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

Pagemove consensus formed on Wikiproject page

Perhaps there is nothing wrong with this, but I think the normal procedures have been circumvented. A page about something connected to Judaism (but also to classical antiquity and Christianity) being moved to a more Jew-centric article title with a discussion on Wikiproject:Judaism (Here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#Building_and_destroying_the_Beit_Hamikdash) instead of on the talkpage through the normal "requested moves" process.

I left a comment here: Talk:Second_Temple_(Judaism)#Page_move and notified the mover, but would appreciate some admin feedback.

This appears to affect multiple pages.

Cheers. --FormerIP (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why they did that, WikiProjects don't own article or decide their names. Feel free to list it at WP:RM to get a discussion beyond a single WikiProject. Fences&Windows 23:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Is that the only way to handle it? It would reverse the burden of proof, so that if there is no consensus it stays at the new address. --FormerIP (talk) 23:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the page move should be undone, and proper discussion to take place. The discussion and a vote was started at pretty much the same time, and the person who started the discussion decided the outcome. Apart from the temple articles, it was only judaism related pages that were notified, and I do not know why this wasn't listed at WP:RM. Quantpole (talk) 08:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Quantpole: It is only logical and correct to assume that a subject that primarily concerns Judaism and is critically important to it should be centralized at that subject's main project talk page as was done. Every religion's project talk page need not have been notified. Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc etc etc do not identify Judaism editors when holding serious discussions about topics that are central to their religions. Otherwise it would have become a real spam fest to notify dozens of pages when already ten had been. WP:RM need also not have been notified because at the outset the redirects and page moves could have been done by anyone in any case because at the time First Temple (Judaism), Second Temple (Judaism), Third Temple (Judaism) were all empty red links. (They have now been trimmed to the more neutral sounding, but still objectively correct First Temple, Second Temple, Third Temple.) "Proper discussion" as you call it did take place starting over two weeks ago and it was quite comprehensive. The outcome was decided by the consensus and the votes were a clear-cut and precise way of measuring and recording the outcome as each user either commented or voted or both. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 11:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, there's no point really going repeatedly over what should or shouldn't have been done (apart from that I encourage you to read WP:VOTE). However, now that there are concerns, the correct thing to do should be to reopen discussion to properly achieve consensus. To avoid a fait accompli in case consensus is not achieved, the old titles should be kept for now. Quantpole (talk) 13:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi again Quantpole: So far you and user FormerIP have that position that flies in the face of legitimate discussions and a clarifying vote that reached consensus and that even admin Fram (see below) has not done what you think based it seems more on WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT than anything else, which is not good enough. Admin Fram has been more reasonable and made the most neutral changes that everyone can agree to at this time. User FormerIP expressed some concerns and at that he mis-stated them when he said that there had been "no discussion" which has been proven to be false. Not only were there lengthy discussions but it was also proven and cited in the discussions that based on Google hits the terms First Temple, Second Temple and Third Temple are the most commonly and frequently used, and that one lone user's weak and unfounded complaint cannot be a basis for overturning the learned opinions of multiple users who supported and agreed to the changes, namely:

1. Slrubenstein,
2. Yoninah,
3. Mzk1,
4. Avraham,
5. Chesdovi,
6. Malik Shabazz,
7. ACogloc,
8. AMuseo

The above provided more than adequate consensus and it would be horrendous to call their votes into question. IZAK (talk) 01:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• All I am saying is now that the process you used has been called into question, the discussion should be reopened so that users outside of judaism related topics have the opportunity to comment. I am not calling anyone's opinion into question, and have not even expressed an opinion on the subject matter (I'd have to do some research first). Quantpole (talk) 07:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Quantpole: I have gone to great lengths to explain the background to these moves, something that the one complaining was not even aware of when he started his complaint. While at least eight users have agreed to the moves, only one has raised some questions now. We have gone back and forth and an admin has already made a useful decision, (see Fram's decision below) with good changes that are certainly very agreeable, reasonable and meet all aspects of WP:NPOV. That seems like a good way to end the matter for now. You are standing on the sidelines, admitting that you need to do more research, so why not go and do the research first and then come back when you are ready and your views will be gladly welcomed, but for now it serves no purpose. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 08:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
    • This is going nowhere, and you are not getting the point at all. The next step will be to list them at WP:RM. Quantpole (talk) 10:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
      • No it won't because an admin (Fram, below) has already reviewed the entire case and made the requisite WP:NPOV adjustments already. You are veering into WP:POINT territory and as far as I am concerned you are violating WP:AGF with me. IZAK (talk) 04:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
        • My moves were just a correction of the most basic errors with your moves. They do not mean that discussion has to end, and I have no objection whatsoever to a discussion at RM, or to the re-moval of these pages to other titles (as long as they follow the basics of the MoS, like no disambiguation when none is needed). If people prefer these pages at Second Temple of Jerusalem, Second Jewish Temple, Temple of Jerusalem (date build - date destroyed), or whatever is the most common name in the English literature about them, that's all fine by me. Please don't use my moves as a reason to end all discussion on this. Fram (talk) 07:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Fram, my moves were not "in error" they followed a lenghthy discussion to attain WP:CONSENSUS. Obviously the discussion is not over, it's been going on for 3,000 years. For some odd reason the Jewish temples seem to be subject to undue attention from non-Jewish sources as to what they should be, even if they should be built, exist or be destroyed, or what their names are or should be. It is logical to assume that the terms used in Judaism and by Jews should be the preferred ones for Jewish topics. Until now you had not clarified yourself, thanks for doing so now. In fact your moves were perfect and are supported by the research using Google that uses the terms "First Temple", "Second Temple", "Third Temple", more than any others. IZAK (talk) 09:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Apart from the fact that you did a copy-paste move instead of an actual move, that you didn't follow the Manual of style in your names, and that it is debated whether the method and location of the move suggestion debate was correct, you are right, your moves were not in error... And please don't bring in utterly irrelevant things like "it's been going on for 3,000 years". We are discussing the page names of some pages on Wikipedia, not the actual buildings and locations. You are incorrect in your assumption that the terms used by Jews or Judaism should be preferred. The most common terms in English should be used, no more, no less. Whether these names coincide with the preferences of Jews, Christians, atheist scholars of Antiquity, or any other group is not important and should not be taken into consideration. Please don't drag the religion of editors or the actual history of the buildings into this debate any longer, it is not helpful at all and only works to antagonize editors (by e.g. giving the impression that the opinion of non-Jews is irrelevant for this discussion). Fram (talk) 09:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Fram: As you can see from the very comprehensive discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Building and destroying the Beit Hamikdash you will see that it was proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that the terms "First Temple", "Second Temple", "Third Temple" are the more frequent terms based on hundreds of thousands of Google hits, so it is not just about choosing some marginal Jewish terms. In any case, this is a subject central to Judaism so there is no way really to "split hairs" and say that it should be kept out of WP:JUDAISM discussions where everything is up for discussion and very often editorial, naming and move decisions, actually nothing is excluded in the many years the Wikiproject has been in existence. In any case, anyone monitoring those pages could read the notices about the centralized discussion I placed on each one of them and was free to join the discussion so that no one was excluded on any grounds. The objections only started after the open-ended lengthy discussions, and after WP:CONSENSUS was clearly reached, and only after moves were made without any prior involvement in the discussions themselves by subsequent objectors. IZAK (talk) 23:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

All talk pages, and more, were notified about the discussions and proposed moves

Hi: The above depiction by User:Former IP is not correct. Firstly, there most definitely was a very lengthy centralized discussion open to all users for the sake of orderliness and reaching consensus was at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Building and destroying the Beit Hamikdash since 14 July 2010. Secondly, all users, no matter what "projects" they do or don't belong to, were notified on the relevant talk pages as well as a few other talk pages of effected articles were notified about the proposed redirect, also on 14 July 2010, (at a cost of being accused of "spamming" which it was not for this purpose), see:

1. Talk:Temple in Jerusalem#Correct names for the First and Second Temples
2. Talk:First_Temple,
3. Talk:Second_Temple,
4. Talk:Herod's_Temple,
5. Talk:Third_Temple,
6. Talk:Jerusalem, as well as at
7. Talk:Judaism,
8. Talk:The_Three_Weeks,
9. Talk:The_Nine_Days,
10. Talk:Tisha_B'Av

So relevant talk pages were fully notified and editors were given enough time to respond, as a decent amount did, but now with the "corrected" redirects for some pages, some of these older displaced histories may be not showing up for some odd reason, even though I have located them and they are still there in their original places. Therefore, users who still have or had (for the four articles moved) these pages on their watch lists had more than two weeks to partake, share their views and make comments and suggestions. Those editors who did were mostly reliable Judaic editors who are trustworthy and responsible. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I moved the three Temple pages to the undisambiguated version (i.e. without (Judaism) added to it). Pages shouldn't be at a disambiguated title when there is no need to disambiguate at all. The page move discussion was indeed mentioned on the talk page of the article, but it was very unclear that this was actually a discussion about a page move. Looking at the move discussion, there was clear support for having the pages at first temple and second temple, but much less support for moving them to the (Judaism) disambiguation as well. Fram (talk) 08:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Fram: This is very fair and equatable move by you and will lead to more coherence and result in less confusion stemming from conflicting names. IZAK (talk) 11:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

IMO, there isn't validity to the discussion at Wikiproject:Judaism, because it isn't an appropriate forum for discussion of a page move. As IZAK points out, it is technically true that this was open to all editors, but I think it is also clear that any discussion on the talk page of a Wikiproject is likely to be slanted towards the views of its members. Plus, WP has a process for page moves which was not followed. So I think, strictly speaking, the page should be moved back to where it was and a new discussion launched if needed. I think "Second Temple" even without the bracketed "Judaism" still reflects a Jewish POV and is insufficiently descriptive (v. recent porposal to move Second Amendment to the United States Constitution to Second Amendment).

Thanks, though, Fram. I should probably mention that you forgot to move the talk page. --FormerIP (talk) 11:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Think the views of a few admins as to what is best in the circumstance outlined would be useful. If admins would prefer to leave things as they are, I won't start a campaign over it, but I don't think it would set a good precedent. --FormerIP (talk) 11:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Former IP: You go too far when you allege and complain that "Second Temple" is a "Jewish POV" when the subject itself is part and parcel of Judaism and was for its entire history. The Two past destroyed Temples and the desire for a rebuilt Third Temple are central to Judaism and the Hebrew Bible and to the spiritual goals of all Jews throughout the millennia. To set the record straight the discussion was not just about a mere few page moves, as anyone can clearly see, it was about creating cohesiveness and uniformity in the entire subject starting with the names of the First, Second and Third Temples, even though they have alternate names, but the discussions showed that there are more Google hits from a number of directions for the First Temple, Second Temple and Third Temple names, and also starting discussions how to subsequently streamline this entire subject of the Three Jewish Temples and hopefully you do agree that they were and are Jewish Temples and that it is logical and reasonable to expect that they should be known by their Jewish names (in any case there is no problem with calling them First, Second, Third in English directly translated from Hebrew usages over the ages) and not by subsequent names thrust on them albeit in usage in some circles. As for your point that "Second Temple" alone is "insufficiently descriptive" that is precisely why naming it Second Temple (Judaism) is the perfect and accurate name for it that would take care of those kind of concerns, but evidently you feel that the Jewish Temples must be "de-Judaized" and detached and reformulated as entities not belonging to either the Jews or to Judaism, as implied in the criticism not to take it to the Judaism project talk page and your grumbling about the Temples' basic names. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean, IZAK. How does the word "Jerusalem" constitute "de-Judaizing"? In any event, the main issue here is process. --FormerIP (talk) 12:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

FormerIP: Not sure what you're talking about. While the first two Temples may have been physically located in Jerusalem as will the third one according to Judaism, their real over-arching and fundamental importance and position within Judaism are immeasurably far greater than any mere finite geographic locale or structural building, even if it is in as important a place as Jerusalem. Judaism and Jews have remained attached at the hip through their beliefs, prayers and studies to both the notions of the Temples and to Jerusalem as spiritual holy centers for millennia even though they have had neither a temple nor access to Jerusalem for (most of) the last 2,000 years. IZAK (talk) 01:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

That's probably nice for them, but I don't understand why you think it means you don't have to follow the normal WP procedure for moving a page. --FormerIP (talk) 02:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

FormerIP: As I have clarified, once the discussions reached a consensus I could have easily moved the pages to "First Temple (Judaism)", "Second Temple (Judaism)", "Third Temple (Judaism)" which were empty, open unused red link pages that I had created. There would have been no problem with that. I made a technical error by not moving the pages with the move buttons on "Solomon's Temple", "Second Temple in Jerusalem" and "Third Temple" without any problems. My mistake, and it was only a mistake, was to cut and paste instead of making the easier moves (the reason I did that is that I was working quickly and I was a little rusty about making pages moves), but I then asked User Avraham to iron out my oversight, which he did do. So please do not make a mountain out of a mole hill when nothing untoward has happened. Thank you for your understanding. IZAK (talk) 02:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem isn't to do with the actual mechanics of the page moves (I'm not aware you did anything wrong there), it is that the move requests were not listed at WP:RM and the discussions about moving the page was held in a forum where a particular POV was likely to prevail. You even opened the disucssion by talking about "confusion...stemming from opposing secular and religious scholarly outlooks" and suggesting that certain articles should be renames on the basis that they "belong" to Judaism. This, I think, is out of line with the normal spirit of inclusiveness and NPOV on WP. --FormerIP (talk) 09:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The topic is about the Jewish temples not about Christian or another religion's ones. Jewish articles carry far more secular content than would be allowed or accepted in regular topics. There is and will always be room for lots of different views in the Jewish Temple articles, in fact there is not a huge amount in them from a purely Jewish POV in them and all I was proposing, or requesting, was to create the correct balance but so far absolutely nothing has happened. You are misunderstanding and misusing the policies of POV by claiming the absurd, that a key subject that is inherent to a project should "not" be discussed there. That would like saying that no discussions or decisions about medical topics should be made at WP:MEDICINE unless they are first discussed somewhere else where they don't deal with medicine. Nothing wrong happened. I should hope you understand the analogy. IZAK (talk) 04:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it would be like saying that no pages relating to medical topics should be moved solely on the basis of a discussion at WP:MEDICINE, which AFAICT is the case. --FormerIP (talk) 11:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

For the record, no one was excluded from the discussions because all relevant talk pages were told about the centralized discussion. IZAK (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The most important thing is discussions at the article talk page. It seems to me that notification was placed on all the relevant talk pages, so anyone watching the article knew about the discussion. That is our standard. That said, calling it "the Second Temple" seems to me to follow the conventions among historians and is the most common name for it, so it ought to be the title. If people call it other names, and I have no doubt that they do, we handle that through redirects, so there is never any fear of someone not finding the article. But this is the most common name. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that the standard is listing at RM, templating the pages and holding a discussion about each one individually, normally on their respective talk pages, Sluberstein. The notice on the Second Temple page disappeared (though I am not saying this is IZAK's fault). In any event, launching the discussion (that you were involved in) on the Judaism project talkpage with an intro effectively saying "let's do something about the non-Jewish bias on these articles" is not an appropraite way to go about it. --FormerIP (talk) 14:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It makes no sense to say that the articles had a "non-Jewish bias" (your words) and then oppose the discussion from taking place at WP:JUDAISM. IZAK (talk) 09:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake! Note where the quote-marks are in the last sentence of my post. I am not saying that the article has a non-Jewish bias, by any means. --FormerIP (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

@FormerIP: You write, "My understanding is that the standard is listing at RM," and I have no idea how this could be your interpretation of the following clause taken from the intro to the policy: "There is no obligation to list such move requests here;" you are right that there should be notification on the article talk page - but IZAK did just that, he left a message on the talk page, so anyone watching it new about the proposal and had an opportunity to weigh in.

Why is is inappropriate to discuss an article of central importance to Judaism on the project Judaism talk page? It is not like anyone is banned from contributing to that discussion - did you post a comment which someone deleted? Isn't this article categorized under Wikiproject:Judaism? Slrubenstein | Talk 09:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

That same page, WP:RM, goes on to say that "Discussions about retitling of an article (page move) can always be carried out at the article's talk page without adding an entry here." It doesn't mention project pages. However, in general, I don't think there is a problem with discussing page moves on a project page, certainly not when (like here) multiple pages are involved and some consistency between them is wanted. The problem arises when the project is chosen to give one particular point of view preference. Even if it is a relevant PoV like here, this violates WP:NPOV and is a form of canvassing. See the comments by IZAK (who proposed the move, determined the consensus and performed the move) above: "It is logical to assume that the terms used in Judaism and by Jews should be the preferred ones for Jewish topics." This is incorrect: we don't use the terms preferred by the involved groups. Myanmar is here described in the article Burma, because that is the term most used in the English literature. Another incorrect factor in that statement, that the temple (certainly the second one) is not only a Jewish topic but also a Christian one (and all of them are general historical and archaeological ones) is therefor not relevant for a naming discussion. Fram (talk) 10:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that the title of the article should follow the conventions of 1st century historians. And the most common designation is "the Second Temple." That is why I think he article should be named "the Second Temple." Slrubenstein | Talk 11:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? The conventions of 1st century historians? Why should we follow those? Fram (talk) 11:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Fram: Everything was done in conformity with WP:NPOV -- you are dealing with highly experienced editors here and if you can show me where I have ever edited in violation of WP:NPOV I will eat my proverbial hat. PLEASE re-read every word at the very comprehensive discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Building and destroying the Beit Hamikdash where I WP:CITE beyond any shadow of a doubt that the terms "First Temple", "Second Temple", "Third Temple" are the more frequent terms based on hundreds of thousands of Google hits, so you need to WP:AGF. This is a subject central to Judaism so there is no way really to "split hairs" and say that it should be kept out of WP:JUDAISM discussions where everything relating to Jews and Judaism is up for discussion and very often editorial, naming and move decisions are made and this helps Wikipedia grow and move along. Many admins have belonged to and participated in WP:JUDAISM discussions and they are fully aware of WP policies. Nothing related to Jews or Judaism even marginally is excluded in the many years the Wikiproject has been in existence and it has only helped Wikipedia. In any case, as User Slrubenstein points out anyone monitoring those pages could read the notices about the centralized discussion I placed on each one of them and was free to join the discussion so that no one was excluded on any grounds. The objections only started after the open-ended lengthy discussions, and after WP:CONSENSUS was clearly reached, and only after moves were made without any prior involvement in the discussions themselves by subsequent objectors. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 23:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You posted the same text twice for some reason, I'll reply only once. Your POV ic very clear, when you state in that discussion: "But not according to Judaism to which it belongs. It's about the Jewish First Temple not about how or what it's called according to an English or non-Jewish or secular POV." You are totally wrong here, what it's called from an English language PoV is the only thing that matters, not what it is called in the Torah (like your other comment there: "With more articles like this from non-Torah sources each with their own POV of course."). You are also incorrect that "The objections only started after the open-ended lengthy discussions, and after WP:CONSENSUS was clearly reached,", as Debresser objected from the very start, and Chesdovi also said "(It's common name in Hebrew does not dictate its common name in English...?)" So you have shown a clear POV based reason for your moves, and have ignored Wikipedia policies and the oposition that was stated from the very start of the discussion. Whether that is standard practive at the Project, or only your standard practice, I don't know, but it has to change in either case. Subjects related to Jews or Judaism will not be named or treated in accordance with the Torah, but in acordance with reliable independent sources (and for the naming in accordance with English language reliable independent sources). The argument (not by you) that ""Solomon's Temple" is probably more used in academia, but it is certainly Bayis Rishon and Bayis Sheini for believing Jews." is irrelevant and if an independent editor had reviewed the move discussion, instead of you, he would have discounted said argument as being not policy based. Oh, and replying to an opposer with among other comments the utterly irrelevant "you do agree that the destruction of the two temples and the butchery and exile of the Jewish people by the Babylonians and then by the Romans was proportionally and quantitatively on a par with the Nazis or perhaps even worse don't you?" is a very poor tactic as well. The majority of your replies and arguments on that page are religion based, which is the completely wrong argument to defend or oppose any article name, even for a subject that is central to a religion. Fram (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Which is why we have WP:Article title. We don't use 'this group uses this name' as a reason to ignore our guidlines. NPOV is often a red herring in discussion of article titles. Dougweller (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

