced article on him and gives some money to an editor for that, good, it doesn't harm anyone. Of course the case discussed here is an entirely different thing. --Cyclopia^talk 16:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree with Cyclopia; if the creator of an article abides by our policies (npov, verifiability, notability and so on), then the fact he got paid is a non-issue for me. On the other hand, an editor who wrote article not abiding by our guidelines would be a problematic user, even if he did that gratis et amore dei. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• Isn't it time that one or the other of the proposals at WP:PAID were formalised, if this is so commonplace? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I think it's happening all the time. How many companies aren't tarting up their pages? What responsible PR agency would neglect a client's page? WP:N and other policies are all that is needed. Anthony (talk) 17:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
    • It's happening, if the comments about the employee's manager are true, in the section of this page immediately below this one. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
      • The spammer even identifies himself by name while explaining that his spam has been deleted and his manager is angry at him; but in this case, the spammer is apparently an employee, not a hireling. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• SqueakBox has withdrawn from the bid. See also what xe wrote on this matter. Uncle G (talk) 01:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:NLT block on a corporate spammer

User:InformationNC is an admitted COI account for an employee of Cedar Fair Entertainment Company (NYSE:FUN). A new spam article of his was deleted, and he demanded that it be restored (his manager is very upset!) or he will sue us. I gave him his second no-spam warning (he'd already gotten one for multiple edits to the company's article), and blocked him under WP:NLT. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Right on. Toddst1 (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If you felt like being sassy, you could have told him to go the manager of our complaints department, Helen Wait. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This looks like just a hoax attempt rather than corporate spam as such. Neither of the two new theme parks the account created articles on appear on Google anywhere, including Cedar Fair's own site, and a new Cedar Fair park would certainly be big news covered by media outlets if it were real. In any case, a legal threat is a legal threat, so good block. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Outing

User:Commator is obsessed with outing one of our editors (see User talk:Commator). I've given him a one-week block, but his method of "appealing" the block is to repeat the same outing information over and over, with the assertion that it's okay because the editor once admitted that this was his real-world name. Would somebody not previously involved take a look at this, especially since (full disclosure) the outed editor is somebody with whom I share some real-world contacts? I'm tempted to blank everything outing-related and take away Commator's right to edit the talk page; but I want the judgement of other editors to supplement or correct my own inclinations and make sure I'm not biting the nube. (For one thing, his native language is not English.) --Orange Mike | Talk 16:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Er, if this person has outed themself on WP already, how is this a violation? If the person in question has asked to not be referred to in that fashion, then it's trolling, not outing. Jtrainor (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• The allegation is that the editor has outed themselves elsewhere, not here (if I understand Commator's broken English correctly). --Orange Mike | Talk 17:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • They outed themself on your talk page yesterday. Calling someone by their real name can be disruptive, but so can editing an article about yourself without acknowledging your COI. Fences&Windows 18:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Yeah, someone should put a notice on the talk page or something. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
      • He plainly told OM who he is,[43] so I don't see how blocking Commator for "outing" is appropriate. There might be other reasons to block him, but not that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • It might be worth reviewing the deleted versions of User:TheRealFennShysa, which contain biographical information that stood from 2004 to 2007, as well as this edit from 2006. Uncle G (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
    • This said, harrassing someone over their real life identity because Commator clashed with them on another article (3D modeling) and saying to an admin that "I can't take seriously the arguments of human who is a kind of odd person (feminist, lesbian)" does make me think we would be better off without their input. Fences&Windows 18:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, one could easily argue for a block that's based on personal attacks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
      • FisherQueen was laudably calm about that. It's one of the things that comes with the territory of trying to explain things to people, unfortunately. People get the oddest of wrong ideas into their heads, sometimes. And language barriers don't help matters. But as reactions to blocking go, it's not the worst by a long chalk. Uncle G (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Strange goings on with Eliteimp and 90.207.76.207

Resolved

 – Editor blocked 1 week, clearly a member of WP:BITECLUB SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

As I'm involved then I can't use my prodigious admin powers, so I am bringing this here.

Yesterday, I was involved in a discussion over inclusion or exclusion of negative but sourced information on a BLP. I was in favour of including it, which article this was is by-the-by. Following this an IP user (90.207.76.207) tried to get me to intervene at Brian McGinlay, where there was also a dispute over some negative details (diff). I declined to do so as I felt it was improper canvassing; I may not have been as polite as I could have been, but I'm not interested in being toyed with. The IP responded by citing WP:BITE and calling me a "fool" (diff; I was obviously shocked by this and I gave them an NPA warning, which they blanked, as is their right. I wondered whether anyone familiar enough with Wikipedia to cite WP:BITE can be said to be a newcomer, and then I blanked the section on my talk page as I considered my involvement in this matter to be at an end.

Today, User:Eliteimp undid my section blanking and berated me with the edit summary "rp", which is a standard abbreviation for "reply". This is odd as I had not previously addressed Eliteimp. Then the IP replaced Eliteimp's signature with their own. At the BLP noticeboard, they have blamed a "shared computer" (oh, that old excuse: Wikipedia:My little brother did it). Off2riorob and Tmorton166 both kindly commented on how both the IP and Eliteimp are active on the BLP noticeboard, and how the IP has been attacking other users. Note that at Talk:Rangers F.C. the IP recently supported Eliteimp's position, and the times of the edits by the IP match the peak of editing by Eliteimp.

I think the IP is only here for disruption and that it is the sockpuppet of Eliteimp, or else Eliteimp's account is compromised. I have not opened an SPI as I think this so clearly passes the duck test, and also because the issue is not only sockpuppetry. Fences&Windows 16:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep, support Fences and windows comments. Strange goings on indeed, loudly quacking and uncivil to boot. Off2riorob (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Some extra background. I ran into this user over edits to Hugh Dallas, Gordon Strachan and Brian McGinlay; he/she was adding material with inappropriate wording & unsourced allegations. We had a fairly polite spat over the content and I asked for outside help from DGG because I was unsure of the best approach (and if I was even correct in my actions). On his advice I took some of the issues to BLP/N which is where Off2riorob become involved. After that petered out things seemed fine for a bit till yesterday an IP was back making similar additons & rollbacks which then extended to other BLP cases I have been trying to help with. It has not concerned me up till now - the use is addign some good content/sources and, to my mind, is just a bit over-zealous in wanting to add allegations of BLP articles. But with the addition of these edits by Eliteimp I am less sure the user is acting in good faith. One final comment: at the time when I asked DGG for help (in good faith) the IP user was a bit put out by it - citing (IIRC) WP:CANVAS. I responded by telling him I would encourage him to bring in other uninvolved editors to provide a wider consensus - this may be what prompted the message to Fences. Uh, hope that is helpful. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 16:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Block - The contribs of IP and Eliteimp have a similar language and style, and same preoccupation with UK football. Passes the WP:DUCK test. Support block for edit warring, personal attacks, and sock puppeting. LK (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree this new found information regarding the IP user and User:Eliteimp is very very strange. The IP has used various addresses in the past couple of weeks User talk:90.194.100.16, User talk:194.80.49.252, User talk:155.136.80.35, User talk:90.197.236.12, User talk:90.197.224.58. Ranging from referenced additions to blatent vandalism. And is certainly not a new user.

I did find it odd that someone who has taken such an interest in Wikipedia all of a sudden has not created a user account (are they trying to hide something or not let users track their additions) and in these differing addresses the person is somehow using the same computer as User:Eliteimp? Odd. Monkeymanman (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Block We are far to patient with these trolls. There is a clear pattern of disruption here. Block Eliteimp until/unless we get a promise of civility, and a no-contact agreement. Block the trolling IP's outright and give them the standard offer. I am not for punitive blocks, but we have to stop problem editors in their tracks, put them on the right track, or block them. --Adam in MO Talk 23:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• I'd agree with a block. (It seemed to me a little odd when it was questioned whether I was biased over a sport I care nothing about & people I never heard of.) Personally , I consider the repeated additions of the negative material clear evidence of malicious editing, the very sort of thing BLP policy was designed to prevent. Normally I'd favor a final warning in this, except that the insistence on continuing the additions gives no indication of possible improvement DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
• Block - Either a lengthy one or indef. Abusive and disruptive. Jusdafax 13:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Asterisk schools

There's a disturbing trend here. Look at my recent move log; three articles by three different people were about schools where the article title started with an asterisk. I don't think this is coincidence. Are these sock puppets? Maybe there's a page creation template wrong somewhere? What the heck is this? — Timneu22 · talk 18:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• It could be an attempt to make it come to the top in an alphanumeric list. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• (ec)Without venturing a guess on the broader question, my best guess is the asterisk comes from opening the edit window of the school district list here Comal Independent School District and copy/pasting from the bulleted list.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I also thought it was for some alpha list, but this isn't really AAA Taxis, is it? I like cube lurker's thought, but man I hope this stops soon! — Timneu22 · talk 18:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
    • (ec) Since nobody has asked either of the three editors, I can only guess, but two of the accounts were created in the same minute and the third one a short while later, and all three schools are in the same area of Texas. Could this be some sort of "computer summer camp"? —DoRD (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Something like it, I'd guess, as all are real names that a quick Google search shows to be employees of the ISD. Would either CSD as COI experiments or redirect back to the ISD article and slap COI notices on all five of them (two haven't made articles yet). -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 19:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Also, WP:PRECISION isn't needed on these titles. Should I move them again? (Note that I don't have move-and-delete rights, so it's annoying for me to do it.) — Timneu22 · talk 19:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• this edit seems to provide the explanation for what occurred. Uncle G (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Well done! There still may be a COI problem here, but I'm not sure it's horrible. These articles aren't promotional, and like most school articles they are lifetime stubs. — Timneu22 · talk 19:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
    • There might be a copyright problem here. It would be worthwhile identifying what WWW site was being referred to in this edit. Show me that the text has been swiped from someone else's copyrighted non-GFDL work and copied wholesale into Wikipedia, and I'll zap them. Uncle G (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
      • The copyright violation removed in that edit was taken from http://www.comalisd.org, specifically [44]. That same site is being provided as an external link in these new articles, and they don't appear to be copyvios to me. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Thank you for the pointer. There's a parallel page on that WWW site for Rahe Bulverde Elementary (Bulverde), it turns out, and the text of that article was lifted wholesale from it. Uncle G (talk) 23:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • (ec) As for AF's comment, the district website shows that each of the people are teachers at the schools they edited. As elementary and middle schools aren't inherently notable, I suppose the articles should be deleted and the redlinks removed from the ISD article. —DoRD (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm not against deletion, but A7 doesn't apply to schools. Should these be bulk-AfD'd? — Timneu22 · talk 19:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
      • I'd PROD the whole lot, but if someone wants to speedy them, they'll hear no arguments from me. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 19:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
        • I've {{prod}}ed them. TFOWR 20:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Since it was overlooked, I went ahead and notified all three about this thread. —DoRD (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Golan heights is not occupied‎

Resolved

 – Blocked by Edgar181 (talk · contribs). -- ChrisO (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please block Golan heights is not occupied‎ (talk · contribs · count)? This troll is obviously the same individual as User:Golan heights is our (talk · contribs · count) which was itself blocked for block evasion. This troll has now gone and vandalised Belfast but has curiously not edited Golan Heights in this incarnation, only its talk page.

And no, I've not notified the user's talk page. If you look at the edit history, it will be obvious why a bit of quick squashing is needed rather than giving them more chance to troll.