This was not a case of doing what one group does, this is a case of a name that's used universally as proven by Google hits, see below. IZAK (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Earlier, I said that the title should be "Snd Temple" because that is the convention among 1st century historians. Fram asks why. What can I say? I think that the title of an article should refelect two things: the contents of the title and the nomenclature most common in academe. The second Temple period is the subjust of a great deal of scholarly research. Four about five hundred years, it is the object of research of almost exclusively historians of Jews and Judaism. During some of this time Judea was Persian Occupied, the Greek Occupied, and then independent (Jewish) but under Hellenic influcence. For the last 120 years or so it continued unbder Roman Occupation. So there is lots of scholarship about it it is not just of interest to Jews. And those historians - of Persian and Greek and Hasmonean and Roman occupied Judea, 70 years of the Temple's history extending into the first century, the convention is to call it the Second Temple. Why not follow standard current academic practice? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I think this was just a simple misunderstanding. When you mentioend "1st century historians", I thought you meant people like Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian. I now realise that you probably meant 20th and 21st century historians specialized in the first century. If that is the case, my reply was obviously not correct, and I agree that we should follow the current name as used by the scientific literature in English. Fram (talk) 08:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Fram: The following is an inter-linear response to your above response, my responses start with "IZAK": "You posted the same text twice for some reason, I'll reply only once." IZAK: There were similarities but they were different (read them for yourself), so let's keep one thread here. "Your POV ic very clear, when you state in that discussion: "But not according to Judaism to which it belongs. It's about the Jewish First Temple not about how or what it's called according to an English or non-Jewish or secular POV." IZAK: Sorry, but the subject is about the Jewish First, Second and Third Temples and they are central notions to Judaism. That is not a "POV" it's a fact. So it is therefore logical to deal with the Temples as Jewish topics in a NPOV manner and then add on how other POVs and perspectives view them. "You are totally wrong here, what it's called from an English language PoV is the only thing that matters, not what it is called in the Torah (like your other comment there: "With more articles like this from non-Torah sources each with their own POV of course.")." IZAK: Where have I ever said what the Torah says is "NPOV" please do not bring in or attribute to me things I never said. NPOV is a WP policy that I have always followed. One can quote Torah or anything else as long as it's factual and NPOV because WP is not anti-Torah either. It is how the articles are written in NPOV style that is important for WP and not what we believe in our private lives that WP does not care about. An editor may be secular, etheist and anti-religious but WP does not care about privately-held views as long as editing and writing is done in a NPOV manner. "You are also incorrect that "The objections only started after the open-ended lengthy discussions, and after WP:CONSENSUS was clearly reached,", as Debresser objected from the very start, and Chesdovi also said "(It's common name in Hebrew does not dictate its common name in English...?)" So you have shown a clear POV based reason for your moves, and have ignored Wikipedia policies and the oposition that was stated from the very start of the discussion." IZAK: You are focusing on one lone objector who was outvoted. At the time of the discussions there was only one objector who was outvoted by 9 others (including me), how else to get consensus, that is more than sufficient for WP:CONSENSUS. The articles need help to become accurate. That's obvious to any reader who knows this subject. My suggestion was to strive for clarity and specificity, to clarify that these were temples related to Judaism. That is a fact that no one can deny. "Whether that is standard practive at the Project, or only your standard practice, I don't know, but it has to change in either case. Subjects related to Jews or Judaism will not be named or treated in accordance with the Torah, but in acordance with reliable independent sources (and for the naming in accordance with English language reliable independent sources)." IZAK: All editors work in accordance with WP policies. In fact it is time to call in some of the main editors some admins who can have their say, and we can hear what they have to say. "The argument (not by you) that ""Solomon's Temple" is probably more used in academia, but it is certainly Bayis Rishon and Bayis Sheini for believing Jews." is irrelevant and if an independent editor had reviewed the move discussion, instead of you, he would have discounted said argument as being not policy based." IZAK: Every single one of my arguments was based on neutral Google hits that prove beyond a doubt that the most common terms are First Temple, Second Temple and Third Temple that has nothing to do with any POV. That is why I had to clarify it to you in my second post above. I agree with you and I thank you again for making the corrections that reflect that. "Oh, and replying to an opposer with among other comments the utterly irrelevant "you do agree that the destruction of the two temples and the butchery and exile of the Jewish people by the Babylonians and then by the Romans was proportionally and quantitatively on a par with the Nazis or perhaps even worse don't you?" is a very poor tactic as well." IZAK: The destruction of the two temples is considered a tragedy on the par of the Nazi Holocaust among serious Jewish and secular scholars, historians and theologians, that's a matter of fact and it's legitimate to point that out in a discussion about that subject. There is absolutely no question about that. "The majority of your replies and arguments on that page are religion based, which is the completely wrong argument to defend or oppose any article name, even for a subject that is central to a religion." IZAK: It is illogical and irrational to claim that a subject related to and central to a religion cannot be presented from that religion's perspectives that are not "POV" since they are part and parcel of that religion that cannot be understood or described or explained with recourse to that religion first followed by other POVs and explanations. That does not mean that other views are excluded either. WP is not in the business of being anti-religion either it includes all POVs and that's not a red herring argument either, WP is after all NPOV. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 07:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• I can only conclude from this reply taht you don't understand what POV and NPOV mean. Just one example: "The destruction of the two temples is considered a tragedy on the par of the Nazi Holocaust among serious Jewish and secular scholars, historians and theologians, that's a matter of fact and it's legitimate to point that out in a discussion about that subject. There is absolutely no question about that." The "subject" being the name of the temple articles, not the history of the temples or the tragedies of the Jewish people. Could you please clarify why you felt that this argument had any relevance whatsoever to the naming debate? How does the history of the temple and whether it is comparable to the Holocaust have any link to what this article should be called on the English Wikipedia? Fram (talk) 08:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
  • You took a quote out of context, I was trying to make a point to Debresser who has stated in past discussions that he is a Chabad rabbi and he would be quite familiar with what I was saying even though it may sound strange to you. IZAK (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
    • It doesn't sound strange to me, it simply has nothing to do with the whole move discussion, which was the context. As long as you believe that a statement like "It is logical to assume that the terms used in Judaism and by Jews should be the preferred ones for Jewish topics." is the correct way of deciding move discussions on Wikipedia, you have no business closing any more naming disputes, and should leave that to more objective uninvolved editors without your clear bias. Fram (talk) 07:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
      • How about refuting what I saying according to logic. Wikipedia is not in the business of making up its own reality it welcomes input from editors who display a good knowledge in their fields of editing. That is not called "POV" it is called expertise. You seem to be confusing the two. The fact remains and you can jump up and down on your head and scream as loud as you like, but sorry, the subject here is primarily a Judaism topic first and foremost, while other POV's about it come in later. That's fact and not "POV" anything. IZAK (talk) 10:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi again Fram: In reference to your comment above i.e. "Whether that is standard practive [sic] at the Project, or only your standard practice, I don't know, but it has to change in either case. Subjects related to Jews or Judaism will not be named or treated in accordance with the Torah, but in acordance [sic] with reliable independent sources (and for the naming in accordance with English language reliable independent sources)" which I regard as a serious false allegation that clearly violates WP:AGF, and definitely borders on WP:NPA, I have asked 5 admins (Users Avraham (talk · contribs); Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs); Jfdwolff (talk · contribs); Jayjg (talk · contribs); TShilo12 (talk · contribs)), who also have had experience with WP:JUDAISM for their input, hopefully they will have time to respond, in addition to User:Slrubenstein who is both an admin and long-time participant in the Judaism WikiProject. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

IZAK asked me to comment here. When we discussed the question of page names at WT:JUDAISM, IZAK had posted notices on the Talk pages of the affected articles. I thought using WT:JUDAISM for a centralized discussion of the subject seemed appropriate. I felt, and still feel, disappointed that the discussion didn't attract many contributors who aren't WP:JUDAISM "regulars".

While a few contributors may have made their decisions based on the Hebrew terms used by "believing Jews", my impression is that most arguments were based on WP:COMMONNAME.

In short, I don't think there was anything inappropriate about using WT:JUDAISM as a forum for a centralized discussion concerning three articles within the WikiProject's purview. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I only noticed this while making an edit at Malik's page. I don't intend to get into the discussion, which I have only heard of now. But millions of Christians visit what they call the Holy Land, take the Old Testament as an article of faith, and customarily refer to Solomon's Temple. 'First Temple' as opposed to Second Temple, simply, as far as my ear goes from 6 decades of hearing religious Christians speak (I'm not a Christian), does not ring a bell, unless one is a specialist. I think from what I have read that a very simple mistake is being made here, that looks, as phrased by Izak, highly appropriative. It's as as Nazareth were soon to be shifted to Natzrat , the name privileged in Israel, much to the confusion of visiting Christian pilgrims. This kind of thing deserves very wide input and discussion on pages most editors visit.Nishidani (talk) 14:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

IZAK asked me to comment here. I'm not keen on seeing discussions like these take place on wikiprojects, because it excludes people who don't have the project pages on their watchlists. A link to the page-move discussion on the article's talk page can be added to the wikiproject to inform people, if done neutrally and if posted elsewhere too.

As for the title, we should use whichever is more common in English—not in Judaism, Christianity, or Islam, but in English—because this is the English Wikipedia. That's likely to be the name more common in one of the religions, but that should be a byproduct of our decision, not the reason for it. The article was at Solomon's Temple from its creation in 2002 until the recent move, so perhaps the thing to do is move it back temporarily, then hold a requested-move discussion on the article's talk page. I should add that I hope no one will support the old title just to make the point that it shouldn't have been moved. I also want to add that IZAK's motivation here is to produce a set of consistently titled articles that people can find easily and that are easy to cross-reference, and he should be applauded for that, so whether we agree or disagree with the page move, he's clearly acting in good faith. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to stress again and again that I supported my proposals at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Building and destroying the Beit Hamikdash on the English-language names of "First Temple", "Second Temple", Third Temple" on the fact that they receive more Google hits than any other names. In addition, I would also like to point out that in any case, the English Wikipedia does allow and even welcomes, the use of naming from other languages, cultures and nationalities in the way those languages, cultures and nationalities use terms and concepts and they are NEVER unjustly accused of being in "violation" of "POVs", see the scope of what goes on in Category:Words and phrases by language with 73 sub-categories, with Category:Hebrew words and phrases being one of the biggest that include thousands of names for articles using Hebrew words and phrases. Nevertheless, I had not proposed using Hebrew names at all in this case, just the commonly used English-language terms "First Temple", "Second Temple", Third Temple". Thank you, IZAK (talk) 18:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

IZAK. I checked 13 of the other wikis whose languages I can read with varying degrees of comprehension. The preferred title is the one each language recognizes most readily. Only the Russian wiki gives 'First Temple' (Первый Храм) glossed however by 'First Jerusalem temple' (Первый Иерусалимский храм), The Temple of Solomon (Храм Соломона) and lastly 'The Jerusalem Temple (Иерусали́мский Храм). The rest, Greek, Latin, Italian, French, Catalan, Dutch, Danish, Norwegian, Czech, Portuguese, Romanian and Chinese give their 'Solomon's Temple', and provide the 'First Temple' as a gloss as often as not, to explain Hebraic usage (Latin adds 'in religione Iudaica appellatione "Primum Templum") and the Chinese glosses 所羅門聖殿, where the first three characters spell out Solomon and the last two mean 'Temple', with the first temple 第一聖殿. There is no Japanese article but the Japanese usually refer to it as the 'Jerusalem Temple' (エルサレム神殿) Curious that German is lacking, but, as a recent German guide to it remarks, 'Salomons Tempel ist ein Zauberwort,' (Othmar Keel, Ernst Axel Knauf, Thomas Staubli, Salomons Tempel, Saint-Paul, 2004 p.6)i.e. 'Solomon's Temple is a magical word', which, I suggest 'First Temple' to most Western ears, and certainly anglophone ears, is not. I asked my wife, and my uncle, respectively in their mother tongues, Italian and French, what 'first temple' meant to them, and it meant nothing, until I rephrased it mentioning Solomon, which immediately woke their recognition. I don't think this is coincidental, and the reason why it is thus known is evidently due to Christianity, which has determined in most cases, the way each language thinks of the first temple. It is the historic bias of a culture inflecting standard speech, and in English the standard idiom is 'Solomon's temple'.Nishidani (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nishidani. Nice work but somewhat not to the point because they are behind the information curve. Let me re-iterate again, that it's about consistent naming. And it's not just about the outward names and labels "Solomon's Temple" versus "First Temple" alone because there are many connecting topics here that bolster the usage of "First Temple" over "Solomon's Temple". Let's look at Google. While there seems to be near parity between 336,000 hits for Solomons Temple (bolstered by the fact that many sites are using Wikipedia's article!) there are 283,000 hits for First Temple making them almost equal on this scale. Now, if you look at the subject in its proper context, not just as a "Solomonic production" but as the core and symbol of an entire era, then the name of "First Temple" is bolstered and backed up by the fact that the predominant term used is by far "First Temple" over anything else: 144,000 hits for First Temple Era (with only 5 hits for Solomon's Temple era I kid thee not!) and while there are 23,100 hits for First Temple period there are just 5 hits for Solomon's Temple period!; there are an astounding 453,000 hits for Destruction of the First Temple and more such as 44,800 hits for Destruction of the First Temple in Jerusalem, (while in comparison there are only 36,700 hits for Destruction of Solomon's Temple); and there are 144,000 hits for Building of the First Temple while there are 179,000 hits for Building King Solomon's Temple many that dwell on secular perspectives such as the Masons and whatnot and nothing to do with Judaism. Bottom line, these few example show that while on a few occasions there is parity, especially when talking about the structure itself, but when the focus is on the broader symbolic. religious and historical role then First Temple is the leading term not just in Judaism but has a broader acceptance. IZAK (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Just an interim query, IZAK. You are, if I understand your arguments for the change correctly, setting a precedent in Wikipedia. On the premises you have given, the Cave of the Patriarchs article should be retitled 'The cave of the double tombs' or 'the Cave of Machpelah', the term which is standard in Hebrew, with a redirect for the term that is standard in English. That site plays a larger role in the traditions of Judaism than it does in Christian thought, which however customarily refers to it as 'Cave of the Patriarchs'. Am I correct? Nishidani (talk) 12:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't be silly. I wasn't even suggesting Hebrew names, for that see Category:Hebrew words and phrases that are plentiful and even welcomed and that no one questions. Nobody uses the terms "cave of double tombs" which is raw literal translation. I did not suggest that the articles be called "First House", "Second House" from the Hebrew names for the temples "bayit rishon", "bayit sheini". You are wrong about the way Wikipedia functions as an encyclopedia because it does quite often convey terms as used in the culture or language it belongs to. Thus, the Jewish Sabbath is Shabbat, Jewish New Year is Rosh Hashanah and of so much more. The real way Wikipedia is inclusive of all terms is by the workings of WP:REDIRECTS, since only one name can be used at one time, that lead to the main name. The beautiful thing about Wikipedia is that it is forward looking and is enlightening and educating people as it reliably records information. So no, not only are you not correct but you are also dead wrong! IZAK (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

IZAK, I also looked up "First Temple" on Google with a view to posting the results here, but there are too many not about that first temple, so the results are meaningless. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Slim: It's actually a two-way street because then the larger number of hits for Solomon's Temple would also be discounted. But such is the nature of the beast when using Google, it's a general prognostication and a start, and it's definitely not "meaningless" when one considers the clear disparity between 144,000 hits for "First Temple Era" versus only 5 hits for "Solomon's Temple era" or 23,100 hits for "First Temple period" versus 5 hits for "Solomon's Temple period" as well as 47,000+ hits for "Destruction of the First Temple in Jerusalem" versus 33,000+ hits for "Destruction of Solomon's Temple" none of which can be dismissed off the cuff as "meaningless". IZAK (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Slim: In addition, add in the fact that the article about the Second Temple was originally called Second Temple of Jerusalem and not Ezra's Temple or "Zerubabel's Temple" as it's also referred to, and the Third Temple article was named just that and not Ezekiel's Temple as it's sometimes referred to. So the naming was not consistent. As you correctly noted above one of my chief objectives is to create uniformity in the naming that also fits with history and the best and most clear-cut way is to go by the First Temple, Second Temple, Third Temple names that just so happens to be the way that classical Jewish as well as many secular scholars and not just Christian POV theology also names them. IZAK (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting but, for ANI (ahem!), off-topic discussions like this are the exact reason why there should be a proper inclusive debate before deciding what the best names for the pages are. --FormerIP (talk) 22:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi FormerIP: It was because you had incorrectly claimed that there wasn't enough of a discussion that the discussions here have grown retroactively. But the fact of the matter remains that it was held at as good a place as any at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Building and destroying the Beit Hamikdash that anyone was welcome to join. You came along later and complained "#Pagemove consensus formed on Wikiproject page" about the location of the fair and square discussions that you admit reached consensus, but have not contributed to the substance of the topic or the discussions. So let's stop going around in circles. IZAK (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

We may be going round in circles, IZAK, but have you noticed that this is happening without me saying very much? --FormerIP (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That's because the Jewish Temples are a fascinating topic and everyone thinks they are "experts" when it comes to Judaism. This never happens when it comes to Christian or Islamic topics where users are much too cautious and afraid to pipe in, and Judaic editors would never do this to a topic central to Christianity or Islam such as the Vatican or Mecca even though Judaism is the mother-religion of those two religions and there is lots of scholarship from a Jewish perspective on those topics. Nothing to gloat about I would say. The bottom line from my end, is that (a) a proper, full and thorough discussion was held with an attendant vote to clarify. (b) Google hits support my position. (c) Nine users agreed that the pages should be moved, with one objection. (d) There was therefore adequate WP:CONSENSUS. (e) All effected pages were notified on their talk pages about the centralized discussion. (f) Admin Fram, albeit conditionally, actually moved the pages to acceptable streamlined and consistent neutral English-language titles of First Temple; Second Temple, Third Temple, minus their qualifying (Judaism) suffixes in their titles. This was a wise move and I agree with it. (g) Several users, including so far, admins Slrubenstein and Malik Shabaz have concurred with me in this discussion, they together with admin Avraham agreed with the logic and reasonableness for the proposed moves as well, and they are very knowledgeable Judaic editors with long experience who would not do anything against NPOV. (h) The names First Temple, Second Temple and Third Temple are fully NPOV because in any case two out of the three articles in question originally used this "naming by numbers" of "Second" and "Third", namely: Second Temple of Jerusalem and Third Temple the last requires no change and is not even in question and bolsters my case. (i) You were a jonny-come-lately who arrived after the discussions who did not even have his facts right at the beginning, falsely alleging that notification was not given, and claiming that WP:JUDAISM was not a suitable venue, even though this is about a major topic central to Judaism. (j) Nothing has been "proven" whether there is an absolute requirement of any kind that this sort of discussion "must" be held at only WP:RM. IZAK (talk) 05:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

IZAK asked me to comment here, but I'm sorry, I don't understand what the current issue is. There apparently was some discussion of the page moves prior to discussion, and there is no (and there never has been a) requirement that editors post all proposed page moves at WP:RM. Do people object to the current names, First Temple, Second Temple, and Third Temple, which apparently were not the names IZAK moved them to, but to which he has no objection? If so, wouldn't the correct place to discuss this be on the article Talk: pages, or perhaps at WP:RM? What is this issue still doing here? Jayjg ^(talk) 07:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The principle objection I have is that when questioned about it, the response has been to defend the moves rather than say, "OK, lets discuss it further". I have concerns with how the discussion was phrased and advertised but that has been discussed in much depth above already. Quantpole (talk) 08:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, how the pages should be named should be discussed through WP:RM, if anyone feels the need. This discussion is more about how the previous move discussion was handled. Everyone's actions and positions are quite clear by now, and while some people feel that some things were handled badly (and others disagree), nothing actionable has happened in the end, and this discussion has probably come to an end. Fram (talk) 08:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is clear whether or not there is anything actionable, and a consensus about that it what's needed to bring the dicussion to a close. AFAICT, there is a consensus (excepting the views of involved editors) that the page move was wrongly done. I think the next question is whether we say "ok, but no harm done" or whether it is appropriate to move the page back to where it was. --FormerIP (talk) 12:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You keep on ignoring that the page moves were done according to all procedural requirements and nothing "wrong" was done even though you falsely keep alleging the opposite when it's proven otherwise to you a few times already. IZAK (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Talking of ignoring. Like I said above in reply to you already: "Apart from the fact that you did a copy-paste move instead of an actual move, that you didn't follow the Manual of style in your names, and that it is debated whether the method and location of the move suggestion debate was correct, you are right, your moves were not in error... " I forgot one thing though, that you, having a clear bias and PoV in this debate, shouldn't have been the one to close the discussion and perform the moves either. That is about the total of all things "wrong" with these moves. Fram (talk) 07:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

And you keep ignoring what I have already responded to these accusations of yours, that I asked User Avraham to correct the cut and paste moves (I was working in a bit of haste and it was an oversight) that he did gladly. There is nothing wrong in the way I named the topics, it's done all the time to have a ( ) to define what a topic is about. You are mistaking my interest in this topic with "POV" -- I have an excellent record of keeping to NPOV over the course of my long life on Wikipedia. And there was nothing wrong with me making the moves or "closing" the debate (it's not "closed" in any case, it is ongoing as you see here yourself, and anyone can restart it because it's not a formal AfD) it was informal and it attained its main goal of WP:CONSENSUS. It was not an official AfD or something like that. Nothing wrong unless you are now determined to violate WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL against me which is wrong. IZAK (talk) 10:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