There's something a bit odd with the bad English and the behaviour, it may be worth a Check user in the longer term to see whether this user is really someone else.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I've indef blocked for the trolling, but having a checkuser take a look might be a good idea too. -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ed.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Administration action needed to stop an AFD edit war

Resolved

 – No edit war, just a very, very bad closure that was swiftly and correctly reverted HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

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

---

Entirely uninvolved admin here agreeing with HJ's {{resolved}} tag. —DoRD (talk) 01:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell is voting to delete this so closing this ANI thread is a huge conflict of interest. Wikipedia can't be corrupt like this. MVOO (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it is resolved. If you don't think that HJ Mitchell's resolvetion isn't valid, then consider this my own resolve. (X! · talk)  · @084  ·  01:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The AFD was concluded as no consensus. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FDick_Cheney%27s_health&action=historysubmit&diff=374611126&oldid=374611081

Maybe there was an off-wiki effort because the no consensus closure was removed and a flood of delete votes poured in. Whatever happened, people are edit warring to remove the original decision and keep the 7 day AFD open. This kind of anarchy is no good.

I read the AFD rules carefully and there is no rule that says AFDs can be re-open. It says that AFD disputes are sent to Deletion Review.

So an administrator should seal the oil leak and shut down the AFD to it's original conclusion, i.e. no consensus. If you don't like it, deletion review.

I personally believe it is not a no consensus but a keep because the article, Health of Dick Cheny, meets WP:GNG because it there is significant coverage year after year, the coverage is reliable, the sources are ironclad like CNN, it is independent of the coverage (the sources of his heart attack is not dickcheney.com). Just because the article is not perfectly written does not mean it gets deleted. Otherwise 70% of Wikipedia gets deleted. MVOO (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be a mistatement of the actual situation. Yes User:RN, closed the AfD then changed his mind about the closing and reopened it himself[45] and noted so himself[46]. You then came in, voted keep[47] and then tried to close the AfD as no-consensus[48]. This is a blatant violation of policy as you should never, ever close an AfD that you yourself have voiced an opinion in, nor is it appropriate for you to try to do a non-admin closure on an AfD that an administrator choose to allow more time for comments. Nor is anyone edit warring over it. A different admin, User:Courcelles, reverted your very inappropriate attempt to close it which goes against the guidelines of Non-admin closure.[49] -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 00:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. As would nay administrator in their right mind, especially when the editor attempting to force the discussion to a halt at their preferred point is the creator of the article that is the subject of the AfD! Admins are perfectly within their rights to change their mind about their own actions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Courcelles is against the article and wants it deleted. So he is complaining and reverting my implemention of the original closure. HJMitchell is citing something but despite my request, refuses to show the policy which permits it. On the other hand, I showed him the policy that deletion review is the place for disputes with the original AFD closure. The original closure was done by an admin and was no consensus. MVOO (talk) 00:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

As I noted, and I am totally neutral in this, the administrator who closed it also reverted his closure which he IS allowed to do. It is "your" article, you !voted in the AfD, and you had absolutely no business trying to close it again. At most, you should have asked the RH if he was ready to reconsider closing it, but your obviously biased attempts to save "your article" are not helping anything at all, and very likely to lead you to getting blocked for disruptiveness. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 00:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Please cite policy that re-opening AFDs are allowed. I read it and it said that if you don't like it, go to deletion review. I am merely upholding the original decision. MVOO (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I was so polite that I didn't even vote in the AFD. The people who are disruptive are HJMitchell who closed this ANI thread and he also wants to delete the article. Please inform him that his actions are bad. I did not try to save the article because I tried to be very neutral and not edit it or vote for it until AFD closure. Then it was closed as a no-consensus before the shannigans started. MVOO (talk) 00:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Please, read the first sentence of Wikipedia:Undeletion policy#Deletion review. An admin can change their mind. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 00:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I will, thanks. MVOO (talk) 00:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Sorry, but my diff above shows clearly that you did vote in the AfD immediately before trying to close. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 00:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Also, please do not strike someone else's comments, for it is considered rude, and try to avoid edits such as this, that will only get you blocked. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 00:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if it is rude but it is wrong to close a thread to stop discussion. HJMitchell wants the article deleted and when I said it is against process, the correct thing to do would be discussion, not closing the thread. Please do not show favoritism by threatening me but not threatening HJMitchell for conflicts of interest and trying to win a debate by closing the discussion. MVOO (talk) 00:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sigh.... all that happened is that I closed it, asked for a second opinion just to be sure, after which I reversed my decision - within an hour. That's it. No drama, cabals etc. involved. Ryan Norton 00:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Alright, I don't have much to say about this, as I voted, I obviously couldn't close the AfD, but I did revert MVOO's close, as it is obviously inappropriate for someone to vote, and minutes later close the discussion. (I did this before I noticed he had created the article.) Deletion process says that a non-admin close may be reverted by any administrator, and was justified both by the contentious nature of this AFD and MVOO's clear conflict of interest. It needs a truly impartial admin to close the discussion, and then it can go to DRV if desired; RN was perfectly within his rights to revert his own closure. Courcelles (talk) 00:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggested outcome

This is a huge mess. The best outcome (which pleases nobody) would be for RN to state that his re-opening the AFD opened a huge can of worms and to defuse it, he should restore his original decision. He could then remind others that AFDs can go to deletion review but that would prolong the fight. Instead, the other editors can try to improve the article for a week or two and then after a normal period (see other articles to gauge), a 2nd AFD could be submitted. These suggestions are to calm the situation. I would judge that resolution as fair even though I actually favor something else. MVOO (talk) 01:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but no, that is not the "best outcome", it is the outcome you personally prefer because you want the article kept. His reopening it was perfectly normal and acceptable, and it did not open a "huge can of worms", he simply decided to allow more time for opinions (in essence relisting it). You are the only one upset by it, for presumably obvious reasons because new comers to the discussion are clearly leaning it towards delete. A second AfD is not needed, nor is DRV. These suggestions do not "calm the situation" as, again, the only upset party is you because your article is still in a "fight". The best outcome would be for you to calm down already and stop trying to assign any wrong doing to the reopening of the AfD. It was done within policy and seems acceptable to everyone but you, the article creator. It would be prudent for you to drop the stick, stop claiming hysteria/fighting/massive edit warring where, in fact, there is none, and simply allow the AfD to continue on its course. Also cease making these unnecessary attacks on a variety of other editors trying to claim some "cabal" or conspiracy to get the thing deleted. Everything was done to policy except your attempt to close an AfD you are personally involved with and had voted with, an action you still have yet to either acknowledge nor apologize for. It would have been polite of you to mention that you also went to Jim Wales to ask him to save your article[50] (and to tell him of his ANI thread). In either case, it appears the AfD has now been closed by a completely neutral admin who deleted the article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 01:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

People hate the word "cabal" but the fact is very clear. One of the administrators who voted "delete" then wrote to another administrator asking him to take care of it. That person (Tim Song) then promptly deleted the article. Only Tim Song was asked. Courcelles clearly knew who to ask to have the article taken down. Who gives a shit about Dick Cheney's heart attack in Wikipedia (or some stupid TV episode or obscure author or tiny high school)? What is worse then that is this whole mess shows how there is a lack of transparency and order in Wikipedia. Please can say "step back" but the really wise would learn that an admin can be heavy handed and not do things honorably in Wikipedia but take that attitude in life and you might get bit in the arse. Unless you become the head of a little fiefdom, like a city zoning head, and then you only have to worry about the mayor. MVOO (talk) 01:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

To add, the "flood" of votes most likely came because you posted about it here, FAR more people watch this page then participate actively in the AFD discussions, so drawing attention to the AFD got a lot of people who normally may of never seen it to vote. — raekyT 01:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I never saw the AfD till MVOO brought it here. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

From a glance it looks like in the time between the reopening and this thread the AFD got 3 deletes and 1 keep (MVOO), afterwards it got another 4 delete votes. As I said on Jimbo's talk page, if you don't like it do what you kept stating should be done here...take it to deletion review. Mauler90 _talk 01:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

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

It's stick-dropping/stop-dead-horse-beating/let-it-go time. (X! · talk)  · @120  ·  01:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Continued unrelenting personal attacks by Sweetpoet

Resolved

 – Sweetpoet blocked indefinitely by Toddst1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Mauler90 _talk 02:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Sweetpoet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As one can simply see by checking this user's block log, and their talk page, they have a history of personally attacking others. They continue to do so even as I type this report. I am reporting this user as an uninvolved user. I was alerted to them when as I have an Dougweller's talk page on my watchlist, and noticed them post there with a long insulting screed calling Doug an idiot, stupid, insane, a creep, dopey, a stalker, a troll... the list goes on. This needs to end now.

Now, as this user has been blocked several times for the same, as noted above, something like a week-long block may be needed. Perhaps longer, as they don't show any understanding that what they have done, and continue to do is wrong, or any remorse regarding it. They indeed show no signs of stopping.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• User notified.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

As a slight, further note, apparently this user was given a 'last chance' to get their unacceptable behavior under control. Seeing as how they haven't, and from further messages that they do not care for our policies, here, I propose an indefinite block for this user, given their history and willful disregard for our policy on such personal attacks.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

and I never WILL stop, as long as I'm provoked by RELENTLESS IDIOTS AND STALKER-TROLLS, such as yourself....as I made it clear to a number of editors and Admins that I SIMPLY DON'T CARE ANYMORE REALLY.... And also...this matter on my talk page was ALREADY REPORTED and discussed.... And they said to just leave it alone. You decided to chime in like a creep and give me your self-righteous (and inaccurate) lectures... I pointed out that user talk pages are NOT exactly the same as any other page, and verbatim WP policy that a user has a right to remove or retain anything he wants on his own user page. Maybe you need informing.......I DON'T CARE ABOUT THIS NONSENSE.....BLOCKS......UPTIGHT PSCYHOTIC STALKER-ISH EDITORS.....SLOPPY ADMINS.....AND ARTICLES REALLY. For real... So block away... I have more time for other things. But this is the thing.....when nutballs like Novaseminary, Glarfaklas (or whatever his name is), and now this Daed Head creepazoid, come to me and harass me with garbage, I'm only human.....and I'll tell them off for it. WP policy or no.....cuz as I said, I'VE HAD IT WITH THE BS......and I don't really care much anymore. peace out....Sweetpoet (talk) 00:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggest your insult caling me a stalker and a troll. Such, as explained, is strictly against policy. If you don't like our rules here, the door is on your left. Otherwise, continue to insult me. It is only another nail in your coffin.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

ok, you're extremely slow... (as well as an obvious stalker and troll) How's that for an insult? And again I care nothing about blocks at this point. I kinda made that clear... and I'm sure it'll happen anyway. Cuz it's obvious that no Admin will see your harassing of me on my talk page all the time, and will only focus uptightly on my name-calling. Not caring one iota what is provoking it. I'm telling you Doug and Ed.....NOVASEMINARY IS PURE POISON.

So what you're doing now is only provoking and goading me to go off further to get me blocked. I know it...... You're probably some MEAT PUPPET for that psycho Novaseminary. And I'll say this one more time (to you and to Admins out there who don't see full scopes of things many times)....I...DON'T....CARE....ABOUT...GETTING...BLOCKED...REALLY.

WP has some pluses, no doubt, but it has too many annoyances, maniacs, nit-pickers, morons, and weasels, and demoralizing types....to deal with anymore..Sweetpoet (talk) 00:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

(xpost to ANI and user talk pages)

Daedalus969, you're correct that he's crossed the line in terms of comment contents violating WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL - however, you also could have disengaged from this at any time, and have instead continued to provoke him. I don't think you intentionally baited him, but that's the end result. Please disengage.