That an error was corrected afterwards doesn't mean that no error was made. There is much wrong in the way that you named the topics: we don't disambiguate pages when there is no article at the undisambiguated page. And I have no opinion on your previous record wrt POV, but in this debate, you have shown that you let your poV influence your comments and actions repeatedly. You continue to deny it. Fine, that is a disagreement on your edits and what influenced them. But as long s you use arguments like "Obviously the discussion is not over, it's been going on for 3,000 years. For some odd reason the Jewish temples seem to be subject to undue attention from non-Jewish sources as to what they should be, even if they should be built, exist or be destroyed, or what their names are or should be. It is logical to assume that the terms used in Judaism and by Jews should be the preferred ones for Jewish topics." (from this page), then it is no AGF or CIVIL violation to conclude that you let your POV influence your suggested move and your reading of the consensus (where there were multiple people objecting to the use of (Judaism)). Fram (talk) 11:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Fram: Violations of POV can only be based or proven on actual edits in the body of articles. People say all sorts of things on discussion pages, that never land up in articles. I have learned a lot about your views for example, of your hostilities and prejudices to certain things, but that's not of any consequences as long as it does interfere with actual editing in articles. And by the way, I have already agreed with you and commended you for the wisdom of removing the (Judaism) suffixes even though I would have preferred them, but your moves were wise in and of themselves. At least give me credit for complimenting you and agreeing with your helpful moves. IZAK (talk) 12:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Hi all. It seems like there is a mishmash of procedural and nomenclature issues being discussed here. I am not so familiar with Wiki procedures, so I will leave that to others. Regarding the nomenclature issue, I think the terms "First Temple" and "Second Temple" are perfectly acceptable as article titles, as these are the most common terms used both popularly and academically (just check any Jewish History text). Placement of a parenthetical clarifying term such as "Judaism" would also be helpful. Regarding "Third Temple", I am not as familiar with the sources that discuss it, but certainly the discussion exists, and I cannot think of a more neutral term than "Third Temple". Are there any competing suggestions? —Dfass (talk) 13:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not about 'Jewish history text' usage. It is about English usage, where it is almost certainly not 'the most common term popularly or academically'. Perhaps, the repetition of this confusion on this page, based on a false premise that the world of the OT is somehow peculiar to Judaism and not a foundational text also for Western civilization generally, is sufficient evidence that the whole question requires far wider discussion by wiki editors, including a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity, to begin with. As admins have said, nothing actionable here. But the move creates a strong precedent (see above) for changing names in a good many articles into forms quite familiar in Judaism, but unfamiliar, or less recognizable for hundreds of millions of English readers of wiki.Nishidani (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani, those so-called "questionable moves" already exist for a long time, see Category:Hebrew words and phrases, and Jewish scholarship connected as it is so often to academic scholarship cannot be belittled in this way. There is nothing against the English language that itself is a combination of Germanic Anglo-Saxon (itself an admixture) and Latin and many other layers of languages. It just so happens to be that the Hebrew language is the language of the Hebrew Bible. Not so long ago it was required that all serious scholars of the classics study Latin, Greek and Hebrew and it befits an encyclopedia of the stature of Wikipedia to honor Hebrew or in this case Hebraic and Judaic originating terms especially if they have majority circulation in English on modern day search engines like Google. The English language itself is not a closed book and constantly evolving, both shedding older terminology and adapting to and taking on newer terminology that is its great strength, and it is made up of many languages and accepts into itself many other words, like Mazel Tov and Bris and terms from any language that in turn become Anglicized and hence are English. In any case, "First Temple", "Second Temple", "Third Temple" are only English terms and have become the most widely used terms based on what Google hits indicate as proven above. IZAK (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you have ever addressed the nub of the question. You appear to think that everything to do with the Old Testament is exclusively Jewish. I like millions of people was raised on the OT, having its history, stories and mythology drummed into me on a daily basis, and it is as much a part of Western culture as it is of Jewish culture. Christians in Europe generally refer to it as 'Solomon's Temple', which is the standard term in English endorsed by Western tradition. The proper thing to do was to notify the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity board and ask them for input. As it stands, you are engineering, unilaterally, a novelty and a precedent, in order to 'honour Hebrew'. You twice persist in the untruth, against all native intuitions about customary usage in English, that this is a case of a 'Hebrew and Judaic originating term' having 'majority circulation in English.' Not only myself, but others, have tested this, and found your google methodology lacunose and misleading. You then say it is a case of the English language 'constantly evolving and shedding older terminology and adapting to and taking on newer terminology' which sounds like an implicit admission that the 'old term' (i.e. i.e. what current users habitually use) should be buried in order to honour 'Hebrew' on the English wikipedia. All this is making native-speakers, who query this odd engineering of minority terms, appear to be people with some axe to grind, perhaps people who secretly work to impede the English wikipedia from 'honouring' Hebrew. That is, as people here often say, a strawman argument. You are simply asking that a minority term (the mot juste for Jewish people) be promoted against the customary English word because, for you, Hebrew originating terms should replace the standard terms in Western languages, in order to show respect for Judaism. That principle, as I suggested, sets a precedent that will affect many other articles, such as the 'Cave of the Patriarchs', which in Hebrew is 'Cave of Machpelah'. If you want this, fine, but if you wish to use wikipedia for these ends, you'd better ask, on each occasion, people who are native speakers, or who are Christians and share much of your biblical heritage, for their views. There is absolutely no malice in raising these questions. It is simple a matter, to use your own semantic allusion, of 'respect' for native speakers of English, for the defined rules of wikipedia, and for Christians. I belong only to the former category, and insist, as a linguist, that tradition determine usage, not partisan meddling. Nishidani (talk) 07:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nishidani, always good to discuss with you. Let me quote you and respond interlinearly beginning with "IZAK": "I don't think you have ever addressed the nub of the question." IZAK: You are creating your own nub here because it's not my intention to upset you in the way you are responding. "You appear to think that everything to do with the Old Testament is exclusively Jewish." IZAK Wrong! Wikipedia has developed two tracks, even multiple tracks, to allow both Christian and Jewish interpretations, often interfaith. By the way, long-ago it was agreed between many editors that the term "Old Testament" was to be avoided because it's offensive to Jews who do not believe in the New Testament and the preferred neutral term is Hebrew Bible on Wikipedia. "I like millions of people was raised on the OT, having its history, stories and mythology drummed into me on a daily basis, and it is as much a part of Western culture as it is of Jewish culture." IZAK: Fine. To many Jews it's not "mythology" by the way, that is a clear POV. "Christians in Europe generally refer to it as 'Solomon's Temple', which is the standard term in English endorsed by Western tradition." IZAK: And here is the real nub as you would say, because by now that term has been replaced if you take into account that there are not one but three temples in this discussion. One is clearly called the Third Temple (no dispute about calling it that) while the other was called Second Temple of Jerusalem (Second Temple as part of its title), therefore since Solomon's Temple is also even better known as the First Temple based on current Google hits, it is perfectly acceptable and NPOV to name it First Temple with Solomon's Temple becoming a redirect. The subject is greater than what people in Europe think, it involves another major religion like Judaism which regards that temple as a central notion which it is not in Christianity. "The proper thing to do was to notify the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity board and ask them for input." IZAK: Disagree, even though it would have been nice because a notification was placed on the article's page and anyone from anywhere could have come and partaken in the centralized discussion and had their say. "As it stands, you are engineering, unilaterally, a novelty and a precedent, in order to 'honour Hebrew'." IZAK I am not engineering anything. The name First Temple was in the lead sentence and I was reflecting a very reliable position. I was backed up by 8 others including three admins in that vote, Avraham, Malik Shabaz and Slrubenstein, they know the ropes and the rules better than I do. Hopefully you are not questioning their motives either. "You twice persist in the untruth," IZAK: This is a serious charge you are saying I am a liar, please withdraw the insult because you are violating WP:AGF. I may be determined but I am being truthful. "against all native intuitions about customary usage in English, that this is a case of a 'Hebrew and Judaic originating term' having 'majority circulation in English.' " IZAK: What are "native intuitions"? I am a full first class English speaker and intuiter. I majored in English. I taught it. I have several degrees in it, what are you carrying on about? This charge is utter nonsense in any case because Wikipidia has thousands of terms like this, see for yourself Category:Hebrew words and phrases (none made up by me by the way) and many others from other languages as well, and I am not imposing anything since I am not known for that. "Not only myself, but others, have tested this, and found your google methodology lacunose and misleading." IZAK: Ok, so prove it and show the exact Google diffs of your research the Wikipedia way as I did very carefully! I have done my share you do yours if you want to be credible. "You then say it is a case of the English language 'constantly evolving and shedding older terminology and adapting to and taking on newer terminology' which sounds like an implicit admission that the 'old term' (i.e. i.e. what current users habitually use) should be buried in order to honour 'Hebrew' on the English wikipedia." IZAK: Is that wrong? Have you ever studied the etymology and history of English over its long history? It is not a culturally or ethnically "pure" language its strengh is its ability to amalgamate and absorb from other languages. So again you are 100% wrong. In fact you disprove yourself! The name "Solomon" is also Hebrew, from the Hebrew root word "Shalom" which means "peace" (shalom) and/or "perfection" (shaleim) so that "Solomon" is a direct translation of the Hebrew name Shlomo which means "[man of] peace/perfection" so how come that Hebrew is good to you when "First Temple" is pure English? "All this is making native-speakers, who query this odd engineering of minority terms, appear to be people with some axe to grind, perhaps people who secretly work to impede the English wikipedia from 'honouring' Hebrew." IZAK: So are you going to accuse all the members who have added to the 73 sub-categories of Category:Words and phrases by language in all sorts of languages to "undermining Wikipedia?" This sounds paranoid and is most unhelpful. Besides I am a native speaker of English and so are almost all the editors who agree with me and edit in Judaism topics. I do know Hebrew but no way as proficiently as English, what are you carrying on about? Hebrew-speakers are not that comfortable on the English Wikipedia. So sorry, you are very off on this as well. "That is, as people here often say, a strawman argument. You are simply asking that a minority term (the mot juste for Jewish people) be promoted against the customary English word because, for you, Hebrew originating terms should replace the standard terms in Western languages, in order to show respect for Judaism." IZAK: I never said any of this at any time and you are extrapolating and expressing your fears and not any realities. Show me where I have done this please. I happen to prefer English terminology over Hebrew in articles and I have been often over-ruled by many other editors over the years. You are stigmatizing me for no good reason and I expect an apology. "That principle, as I suggested, sets a precedent that will affect many other articles, such as the 'Cave of the Patriarchs', which in Hebrew is 'Cave of Machpelah'." IZAK: Again, see above, you cited a bad example because no editors are that stupid to creat new terms, everyone knows the rules of WP:NEO and WP:NOTMADEUP! "If you want this, fine," IZAK: I don't, so what are you carrying on about? "but if you wish to use wikipedia for these ends, you'd better ask, on each occasion, people who are native speakers, or who are Christians and share much of your biblical heritage, for their views." IZAK: Utterly ridiculous because I am a native speaker of English that should be obvious and there is no such stipulation anywhere to ask permission beyond following WP guidelines and policies correctly. How can anyone know who is Christian or Jewish for that matter? You are imposing absurd censorship and violating WP:NOTCENSORED. What you are saying is overboard, an utter over-reaction, and you should retract it. How can you or anyone impose a Christian domination of Jewish topics? Who would go along with such crudeness? Would a Christian editor eccept such rules when writing about all the topics in Christianity that overlap with Judaism topics, starting with Jesus (his name is also from the Hebrew word Yeshu, possibly the short version for one or all of either Yeshua ("savior") or Yeshaya[yahu] ("Isaiah"), or Yehoshua ("Joshua"), so maybe Jesus should be called something else not from Hebrew words according to your incredibly silly and illogical theories, since Jesus was a Jew and lived and died as one in Judea the land of the Jews so any Jewish or Israeli editor should be free to say what they like about him according to your new "gospel" here, do you want me to start monitoring all the problems, do you see how absurd your lack of factual logic is and where it leads to? "There is absolutely no malice in raising these questions." IZAK: Could have fooled me. "It is simple a matter, to use your own semantic allusion, of 'respect' for native speakers of English, for the defined rules of wikipedia, and for Christians. I belong only to the former category, and insist, as a linguist, that tradition determine usage, not partisan meddling." IZAK: It's not simple and you are out of bounds. You should re-think what you have said here, it will clearly offend not just Judaism editors but could throw everything to do with religion on WP into turmoil. What you are saying is foolish and cannot be enforced. You will have to make a stronger case to impose such stupid strictures and prove that its ever been done to any editor that it's now a new "requirement" that an editor from another religion project must "ok" every edit that may not be in alliance with that other religion. You are also making a huge mistake of logic, theology, history and more by claiming that Judaism and Christianity agree on how to interpret the Bible. They are opposite and conflict religions in essence and you cannot impose "neutrality" that is not true NPOV either, by making me into your scapegoat. You are lecturing to me as if I just joined Wikipedia when I have been active since December of 2002 almost eight years and have learned and contributed a lot. Please, do not insult my or your or anyone's intelligence. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 10:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, cut the length of your responses down. If you can't say it in a few sentences then don't. No one will read what you have posted above, and going on at such length will not endear others to your position. Quantpole (talk) 10:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Speak for yourself. I know you do not listen to me. Please tell that to Nishidani as well. IZAK (talk) 11:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Come now Izak. Some years ago we exchanged, after strong but amicable discussion, a yiddish compliment, and now this?

Writing ‘it’s nice to discuss with you’ and then telling me that

• I call the Bible a mythology
• violate WP:AGF
• call you a liar (read again)
• question motives
• carry on
• make charges that are 'utter nonsense'
• feign to check google (I did, and got exactly the result SlimVirgin got)
• am ignorant of the history of English
• think English is a culturally or 'ethnically'(?) pure language
• do not know that Solomon is a Hebrew name, and not knowing that 'shalom' means 'peace'.
• that I am 'sounding paranoid'
• and create 'new terms' like the Cave of Machpelah
• impose 'absurd censorship'
• venture 'incredibly silly and illogical theories' (what theories?)
• impose a 'Christian domination on Jewish topics' (to repeat this is not a 'Jewish topic' but a topic shared by Jews and Christians)
• promote a new "gospel" (this is hardly 'good news', since I'm not a Christian)
• have 'an absurd lack of factual logic'.
• am 'out of bounds'.
• write with 'malice'
• 'offend Jewish editors'
• 'throw everything to do with religion on WP into turmoil’.
• try ‘to impose stupid strictures’
• make you a ‘scapegoat’
• insult your intelligence.

I'm sorry, but I can't reason when reactions to what I write are so intemperate, passionate and tediously uncomprehending. Evidently you are absolutely convinced you are right. Equally evidently, you are having great difficulty in understanding others who query your move on a variety of reasonable grounds. If Solomon's Temple is to become 'First Temple' (which doesn't resonate to English ears as does the former), then it will be perfectly logical to then argue that the Dead Sea should be called 'The Sea of Salt'(Yām Ha-Melaḥ), the Temple Mount be called 'Mount of the House' (Har haBayit), the Cave of the Patriarchs be called the 'Cave of Machpelah' (Me'arat HaMachpela). This is the precedent you are setting, in thorough defiance of established English usage, simply because you think these are exclusively Jewish things, and not intrinsically part and parcel, as they happen to be, of the cultural heritage of Western civilization.

I don't care for wikidrama, and never have, despite rumours, and can only insist you are absolutely wrong on English and Western usage, and defend myself with an opportune citation from a favorite author, Marcel Proust, whose absolute precision with 'le mot juste' can be relied on even here, and a good authority as both Jewish and intimately familiar with Western usage. He's describing a scene at the Grand-Hôtel in Balbeq, and watching the waiters and serving folk, which remind him of a 'Jewish-Christian tragedy' (he's thinking of Racine) reflects:

'ils menaient la même existence ecclésiastique que les lévites dans Athalie, et devant cette “troupe jeune et fidèle’” jouant aux pieds des degrés couverts de tapis magnifiques, je pouvais me demander si je pénétrer dans le Grand-Hôtel de Balbec ou dans le temple de Salomon. 'Sodome et Gomorrhe.’ (A la recherché du temps perdu, Pléiade, Gallimard 1987-9, vol. 3) p.I71

Nishidani (talk) 13:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Nishidani: I was already requested to be brief. But you are not fair. Now you switch to playing games while I am trying to be serious. I still enjoy discussing subjects with you, so don't turn around and use it against me. I took the trouble to analyze and comment upon your previous response in context with my frank comments, while you are just plucking disembodied terms out without responding to arguments. You persist in your untrue and unfounded allegation that I am in effect somehow violating WP:NEO when the opposite is true, I am carefully using the most modern utilities of Google, which you have dismissed. Consider the clear disparity between 144,000 hits for "First Temple Era" versus only 5 hits for "Solomon's Temple era" or 23,100 hits for "First Temple period" versus 5 hits for "Solomon's Temple period" as well as 47,000+ hits for "Destruction of the First Temple in Jerusalem" versus 33,000+ hits for "Destruction of Solomon's Temple" none of which can be dismissed off the cuff as "meaningless". Show me where I am "wrong" here and what results you get instead of just making unfounded claims. You also persist with the absurd claim that somehow this will lead to "Dead Sea" becoming "Sea of Salt", just how ridiculous is that, for a person who knows the mechanics of translation you are playing games to suit your own POV as expressed on your "now retired" user page. By the way, how come you are here if you are "retired"? Anyhow I will repeat for the umpteenth time, your "fears" already exist on Wikipedia, just see Category:Hebrew words and phrases and guess what I did not invent them or put them all in there. Finally, I do not speak French so why are you throwing in that curve ball? This is after all the English Wikipedia you know, as they all claim. At least provide clear translations for the non-French speakers among us otherwise we might suspect it's just a cheap order on a menu for frog's legs, French bread and wine from Bordeaux. IZAK (talk) 13:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

(a)Since you seem to question my motives, (it's becoming a chronic suspicion round here) my results were identical to SlimVirgin's checking both Google and Google Books. I defer on this to her results, since no one in his right mind would question her neutrality on this. 'First temple period' will get you all the results you like, because 'period' contextualizes immediately 'First Temple'. But 'First Temple' alone in English will not generally 'ring a bell'. 'Solomon's Temple' needs no contextualization: it immediately evokes the Bible and Jerusalem to non-Jewish ears, as 'first temple' doesn't. You consistently ignore the fact that this is as much a topic at the heart of Western civilization, to people raised on the Bible, as it is to Jewish people.

(b)I'm a linguist, and on these things I don't play games. I love languages, and have no Fichtean fear of foreign words being 'smuggled in', and no fear of 'contamination'. Civilization is constant hybridization. To any anglophone raised in a Jewish world, 'first temple' is obviously what they will hear, and that is exactly the result you got from mostly Jewish anglophones on the Wiki Project Judaism page, as one would expect. To any anglophone outside that area, raised on the Bible, in a religious household, or with a solid education 'Solomon's Temple' is indisputably the term that rings bells, and that is probably what you would have been told had you asked the same question on the WikiPorjkect Christianity page. You fail to see this. 'Solomon's Temple' is what Western non-Jewish people refer to as 'the first temple', and that is why it should be the default term on the English wiki.

(c)You have not given, apart from rhetorical dismissals, any reason to show why my analogy is wrong:

Standard English ----------Jewish/Hebrew Usage

Solomon's Temple-------------First temple ( Beit (ha'mikdash) ha'rishon)

Dead Sea----------------------The Sea of Salt (Yām Ha-Melaḥ)

Temple Mount---------------Mount of the House (Har haBayit)

Cave of the Patriarchs---Cave of Machpelah (Me'arat HaMachpela).

(d)'They led the same ecclesiastical life as the Levites in (Racine's) Athalie and in the presence of this young and faithful troupe who were playing at the foot of stairs covered with magnificent carpets, I was able to wonder whether I had made my way into the Balbec Grand Hotel or into the Temple of Solomon.' (Proust)Nishidani (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Focusing on the listing at Wikiproject Judaism

After looking over things in this discussion and over at the vote at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Building and destroying the Beit Hamikdash, I personally feel that it was the wrong decision to list it there, because it certainly seems to have gotten voters that were focused more on the "what do believing Jews call it" angle, rather than "what do most English-speaking people call it", which is what all of the names on English Wikipedia should be based on. There is a distinct difference between the two.

Additionally, while the talk pages for the related articles, like Solomon's Temple, were indeed notified, they were just told that a discussion was taking place over on the Wikiproject page which, once again, is not the proper place to have such a discussion. I am quite perplexed why, conversely, this discussion was not had on the article talk page and the Wikiproject wasn't just being notified about it? This seems to have all been done rather backwards.

Going back to my initial point, while there should indeed be people involved who are able to vote and explain the Jewish viewpoint on the subject, it seems to me that no non-Wikiproject members were involved at all in the discussion. If we are going to be trying to figure out what the most common name is for English-speaking peoples, then, at least a few, of the voters involved should be un-involved (non-members of the Wikiproject) English-speaking users. With such users, the viewpoint of what they have heard as the most common term is given, so it is known, outside Jewish people, what the commonly recognized term is and whether this syncs with what the common name within Judaism is. It appears, in this case, the common name is not the same, wherein lies the problem.

And, thus, listing such a page move discussion at the Jewish wikiproject is, inevitably, going to focus only on one viewpoint and not consider outside viewpoints on the subject.

I feel that this discussion should be held once more and involve outside users as well. Silverseren^C 09:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for focussing back on the actual issue at hand. Silverseren hits the nail on the head. It is not the debate or reasoning that matters here (WP:ANI is not WP:RM), it is the decision to decide this move at a WikiProject that was mistaken. So please take that into account when discussing future moves. Fences&Windows 13:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

In agreement with F&W, but I'm unclear why administrator intervention is being called for. I will also say that Silver seren should probably refactor his comment to strike the word "(non-Jewish)" and insert "(non-members of that Wikiproject)" I am not a member of any WikiProject, but I rather doubt that membership in that WikiProject is limited to those of a certain religion, therefore term "Jewish Wikiproject" reads oddly and might be misinterpreted to indicate that it is entirely Jewish or limited to those who are Jewish. That should probably be refactored as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Intervention is being asked for because I am claiming that a number of pages were moved without propoer "full community" discussion, outside of normal WP processes. I'm asking that these pages be moved back to where they were (and the discussion re-run if editors wish to do that). --FormerIP (talk) 13:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Just remember that, if administrators do not take any action from this discussion, you yourself can always start a new discussion on the appropriate talk page and notify others users to make sure a discussion takes place that involves a more widespread Wiki population. Silverseren^C 15:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but that would put the onus the other way around, so that the old page names will not be able to re-establish themselves in the event of no consensus. --FormerIP (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Silverseren^C 15:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what's "done" could you elaborate please. Thanks. IZAK (talk) 01:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify: WP:JUDAISM has no criteria for membership and no one is questioned about their religion. Anyone can join. There is no requirement to be Jewish or anything for that matter to participate in discussions there. It is totally absurd to set up fake unenforceable "rules" here that will never work as to what members of any Wikiproject can or cannot discuss topics that are central to their project. Wikiprojects are often manned by experts based on their editing and comment history and they help Wikipedia grow as an enyclopedia while Admins per se are just Wiki-police-judges-executioners editors-at-large who enforce policies without doing much creative stuff the way Wikiprojects do, unless they roll up their sleeves and work on an equal basis with other grunt editors in the trenches. The complaints of FormerIP have been proven to be without merit and false. It is just his concern and he was welcome to join the discussion when it was ongoing yet he did not. He only complained here after moves were made based on WP:CONSENSUS. There are no rules of where to draw the line and how much input is needed to make changes as long as WP policies and procedures are followed and enough time is given for responses. If editors relating to atheism and Wikipedia:WikiProject Atheism wanted to debate that God does not exist and created articles and names and redirects for them about that topic they would not be obligated to inform every last Wikiproject and page relating to religions and faiths that presumably believe in some Deity, as long as they follow the basics of WP policies and procedures. That's just how Wikipedia works and FormerIP is just displaying a case of sour grapes. IZAK (talk) 01:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Question: Why is this discussion being started all over again when it has already gone through at least two incarnations above, not to mention the original discussion. Why are the goal posts being moved yet again??? IZAK (talk) 01:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is being "started over" as you put it, because the topic has drifted from the point of this ANI discussion. And your reply here is still not addressing the problem. The problem is that the vote for a name change should have never been held at the Wikiproject, but at the article page that was going to be renamed. The Wikiproject should have been notified, yes, but that is all. Holding the vote at Wikiproject Judaism means that it is much less likely for people outside of it to notice it going on, even if you notified other article pages.