Sweetpoet, you've crossed the line in your interactions with Daedalus. Please immediately stop insulting him and others here. You aren't allowed to tell him off in this manner. Please review WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. We expect you to act like an adult and to treat other Wikipedia participants with respect. They are human beings, too.

If you are not willing to do so, and won't tone down your interactions with other users, please walk away from Wikipedia rather than force us to block you indefinitely for abusing people. That's not a desirable outcome, but ongoing abuse is not OK either.

This is up to you. Hopefully you can edit in a constructive and civil and collaborative manner in the future.

To both of you: for the next 48 hrs, I am placing a temporary and limited interaction ban on you two. Do not comment on each other's talk pages or elsewhere on Wikipedia in any manner. Please think very carefully about any responses you make on ANI in this thread.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh, wow, Q.E.D., this editor needs to be blocked now. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 00:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Would recommend a 1 month block for User:Sweetpoet, definitely over the line. Mauler90 _talk 00:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I don't think Daedalus intentionally baited him but the effect ended up being similar. Giving one final chance to back down is IMHO appropriate. Another admin can of course do what you will given what evidence you see here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Sweetpoet's interaction with dαlus was not the only inappropriate personal attack Sweetpoet made within the last several hours. In response to my proposal to merge Separated brethren into Unitatis Redintegratio, Sweetpoet again devolved into personal attacks similar to, though nowhere near as egregious as, those discussed in the last report and in this report. Here is the diff (note that he says I am "unstable", "change (my) mind on a whim, and can't be trusted"). How many more chances should Sweetpoet get? He has made inappropriate attacks right here in this report, for goodness sakes. Rather than take the chance to back downb, he seems to have gone the other way. Novaseminary (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears that Toddst1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has blocked Sweetpoet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely, with talk page access revoked. I agree, this was getting too far, regardless of what Daedalus969 did or baited. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Marking this resolved then. Mauler90 _talk 02:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Wooblz!

Wooblz! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a long history of uploading coprighted images and oversize fair use images. This was brought here before [51] and here we are again with a deleted derivative work violation, an (oversized) modified album cover as an infobox image without any rationale, and uploading another oversized album cover over a more reasonably sized one [52]. I could link every warning this user has been given, but it would only be repetive, it's all in their talk page history and they have been given more than enough warnings. Given that the last warnings were ignored, I request than an admin use a technical measure to prevent them from continuing to upload copyright violations.--Terrillja _talk 01:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Here (admins only) is a list of his delete edits to filespace. I haven't taken a look at his talk page or any of the uploads in detail yet so I'm not yet corroborating the above. I'll poke around and see what might be needed. Protonk (talk) 04:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
• ok. A cursory look at the deleted images in his uploads shows most of them are in the past (i.e. earlier than April of this year). I won't disagree with the statement that he consistently uploads files larger than our policy allows even when smaller versions have been added to a file page and he has been asked not to do so. However I have a strong opinion that our file size guidance is woefully overbroad. There is no reason why we shouldn't have a 640x480 px image of an album cover as an image. Our file isn't competing with any intended use for the album cover--the commercial purpose of the album cover is to sell albums, not to sell itself. If we had a high-rez version of Tennis Girl, that would be inappropriate, as we would be competing with the expected commercial use for the non-free content. As it stands I'm willing to be pretty lenient when dealing with a user who uploads files with the expectation that they not look like shit. He has also been mentioned before on ANI, by you actually. I'm going back to check his talk page history now. If he's been warned using actual english (and not bot/template spam) I might suggest looking into a final warning. Protonk (talk) 04:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Final warned here and here, and warned about oversized images here (by an admin). At some point if users keep ignoring warnings, there has to be some consequence. I don't think that 600x600 is a reasonable file size, given that they will have to be rescaled to fit in an infobox and are clearly still of reusable commercial quality.--Terrillja _talk 04:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Resuable for what? Again, the album cover is art, someone paid for it to be commissioned and thought long and hard about the design (not usually...but I digress), but its purpose isn't to sell album covers. A 40MB .tiff image would obviously be inappropriate for us to host, but having an image size such that the resulting scaled image doesn't look like garbage should factor in to our decision making. And scaling isn't just cropping. If the original image is small, the density on the resulting page will be small as well. And I saw your warning. I mean has anyone actually taken the time to explain specifically what is wrong with an image, why and what our reasoning behind the rules are? As though this user was a human? Protonk (talk) 04:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's not discuss the ins and outs of image policy here. This user's practices concerning images are clearly not in line with our guidelines. The fact that templates were used doesn't mean they can be ignored. I have sent a personal message to this user in the past and it was seemingly ignored. Sfan00 IMG left a personal message about copyright requirements here, but according to this he was still uploading problem images. As per the previous ANI post about this user he was warned for copy paste moves, which he recently did again with Ian Watkins (Lostprophets). I warned him for this here +personal message. I don't get the recent fuss people are making about users being able to get away ignoring with warnings just because a template was used. Rehevkor ✉ 17:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

In good faith but horrible in practice

I found this user talk page, User talk:Mrluke485, disturbing. Everything this guy does is PROD'd, AFD'd, or CSD'd. It doesn't seem like a vandal, but just someone who needs serious userfication. Is there something that can be done here? I have not notified the user of this discussion yet; maybe this is a one-and-done conversation here, and I'm in error. — Timneu22 · talk 12:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This guy should be adopted or mentored, or, at the very least, he needs someone who takes the time to explain our policies (especially, WP:N). Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

And some idea about creating wikilinks. Hard to believe that a page would look like this after a user has been here for four+ months. — Timneu22 · talk 12:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I've issued a wakeup call. Let's see whether anything comes of it. Uncle G (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

His reply seems a bit combative. — Timneu22 · talk 16:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I was going to respond to this earlier but the power went out... Anyway, the reply in that diff is not very hopeful so I've followed up Uncle G's post. This could be a case of WP:COMPETENCE, but we'll see. EyeSerene^talk 17:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Wittsun topic ban

Resolved

 – Wording of topic ban clarified to properly reflect community consensus. User has been notified of change. No further admin action required. N419BH 14:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Wittsun (talk · contribs) is subject to a six month topic ban: "Wittsun is banned from editing any article, including talk pages, broadly related to race, ethnicity or religion for a period of 6 months." See Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. He was given a warning about this yesterday [53] and today has edited at WP:AN#Did we drop the ball on this? saying "Wikipedia has a problem.. but it is the exact opposite as the one stated by Horowitz & Co.David Horowitz" - the discussion is directly related to race, ethnicity or religion. As I've been involved with him before I don't want to be the first to block him, but this is too much and suggests that he isn't taking the ban seriously. I'll notify him now. Dougweller (talk) 13:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to wikilawyer, but the editing restriction refers to article and article's talk pages; I'm not sure the present wording includes AN and ANI... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 13:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I misread that (probably under the assumption that we don't want this on any talk pages). I read it as talk pages in general, which I think must have been the intention. Otherwise he could be over at BLPN making the sort of comments that got him banned, for instance. Dougweller (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't misunderstand me please, I supported and support a topic ban regarding all edits, but I don't think it would be fair to block him, this time. I'd rephrase the restriction, so that it matches the original consensus and let Wittsun off the hook, for this one time. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 13:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The original discussion called for a topic ban on "all ... edits relating to race, ethnicity, and religion", Black Kite may have simply not realized that the way he wrote it into Wikipedia:Editing restrictions allowed more than the proposed topic ban would have. –xeno^talk 13:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I can see the way I wrote it provides a bit of wiggle room which he's exploited. I will rephrase the wording on his talk page and inform him. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Well this is a bit awkward...I spotted this and fixed it during maintenance, and was on my way to Black Kite's talk to let him know about what has changed...but it seems this was spotted earlier. I think the only thing left to do is notify the subject of the restriction about the change in the wording, and that any future edits would result in enforcement of the restriction. But I don't think anything can be done about the presently reported violation due to this difference in understanding of how far the restriction extends. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, this particular one should not be enforced due to the discrepancy that was created. I've removed it from the WP:AN thread though - it is holding up the archiving of the stale thread. –xeno^talk 14:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::::Except that we now know that he is testing the limits and is editing in the same way that got him banned. That should be taken into account if and when he violates the ban. Dougweller (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've rephrased on his talkpage in the simplest way I can so that it covers all possibilities. Let me know if I've missed something. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the only thing is that you've now removed "articles" and just made it "edits". It would be the height of wikilawyering to try to say that one could edit an article on the banned subject area as long as the edit didn't concern the banned subject area per se, but it might make sense to pick that nit while we're here. –xeno^talk 14:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Surely any edit on, say, a religious article would be an edit related to religion, though? Unless it's (thinks of an example) a spelling correction, but in that case ... would it be worth tightening up even more, do you think? Black Kite (t) (c) 19:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It should be fine as is, but probably wouldn't hurt to clarify that it's both edits about, and edits to articles, on the topic ban area. –xeno^talk 19:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Fyodor7

Resolved

 – whacked a mole Toddst1 (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello all. "New user" Cosmas Indii (talk · contribs · count) made some posts today; he is clearly the same individual as CosmasIndi and therefore the indef blocked sockpuppeteer Fyodor7. I shan't be blocking the account myself due to my dealings with Fyodor, would someone else do the honors?--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I've tagged him as a suspected sock, since I can't actually block him, and notified him of the ANI discussion. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

edit request

Resolved

(I can't use an {{editrequested}} because the talk page is also fully-protected)

In User:Moulton, please replace link #6:

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Moulton

with a link to the request just before it was archived

• Request to Arbcom to consider unbanning/unblocking

The user himself updated the link at the time[54], but the update got lost in later edits[55]. Note that I use my own wording, not Moulton's wording. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I have merely added the permanent link alongside the existing link, and used the edit summary to link back to here. --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Tendentiousness on Akins

Yesterday I left a third opinion on Talk:Akins. Basically the issue was that one editor, Wyvren (talk · contribs), was removing verifiable, sourced text from the article that stated that the name of the clan could be attributed to English origin (rather than Scottish). We just completed a discussion about whether or not the source used was considered reliable, and even though Wyvren more or less agreed that it was okay to use, that's still not enough. Further, two other editors - the initial other person in the 3O and another outsider - agreed that the source was acceptable to use.

Wyvren is, in my opinion, a tendentious editor. I'm almost certain that they're a conflict of interest with the article; Akins Clan Member Crest Badge.JPG was uploaded by them (from their own work) following a discussion about the inclusion of the family tartan and crests. I had explained that the threshold for inclusion for Wikipedia is verifiability, to which they responded in this edit that "Wikipedia can be used as a tool for spreading misinformation, or for presenting a biased point of view". Then, after I expounded a bit on how verifiability works, they wrote that: "When someone without any viable interest in the article comes in and starts tampering with facts simply becauase they can, or because they have (for whatever reason) a grudge against the subject of the article; then I will endeavor to see to it that their efforts are thwarted as far as possible so that the useful, beneficial and factual cointent remains standing and unmolested by vandalism." If that's not tendentious editing, I don't know what is.