Furthermore, my other point of contention is that almost all of the reasoning for the move votes were based around what the "most common name as according to Jewish people" would be, when this is not what the name of an article should be based on. As I stated above, the name should be the one that most English-speaking people recognize and know of. Since this is the English Wikipedia after all. I'm sure the Yiddish Wikipedia uses the name First Temple (Or it probably should if it doesn't) and it would be right to do so, since that Wikipedia is based around Judaism and Jewish people. But the English Wikipedia is not, so I believe that there should be a new page name discussion held on the article talk page and that outside viewpoints should be brought in to vote and discuss. Silverseren^C 05:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Silver seren: In answer to your points: (a) There is no easy way to deal with this complicated topic, but the responses here have been serious and helpful and do not deserve to be belittled. (b) There was nothing wrong where the original discussion was held. It's a topic central to Judaism. The notion of the Three Temples are not central to any other religion the way they are key to Judaism. That's a fact according to everyone. (c) The changes effected four articles not one so the place where the debate was held makes no substantive difference because all four talk pages were notified, even though you are dismissive for no good reason. (d) You should read the above discussions because you are just making the same false charges and claims not based on reality or on what is transpiring. (e) No one is denying that this is the English Wikipedia, nevertheless it seems you are not aware that WP allows and welcomes terminology from other cultures, languages and nationalities. Just take a look at Category:Hebrew words and phrases and its parent Category:Words and phrases by language with an astounding 73 sub-categories, are you also going to tell them to get lost and fly a kite, that the English Wikipedia is "only" pukka-pukka English when it never has been? Funnily, see Pukka: "Pukka (Hindi पक्का, Urdu پكّا pakkā) is a word of Hindi and Urdu origin, literally meaning 'cooked, ripe' and figuratively 'fully-formed, solid, permanent'. It may also refer to:..." (f) Your line about the Yiddish Wikipedia is ridiculous and offensive. It violates WP:CIVIL. Why not try reading over the entire discussion again, and don't create this uncalled-for distraction based on the exact same points of discussion that you are now quite obviously missing. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Dear IZAK You keep repeating an argument which is a non-sequitur. No one thinks English, or Hebrew, is not receptive to loan-words. It is simply that we do not arbitrarily substitute standard key terms which have been used consistently over several hundred years with foreign calques that are not familiar to native speakers. I repeat, 'first temple' means nothing to an English ear, unless one is particular about contextualizing it. 'Solomon's Temple' is redolent of the Bible, and resonates deeply in English. This is the English wikipedia. If in time, as with Willis Barnstone's new translation of the Gospels, a return to Hebraic roots catches on and Jesus is written Yeshua, Mary Miriam, and John the Baptist 'Yohanan the Dipper', then I'd be the last one to object. But wikipedia is not a legislator of language, in Shelley's sense, and does not innovate on usage. The usage as it exists is 'Solomon's Temple'.Nishidani (talk) 13:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • And you my friend Nishidani are obviously behind the times. We no longer rely on "hearing aids" from the past. There is a scientific measure called Google and its search engines that record hits from which we can extrapolate and deduce many obvious things that mere human ears no matter how delicate and old-fashioned cannot. To wit: Consider the clear disparity between 140,000+ hits for "First Temple Era" versus only 5 hits for "Solomon's Temple era" or 23,000+ hits for "First Temple period" versus 5 hits for "Solomon's Temple period" as well as 47,000+ hits for "Destruction of the First Temple in Jerusalem" versus 33,000+ hits for "Destruction of Solomon's Temple" none of which can be dismissed off the cuff as "meaningless". Please use Google to disprove me and none of your romantic longings for some long-gone past. In addition there were already two "temples by numbers" articles before all this began, i.e. Third Temple, no dispute over that, and Second Temple of Jerusalem where the Second Temple part is correct but the "of Jerusalem" is ambiguous and actually not accurate because Jerusalem is just a place while the temple was built by Ezra and re-built by Herod and yet it's known as the Second Temple. Thus, First, Second and First Temples are named perfectly logically and symmetrically. And to boot, it's first and foremost a subject more central to Judaism than to any other subject, even though it has other aliases. Nothing to do with your scare tactics over how this is a "creeping annexation" of the English Wikipedia by Hebrew terms which is just a pure fabrication. IZAK (talk) 13:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Please! This is isn't the place to discuss the correct naming of the page. --FormerIP (talk) 14:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Now you tell us! It's directly related, in spite of your cryptic attempts to derail fruitful discussions. What would you like to discuss? IZAK (talk) 14:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
        • • Something that requires Administrator intervention? That would be nice. Dougweller (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
            • Although having said that, I must comment on Google. It's not particularly scientific. It shows up a lot of stuff based on Wikipedia articles, for a start, and that even applies to Google Books now that Wikipedia articles are being published by multiple publishers. A lot of nonsense shows up also. And results like Izaak's vary tremendously according to how you word your search, even the order of words. It can be useful, don't get me wrong, but it needs to be used judiciously and any editor insisting it's the only way to name an article is likely to come to grief. Dougweller (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
              • It's not scientific at all. The papers and articles cited at Wikipedia:Search engine test#References and Wikipedia:Search engine test#Further reading should put at stop to any Wikipedia editor thinking that hit counts measure anything, and the fallaciousness of argumentum ad Googlum, of which the above is an example. IZAK and others can read about this in Hebrew and in even in Hungarian. Science has actually rejected this methodology.

                Moreover, what one is shown by Google Books et al. varies drastically according to where one is in the world. Google is a tool for finding. (It is, after all, a search engine.) It's not a tool for counting. Counting Google hits is not research. Uncle G (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Okay here is a restatement of what the issue raised is. It is not directly to do with what the correct naming of any WP pages is and google doesn't need to be referred to in order to consider it.--FormerIP (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Restatement of what the issue originally raised is - please focus on this

Okay, the background to this discussion. Hope it is not too long, but I am trying to summarise quite a lot:

There was a discussion on the Wikiproject Judaism talkpage (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#Building_and_destroying_the_Beit_Hamikdash) where is was proposed to move the pages of a number of article pages. The proposer, User:IZAK, opens the discussion by proposing to address "lots of confusion, some stemming from opposing secular and religious scholarly outlooks". He says that the title of one of the articles (Solomon's Temple) should not be used, even though it had been pointed out that this was the most common English term, because it is not correct "according to Judaism to which it belongs" (my emphasis). The title of the section on the talkpage is also named in a way that many non-Jewish editors will find hard to connect with the topic being discussed.

It seems to me to be reasonable to interpret this as a discussion set up specifically for members of Wikiproject Judaism, inviting them to form a consensus in order to counter what is perceived as the non-Jewish bias of the community as a whole. I am not suggesting bad faith, but a lack of understanding about how WP is supposed to work. It is clear from the discussion that consideration of non-Jewish viewpoints on the naming of the articles in question has been actively discouraged.

The result of the discussion was a decision to move a number of pages, inlcuding Solomon's Temple to First Temple (Judaism) and Second Temple of Jerusalem to Second Temple (Judaism) (note: the "(Judaism)" suffixes have now been removed by User:Fram, who has stressed that this should not be taken as resolving the matter - in my view this action was helpful, but it still leaves the titles with names that are immediately understood within Judaism but less so outside Judaism).

The disucssion seems to have been closed and the pages moved by IZAK (the proposer) at a time when there doesn't even appear to have been a clear consensus amongst the project members about what exactly to do, and without actually declaring it closed.

My primary concern is that is was not appropriate to hold a discussion which seems to have been intended to stamp the articles as Jewish without involving editors who may have been inclined to a different view (for example that the articles should be named according to common English usage). It has been pointed out that any editor could have particpated. Whilst this is theoretically true, it seems to be clear that use of the Judaism talkpage as a forum slanted the discussion towards a Jewish POV. Jewish editors were more likely to find the discussion and more likely to understand from the title what was being disucssed.

Notices were left on several talkpages, but a number of editors have pointed out that these notices did not make it clear that the discussion was about proposed page moves. Also, the notice seems to have disappeared at some point from the the 2nd Temple of Jersusalem talkpage, although exactly when does not seem to be recorded in the talkpage history (I suspect a server glitch). (That was the only page I had on watch, hence I did not know about the discussion in order to participate in it).

The discussion was not included at WP:RM. It has been pointed out that guidance there says that disucssions "can always be carried out at the article's talk page without adding an entry here". But, in this case, the discussion was not on any article talkpage. It has been suggested that centralising a discussion may be appropriate where a number of pages are involved. Although policy does not seem to allow for this, I understand the logic of that position. However, it seems to me that holding a centralised discussion in a non-neurtal forum and framing the disucssion in a way that encourages non-neutral discourse is a different matter.

It has also been suggested that I or another editor could hold a further discussion about moving the pages back if we are not happy. But that would reverse the onus, so that the new titles would stick if there is no consensus. From the above discussion, it seems to me that there are a number of strongly held positions on the matter (which don't actually need to be discussed here), it's just that they weren't all represented in the discussion at Wikiproject Judaism. This means that "no consensus" can't ruled out by any means.

What I'm asking admins to consider is whether it is appropriate in this circumstance to move the pages in question back to their stable titles, on the grounds that the discussion held about moving them cannot be said to have produced a valid WP:CONSENSUS. New, properly inclusive, discussions can then be held if any editor is inclined to do that.

Please note: I do not think it is appropriate to discuss here what the correct naming should actually be, only whether the process by which a decision to move the pages was appropriate according to normal WP standards. And, although it may seem hypocritical given the length of this post, can I ask editors to refrain from making very long off-topic posts, which I think are making it hard for admins and other editors to get a handle on what the issue being raised actually is.

Thanks.--FormerIP (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Attempting to read thru this entire thread -- but failing at several points -- I find it is obvious that for one reason or another, a number of editors don't agree with moving one or more articles to the proposed new name. In short, there is no consensus to rename them, no matter was said or discussed before. Discussions & the ensuing agreements made in various subareas of Wikipedia only become consensus if they are accepted in the rest of Wikipedia. (This is a point which the regulars at WP:MOS continually fail to get; just because some matter is "officially" decided, it still is an open matter if there is obvious, wide-spread resistance to the decision.) The simplest solution would be to send this matter to WP:RM & see whether the objections raised here are simply over process, or if there are good reasons to revert back to the original names. (And please, nota bene: I have no dog in this fight. I'm certain that any concerns I have over the preferred names for these articles can be adequately addressed by either creating new redirects or using existing ones.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

OK: list the pages at WP:RM, making clear that there was no consensus to move in the first place (according to uninvolved admins on this thread), so there must be consensus to retain the present names or they will be moved back. Fences&Windows 21:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not clear that there was not a consensus. That seems to be a questionable characterization. This whole thread was a waste of all our time -- should never have been started as an AN/I thread in the first place. Finally, consensus -- in the proper forum -- is consensus of the editors involved, which IMHO we have. All that said, someone please move this thread out of here, as it is taking up space that could be filled by more interesting and heated disputes.  :) --Epeefleche (talk) 23:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess that leaves me to wash up. But I also guess I've invested enough already to carry on. A couple of things though. (1) Fences&Windows, would you be willing to be the closer on this basis, to avoid confusion at the end of the period? (2) To be clear, we are saying that "no consensus" will mean return the pages to their prior situations, not only if there is a two way split, but also if there turn out to be a range of views and perhaps new suggestions. If there is no cleat consensus to retain the new page names, they don't get retained. Correct? --FormerIP (talk) 23:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Misconduct by TK-CP - misusing Twinkle, attacking, not applying good faith

Hello - I would like to bring up a recent issue that other editors and I have had regarding the conduct of TK-CP. Over the last few months, several users have been having issues trying to communicate with TK-CP, as he is often unapproachable (for example, see this edit, or this one, or this one). However, these issues were more easily solved with a forget-and-move-on approach. Most recently, however, the problems have escalated and TK-CP has reverted constructive, good-faith and non-vandalism edits on his talk page as vandalism when he has been warned not to do so, and has attacked and falsely accused me of making comments that I have never made via my talk page.

On July 31, a user by the name of Nuttish posted a message on TK-CP's talk page, requesting that he cease making inflammatory personal remarks towards himself and other editors based on their association with another wiki. Just for the sake of having information, the wiki in question is RationalWiki, a wiki that, in part, is focused on refuting and criticizing Conservapedia, a site that TK-CP is a sysop at. Back to the story: In response to Nuttish's request, TK-CP reverted his clearly non-vandalism edit as vandalism, regardless of the fact that he has been notified in the past that falsely marking edits as vandalism is both not allowed and can be considered a personal attack (see this and this). Nuttish then proceeded to contact TK-CP again, this time asking him to not label his edits as vandalism. I myself, upon seeing this incident, did the same, along with notifying TK-CP to assume good faith and to read WP:VAND for what is and what is not vandalism. TK-CP, regardless of being warned and/or requested to stop labeling non-vandalism edits as vandalism four times to date now, reverted my edit as vandalism, then proceeded to leave me a message on my talk page in the form of a level-one warning template, saying that the reason he reverted my edit was that it involved me talking about things unrelated to Wikipedia and trying to promote RationalWiki, which I have never done anywhere on Wikipedia. I pointed this out, and requested to see what exactly he was talking about (along with telling him about Wikipedia's guidelines regarding user talk pages), but he then proceeded to attack me, telling me to shut up and that I was part of a "public gang-rape", and he accused me yet again of posting unrelated comments to his talk page, this time also saying that I should stop harassing him. I replied again, once again pointing out that his accusations have no base, and he has not replied since.

I was considering taking this to WP:WQA or WP:RfC/U; however, I feel that this is the most relevant spot for this, as I think the intervention of an administrator may be the best solution to the problem, considering that I myself, along with others, have tried to approach him regarding the issue, but he remains uncompliant. TK-CP has been misusing Twinkle to falsely label edits as vandalism and to leave, by my reasoning, an inappropriate warning on my talk page, among other things (which include attacks and not assuming good faith). I'm hoping to see what other's think of this situation and what the appropriate course of action would be from here. I believe that it may be appropriate to remove his ability to use the tool (which must be done by an administrator), among other possible actions (such as a temporary block, etc.). Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Users may remove messages from their usertalk page for any reason they wish. Please pay this no mind. He's allowed to remove notices from his talk page if he chooses, even if they aren't vandalism and are good-faith comments from other users. Ignore it when he does this, and move on. --Jayron32 04:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of that, however, he is labeling the edits as vandalism at the same time (which I would think to be disruptive, and on a personal level, I consider it to be a personal attack), and as a result of approaching him regarding the issue, has performed personal attacks. Even with that in mind, do you still think it is appropriate to move on? ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I misread the situation a bit because the bulk of post above deals with the talk page comment removal rather than the personal attacks. It would be helpful to have diffs of his personal attacks (beyond the mislabeling as vandalism issue, which in my mind is minor). Diffs of comments like the gang-rape one would be helpful in seeing a pattern of behavior that needs addressing. --Jayron32 04:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I actually linked to the section on my talk page where he attacks me - it's located here (apologies for not making it stand out more). I could provide diffs, but I don't think it's necessary, since the whole discussion is right there. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I didn't make myself clear. I read that section on your talk page. I was looking for other diffs which show that such comments are widespread, and that his outburst was not a one-off event. I am looking for evidence of a pattern of behavior rather than a single outburst. --Jayron32 05:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. The attacks you see on my talk page are basically the only example of strong, personal attacks. There are other light instances where he performs undesirable reversions to his talk page, but they are not totally-out-of-line edits, at least when compared to the ones on my talk page. For example, he has labeled edits as trolling and has used the irrelevant basis that a user is a member of RationalWiki (a site that I described in my original post) as reasoning for reverting one's edit to his talk page (for example, see this, this, this, this, this, and this, where in the last one, Nuttish was actually correcting a formatting error). Again, these may be undesirable but are rather minor (especially since a user can remove posts from their own talk page), and are probably especially minor to you since you find mislabeling edits as vandalism to be minor, but I still find the edit summaries of those reverts, among possibly others, to be unnecessary and rather harsh and unhelpful. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Users are free to remove comments from their talk page. I'm very skeptical about most ANI reports about someone crying wolf about "vandalism" and using a technocratic reading of that guideline to do it. I don't think the OP is doing that, and I think TK-CP needs to be less aggressive in these discussions and actually discuss more. Are there any of these issues that occur outside of talk space? Shadowjams (talk) 04:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Basically, the only other talk page that TK-CP has edited is the talk page of Conservapedia itself (that, and his talk page make up the bulk of his edits). While he has been constructively communicative there, I know that he has, on at least one basis, removed another user's comment, labeling it as trolling. I'll see if I can find that example, and anymore if there are any. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I may have misunderstood your question: when you say, "Are there any of these issues that occur outside of talk space?" are you referring to a page outside his user talk space, or out of the talk space in general, into actual articles? ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I meant outside of his talk space, but the other's useful too. I worry that people are taking the "vandalism" term a little too literally and others are using it without knowing or meaning what the people receiving it are hearing. Maybe we need to rephrase that part because it's been a reoccuring issue. As for this issue, I agree, TK-CP has been brusque in these conversations. I don't know if that rises to an appropriate level of disruption though, so, wherever it happens on wiki, are there examples of disruption? Shadowjams (talk) 04:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I worry about it, too, which is why I think it is understandable to let the first few instances go. However, TK-CP's been notified about mis-labeling edits as vandalism several times now, which is why I think the issue is a bit more serious than someone who just doesn't know what vandalism on Wikipedia means. The only thing that is really questionable on Talk:Conservapedia is this edit, in which he removes another user's comment to give it a rest as "trolling". A mini edit war comes after that, where an editor undoes TK-CP's removal, then TK-CP re-undoes it, then finally, another user undoes TK-CP's edit again. TK-CP only has 17 article edits, most of which are to Conservapedia itself (you can probably view them yourself quite easily by just looking at the history and using your browser's search function). There are a few instances where his edits are reverted, mostly based on the fact that he is new at editing Wikipedia and isn't aware of article structure, etc. (most notably how reliable sourcing works), but that's about it - nothing really questionable or disruptive, especially since he's a new editor here. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, and I'd also note that TK-CP was advised about using the middle and not the red button for TW edits back in April. While the distinction's largely irrelevant, I understand your concern, and I too would find being templated insulting given your obvious experience. I don't think anything that's been done is serious enough to warrant a block or other restriction. As a courtesy, if I were in TK-CP's shoes, I would be more diplomatic: it might get a more positive response. Shadowjams (talk) 05:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense - a friendly message from an uninvolved administrator that asks for a more diplomatic approach to messages may be all that's required for a more positive attitude. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I have to be going now, so I won't be available for any more queries or anything like that. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The users in question have been asked both on and off wiki to refrain from posting to my talk page, and if you bother to examine the page's history, it was mostly to do with administrative questions involving a site other than Wikipedia, about which I am most adamant, and I think I am being more than fair to insist users refrain from bringing their disputes with Conservapedia to my personal talk page. Does anyone disagree with my oft-repeated request? This whole complaint involves "gaming the system" and attempting to bring my character into disrepute and make me seem intemperate. Surely if one of the Wikipedia administrators were constantly called-out on another site they belong to, for actions they took here, it might tend to make them slightly churlish, as it sometimes does me. I think if administrators of Rational Wiki, which the complaining party is, merely adopted a mature attitude and honor my request to not post to my talk page about things that happen elsewhere, we can all get along famously......but to continue arguments to my own page here, over a simple disagreement as to if their site is indeed a vandal site is silly since they all have my direct email, have contacted me directly before. Why does Wikipedia need to be dragged into this? I have no answer. As to abuse of the rollback, I have told those involved, and others, I would consider it vandalism if they continued to bring such matters to my WP page. If the preponderance of Admins here don't think continued argument after being warned repeatedly isn't vandalism and/or harassment, I of course will bow to their opinion and simply roll-back without prejudice. But I cannot assume someone who continues to post after being asked not to, is making a "good faith" post. --TK-CP (talk) 10:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I just have to say that I have an extremely low opinion of "Conservapedia," but as others have said, he may treat his talk page as however he wants, as long as he avoids WP:NPA. Although TK-CP doesn't need to use the condescending "mature" attitude; those posts were fine on his talk, but if he wants to remove them, fine. But he shouldn't label them as vandalism, as it is not WP:VANDALISM. Tommy! [message]

"I have told those involved, and others, I would consider it vandalism if they continued to bring such matters to my WP page." - I'm sorry but you don't get to enforce your own personal definition of vandalism just because it's your talkpage - we narrowly define vandalism for a reason. If you wish to delete and ignore messages on your talkpage that is your prerogative, but please note that deleting a message is the same as "read the message" as far as talkpage messages go (and you cannot subsequently claim you are unaware of the content of any deleted messages) and you should not label these edits as vandalism under any circumstances. Exxolon (talk) 12:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, changed my comments above. Tommy! [message] 12:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with TK-CP that there are plenty of times where users have brought up issues on TK-CP's talk page that have nothing to do with Wikipedia, and there is nothing wrong with requesting users to not do such a thing. However, those are not the edits in question, against what TK-CP states. The edits in question are the ones in which TK-CP reverted non-vandalism edits to his talk page, that were indeed related to Wikipedia, as vandalism (and in one instance, calling a valid warning of the 3RR a threat). They did not have anything "to do with administrative questions involving a site other than Wikipedia". Nuttish's first edit that got reverted as vandalism was asking TK-CP to refrain from reverting edits on Wikipedia for merely the author having an association with RationalWiki, particularly pointing to an edit in which they constructively corrected, in an obvious good-faith attempt, a formatting problem caused by another editor on TK-CP's talk page, which was later reverted by TK-CP. While Nuttish's message did have something to do with RationalWiki, it was ultimately related to Wikipedia, as it is asking for TK-CP to refrain from using being a member of RationalWiki, or "vandal site", as reasoning to revert ones edit on Wikipedia (which, even though TK-CP doesn't want others to bring Conservapedia and RationalWiki into Wikipedia, he uses being a member of RationalWiki as rational for reverting one's edit). Nuttish, after their edit got reverted, re-posted, this time asking for TK-CP not to label his edits as vandalism. I did the same, this time notifying him of policy, though he then proceeded to label my edit as vandalism, even though my comment was 100% related to Wikipedia, as it was doing nothing more than notifying him of Wikipedia policies and guidelines regarding labeling edits as vandalism. I'd also like to point out that I was never explicitly asked to not post on TK-CP's talk page; the closest instance was when he told me to "Go someplace else to argue" when we were discussing, back-and-forth, about archiving messages and changing them. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 15:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're already in conflict with TK-CP, it's not a bright idea to post warnings on his talk page. Alert an admin and let them handle it. He should not have called them "vandalism" but, given the history of harassment in the past, I'd be hard-pressed to find this reaction worth more than a slap on the wrist. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I would point out that any need to remove posts from my page involve fellow members of another website with a perhaps unhealthy preoccupation with chiding or lecturing me, or a dispute that arose elsewhere, not on Wikipedia, who couldn't be bothered to use my contact information, and wanted to air their disputes publicly here. Now the complaining editor introduces another fleeting "charge" to say we discussed my archiving messages and changing them? I have yet to have any "discussion" with that editor or any of his fellow Admins from Rational Wiki, and of course the matter here doesn't concern Conservapedia or if editors or Admins of WP find it odious or not, and to introduce such comments here is inappropriate.

The bottom line here is there isn't anything to this matter that the complainant couldn't have resolved with a friendlier attitude, sans "wiki-lawyering" just by hitting the "email this user" link. Has the Internet world devolved to the point that tribunals/forums such as this one has replaced normal, civil emails? I think yes, because anyone who is ever "offended" or dislikes the answers they get from another, now seem to have some need for public vindication of trivial matters, or worse still, a need to be punitive simply because they "dislike" someone for their political views or ideas. That is anti-intellectual. --TK-CP (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

TK-CP, we did indeed have a short discussion regarding you archiving messages and changing them. A quick use of your browser's search function on your talk page's history would have revealed that.

In addition, I hate to spark any argument here, and I don't mean to be offensive, but I'm getting kind of tired of this. You state that these things could have been solved using a friendlier attitude. My message to you on your talk page was just about as friendly one could get, especially after being warned for the same thing numerous times before in a just-as-kindly and constructive manner. I would have loved to discuss this out further, but after labeling my attempt to contact you as vandalism and attacking me on my talk page, I don't see how we could've discussed this any further. If you want a friendlier conversation, you should at least let one post on your talk page, without having to be worried that they will be told to shut up. There's a limit to how many times one can tell a user to abide by Wikipedia policy and guidelines before it must be brought up elsewhere for further input. In addition, my comment didn't involve any "wiki-lawyering"; where did I do this? I was relaying common policy to you, in which other users both here and elsewhere have clearly agreed is correct, which is that you should not be labeling the comments on your talk page as vandalism when they are not.

In another addition, what do you mean by "who couldn't be bothered to use my contact information"? You're talk page is your contact information. Is something wrong with discussing things through talk pages? Is something wrong with discussing things publicly? That's what talk pages are here for; when there's an issue involving someone's actions on Wikipedia, one brings it up on their talk page. Look at my talk page, look at anyone else's talk page: they all involve users pointing out problems pertaining to Wikipedia. Yes, an alternative is to email, but why should one use email? Wikipedia is a community that should be transparent, and discussing issues related to Wikipedia on one's talk page is the most efficient and convenient way of doing it, and it allows for the input for others; often times, especially in tense scenarios such as this, emailing won't solve any problems, as it's just a one-and-one conversation between two users who disagree with each other. What good would come out of that? How would privately emailing you help solve the situation when your reply to me on my public talk page was to tell me to shut up? A private email conversation, I would think, wouldn't turn out to be any more civil than that. That is why I brought this here; because you and I couldn't sort this thing out by ourselves in a civil manner, I came here to request the input and possible action of others.

I'm not being punitive simply because I dislike you for your political views. You've repeatedly gone against the spirit of WP:VAND and WP:AGF, along with lobbing personal attacks against me. Please stop accusing me of placing this notice here because I have something against you; I have stated before and I'll state it again, your behavior has been brought up here because it has been in violation of several Wikipedia policies and guidelines after being repeatedly warned, not because I, or other users, are trying to "publically gang-rape" you, which I take offense to. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:TLW --TK-CP (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support removal of TK-CP's access to Twinkle per evidence provided. --Smashville^talk 21:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support revocation Long, good reply... so obviously it is last wordism. Please. Tommy! [message] 21:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Note: I have restored this previously-archived discussion, due to the lack of a final decision being made as to what actions, if any, should be taken as of the result of the discussion. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Administrator: Philip Baird Shearer

I have received a message on my talk page from the administrator Philip Baird Shearer, which is basically a "cease and desist" notice backed up a threat to block over the issue of the archiving of what was an on going discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Descriptive & segmented article titles. I do not believe this message to represent an appropriate use of admin powers, and I don't think gagging a discussion is any way appropriate. If Philip has an objection to the discussion, he is free to say so, and ideally spell out why he objects. Alternatively, he can drop out of the discussion at any time. What is not appropriate is to halt, impede or generally inhibit constructive and detailed discussions about complex issues just because he can. As an ordinary editor, I do not think low level bullying of this nature is acceptable anywhere, let alone on Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

As an involved editor in the debate in question, I was not only pleased that it was originally closed and archived, that the closure was supported by this ANI, but equally pleased in Philip's conscientious decision to keep it closed after Gavin reverted it. Gavin has a knack of finding a multitude of methods for Flogging a Dead Horse and this is just another example. Philip's actions and notice to Gavin on his talk page IMO are on the mark.--Mike Cline (talk) 08:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The collapsing and archiving of talk page discussions is not the subject of this discussion: that has been dealt with at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive89#Erachima. The issue being discussed here is whether or not admins have the power to halt, impede or generally inhibit talk page discussions. The is no policy or guideline that suggests to me that admins are a superior caste with the right to do so, nor threaten editors with whom they disagree. Philip's actions are not on the mark, they are Beyond the Pale. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm involved. Gavin Collins reverted an admin close of a stale debate - a debate that he had already reverted the close on once before. I think a warning from PBS over this is reasonable, as Gavin Collins is refusing to let the matter drop despite his proposal having clearly failed. This is a recurring problem with Gavin Collins during guideline and policy discussions. Fences&Windows 13:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Gavin as I said in my posting to your talk page "My revert was done as an administrators revert based on the ANI, Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive89#Erachima does not trump the ANI"

Gavin. If in future you start a new section on an editor on this page, please be so good as to inform them on their talk page that you have done so. -- PBS (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

As an involved administrator, I would not have closed the debate, however when it went to an ANI and User:Fences and windows as an uninvolved administrator endorsed the closure but reverted the collapse box, I support that decision (as I would have, one to keep it open). You Gavin should have accepted that compromise. I have mealy reverted you reverts to the status quo left by User:Fences and windows. The section in HUGE and will be auto archived in due course, in the meantime the 60 pages can sit on the talk page for anyone who wants to read them. (Gavin if you look at the talk page history you will see I reverted a change to archive them more quickly). As I said on your talk page "If the consensus among other administrators at another ANI is that my edit should be reversed then I will revert it, or not object if another administrator does so". As of yet I see no such consensus. -- PBS (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Gavin why have you placed a comment above the warning I placed on you talk page? The time stamp that appeared on the at the end of that posting is not the same as that in the edit history.[1] The time of the edit recorded in the history of your user page is "07:31, 1 August 2010" (11 minutes after my posting which was at 07:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC) and 16 minutes before your reply to my posting) but the date you have given the posting on your talk page is 11:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC).

I am concerned that this mistake by you means that, because the link you gave at the start of this ANI section, was to talk page and included the entry with the incorrect time stamp, it gives the impression that I was replying to a notification you have placed there, when in fact it was placed there after my posting of a WARNING and before the opening of this ANI. To the best of my knowledge you did not inform me on my talk page, or mention on your talk page, that you had made a revert of my revert until after I placed the WARNING on your talk page. (if I am mistaken please show me the entry in the edit history to prove it).

If it were not for the fact that we assume good faith, I would assume that this edit was an attempt to deceive with a false time stamp, but now that I have pointed this out to you, as I am sure that as you are acting in good faith, as it is clearly a mistake and not a forgery, you will of course amend the section by moving you posting down below mine and altering the time stamp to the correct one, or alternatively just removing your pre-dated post. If not them we can discuss it further. -- PBS (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

PBS, it seems to have been a straight copy of the note he placed on your talk page at that timestamp, as can be seen here[2]. While it would have been clearer if he had added a small text indicating that he copied this from your talk page, I don't believe any attempt to deceive you or anyone else was made with this edit. Fram (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That is indeed the case; keeping the discussion together makes sense. In fairness to me, I have tried to keep this matter to Wikiquette alerts to avoid exactly this scenario. I don't know why collapsing or archiving discussions should be allowed to be used in this way, for there must be fifty ways to end an ongoing discussion that don't fall foul of WP:RRULE. We all want the discussion to end, but that point can only be reached by consensus. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what your point is, Gavin. What action, exactly, are you seeking for admins to take here? If you want a general discussion on when discussions should be closed, WP:VPP is a more appropriate venue. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If it is not apparent from from what I have said from the start, I would like this threat rescinded. In addition, I would like the archive template to be removed once and for all from the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Descriptive & segmented article titles in accordance with Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive89#Erachima. I have asked Swarm who initially mediated to comment on this matter[3]. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I see no particular need for that discussion to be re-opened: it had gone completely off the rails, and was discussing so many things in so many ways that nothing could possibly have been decided in its current state. Hence, I think that PBS's actions to keep the thread closed were supportable, even if there wasn't any single policy I could point to to support that (short of WP:Disruptive editing, which I'm not exactly sure applies).--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I've gotta back up Sarek here. Discussions are archived when they become disruptive or circular in nature, and that's where this one was going. I also do not see a "threat" by PBS, but a warning that any further reverting of his close would result in a block. You were right to bring it here rather than reverting, but so far I don't see any reason to disagree with PBS' actions. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid I just can't agree with this perspective, and you have not responded to my point about WP:RRULE. Whether a discussion is "off the rails" or "discussed so many things in so many ways" is a matter of opinion, not fact. The issue of segmented and descriptive article titles is worthy of a thorough and detailed discussion; the act that many examples were worked through is a classic example of editors trying to reach a shared understanding, not disruptive editing. Editors have to be allowed to discuss complex issues on Wikipedia without the threat of blocks. Just because a discussion is deemed to be "long", that does not mean it cannot be summarised and conclusions drawn from it. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 05:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:RRULE says "The Reasonability Rule: if an action cannot be considered "reasonable" or "acceptable" by an objective third person, that action should not be performed." I told you that "If the consensus among other administrators at another ANI is that my edit should be reversed then I will revert it, or not object if another administrator does so." Which is a practical implementation of the "Reasonability Rule". You are not a third party, and to date no uninvolved administrator think that the actions of User:Fences and windows (an uninvolved administrator when F&W took the action), or my support for F&Ws actions, are unreasonable. -- PBS (talk) 06:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

In answer to PBS, I am not the only editor to express an opinion on this matter, and you know this. You have read Swarm's comments at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive89#Erachima, and his arguments that the discussion should not have been collapsed and archived in the first place are entirely reasonable. I am suprised that neither Fences nor Serek have not taken his comments on board.

My original concern expressed in that thread is that WP:ANI is not the venue for ruling on merits and demerits of a particular discussion on a policy talk page. If an admin have an issue with a specific issue regarding article titles, or have an issue about the length or direction of such a discussion, it should be brought directly to on the talk page itself in a civil and constructive fashion. There must be 50 ways to end an ongoing policy discussion, but the archiving template was never designed to be used like a garrote to choke off a discussion.

In the short time I have been an editor, I have never come across a policy or guideline debate where admins were seeking to close down a discussion, either directly (by PBS) or by proxy (Fences & Sereek). Since there is no precedent, the threat of a block should be recinded and the archive template should be removed in the first instance as a matter of principle, if not as courtesy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:RRULE is simply an essay, and we've already established that other editors & admins think the original actions were reasonable, so that point is moot. The fact that you are personally unaware of discussions being closed when they become redundant is also not germane; they have been closed in this way before, notably on controversial article Talk pages where discussions tend to attract the same tired talking points. The archives of Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories will have some examples for you, and Talk:Barack Obama has a host of examples in the archives. (Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 66 is a prime example.) If you want to debate this practice, WP:VPP would be the proper venue to seek a policy change. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Those are not policy or guideline talk pages, and there is no precedent. My observed experience of discussions being collapsed and archived is associated with article ownership issues, not good practice. I think we will have to agree to disagree. However, where I come, such sharp practice would not be considered to be fair play. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but you don't get to decide what is or is not precedent. Policy/guideline talk pages are not excluded from the general practices on-wiki and, again, your observations appear strikingly narrow. "Fair play" doesn't enter into it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I am completely uninvolved, but it seems to me that this particular discussion has run its course and should be ended. If all Gavin is asking for is that the threat to block be rescinded ... well, first, I have a hard time distinguishing between a threat and a warning. Since one of the obligations of admins is to enforce community decisions or policy, for an admin to warn someone that they may be blocked is perfectly reasonable. As for "rescinding" it, well what could this possibly mean? A warning is not an act that can be undone - it is notification that an act might be done. Since Gavin has not been blocked, I assume that he has desisted from the actions that prompted the warning. If Gavin has desisted from the actions that prompted the warning, the matter is closed, right? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Gavin Collins says that "I am suprised that neither Fences nor Serek have not taken his comments on board." My action to uncollapse the thread was not discussed or criticised at WP:WQA. Are you suggesting that I am guilty of an abuse of my position? If so, please state this plainly. And while User:Swarm is entitled to their opinion, their statement at WQA that the thread should be reopened is only the opinion of a single editor, with which I disagree. That WQA thread does not hold any sway over admin actions. Gavin Collins in this thread is again the only one arguing his position and is refusing to drop it - does anyone else see a pattern? Fences&Windows 21:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous

WP:DNFTT. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Last night User:Chris Bennett, who was awarded a barnstar for “janitorial services”, filed an SPI. Although it cites me, it relates to some edits I was unaware of until I switched on the computer this morning. The reason I’m writing is that judgment was given by PeterSymonds one minute after the thing was filed. Only after judgment was it mentioned in article space, and it was not mentioned in user space at all. Interestingly, although SPIs are timestamped, this one wasn’t. There is currently a proposal that contributors who are discussed on Administrators’ noticeboard should be notified. I would like to suggest that this is extended to SPI as well. Also, I would like to suggest that there be a minimum time between filing of the SPI and judgment. Bennett needs to be watched closely. For example, he has just added the following to Julian calendar: On it, the three additional leap days were backed out on the triennial cycle, not the quadrennial cycle. What on earth does that mean? I would deal with it myself, but Bennett has hoodwinked administrators into protecting both the article and its talk page. 91.84.220.22 (talk) 11:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Note that I've blocked the above IP as an obvious sock of Vote (X) for Change (talk · contribs). TFOWR 11:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC) This is getting beyond a joke. Elockid has now labelled User:Beeshoney a sockpuppet of the non - existent account "Vote (X) for Change", reverted his/her contribution and protected the page for three months. This is what happens when you pick people off the street and, without interviewing them or taking up references, give them a job. I've seen it so many times. The way (s)he interacts with other users, is it any wonder that (s)he has to keep his/her talk page protected and request oversight to sanitise the edit summaries? 86.156.34.102 (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Note that I've also blocked the above IP as an obvious sock of Vote (X) for Change (talk · contribs). TFOWR 16:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC) ...and just so no one be mislead about either Elockid or Beeshoney: Iranian calendars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Our IP friend is confused. TFOWR 16:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Whoa, there! Beeshoney is a reviewer. (S)he reviewed the edit and approved it. Once it's approved there's no provision for someone else to come along and de - approve it. That's why Elockid is always getting into trouble. Like Elockid, Chris Bennett seems to be a disaster for the project. Above, I commented that yesterday he added gobbledygook to Julian calendar. He subsequently added more gobbledygook, extending the phrase so it read On it, the three excess leap days added during the years that the triennial cycle was in operation were backed out on the triennial cycle, not the quadrennial cycle. Bennett's Spanish is as bad as his English. (See his talk page). Putting a cedilha under a 'c' which is followed by an 'i' displays total ignorance of grammar. Also of Spanish, which doesn't use the cedilha anyway. The Orthodox church has extensive libraries which can be accessed for the mutual benefit of the Church and the WMF. But this isn't going to happen if the Catholic contributors are going to revert all contributions which are not in line with Catholic dogma. Protecting an article and its talk page at the same time are not going to help WMF achieve their goal of perfection. Julian calendar is the perfect example. Joe Kress has attempted some damage limitation by modifying the phrase so it reads On it, the three excess leap days added during the years that the triennial cycle was in operation were backed out on the triennial cycle (5, 2BC, AD2), not the quadrennial cycle (9, 5, 1BC). But you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. I'm offering a barnstar to anyone who can figure out what it means. We don't know if AD4 was a leap year - we need some ephemerides between that year and 24BC (we have 24BC). Not apparent (because Bennett has excluded key passages from Macrobius which were added to the article in the far off days when people could actually edit it) is that Joe is talking nonsense. I recall a TV programme in which a woman was on two drugs (call them A and B). Her doctor, when prescribing medicine B, gave her a note warning she "must not take medicine B within 24 hours of taking medicine A". In reading the contents of the note over to her (they were both from overseas) her sister said this: You must not take medicine B within two to four hours of taking medicine A. The woman took the two medicines within the space of a few hours and died. Now assume she was prescribed 1 gm of medicine every four days, the potency being such that if she takes more than 13 gm within 52 days she will die. She takes the first dose on day 2 and continues taking one dose every three days till day 38, when she has had 13 gm. On day 49 she takes a fourteenth dose and dies. Turn the days into years (45BC = day 1, AD1 directly follows 1BC) and the grammes into leap days and you will see that the best defence against WP:FRINGE is unrestricted editorial access to articles. Elockid has now re - directed my talk page to my user page. The best defence against Elockid is to de - sysop him/her. Ate logo! 86.162.183.87 (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Boa tarde, amigos. I'm restoring this thread to permit discussion of Elockid's recent re - direct of my talk page to my user page. This is in violation of the rule which says re - directs may only be made if there is consensus. Nobody agreed to this, in fact nobody was consulted at all. The purpose of the move was to make the page revision history inaccessible - another violation of the rules. Too many people have been misinterpreting the rules for their own purposes - for example citing WP:DENY when removing threads started by me although that is an anti - vandal measure. To discourage this sort of thing, if it happens again I'll restore the thread and ask for an explanation. Some people don't like to justify their actions - a favourite trick is to revert an edit and protect the page. I suppose someone might try that here, but they can't keep the page protected indefinitely. Regarding the edits to Julian calendar, at 18:26 last night Bennett made an edit summarised "Clarify clarification". Unfortunately it did just the opposite. Joe made an edit at 21:08 summarised "Correct the clarification" which was the current version last time I looked. Both these edits appear to introduce original research - we are now told that there are two quadrennial cycles, in addition to the myriad triennial cycles. The story now is that there is also a "Matzat quadrennial cycle" with leap years in 8BC, 4BC and AD1. Matzat's next quadrennial leap year was AD4, and AD1 to AD4 is triennial, not quadrennial, so I think someone has got their wires crossed somewhere. 91.84.220.22 (talk) 12:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Neutralhomer - Block request for violating sanctions

Despite User:Neutralhomer's extremely inflammatory comment in this latest discussion, I didn't rise to the bait. This thread was archived by Neutralhomer, however, in direct violation of conditions he agreed to in what was termed a "final warning" in order to have an indef block lifted. I have no objection to this thread being closed, but I'm tired of Neutralhomer's attempts to disrupt any ANI discussion that I initiate and ask that the conditions of his unblock agreement be enforced. In an entirely unrelated matter, perhaps a checkuser with nothing better to do might look into the spate of SPA accounts that have recently been attempting to annoy me (such as User:Media parent above). Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

DC, what to do with you. This is exactly what I was talking about. Continous, never-ending, ANI threads on anyone and everyone who seems to piss you off. You dig into archives to get dirt and use that at your will. This isn't your playpen. Might I remind you why we are here. It isn't for MOAR DRAMAHZ! it is to build an encyclopedia constructively, not run off people who piss us off (another activity you think is part of this website). If you can't build that encyclopedia constructively and you think this is a bunch of MOAR DRAMAHZ, then please consult the "sign out" button at the top right of your screen.

Now, as to the reason I closed this thread. The first thread was "dead" and the result was "RBI the socks", the second was "dead" and the result was "PMDrive1061 didn't break NPA" and the third was drawing far too much heat (especially with your "who's sock are you?" comment) and the result was "DC's block has expired". This thread is over, done, finito. It is, in fact, pining for the Fjords (consult Dead Parrot sketch for more on that). There isn't more to talk about. Just endless digs at other users and constant DRAMAHZ! that just isn't necessary. Move on, Dude. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh and per my prior instructions (which I had intend forgotten about) I will leave this to other users and admins. I seriously need a list of prior instructions, my memory sucks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Yup, that was what Neutralhomer was precisely warned not to do. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Jehochman ^Talk 00:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Yup, and I ain't perfect. I per ask the community to please put a list of my prior restrictions in my userspace so I can remember what the hell they are. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

So, Jehochman, now that I've brought it to your attention and you concur that it is a violation of that agreement, do you plan to do anything about it? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

DC, let me ask you a question. What exactly have I done to you, besides disagree with you, that has pissed you off so bad, that you are currently, actively, looking and asking and admin to block me. What exactly have I done? Besides disagree with you, not accept your points and close your dicussion. What have I done? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Per previous statement: User:Neutralhomer/Sanctions. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I've moved this from a sub-topic of an earlier thread to separate this block request which is only tangentially related and so that the main topic can be closed (which seems to be generally desired). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Ahem. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
• If such prohibitions extend to requests for enforcement of sanctions, I apologize for breaking them and I am willing to accept whatever consequences are deemed necessary. Please note that the extent of my violating my ban has so far been this request, which followed the second overt infringement of Neutralhomer's sanctions, and a courtesy notification to Neutralhomer about the thread. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me quote for the clickably challaged: "User User:Delicious carbuncle is not to discuss, either explicitly nor by allusion, the actions, behaviours, editing, or existence of the users PCHS-NJROTC and NeutralHomer, either together or separately. This means: You are not to interact with them, discuss them, raise issues about them, comment upon issues they raise, or follow them around." [bolding from original post].