I'm sort of at a loss as to how to proceed here, hence the post. Based on the talk page there, this has been going on for several weeks, and it probably shouldn't continue on. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add that the reason I have constantly had to revert the article is because the user Brianann has an obvious bias against the subject of the article and is seeking to denigrate the subject by presenting an erroneous point of view by selectively citing questionable statements in his sources. I have made every effort to include as much reliable and authoratative information as possible which includes the sources cited by Brianann but does not present them in a way so that they will be purposely misconscrued as Brianann has done. I would like to ask that the version of the article that I have reverted be given full protection status to prevent further vandalization by Brianann and others. --Wyvren (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked Wyvren for 31 hours for edit warring. When dispute resolution steps (such as WP:3O) are being followed, one should not continue to edit war against the provider of the third opinion. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

A good block of an editor who typifies WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Anyone who disagrees with him is of course wrong. Dougweller (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, good block; though this is a short term remedy for what I think is likely to be a long term problem. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

User:JanDeFietser

I deleted User:JanDeFietser/wikipedistan001 earlier as an attack page after reviewing a google-translated version ([56]); note that the bottom of the page apparently contains a threat of a fine of 100 euros/day under some Dutch law for nl.wiki because the user's block on nl.wiki - apparently for legal threats (sulutil:JanDeFietser) - was supposedly illegal. The user has since recreated it with essentially the same content. Bringing it here for community review. T. Canens (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

There is NO legal threat. I am blocked on the Dutch Wikipedia since 06th November 2009 after the false accusations of an alleged "legal threat" that there wasn't at all. Quite strange , even after my clear confirmation dated 19th November 2006 I am still blocked there: there something very very wrong on the Dutch Wikipedia. My message seems enough to inform the community about that. Reactions are welcome, deletions not. Regards, --JanDeFietser (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I have re-deleted the page. This is not the place for it. Please do not replace it. James (T C) 16:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the reason for your deletion? It is not an "attack" page and there is no "legal threat". --JanDeFietser (talk) 16:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Reads more like a rant than a message. Could also be construed as an attack on the Dutch Wikipedia in general. Have you considered stating on Dutch Wikipeida "I retract any perceived legal threats made by me". On this wiki that's usually enough to be unblocked unless there are other reasons for the block to remain. That might solve your problem. N419BH 16:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, it isn't really an legal threat. I apologize for adding that part on to the deletion reasoning. However that stated it basically is an attack page and it does not belong here on enWiki. I understand you are frustrated and angry about your problems on nlWiki but this is not the place for that. James (T C) 16:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Both thanks for your reactions. The statement "to consider" was made already 9 months ago - under illegal duress by the way (art. 284 Dutch Criminal Code). That statement already dates from 19th November 2009. That clear statement was first placed on my user page, but then removed, and no deblocking followed until this day. Again, there is unfortunately something very very wrong on the Dutch Wikipedia. What do you both suggest is then a more proper place to inform the community on this problem? --JanDeFietser (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked into the details of your nlwiki block, but if you express yourself in legal terms such as "illegal duress" and citing laws over there as well, then I'm not surprised you're still blocked.--Atlan (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I can not promise you will get a better reception (they will obviously draw their own conclusions) but a more appropriate place would be a Request for Comment at Meta WikiJames (T C) 16:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

I'm just saying that when you're blocked for perceived legal threats, it doen't help your case to defend yourself with further legal speak.--Atlan (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Threatening to take your complaints about wikipedia to a judge is definitely a legal threat. And I don't know about the Netherlands, but in the USA there is no constitutional right to edit wikpedia, so blocking someone is in no way, shape or form "illegal". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

This reminds me of an old saying -- the more you yell in people's ears, they less they are able (and will want) to listen. Jan, you need to calm down here. Whatever this article was isn't the end of the world. Let it go. Start over again. The world will continue to spin. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

(Sigh) Ucucha is wrong: last year I defended myself against false accusations by users Cumulus and Peter b on the Dutch Wikipedia: then thanks to their deceiving of the Arbcom on 10th June 2009 I was forbidden to defend myself against these false accusations by both for a crime ("laster", art. 262 Dutch Criminal Code) that I did NOT commit and, absolutely unacceptable, the morbid and cruel depicting of me by the latter of an alleged "dancing on the grave" of a person who when alive happened to be very dear and important to me, and Cumulus and Peter b then could continue with their accusations, while other users on the Dutch Wikipedia even started to parrot them about this crime that I did NOT commit, on which arbitration was refused on 30th October 2009. @ Doc Quintana: Thanks for your kind words. But in spite of my clear confirmation dated 19th November 2009 I am still not deblocked and you have no idea of the damage that was done. I will inform you maybe later tonight or tomorrow about this by wikimail. --JanDeFietser (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No wories Jan. Trust me, I know how you feel. Step back for a little bit from it and you'll feel better. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing to prevent you from pursuing legal action against wikipedia. But if you do, or threaten to, then you are not allowed to edit on wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

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

I'm a bit confused. You've repeatedly stated that you were denied arbitration. However in perusing your block log on nl.wiki I noticed that you were actually repeatedly banned for violating an ArbCom decision about you. You were blocked no less than six times in only four months for vandalism, personal attacks and then finally the ArbCom decision. You apparently followed this up with a violation of NLT here where you apparently twice emailed the NL ArbCom threatening to sue in civil court for defamation. And you wonder why you got blocked? Mauler90 _talk 18:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I eagerly admit that you have indeed some reason to be or at least feel "a bit confused" when you see the practice on the Dutch Wikipedia.

When some user files a case against me, then I should also be able to file a case against him / her / them as well, but this very elementary stuff still has to be discovered on the Dutch Wikipedia.

In June 2009, I was falsely accused on the Dutch Wikipedia by two users, Cumulus & Peter b, of a crime that I did NOT commit ("laster", art. 262 Sr), and the latter depicted me also as "dancing on the grave" of a person who when alive was dear and important to me: such teasing is an absolutely not acceptable way to discuss matters on Wikipedia. In a procedure full of lies and fallacies from their side, while my defence was ignored, they succeeded in an extremely wide 'topic ban' of which the only purpose was forbidding me to defend myself against their false accusations, that Peter b continued to utter while pushing his POV (Cumulus was blocked then for a while for some other reason). In the meantime other users were parroting these false accusations of Cumulus & Peter b.

When I am not allowed to defend myself against (false) accusations on the Wikipedia, then these accusations itself should be forbidded as well, as I requested the Arbcom: however, this was finally refused on 30th October, shortly after I informed the arbitration committee on the damages that had emerged in the meantime. Please do not overestimate the admins on the Dutch Wikipedia. There was NO "vandalism", there were NO "personal attacks", just defence against the false accusations that every now and then seem to be rampant on the Dutch Wikipedia, and the deceiving of the arbitration committee by my accusers Cumulus & Peter b. Many users have left already the Dutch Wikipedia because of the atmosphere. They had less endurance than I do (I guess).

I suppose benevolently that the whole case was / is too complicated for the arbitration committee. That I "twice emailed the NL ArbCom" "threatening to sue in civil court for defamation" is a sheer lie from NL Arbcom-member Basvb, who himself threatened me on 6th November 2009 on the Dutch wikichat and behind my back concocted that block, again without any defence from my side (that seems to be quite "normal" on the Dutch Wikipedia?). Such persons with such behaviour should NOT be a member of an arbitration committee. There is something very very wrong on the Dutch Wikipedia. In spite of my clear declaration dated 19th November 2010 on that alleged "legal threat" that there was NOT, now in July 2010 I am still not deblocked.

I hope your feeling of confusion is a little less now. I want to take some rest now. Regards, --JanDeFietser (talk) 19:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

If this is regarding the nlWiki, shouldn't it be discussed through their appropriate venues, or barring that, Meta? Hazardous Matt (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

To echo what Matt has said. EN-wiki cannot resolve any issue with NL-wiki, so this is the wrong place to post. Sorry. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

RomaC. Referring to good-faith edits as "vandalism"

User notified

On July 19, RomaC (talk · contribs) referred to this edit as vandalism and posted an intimidating comment on the user’s page to that effect[57]. I would have let it slide but he did the same thing to me here. Back then, I was encouraged by two editors [58] [59] to file a complaint for incivility against RomaC but I was inclined not to. I regret not doing so because he keeps on engaging in the same behavior – that is, referring to edits not to his liking as vandalism. I am requesting that the editor be sanctioned for referring to good-faith edits that don’t comport with his view, as vandalism. I note that I was guilty of the same offense when I referred to section blanking as vandalism and that was partly the reason why I was blocked for one day (along with violating a 1R restriction)[60]. I ask that a sanction be imposed on RomaC. When editors are called “vandals” it fosters hostility and mistrust and is not conducive to collaborative editing.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The initial edit might be bordering on a POV edit. (It isn't because Hamas actually is classified as a terrorist organization by some countries, so if you say it that way, it defeinitely isn't POV). However, it isn't vandalism either way, it's a good faith edit. Roma may have confused POV with vandalism there. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

RomaC has too broad a definition of vandalism, that much is clear. However, a template warning is obviously not an "intimidating message". In fact, you went over to his talk page and did the same thing, rather than discussing what constitutes vandalism. Like before, I have to wonder why you run over to ANI when you aren't even involved in the dispute. Is Hope&Act3 not capable of dealing with this him/herself?--Atlan (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I most certainly am involved in the dispute because he did the exact same thing to me as noted above.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

And incidentally, RomaC's response to me was to imply that I was a Sock and this is the second time he's done so.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

A warning left to you on May 6 makes you involved in a warning left on a different user's talk page more than 2 months later? That's not involved. The 2 template warnings he left have nothing to do with each other. It can illustrate a pattern in his behavior (barely), but not your involvement.--Atlan (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently RomaC's response to you came on 25 June. Now I believe you're just cherry picking diffs to suit your case, as all the dates are so far apart.--Atlan (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This was his response [61] and that was today.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I think vandalism warning template 1 refers to edits as unconstructive so as to avoid any issue about good faith, but because the editor was already previously warned for vandalism by cluebot, TW suggested template 2 for it and that directly refers to it as vandalism by default. Seems like a mistake if anything, which comes back to the point that I don't see why or how this should have been escalated here straight away, and I certainly don't see a need for sanctions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

He has twice referred to me as a sock[62][63]and has twice referred to good-faith edits as vandalism--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

(e.c.) @Atlan: you're missing the discussion from where Jiujitsuguy learned of the abusive warning of RomaC to me and where I was saying that I meant to wait a few days before reporting him -I'm not the rushing to war type- and studying the proper procedure for that. Now I'm glad that he did learn about it so that now we all know that RomaC is in the habit of delivering this kind of aggressive messages I'm thus even more so ready to ask for sanctions against him (can that be considered as a proper formal request for sanctions?) it's so unpleasant to have to come to that, hopefully RomaC will accept to change his ways

@Jiujitsuguy: thanks for initiating the report and for letting me know, have all of you a good day, Hope&Act3! (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

@Ncmvocalist: Are you refering to my encounter with Cluebot? that was a 'false positive' you can probably find my answer to it, where ever it is, I wish its owner wd think of some way of returning a decent word acknowledging the mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hope&Act3! (talk • contribs) 17:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Two and a half years after the big ArbCom case on Israel-Palestine articles, I don't see any signs that there has been any improvement in the area. We still have a set of editors that seem to always find themselves in the middle of some Israel-Palestine squabble (and then drag the dispute to one of our lovely noticeboards). Perhaps they should just be categorically ignored and left to fighting their trivial proxy wars. But, as these types of threads get increasingly tiresome, I think it's time for either another ArbCom case or serious implementations of the sanctions from the first one. -- tariqabjotu 18:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Fred Barnes and Karl Rove

So we have the Daily Caller (a reliable source) quoting Spencer Ackerman (another relaible source) that we should call Rove and Barnes racists, yet editors keep edit warring against it. We need to prepare this 2010's Climategate. Once the focus turns to who leaked the emails, we don't want another mess for ARBCOM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.172.45.78 (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Ultimatums

Just wanted to ask, are you allowed to issue ultimatums on Wikipedia such as in the style of "if you don't do this within X hours, I'm going to do XXX"? I've come across one and it seemed bordering on blackmail to me. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)