DC, you discussed me and my actions, probably my exsistence, seperately. You interacted with me, raised issues about me and followed me around (to another talk page). So this isn't a slight infraction, you, as we Navy brats say, "screwed the pooch" on this one.

Now, on the other hand, I screwed up, closed something you started, forgot my restriction, but was called immediately on it. I didn't call you on yours for over a day. I gave you that courtesy. I recommend this be closed, we both walk in seperate directions at a swift rate of speed and find something else to do. Mine will be going to bed, yours...I really don't care. Deal? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I have also made all my restrictions available for all to see as well, something I haven't seen anyone else do...ever (unless they are involved with ArbCom). That is my Good Faith showing. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

While you're busy trying to butcher the messenger. Did you or did you not violate your sanctions? DC's actions are a separate incident and can be handled independently.--Crossmr (talk) 13:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

proposed amended sanction for both

I'm sure I'm not the only one bored with all this back and forth between Delicious Carbuncle and Neutralhomer and I think we need a clear unambiguous sanction to completely halt this never ending time-sink. I therefore propose that

Neutralhomer and Delicious Carbuncle are prohibited from interacting on Wikipedia in any form. This means that neither may mention the other nor may they comment on their posts. To be clear, if they are both involved in a particular page or discussion they may not revert or alter any of the other's edits. Nor may they comment on, or respond to, any point raised by the other. In particular they may not raise complaints against the other and are advised to use off-wiki forms of communication to inform an admin that they trust to investigate any breeches of this restriction. Failure to abide by this restriction will result in escalating blocks.

Not my best drafting ever but I think the sense is there. Comments? Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - We are both under separate sanctions which, as far as I am concerned, constitute a complete interaction ban. I have no objection to formalizing it. Please note that my only involvement with Neutralhomer is to request that their sanctions actually be enforced. I have not responded to their provocative comments and do not intend to. The reason I chose to bring this up on ANI rather than privately communicate with an admin was that Neutralhomer's blocks don't seem to stick, despite their history and virtually constant involvement in content disputes. I would prefer that the matter of their violation of sanctions was dealt with as openly and formally as possible. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Skomorokh forgot to or inadvertantly missed logging the community sanction that is already in force from this discussion. It happens from time to time; I'm going to add that to the log of restrictions so admins know what it is they are enforcing in the future. I'd suggest NH drop any further requests to enforce "violations" of this community sanction that occurred earlier than this timestamp. I'd suggest that DC drop any further requests to enforce "violations" with respect to Gladys' unblock conditions of NH. If either want to continue bickering or for any reason mentioning one another, then I'd support an admin blocking them both.
• In the meantime, perhaps the sanction should be amended to restrict both formally. To Spartaz, I'd suggest stealing the wording that was enacted by the community in relation to Mk5384/OberRanks seeing "technically" the email requirement may be gamed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Why don't you just suggest an amendment and we will work from that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Making a suggestion in the section below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Ncmvocalist, I'm not sure why you are suggesting that I drop my request for Neutralhomer's restriction to be enforced. The admin who placed those restrictions has agreed that they were violated. Do you think that Neutralhomer should not be held to the terms that he agreed to in order for an indef block to be lifted? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Rather, I think you would be blocked for violating community sanctions - although you requested the unblock agreement be enforced, you clearly violated your own restrictions with remarks like: "but I'm tired of Neutralhomer's attempts to disrupt any ANI discussion that I initiate", "I have not responded to their provocative comments", "Neutralhomer's blocks don't seem to stick, despite their history and virtually constant involvement in content disputes", etc. I think you're refusing to drop the stick, which is part of the reason you engaged in conduct that got you blocked a few days ago. This is also consistent with the same sorts of concerns at least one other person raised about your conduct, shortly prior to the original community sanction being imposed on you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
          • You have made it clear in the past that my participation at ANI irritates you, I have the impression from our past interactions here that my participation at ANI irritates you, but you seem to be evading the question. Why would you object to Neutralhomer's restrictions being enforced? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
            • Please substantiate that claim about your ANI participation with evidence. To respond to the other part of your comment, I'm not evading the question at all; either you both will remain unblocked, or you both will be blocked - if you don't understand what that means, nobody can help you. I appreciate that this is not the first time you want to disrupt Wikipedia to try and prove a point, but if you don't start paying attention to the concerns about your behavior, more sanctions are likely to become necessary. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
              • I don't need evidence to have an opinion and it really isn't worth our time to discuss it unless you think it is inaccurate. Since there is no disagreement that Neutralhomer violated the his restrictions, your position seems to be that asking for enforcement here constitutes a violation of my restriction. What I'm not clear on is why that necessarily means that either we are both blocked or neither one of us is blocked - surely there is room for us to discuss intent and degree? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
                • You appear more than ready to wikilawyer in the same fashion that Mythdon did prior to his site ban, and I'm not going to feed that sort of behavior anymore. You can presume that the accuracy of your statement is disputed - again, please substantiate it (or strike it). As for the rest, you clearly were not pleased that Neutralhomer's unblock agreement was not being given the level of force you wanted it to be given. While you were reporting the violation (which is legitimate), you went out of your way to violate your own sanctions (which is not legitimate); the same pointy type of editing that got you blocked a few days ago. Had you not made those remarks which clearly went into the territory of the sanction that Gladys proposed and Skomorkh enacted, I would not see a reason for you to be blocked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
                  • Carbuncle has refused to retract her allegations and has refused to substantiate her allegations, and has refused to let anyone else do so. Are administrators going to do anything about this? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
                    • I have refactored my comment to make it clear that this is my impression and opinion, as already stated. Was this really necessary? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed amendment

I don't want to remove the effect of restrictions between DC, NH and PCHS, which are in some respects, vague. So here's a proposed amendment - 4 restrictions, with a boilerplate (BP) accompanying each of the restrictions so as to clarify the restrictions and give clear guidance as to how they can be enforced:

1) Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from, indirectly or directly, interacting with (or making comments in relation to) Neutralhomer (talk · contribs), except to participate in any future discussion that reviews this restriction.

2) Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from, indirectly or directly, interacting with (or making comments in relation to) PCHS-NJROTC (talk · contribs), except to participate in any future discussion that reviews this restriction.

3 Neutralhomer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from, indirectly or directly, interacting with (or making comments in relation to) Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs), except to participate in any future discussion that reviews this restriction.

4 PCHS-NJROTC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from, indirectly or directly, interacting with (or making comments in relation to) Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs), except to participate in any future discussion that reviews this restriction.

BP) This editing restriction shall include a complete prohibition from comments on the respective user talk pages, filing reports on admin noticeboards, reverting edits on articles, commenting in other venues about the other party or their edits, or directly responding to each other's comments on article talk pages. This restriction by itself does not prohibit mutual participation on articles, as long as the editors stay away from each other. The restriction is to be interpreted broadly. If either of the parties feel that the other party has violated this ban or other Wikipedia policy, and no uninvolved administrator responds to the violation within a reasonable amount of time, they may notify 1 uninvolved administrator of the incident on that administrators' talk page 12 hours after the original perceived infraction, and if that first administrator does not respond by at least acknowledging seeing the report within 24 hours they may notify a second uninvolved administrator in the same manner (but in no case more than 2 notifications on-wiki). Repeated spurious reports to administrators using this mechanism shall be grounds for blocking for disruption. Violations of the interaction restrictions may result in a block for any time limit up to a week. After three upheld blocks due to violation of this restriction, or other issues, the violating editor will be indefinitely blocked.

Thoughts? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support, as drafter, clarifying the procedure by which requests for enforcement may be made. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
• Why Bother? Neutral Homer was already sanctioned, he violated it, the only result has been some stern language about making it really sure. He was aware of his sanctions, he violated them. if there is no recourse for that, why bother making more?--Crossmr (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Can you please link me to the text of the community sanction? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Neutral Homer linked above to the restrictions he felt he was under and he violated them. He admits he was under them and there is no concern whether or not he felt they applied since he has freely listed them. He was under the restriction not to archive threads started by DC, he did it, nothing happened. If no one is going to do anything there is no point in making more sanctions that won't be enforced. We don't need new sanctions we need someone to enforce the ones that already exist.--Crossmr (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
      • That seems to be true to some extent. All three admins below apparently knew about the restrictions, wheras a lot of people didn't know because it wasn't logged at here until after this incident. The question that needs to be asked now is whether: (1) those admins can be counted on for enforcement of further violations and (2) if history says no, how can the parties request enforcement from someone else? This proposal tries to answer (2). Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Logged or unlogged, he was still made aware of it at the time. It is rankly irrelevant if it was logged or not. What's relevant is that he was aware of it, he violated it, and is now engaging in what appears to be misdirection to distract people from the fact that he should be indef blocked as a result. This proposal does little more than enable that behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 07:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
          • Restrictions are logged so that people cannot forget the exact terms of particular restrictions which end up lost in the archives with time (how many months since he was made aware?). My understanding was that where an editor violates the restrictions, an admin enforces them...but it doesn't make sense for an admin who forgot or doesn't know about a restriction to find out unless they're psychic, or unless they (like everyone else) can see it at the central log of active restrictions. This is coupled with the fact that DC also violated her own restriction under the existing terms - this proposal enables her behavior in the same manner because her restriction was not logged either. Accordingly, admins did not enforce either violation in this case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
            • DCs actions were to make a relevant report on an issue that was directly targeted at them. I would have recommended that they instead emailed a relevant admin or get someone else to do it, but regardless, DCs violation is separate from Neutral Homer's and can be dealt with separately as I already indicated above. It isn't anyone's job to poke someone and constantly remind them of their restrictions. They can either abide by them or not. Even if they were logged, he would have just as much likelihood of forgetting them as he isn't likely to visit the sanctions page today. I also have a very hard time believing someone forgets being on the verge of an indefinite block and what they have to do to avoid that.--Crossmr (talk) 12:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support (with changes noted below) - I do not support the proposal as it stands, but have no issue with it in principle. If the previous restrictions are not enforced, however, I do not hold much hope for this one, especially without the changes to blocks and block lengths that I have suggested. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - (1) There is no reason to include an unrelated editor in the proposal (2) I would prefer an explicit series of escalating blocks (eg one week, two weeks, one month, indef) (3) In fairness to Neutralhomer, blocks for issues unrelated to this interaction ban should not result in an indef block. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
  • This is not an unrelated editor - you were banned from interacting with him at the same time as you were banned from interacting with NH; this simply sets out the formal procedure in which you or he can request the restriction to be enforced. I've copied the wording used from recent interaction bans of this sort, but I have struck the part about "other issues" now as there were multiple restrictions on different issues in those cases; not a series of interaction bans. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Please read the main ANI thread which spawned the interaction ban discussion. It actually had nothing to do with PCHS-NJROTC. I would like to see explicitly noted escalating blocks with an additional proviso that the user may not be unblocked without a discussion of said block on AN or ANI. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
      • You were banned from interacting with NH and PCHS; we don't sanction people unnecessarily, and Gladys clearly found it necessary to restrict you from interacting with PCHS too - the rest of the community agreed. I won't support any such additional proviso, and I don't think the community would either. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Let's try discussion. I'm suggesting that the lengths of the escalating blocks are made explicit. I suggest 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month, indef - does anyone have an issue with that as a start? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
          • I do - this is to end the issues, not let them continue forever. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• No. Excessively complex proposal and unnecessary. Either editors learn to either get along or avoid each other, or we ban them. The fact that Neutralhomer needs a subpage to keep track of all their editing restrictions is an ominous sign. "Treat other editors decently" is all one needs to know. Neutralhomer, could you please stop acting like a pest. Whether you mean to, or not, that's the appearance. Delicious Carbuncle, you're a good content editor; could you please focus on that, and stop taking the bait. Ncvmocalist, could you please stop involving yourself excecessively in matters that don't involve you directly. When you post to a thread, many editor run the other direction because they don't want to get into an endless debate with you. Your joining conflicts in progress often makes things worse rather than better. Thank you, all. I am going to pretend this thread didn't happen, and you ought to go off and behave more cluefully. Jehochman ^Talk 00:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Concur. Another great example of experience over enthusiasm. My motto is "avoid ANI except where unavodable", and Jehochman could not have put it better, in my view. Rodhullandemu 00:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• Also concur with the above two sentiments. Existing restrictions would be adequate and clear if they were enforced. Its quite clear. NH and DC should be blocked if they interact or comment on each other. Period. End of discussion. Full stop. Fin. Additional verbage is only obfuscatory. --Jayron32 02:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I shouldn't have responded to Spartaz's suggestion? Maybe, but my conscience is clean, and that doesn't change the obvious fact: it's a shame that the three of your views could not be registered when pretty identical proposals were enacted from this discussion and this discussion. In those cases, both parties knew how to request enforcement and did not consider it "obfuscatory", and the sanctions were appropriately logged so people knew what to enforce and how it is enforced. There's no evidence of violations since the time of them being enacted due to the clarity in those terms, which is far more than I can say for those that exist in this case. The substance of what I said stands for itself and the stats are in support of it; but if the vengeful want to start piling on just because of the person who added the proposal, then that's a shame for the project, and a shame for the admins who failed to live up to their promises - the alternative cause for things being made worse here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• I support whatever will stop this from happening again. Neutralhomer has started keeping track of their restrictions, Ncmvocalist and I are friends again, and a couple of admins have made statements that will make them my first stop if this ever needs enforcing. Wrap it up? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

  It would help if you walked away and let others handle the matter. Jehochman ^Talk 17:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

  • • I thought it might be helpful to indicate that I am willing to accept the proposed solution (of doing nothing at all), since I started this thread to ask for some enforcement action to be taken. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: So what has PCHS-NJROTC done to deserve mention in this proposed amendment? That is the one user name I haven't seen in this thread; & since she/he hasn't editted since 12 July, PCHS may have left Wikipedia. Unless one of PCHS's first edits upon returning to Wikipedia after this absence is to this thread -- or in regards to Delicious carbuncle -- I suggest she/he be omitted from any modification of her/his standing ban. If the current language is sufficient to keep PCHS from provoking Delicious carbuncle, then let's not fix something that's not broken. -- llywrch (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement from Neutralhomer

Been asleep (night owl and insomnia) so I am just seeing all this. I had forgotten about my restriction, that is my mistake. As such, to prevent further mistakes, I have created User:Neutralhomer/Sanctions and put it in userspace for all to see as a matter of full disclosure and a show of good faith. Being that, I have moved on, which I think is best for the whole project, not just ANI. Let's all just move on, per Jehochman, pretend this doesn't exsist and didn't happen, and edit something...I know I am. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

"I forgot" isn't an acceptable excuse. You were on your super duper extra overtime last chance from the sounds of it and trying to buy another with "I forgot" doesn't even approach good faith.--Crossmr (talk) 07:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, what's your favorite, recent contribution to Wikipedia? I am not giving you another chance; I am thinking about overlooking your error if you can demonstrate that you've been doing valuable work here. Jehochman ^Talk 11:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Not an edit I made, but something I worked toward. I brought the Stephens City, Virginia article up to GA Class. It is undergoing an FAC to bring it to FA Class. If that works, I plan on taken it to WP:TFA and seeing about getting it on the Front Page. There is plenty I am doing and am planning to do. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Andrew c (admin) - personal attacks

Resolved

 – This discussion went way off topic and any further discussion about it doesn't belong here. Somewhere in here, Andrew acknowledged his comments could be seen as inappropriate and apologized. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

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

---

I'm sick of this.

Historicity of Jesus

Good thing the Wikipedia world does not revolve around Noloop's bigotry. We have no policies that say Christians are evil and cannot perform scholarship, or be cited by us. We have no valid policy based reason to exclude such information or sources. Please take your bigotry elsewhere. [4]

I don't want to continue discussing such matters with people who hold such vile religious prejudice. [5]

Noloop didn't consider the journal secular enough because it didn't ban authors based on their religion or some other bigotry. [6]

I'm not sure if your prejudice goes against Jewish individuals as well. And then I don't know if you'll just move the goal posts again and again. I don't want to play any more part in supporting your prejudice, and I'm not convinced that anything will convince you. You have no evidence, outside of your despicable personal prejudices, [7]

Let's see how long it takes for the bigots to come up with their own sourcing rules which exclude people based on where they went to school, or where they worship in their personal lives, etc [8]

Jesus

This is nothing short of bigotry. It's like saying we can't cite Cornel West on topics of African American studies due to racial bias. If you have valid criticisms and specifics, please get into them, but please stop trying to discount sources based on your personal prejudices [9] (edit comment: “more bigotry”)

User_talk:Andrew_c#Personal_attacks

I'm sorry if you find calling it like I see if problematic. I find your continued efforts to discount sources above and beyond WP:RS based solely on a religious litmus test highly offensive. I won't shy away from this: it angers me to see such repeating ignorance and bigotry spouted over and over on Wikipedia. [10]

He also says: "I'd be entirely open to independent review of any of my comments. In fact, I'd encourage it, because I have a very strong and clean record here on Wikipedia, and pride myself on integrity, and am always open to review and constructive criticism." I went to the RFCU page, but the case doesn't meet the requirement of two editors commenting on his Talk page. I'm as sick as everyone else of seeing my name in this forum. I don't know what else to do. If I were acting like this, I would be blocked and people would be howling for a topic-ban. I'd like to see admins held to an equal standard. Or (gasp) a higher standard. Noloop (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm also a little concerned about Andrew C. Noloop and I filed reports for edit warring yesterday against an editor at Christ myth theory. This wasn't an isolated case of edit-warring. The editor in question has been a serial reverter at Christian-related articles (editing from a conservative Christian position) for a long time, and has been blocked several times this year for 3RR violations. The reverts I posted showed him reverting against multiple editors, yet Andrew's response was that I should be blocked too. [11] It was a response that showed he hadn't looked at the article's history, and hadn't made himself familiar with the reverter's history and blocklog; or else he was familiar with it and was ignoring it. When I looked at his user page, I found he's involved in developing Christian-related content himself. I don't know what Andrew's POV is, but it's worrying if strong personal views are spilling over into not only editing, but also into the positions he takes as an admin.

On the issues of secular sourcing, it's often going to be preferable to try to find that wherever possible. This isn't bigotry, it's an effort to find sources who won't necessarily all agree with one another about fundamental issues. I would never rule out a source in Christian-related articles simply because Christian, but it's also worrying when the only sources used are from theological seminaries, and this seems to happen a lot in these articles. Indeed, at Christ myth theory, there has been an insistence that the sources be specialist biblical scholars, which of course almost guarantees a certain POV. A good mix of sources is always important. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you think it's appropraite to repeatedly tell another editor they are bigoted and prejudiced? We must use secular sources to write about Christian subjects, and Christian sources to write about secular subjects? Freakshownerd (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Andrew should not have accused Noloop of bigotry just for requesting secular sources. And yes, we must include secular sources when writing anout religious issues, if they exist. We should include all perspectives from all reliable sources, and should not be defining "reliable" so as to exclude secular POVs, obviously. And when there is a specifically Christian POV about a non-Christian issue, that would be included too, if there are reliable sources for it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this issue is entirely one sided. Also would we not also have to 'label' athiest sources?Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If a source has made a point of being an atheist activist, I see no harm in pointing that out in the text. But it's less problematic that someone having been educated at a religious school, having gone to a theological seminary, teaching at a theological seminary, and then being used as a reliable source—when at no point in their lives have they been exposed to a non-religious education. Ideally, we should be looking for good sources with no dog in the fight. The problem with these articles (and not only these) that as soon as you find a good academic source with no dog in the fight, editors start crying that it's not an RS because not specialized enough. Hence the importance of sticking rigidly to the sourcing policy, including when it's not producing the desired POV. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the way Andrew sees it is that nobody accuses atheists of bias in science sources where Noloop does criticize Christians of bias on religious sources. To him it would be comparable to saying that all white sources are acceptable on white articles but that blacks are bias on black articles, which would be bigotry. Just a little clarification of where I think he's coming from. Maybe he should be warned, but I don't think further admin action is necessary.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I would also say there was an element of provocation, as you can see there was (not without some justification) an accusation that Noloop moved goal posts when his objections are met. That does rather engender the kind of temper losing that Andrew c is undoubtedly guilty of (and I agree with Noloop that an admin should know better).Slatersteven (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

What a terrible analogy, it seems almost deliberately provocative. I think a more apt analogy would be accusing members of The Two Plus Two Equals Six Society of bias in the Two plus two article - that is, the primary criticism of Christian sources in the Historicity of Jesus article is that they, by their very upbringing, approach the topic with the conclusion already set in mind. Their research is, overall, better described as "Jesus existed, how can we prove it", as opposed to the more valid "was there a man known as Jesus Christ". That's not to say that they're necessarily aware of their own bias, or even that their conclusions are automatically wrong - just that their conclusions are rightfully suspect. We don't use Moonie "research" for the Sun Myung Moon article, perhaps dwelling on that will help enlighten some as to why Christian sources for this article are so contested. Badger Drink (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

We're allowed to use Scientologists in articles about Scientology and members of the Unification Church in articles about their beliefs, but we should never allow articles to be framed entirely by any group, no matter how respectable. That's the essence of NPOV, and it's the point of the sourcing policy, which takes a non-restrictive view of sourcing. If it's deemed reliable by reasonable people, and if it's clearly on-topic without involving original research to squeeze it in, you can use it. We don't adhere to biblical scholar point of view. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

My current concern is that Noloops uncompromising demands for secular peer reviewed sourcing has, possibly irreparably, damaged the case for including a broader range of sources in these articles. I think it is also becoming confusing in that there are two issues; the issue of "did jesus exist historically" and "what is the consensus view of scholars" - it's a mealy mess for sure. There is also the inherent issue of a slight lack of secular sourcing (simply by virtue of the topic) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 21:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

This sems to be rehashing the debate that casued this ani, rather then adressing the ani.Slatersteven (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Noloop, a lot of the comments by editors in this discussion has been concerning; including general accusations of yourself about an ingrained religious bias and so forth (which I felt at the time was not at all justified for most of the editors it was directed at). Not that that excuses Andrew c's direct responses; but I can see the rationale behind finding some of the comments about the validity of Christian sources (more in the wording than the meaning/intent) disturbing - that is the sort of double standard not required on other articles. I think the issue is you are a lone voice on this, even those of us agreeing with you on some matters widely disagree with the more extreme stuff; you've taken it to every noticeboard, mediation, arbitration, got the article protected and so on and so forth. Honestly; perhaps it is best just to withdraw from this one. I honestly believe that you're starting to damage the more "conservative" case being made by other editors and which is gaining traction. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 21:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

No, he's not a lone voice, Errant. I agree with him, and I'm guessing most of Wikipedia agrees with him (though I've not followed the way he's pursued it and maybe I would disagree with the approach, I don't know). But I do find the attitude at the Jesus articles disturbing. We need secular sources. No one should be accused of bigotry for requesting that, because it's perfectly reasonable. No one is necessarily being anti-Scientology because we don't want to base entire articles on their views. The same applies to articles related to Christianity, animal rights, Michael Jackson, and to everything else. Sources with no dog in the fight are important. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that no one should use the word "bigot" anymore on these Jesus pages. That would be a good start. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

A better start would be for noloop to stop behaving in a manner that could be described as such. Because if the shoe fits.... Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Its not the fact he asks, he demands and when presented with sources just changes what he has asked for. Moreover as far as I am aware no one has said we cannot use secualr sources, just not being secuular does not preclude a sources use. (though I have not followed the Jesus page), which is effectivly what Noloop seems to be saying. That or we should identify christain source becasue they might be bias (but then so would any source, do we identify American sources on the AWI page?), odd that he seems to ignore that Muslims also belive in Jesus the man (thus its not only chrisitans that bleive in him).

Noloop's behavior should raise serious concerns among everyone. Consider this recent arbitration request, where he betrays his approach to editing anything relating to Jesus. You can also check out this thread if that is not enough to convince you. Ironically, the only person (as far as I can tell) who is insisting on using a limited range of sources is Noloop.

Not that he's against using Christian scholars—but if any scholar, no matter how well-respected in the field, happens also to be a Christian, then Noloop insists on specifically spelling that out. For example, "The Christian scholar Joe Blow says such an such about the historicity of Jesus". That would be like saying, "The Jewish historian Joe Blow says such and such about antisemitism". That sounds bigoted to me, but even if it's not, then I seriously doubt that such an approach is part of Wiki core policies. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Noloop feels that the predisposition of the sources cited to believe the thing they are cited for should be made clearer. That seems reasonable. It's not clear why your antisemitism example is comparable, because it is not contextualised. --FormerIP (talk) 00:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

LOL, does that "predisposition of the sources" apply to atheists too? Should we say, for example, "The atheist biologist Richard Dawkins says such and such about biology?" If that attitude is not bigoted, then at the very least it is POV, which violates a core wiki policy. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, the context is missing (ie the crucial part is what the "such and such" is and whether Dawkins is predisposed to a POV in noteworthy way because he is an "atheist biologist"). if the statement is "God does not exist and I like Charles Darwin", then noting than the source is an atheist biologist is likely to be appropriate. It is abslutely in conformance with WP:NPOV to acknowledge the potential bias of a source. --FormerIP (talk) 01:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The context (i.e., "such and such") is their respective fields. So for an historian, the context is their specialty in history. For a biologist, the context is their specialty in biology. The example you gave above ("God does not exist and I like Charles Darwin") would be valid and appropriate only when scholars are speaking outside their field of expertise. For example, when Dawkins says "there is no god...", he is making a metaphysical claim, and such claims are outside the realm of biology (metaphysical claims belong to the field of philosophy)—so, to note his atheism is indeed appropriate. But when a scholar is using mainstream methodology, to include "Christian" and "atheist" labels (or any other label for that matter) strongly implies a POV by the wiki editor, as if their opinions (i.e., the scholars in question) don't follow the standard methodology of their respective fields and are letting their personal opinions taint their work. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The topic is personal attacks by admins. I'd like to keep the dispute about content off this page. He's not entitled to accuse me of "vile prejudice" and bigotry, even if he's right about the content.

I only documented Andrew's remarks directed at me. Admin Slrubenstein has slung the same arrows: "Calling a bigot a bigot is not antagonisic, it is honest....Your bigotry blinds to to any realistic knowledge of the current state of NT scholarship. ... All you are doing is making a mistake that only a bigot is capable of making: " [12] "I think we can now say he is not only a bigot, but a fanatical bigot. This is not name-calling."[13].

Admins have been strict with me. I was blocked twice for 6 days, without a 3RR violation. Admins should make judgement calls based on the spirit of the rule; I don't contest the principle. The judgement calls against me were just very strict. I wonder if admins are held to the same standard. Strict standards, applied to these admins, would result in a block for personal attacks.

Another sign that things are out of control is that last night I dreamed of diffs. I am taking a 24 hour break. (After just a few more edits, I mean....)Noloop (talk) 00:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Noloop has problems with his approach, but he is far and away a net benefit to the project with the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart in everything he does. And as Slim says, he's not a lone voice. If anything, he may very well be a majority voice of editors even if his execution leaves something to be desired. I've been around for two knee-jerk attempts to topic ban Noloop, spearheaded by 2 editors. In one attempt it failed with only those two editors supporting. In the other, there were those two editors plus one more. It failed too. The correct course of action at this point for those who view him as disruptive is to acknowledge the community doesn't see it that way, and try to look past the admittedly clumsy presentation Noloop has and dive in to the substance of his objections, which clearly are considered reasonable by the community writ large. -- ۩ Mask 02:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

According to him, [my talk] page documents my own righteous and pure behavior. Let’s just call it “immaculate conduct." Yes, of course he's a net benefit. I mean, I even feel honored to be in his presence. Let's all hold hands and pray that he will guide us on our way in the journey of wiki-life. LOL. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I see the history of this and related articles as two sides each trying to claim that the other side is in some degree less intellectually responsible than the other. We should not be engaging in such debates here; we simply present all position. There's been I think an effort to portray the idea of non-historicity of Jesus as a fringe position; I think this is wrong--it's been a respectable position argued for millennia; it is not currently fashionable in academic circles, but in the historical sciences such is very far from fringe (and of course saying that there is an historical basis is perfectly compatible with saying that essentially everything in the N.T. accounts is imaginary--which is not in the least a fringe position.) There's also been an effort to say that religious sources on jesus are not as reliable as non-religious sources; I think this is also wrong. Religious scholars have argued for a surprisingly wide number of views on the subject--religious in not = contemporary Christian fundamentalist. Even so, I would not reject such sources--I see no reason on a topic like this why anyone is more likely to be right than anybody else--though I certainly know what position I personally believe to be right, which is another matter entirely. I fid it almost unimaginable that anyone interested in such a topic actually is truly totally neutral, though people of all views have different degrees of freedom from their preconceptions, as well as different degrees of intellectual rigor. One evaluates work on subjects like this with consideration of the author and the publisher, but not by rejecting or downgrading views a priori--this is the very opposite of NPOV.

But agreed, the above is to some extent a digression. To call someone a bigot is a personal attack. It may conceivably be a valid personal attack, but it remains a personal attack. We can only work together by being careful to avoid such wording--even when one thinks it justified. We can only make progress in Wikipedia by keeping such views about each other to ourselves. It's time we took action against people who do this after a warning. DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware there has been no warning, besides Noloop would actually be valuable if he did some research and found sources that he thought was appropriate, but instead all he does is demand others find sources which isn't helpful.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 03:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that some action should be taken. Obviously name-calling, i.e. calling someone a bigot, is not appropriate. It is also not accurate, in the case of Noloop. His stated position is repeatedly misrepresented by his critics and their grotesque caricature of his argument is held up as a straw man to be burned in effigy with a "BIGOT" sign pinned to its back. Noloop has been very good about focusing on the issue of inadequate sourcing for the statements that are made in the Jesus articles. See the talk pages for the arguments. Suffice it to say that the behavior of those who oppose the view of Noloop, SlimVirgin, and others who are looking for some secular peer-reviewed sources has been extremely inappropriate at times, and has not been helpful to the project. Noloop has just provided some examples. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Andrew could apologize for name calling, Noloop could apologize for impugning Christian scholars honesty about what other scholars think, and then have a big hug :) Roy Brumback (talk) 05:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It is interesting to see that rather than focus on the issue raised, this has been diverted by trying to make it about the behaviour of editor who posted this, the content of the article, and the discussion on the talk page. This illustrates the problem here - people will not focus on the issues, and the discussion gets nowhere. This method of discussion is never going to be productive (statements intended to illustrate the lines of argument - not actual quotes): We need secular scholarly sources... OK... Here is Bertrand Russell... He is not an expert on the topic... We need secular scholarly sources... OK, but unless they are a professor at a theological college who is an expert in this field, you cannot use them... But there aren't any... So all scholars agree on this, there is no need to qualify that are mostly people holding a particular religious affiliation... and so on, round and round it goes. Pointing out the inherent problem here is not bigotry, and people need to focus on the persistent accusations of bigotry against this editor, as well as the repeated attempts to get him banned, off-article comments warning him to stop editing these articles, and what could be construed as 'bullying' of a single editor who challenges a dominant POV. This really should not be going on here, although I am experienced enough to know this happens in quite a few places here, it would be nice to see people starting to do something about this. - MishMich - Talk - 08:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The debate was obviously heated, and as far as I can see did include an implication that scholars of Christian education were unreliable. Andrew could certainly have phrased his comments better, I could think of several ways of phrasing it so as to convey the same content while not using the word "bigotry" and being above reproach for AN/I purposes. I do not think anything should be done. If both editors haven't gotten the message they need to play it cool in debate from here on in, they never will. I suggest we send this back to the appropriate talk page. This discussion itself constitutes any necessary warning. Obviously, admins need to observe high standards of civility, which I personally try to do myself, but that's not a club to beat the admin with either. Nothing to see here, please disperse.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

So it's only a club to beat non-administrators with, I see. Malleus Fatuorum 11:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Good call. --FormerIP (talk) 12:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that's twice now I've found myself agreeing with Malleus. Worrying :) Wehwalt, Noloop did not say that christian scholars were unreliable. What he said repeadedly was that they were biased. Not the same thing. This is an area where pretty much all sources come at it from a POV of some kind, and SlimVirgin has noted elsewhere that for scholars coming out of the mainly US christian academic field, who seem to be dominant in the current zeitgeist, the POV is notably that the historical Jesus existed pretty much as you see him. This large group has claimed that all scholars agree with them, and Noloop has been seeking evidence from scholars outside the group. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I've asked both Andrew C and Slrubenstein not to make any further personal attacks. Slinging around insults like "bigot" is not acceptable behaviour. If any editors do persist in making personal attacks along these lines, they should be blocked. Fences&Windows 13:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

When I said "unreliable", I did not mean "wrong" or "biased" or anything specific. I simply meant that they couldn't be taken as if they came down from Sinai on stone—aw darn, that's a bad analogy. Running for cover, see you later.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I have not made any personal attacks, at least not in this case. A few examples have come up: Christ myth theory, Jesus, and Historicity of Jesus. I want to make plain that I have not paid any attention to the Jesus myth theory for quite some time and NONE of my comments address any conflict there. But with regard to Noloop's arguments, and those of some other, e.g. Cyclopia, I have to say, I consider bigotry at WP to be a danger any concerned Wikipedian should take very seriously, and oppose. By bigotry I mean an intolerance for the views of others based on their race, creed, or color (in this case, creed seems to be the parameter in play). It is not calling someone a bigot that is the offence, it is the bigotry that is the offence.

Andrew C's comments directed at Noloop have to be put in context. Noloop has been arguing at the Jesus article against a host of sources from scholars trained at or employed by seminaries or divinity schools. Noloop is making an assumption: that since the authors of these books and articles are Christians, they books and articles forward a Christian point of view. This is prejudiced, because Noloop is deciding what the point of view in the book or article is based on the religion of the author. He is not deciding this based on the contents of the book or article. It is bigoted, because he rejects without evidence the possibility that someone who happens to be a Christian might not have other identities, other social statuses, and as a result may have views that are not "Christian."

I wish to be very clear about the issue here. No one is claiming that the Christian point of view is not biased. No one is claiming that an article should promote a Christian point of view. No one is claiming that Christian views shoud not be identified as such. Andrew C certainly has not suggested anything like this, nor have I.

The issue here appears to be whether a particular point of view is Christian or not. The real issue here is, how do we determine what view is being presented? I think that one first has to start with the view itself, look at the contents of the claim, and secondly to look at how the claim itself is being presented, and to whom it is being addressed. Once one has done these things - and I consider this to be basic research, one might then find it useful to provide biographical information about the person presenting the view, it can provide additional context that helps clarify the view. This is all I and Andrew c have ever called for, to my knwoledge.

But Noloop is skipping the first two steps. For him, once you know what religion a person is, youknow his or her views. I admit that people are often divided, divided by gender, for example, but when Kinsey wrote about male and female sexuality, I do not think he was expressing a "man's" point of view. People are also divided by race, creed, and color, and people certainly can express one's views as a person of a particular race, creed or color. However, we at wikipedia cannot assume that just because someone is a Catholic, they are always expressing a papist point of view.

An analogy: Henry Louis Gates is a literary critic and author of a book on an important African-American narrative device The Signifying Monkey. The late John Hope Franklin was a historian and wrote one of the seminal books on African American history, From Slavery to Freedom. William Julius Williams is a sociologist who wrote The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, The Underclass And Public Policy, one of the most important sociological works on African Americans. Now, each of these men is an African American. And each of these books is on an African Americans or some aspect of African Americans culture. I think it would be a profound insult if someone were to add to one of our articles on Blacks "The Black view is expressed in The Signifying Monkey," or "Many African Americans believe (reference to From Slavery to Freedom)," of "A notable black view is found in Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, The Underclass And Public Policy". This would be an insult to Henry Louis Gates, John Hope Franklin, and William Julius Wilson, because it is suggesting that they can only express a "black view" and not "a literary critic's view," or "a historian's view" or "a sociologist's view." But it is also an insult to the academic fields of literary criticism, history, and sociology, because you are saying either one of two things: either these are white disciplines, and can never claim any objectivity but only perpetuate the views of one race ... or you are saying that these fields have no theoretical or methodological standards that provide a basis for declaring something to be scholarly.

Now as to Biblical scholarship - there are some people who have talked about an atheist or secular view in opposition to a Christian point of view. There might be times when this is an appropriate way to sort out the major views (certainly, if the topic is belief in God). But when it comes to Biblical Scholarship, it is not always appropriate. Sure, I understand that this is how the debate may play out when people are debating in high school or at a bar, but it doesn't really reflect the debates among actual scholars. For example, I have heard atheists say the most ludicrous things about Jesus or the Bible. The fact that they do not believe in God doesn't speak at all to their knowledge of Aramaic and Koine Greek, their knowledge of the historical documents that trace back to first or second century Roman-occupied Judea, or of the archeology, or of Second Temple Judaism (the religion in which Jesus grew up). Conversely, Julius Wellhausen, the father of the documentary hypothesis, was trained as a theologian and his first teaching position was as a professor of theology. And yet, his theories are among the most radical in Biblical scholarship and played a critical role in the development of "history" as a modern academic discipline. It is true that as his theories of multiple Biblical authorship developed, he felt he could no longer train pastors and left his post. But his mext post was at the Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, the name of which tells you something about how Christian education and critical scholarship (what outsiders might call "secular") were entwined in the 19th century. The fact is this: by the end of the 19th century, Christians were quite divided over the value of the Gospels as historical documents.

Now, Noloop and others have pointed out that a number of historians presented by Andrew c (and I would add by me) were either trained in seminaries, divinity schools or religious or Biblical studies programmes, or teach in seminaries, divinity schools or religious or Biblical studies programs. What they neglect to say is that many of these institutions or programs actually wish their students to learn history, and thus hire historians. The history they wish their students to learn is what is most conveniently called "Biblical history" but if any of you out there think this means using the Bible as a history textbook then you are simply ignorant. Only religious fundamentalists would do that. And yes, there are many out there. But not all Jews and Christians are fundamentalists. There are in fact vigorous debates among factions of Jews and Christians as to who authored Biblical books and when. And there are many major seminaries, as well as Biblical Studies programmes in a wide range of universities, for whom "Biblical history" begins with asking when a book, or even a part of a book, was authored; what cultural, political, and economic factors influenced the authors; and how to interpret passages in the Bible accordingly. Among people who studied in or teach in such programs there is a wide range of views, including the view that Jesus may have existed or probably but not certainly existed; that Jesus was born of a biological mother and father; that he did not claim to be the messiah. These are scholars who may be Christians but who certainly are historians. They use the same methods as historians who study Pericles or Caeser.

By the way, those of you who have not spent a lot of time at a major university might wonder why it is that there is a separate Biblical Studies program; you might think that that is a program just for people who "believe in the Bible." You are making a real mistake. Perhaps you haven't noticed that in many universities, you won't find Pericles or Caeser being taught in the History Department either. And if you do not understand why you might end up making the bigoted kinds of comments Noloop has made. Here is the deal: academic "History" is the study of written sources (archeology looks at non-written sources, but for practical reasons when one goes way back in time there is overlap); the mark of a serious historian is that one is fluent in the language of the sources used. In the 19th century when the modern university was still taking shape, most History departments focused on the history of whatever country the university was in, and because of the nature of 19th century European history, the history of neighboring countries. This meant you might find people who spoke foreign languages, but they were "living" languages. If you have lived in an English-speaking country, you only need a modicum of extra training to be able to use sources from Tudor times. If you want to study the principle sources on Pericles or Caeser, however, you have to learn ancient Greek and Latin, "dead languages." Most universities created "Classics Departments" which specialized in the study of these languages and written documents in these languages, which meant that the best historians of ancient Greece and Rome did not train in History departments but in Classics departments. This does not mean they were inferior historians; on the contrary, the average History department did not have the resources to train them well. Biblical History requires different language - Aramaic as well as Koine Greek for the New Testament, and for the Hebrew Bible, Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, Ugarritic, Akkadian, Ancient Egyptian, even Sumerian. As with Classics, separate departments trained people in these languages and in the study of historical texts in those languages. These can be called Biblical Studies Departments (although they can also be called Ancient Near Eastern Studies Departments). Also, while the best universities had enough students who wanted to study this stuff that they might be able to support a good department, most universities simply do not have enough students to support a good department. If you want to teach in a good department i.e. have several coleagues who also read Aramaic fluently or have done original researchon Ancient Egyptian or Babylonian religion .... your best bet is to go to a liberal seminary; those are the institutions that hire good historians trained in these languages. And that means if you want to get a PhD. in the history of this time and place, your best bet is to study at one of these seminaries. Not because you want to be a priest or minister, but because here is where the leading critical scholars are.

People who are bigoted against anything religious might consider this bizarre, but anyone who is really familiar with how universities are organized, as well as the economics of higher education, will not find anything I wrote surprising. In the US in the 1970s this started to change - there were enough PhDs in Biblical Studies, and enough students and money in higher ed., that many "secular" universities would hire good Biblical historians. Interest in the Classics waned in some universities and Classics Departments fell apart and Classisists were often absorbed into History Departments. So in the 1980s you can find some good universities with History departments with people teaching Biblical history or Roman history. But if you think that is how it always was well, you just do not know the history of the university system! Today universities are going through budget crises again, and you better believe that if you are a top scholar in Koine Greek and have read original 4th or 3rd century codixes of the Bible and want a job teaching history, you probably will have to teach at a seminary; most other universities just do not have enough student demand to hire someone with this specialization. The good news is, liberal seminaries do not want theologians to teach Biblical history, they want historians - meaning, people trainined in critical historical methods - to teach them Biblical history.

Now I hope those of you who did not know much about this now understand why you cannot know the point of view of the scholar based on where she got her degree or teaches. You have to read the book or article, determine who the intended audience is, and see what actual arguments the author is making. Some of these Bible scholars may very well be espousing a "Christian" view. But many of them are not.

Now, I realize I am talking about people who may be Christians, who are writing about a portion of Christian history. But remember John Hope Franklin, the black man writing about black history? To reject John Hope Franklin as a source on American history, or to insist that his books are pushing a "black" point of view, is an insult to him and to all of the historians who have benefitted from his research. It is bigoted. Anyone who brackets the man's color and actually reads his work will say "this is the work of a historian." Now, to google the author of a book and see that he teaches at a seminary, or that he was trained in a Biblical Studies Program or a Divinity School, and therefore decide that you are free of the obligation actually to read the books and articles he wrote, or to learn more about the presses or journals in which he is published, and who reads them and you can simply say "Christian point of view" is just as bigoted. When you take this position you are not just insulting the black man who, you are saying, can never study black history as a professional historian, or the Christian who, you are saying, can never study Christian history as a professional historian, you are attacking the whole idea of history as a modern, academic discipline that anyone can study and learn how to do.

As for Andrew c .... well, I have mostly just been trying to explain to you the stuff you ought to know before you attack him. People have mentioned a few articles here and as I said I cannot comment on his behavior at the Jesus Myth Article. But I have watched him edit the Jesus article for years and I have not seen him push any particular POV except to insist that editors use reliable sources and use them appropriately. He is one of a number of editors who consistently insists that scholarly views (and I am refering to critical scholars) be represented adequately and accurately, and that the Jesus article not turn into an article on Christianity. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with the comparison between race and the holding of a set of beliefs. We don't want articles about a belief system, particularly a contentious one, to be framed entirely by people within that system. Asking for sources that clearly fall outside it is legitimate.

What has worried me (and I speak now only of Christ myth theory, as I catch only glimpses of what's been happening elsewhere) is that humanities sources are being rejected only because the writers are attached to the "wrong" university departments. A paper from the lowliest biblical scholar from the worst of the theological seminaries is fine, while respected academics from mainstream universities are deemed not specialist enough. Alvar Ellegård, a professor of English at the University of Gothenburg, has been questioned as a source on the failure of the academic community to be sufficiently rigorous about the existence of Jesus, even though he's known for his work on science and religion. (Not a specialist, we're told, and not really notable.) The philosopher, Michael Martin, was also rejected, though he wrote a book called The Case Against Christianity, and said a strong case could be made for the Christ myth theory. (Not a specialist, they said, and anyway he's retired.) G.A. Wells, who's written extensively about this, is apparently not allowed as a general source, only as a source for his own beliefs in the article about those beliefs. (A professor of German, how dare he!)

There must be more of an effort to include the wider academic community, so we offer a three-dimensional, cross-faculty view of how the existence of Jesus is approached. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, you are wrong that all of the sources presented (at least at the Jesus article - I repeat I cannot address the Christ Myth theory) are "within the system" if by that you mean "the belief system" and if by that you mean "the Christian belief system." Noloop and others have been representing the views of historians as the views of Christians. In many cases these historians are also Christian, but that does not mean that their views are therefore Christian. If you read the books and articles, and pay attention to how they are framed, and conclude that the views presented are Christian, that is good research. If you do not read the books and articles, and examine how they are framed, and judge the views to be Christian before you even know what the views are, that is prejudice. If you insist that, simply because a historian is Christian, his or her work is not "history" but rather "Christianity," that is bigotry. I have yet to see any evidence that anyone wants only the views of Christians (views from "within" the belief system) to be presented in an article.

But the difference between EP Sanders and GA Wells is not that one is Christian and the other secular. EP Sanders is a professional historian using modern historical methods; Wells is not. If you do not like the word diletantte, just say "indepednednt researcher" or something like that. GA Well's writings on Jesus bear no relation to his academic career and it is a real distortion of academia to suggest that it is. Wells's work is notable in relation to the Christ Myth theory and should (in my view) be included in that article, but they should not be presented as the views of an expert on 1st century Roman occupied Judean history. I see two issues here concerning sources: the first as that both inside and outside of academia there are people who write to forward a particular ideological agenda, which may be Christianity or atheism or some other ism. And second, there are the views of professional historians and Bible scholars who have devoted their lives to careful scholarly research, learning original languages as well as reading everything by Wellhausen and Gunkel and by whomever the major critical historians on Christianity and the NT - and then there are lay or amateur (non-scholarly) views. Now, our notability guidelines may lead us to include all these views in an article. But my main point is that we are dealing with at least four different kinds of views and when someone tries to reduce one pair to the other, as if there are just two views, they really are misrepresenting the research and really the world of scholarship. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The comments of Slrubenstein present a straw man. Nobody is saying Christian scholars be excluded. Simply highlighting that the opposite that is happening. It is more like saying that a white person cannot comment on black history - to stretch that inappropriate analogy. - MishMich - Talk - 21:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You are making a simple error in logic. Just because I think blacks are quite capable of writing scholarly works on black history does not mean I do not think whites cannot. Nowhere have I suggested that non-Christians cannot contribute. But aside from your own bad logic, please do not misrepresent me. Did you read what I wrote? I never said the problem is Noloop wanting to exclude Christian views. My problem is that Noloop seems to label any view he does not like as "Christian." Consequently, he misrepresents many important scholarly views. This is POV-warring and it is wrong. The bottom line is it is bigoted to have a religion-litmus-test for contributors. You do not find out what kind of views an author is forwarding in her book by asking whether she is Jewish or Presbyterian or Buddhist. You look at the book and its contents to see what view it is promoting.

It amazes me that there are so many editors here who cannot grasp the simplest point: one can identify one's self as Christian, even belong to a Church, and also be a medical doctor, biologist, or historian. There are Christians who think abortion is a sin but there are also Christian MDs who perform abortions. There are Christians who think the theory of evolution is bunk but there are Christian biologists who conduct research on evolution (evolution, not creationism or ID). There are Christians who take the Bible literally, but there are also Christian historians who see it in its historical context, as the work of people living in different historical contexts, and who analyze it in its historical context, as a document that reveals at least as much about its authors as it does about its characters. The simplest point is that one can be a Christian and also be a fine professional historian, who uses the same methods and reaches the same conclusions as any non-Christian historian. In such cases, it obviously does not matter that ther person is Christian; what does matter is that she is an historian. I keep thinking about it, and reading people's comments, but I always reach the same conclusion: to disregard what a person actually wrote, what methods they use and how they use diferent kinds of evidence and diferent kinds of methods to reach their conclusions, and instead simply decide that since the person is a Christian they can only be pushing a Christian POV, is bigoted.

I am flummoxed by the number of people who do not get this. I can make an edit to any article and based on the edit you can decide whether my edit hopelessly violates NPOV, or violates NPOV but can be fixed, or is NPOV compliant. You do this by looking at my edit, not by asking what my religion is. To take this approach to researching and writing an encyclopedia is just shameful. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with just about everything you say, but can I ask you this? In an article about Scientology, if you were to discover the article was based almost entirely on the work of historians and professors of religion who were also committed Scientologists, to what extent would you factor that in when reading their material and using them as sources? Because at some point we have to take sources on trust. We can't judge the quality of everything every source writes: if we could do that we would be the experts ourselves. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Look, I sympathize with anyone who thinks critically and is skeptical about sources - any sources. But the next step after skepticism is to examine the work in its context, without prejudice. When it comes to Scientology, there is a documented history of the Church of Scientology explicitly declaring that a good deal of knowledge about Scientology is proprietary, and a record of the Church of Scientology suing dissenters. So there is a particular kind of skepticism concerning Scientology that is based on conclusions, and not assumptions, and which I therefore would not consider prejudiced. Within the Catholic Church there is not only a record of sexual abuse of minors, but of the Church hierarchy covering up such abuse - lying to parents and not reporting crimes to state of Federal prosecutors. This pattern is well-documented, so a refusal to take Church statements about sexual abuse at face-value, or as sufficient to any presentation of facts about sexual abuse in the Church is also a conclusion based on real evidence, and thus not an assumption, not pre-judged.

But when it comes to Biblical history there is a different body of evidence and you do not have to have a PhD, you only have to take one or two college courses on the Bible, or find out what books are assigned by professors at major universities and read them, to learn that historically Christians themselves have generated a great deal of literature that is critical of certain Christian beliefs about the Bible. So in this case one reaches different conclusions. In this case, I do not think that an analogy with Scientology is appropriate.

This does not mean that committed Christian do not write stuff on the Bible that expresses Christian views. I would expect most secular clergy, missionaries, and theologians to write about the Bible in ways that advance Christian views. I am just saying that there is considerable evidence of people who are Christians yet who become historians and write critical history.

(You introduce the word "committed" which opens up another can of worms. I am sure there are some Christians who would read the works of these historians and declare that the authors cannot possibly be "committed" Christians. I think any Jew, Christian, or Muslim who was brought up in orthodoxy has some kind of crisis when they encounter the theory of evolution, lower and higher criticism, and other such things. They have a choice of rejecting science, rejecting their religion, or seeking some kind of acommodation. Darwin himself abandoned Christianity, while the Catholic Church accepted Darwin's theory of evolution. First the Enlightenment, then Darwin, and only then Wellhausen provoked great debates within Judaism and Christianity and today I assume among Hindus and Muslims as well. In Christianity and Judaism, "fundamentalism" as we know it developed after the Enlightenment in reaction against it - but so did liberal forms of these religions that embrace the Enlightenment, Darwin, and lower and higher criticism. So a Jew or a Christian can accept these things without abandoning his or her religion. I imagine they consider themselves very committed to Judaism or Christianity, just not to the Judaism of the Lubavitch Hasidim or the Christianity of Jerry Falwell. And I imagine the Lubavitch and Evangelical Christians might consider such people apostates. Personally, this is my opinion: I think when we are talking about these Biblical historians, it is usually very clear whether they are serious modern historians or not. What kind of Christians they are far more complicated and controversial.) Slrubenstein | Talk 10:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Since this thread was supposed to be about me, I'll show up and wave hello. Is there anything anyone wants me to respond to regarding my conduct? I'd be happy to discuss anything further, either here or on my talk page. Regarding the main complaint, I'll acknowledge that at the time I did not feel I was personally attacking Noloop, and felt I was simply characterizing the nature of their arguments; but I can see now that my comments crossed a line; I acknowledge some editors felt they negatively affected them personally; I acknowledge that they were not productive to the discussion at hand; and I apologize for that; and I can agree to shy away from the b-word in the future, and use this as a reminder to keep focusing on arguments, not individuals. I believe I have a very strong and clean record here on Wikipedia, pride myself on integrity, and don't want to jeopardize that by loosing tempers in a petty online debate, and I hope we all can forgive and look past this and continuing working on these issues on their respective article talk pages. I'm sorry to have been a catalysts in taking up this much space in the ever busy ANI. Also, thanks for the history lesson Slrubenstein, (and I did read it all, despite my TL;DR inclination.) Again, I'd be glad to respond to specifics directed at me personally here, or on my talk page. P.S. I hope this is not in bad form, but I was wondering if an uninvolved admin would consider "reminding" Noloop of WP:TALK and specifically not editing or deleting others' comments.[14][15][16][17]. I feel like any warning from me would be throwing fuel on a fire. -Andrew c ^[talk] 20:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the acknowledgement and apology. I have warned Noloop for the latest comment removal, this is not OK. Fences&Windows 23:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Slrubenstein

Personal attacks are indefensible. It’s astonishing that an admin is actively arguing for a right to insult me. His response to being asked to stop is that he intends to continue: “I cannot believe you tolerate bigots at Wikipedia....Sorry, bigots are a threat to the integrity of WP as a whole. I won't stand for them.” [18] “Noloop is a POV-pushing troll.” [19] “Bigotry, like racism, describes a particular kind of personal attack. Why is labeling someone's edit " a form of bigotry" a personal attack,...” [20]. Is an essay about why he’s right in a content dispute a defense of calling an editor a “fanatical bigot”?

His analogy to African-American topics, which isn’t very convincing, proves the point. If an editor did write “"The Black view is expressed in...” (his example), would Wikipedia policy support saying to that editor: “You’re a racist fanatical bigot” ?

Should I respond to his points about content? It only legitimizes his defense of personal attacks, as if I have to prove I’m right in order to deserve civility. Responding to him assumes he’s interested in listening to me, has an open mind. Should I have faith that someone who thinks I’m fanatical POV-pushing bigotted troll cares about my view? Others have already noted that the Christian:Jesus relation isn’t the same as the African-American:Civil-rights relation. African-Americans are not predisposed by a doctrine of “Blackness” to take faith-based positions on civil rights. Being African-American is not a religion. He objects to a religious “litmus test.” I proposed no “litmus test.” More of my opinion on the sourcing dispute is in my most recent comments to Andrew [21] and [22]. A summary of my examination of the sourcing is here [23]. I won't continue to discuss content here.

An ‘’admin’’ is defiantly announcing an intention to call me a bigot and a “POV-pushing troll”. Not only is he attacking me, he’s announcing a right to do so. I would have been blocked immediately if I had said half what he said. When I accused him of personal attacks, I backed every single case with a diff. In all his mudslinging, he has supported nothing. He proposed: “Noloop should be topic-banned, or perhaps banned entirely," previously, and offered not a single diff in support. [24] Nobody who comes here deserves to be attacked and intimidated by admins. Double-standards are offensive. Why no sanctions? Noloop (talk) 03:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

First, administrators are wikipedia's janitors. When it comes to conflicts over how to edit a page or apply a policy, it does not matter whether someone is a sysop or not. I do not know why you emphasize a fact which is irrelevant to this case. Second, I apologize for using the word "troll," I should have said disruptive editor. As to comparing race to religion, my point is simply that these identities can shape one's point of view, but do not always do so, which is all that matters as far as our NPOV policy goes. Finally, I will admit to my own bias: I grew up in the United States. During the Civil War, some abolitionists and Congressmen from the North declared that the struggle was over the rights of all persons regardless of "race, creed, or color." One of the first significant steps in the Civil Rights movement in the US was when President Roosevelt, pressed by black unions, issued Executive Order 8802 baning any discrimination "against persons on the basis of race, creed, color or national origin" in the military or any defense-related industry. The first Federal act using the term "affirmative action" - and a pillar of the civil rights movement - was John E. Kennedy's Executive Order 10925, which declared that people should be treated equally regardless of their "race, creed, color, or national origin." The Civil Rights movement in the US had a big impact on me, and yes, I do consider prejudice against people on the basis of their race, or creed, or color, or national origin to be equally bad, and historically, equally problems modern societies must struggle to overcome. I do not understand why you think the equation of Christians and Blacks as equally deserving in civil rights is wrong. I can only explain why I equate them, and it has to do with my growing up in the US during the period of Civil Rights struggles and advances. Finally, you ask why you should care about the views of someone who has criticized your own position as bigoted. I do not expect you to care. A month ago, when you first started commenting on the talk pages of the Jesus article, I took your comments in good gaith and I tried to respond in kind, explaining why I disagreed with you. Other editors did the same. You simply ignored our comments or questions. Believe me, at this point I do not expect you to change your behavior. But as always I am willing to be surprised. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

re to Slrubenstein

Since I have called into question. The rant by Slrubenstein misses one very simple point: we are discussing the very foundation of a dogmatic belief. Let me explain. While Afro-American people do not necessarily share, to my knowledge, dogmatic beliefs of any kind, Christians do share at least one belief, that Jesus existed and that he is their Lord and Saviour. That comes out simply by definition.

Now, Slrubenstein fluffs a lot of irrelevant arguments of the kind "there are Christians that are also evolutionary biologists". So what? Christianity as a whole does not demand absolute refusal (or absolute acceptance) of Darwinian evolution, even if some Christian variants perhaps do. So these examples are completely not pertinent to the problem.

But a Christian who doesn't believe in the existence of Christ does not exist, simply because it is a self-contradiction. So when Slrubenstein denounces Noloop in thinking that "once you know what religion a person is, youknow his or her views.", he doesn't acknowledge a very important thing. That is, you don't know his/her views in general, but you can bet your life on a very specific point: that that person will absolutely believe that Jesus exists as a true, historical figure.

That is the core problem. I fully agree, obviously, that as a general rule we shouldn't single out sources, scholars and people in general on the basis of religion etc. But in this case, a fundamental biases arises. If you are a Christian and you write on the existence of Jesus, you simply cannot acknowledge that Jesus didn't exist. Notice that Christian scholars are, quite obviously, fully aware of their bias in this respect: page 144: "For Christian theology to do otherwise would be in effect to allow itself to be determined by a possibility [that Jesus doesn't exist], which, if it proved an actuality, would entail a revolution in the nature of Christian faith, if not its destruction. It would thus already be the abdication of what is most distinctly Christian in the Christian confession, so to speak, before the battle had begun or the enemy come into view. Were theology to provide for this possibility it would thereby call in question its Christian character.".

So, in this very specific case, yes, we do know what someone thinks on the mere basis of religion and yes, the mere religious affiliation immediately denounces a bias. Then, it is entirely possible (and I do indeed believe it) that the bias is actually close to the truth: but to determine it, non-Christian sources are badly needed.

Finally: In general, I see no problem in writing "Afro-American scholar..." or "European scholar..." or similar, in articles about Afro-American issues, or about European issues, or whatever. To denounce mere open disclosure of potential (not necessarily real, this time!) biases to the reader seems to me only an act of honesty. To call this "bigotry" is insane. Noloop is no perfect editor, but he is fully right in complaining. --Cyclopia^talk 10:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

a Christian who doesn't believe in the existence of Christ does not exist.

They do, and abound in certain universities, in the wake of Thomas Altizer, who however thought God died in Christ, unlike many of his colleagues, who thought one could dispense with God and Christ and remain Christian. Many Catholics think that is what Anglicanism effectively is.Nishidani (talk) 11:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You can even find self-identifying Christians who expressly do not believe in God, though admittedly that is a much smaller group. Religious identification is not always centered on strict beliefs or unwavering faith. That view is itself a cultural product of a very systemic Protestant bias regarding religion in general, and Christianity in particular. When I say "systemic" I mean Euro-American in general, regardless of religious faith or the lack thereof. In fact those who are most apt to hold rigidly to this Protestant view of religion are 1) Conservative Christians and 2) Atheists. Both identities revolve around this notion of religion in ways that seem much too rigid to many liberal religionists and agnostics. Cyclopia, the quote you are using above specifically mentions Christianity within rather specific contexts. "Christian theology ... faith ... [and] confession". It does not mention the writings of historians who also identify as Christians. It does say that these historians are incapable of separating their work as historians from their religious identities. It does not say that their religious beliefs are so strong that it means they must compromise the historical method to accommodate them. Those types of declarations remain non-existent in reliable sources as far as I can see. To those of us who exist in the middle, either as agnostics (like me) or liberal religionists, the idea of putting aside religion for the sake of scholarship does not seem to be especially difficult. We never succeed in putting aside all of the baggage we carry around as socialized human beings, but it's just that to us this particular area seems rather ordinary in that regard.Griswaldo (talk) 11:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Nishidani. But, apparently Cyclopia is a Christian fundamentalist. I realize he may not consider himself a Christian; my point is that the only Christianity he recognizes is fundamentalist Christianity. But the world of Christianity is much bigger than Grand Inquisitor Cyclopia recognizes. Unitarianism for example is a liberal branch of Christianity that formed in the 1600s. Although some Unitarians think Jesus was divine, most think he was just a man, but they wish to live according to his teachings. There are many other liberal Christians who have different views of God and Jesus. Bart Ehrman was a Born-Again Christian when he first went to seminary; many years later, as a Biblical Historian, he still considered himself a Christian although he had come to reject any belief in the trinity or in Jesus' divinity (although for unrelated reasons he eventually left Christianity). E.P. Sanders earned a doctorate in theology to become a Biblical historian and while tI think he still considered himself a Christian, he firmly rejected any dogmatic Christianity; his own view was that all dogma is actually anti-Biblical. These are just a couple of examples to illustrate the fact that Cyclopia is simply wrong in his claim about Christians. (Moreover, I can certainly conceive of someone who studies the Bible historically and starts with the assumption that Jesus never existed, and after study concludes that there was a historical Jesus, whose teachings were not only profound in their historical context but continue to have meaning today. In other words, studying the Bible historically could indeed cause one to abandon Christianity, but it can also lead one towards Christianity. This statement will be nonsensical if you are a fundamentalist like Cyclopia, but if you accept that there may be a range of Christianities including non-dogmatic ones, it is certainly plausible). Cyclopia is simply ignorant - he is basing his judgments on incomplete information (we have reason to suspect this when we note that he is trying to make a "logical" argument, i.e. deducing from assumptions rather than drawing on empirical examples. How many times have we seen editors working on an article try to justify edits based on their own "logic?" We usually reject this and ask for a source. But if you started to learn more about the varietie sof Christianities as well as the actual beliefs of Biblical historians who trained at divinity schools or seminaries ... well, if you were actually working from empirical evidence, you would be very suspicious of the faulty assumptions behind Cycloppia's "logical" argument). And because he makes judgments based on ignorance, they are bigoted. I guess if Cyclopia were Pope he would excommunicate those Christians who do not fit Cyclopia's definition of "Christian" (which I find a little ironic).

In any event, I am fully willing to grant that someone who received a PhD in history from a seminary or Divinity School, or who teaches at one, may or may not be a Christian, or may have been a Christian and no longer considers himself (or herself) to be a Christian. Even if we were to accept Cyclopia's fundamentalist/orthodox definition of Christian, we still must return to my point: we will only know what point of view is being expressed in a book or article when we read it. Just knowing what degree someone has, where one trained or in what programme one teaches, is simply insufficient information to identify the view accurately. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, here for example it seems that the views of Jesus are indeed very different, to the point of considering it a mere human example (and I knew that, I know about unitarianism for example). I knew already that there is a vast variety of views on anything, and even non-dogmatic ones. But no Christian view I can find is agnostic (or accepts agnostic views) on the existence of Jesus. Nishidani says that I am wrong in this respect, referring to Anglicanism. Well, the article on Anglicanism says that for example a key point is apostolic succession, and I can't think of a way to combine belief in apostolic succession with the possibility agnosticism on Jesus. It doesn't strike me as "fundamentalist" the notion that Christians, whatever their interpretation, believe in the existence of a person nicknamed Christ -it seems a mere matter of definition. A definition of Christianity that doesn't include Christ seems self-contradictory, and I haven't seen it supported anywhere (I can think of some movement following the Gospel teachings and being agnostic on Christ, but this would be more "Gospelism" than Christianism - Unitarian universalism could fit the definition, but in fact it is not considered a Christian denomination).

Now, it is of course possible that the articles above, and me, are simply wrong -if so, I would sincerely enjoy being educated on the existence of these "Jesus-agnostic" variants of Christianity. And if so, I would happily accept sources from scholars following these variants as if they were secular, in the respect of the point we're debating here. But first we should check that they come from these particular variants.

Also, if these variants exist, we should document them in Christianity and Jesus in Christianity articles, that lack these important points of view. So, educate me, sounds interesting. --Cyclopia^talk 13:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Human practices, including those related to their "beliefs" are not matters of definition however. That's the fundamental disconnect here. What you are inferring by way of logic and semantics cannot be applied as proof of bias in practice. Proving bias in practice requires that you show evidence at least of a psychological state but preferably of an actually biased human practice. My problem has always been, lacking any such proof, insinuating the possibility of bias by way of attributing a statement to someone of a specific group.Griswaldo (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Far be it to come between a man and his G-d, but I do have to point out that Cyclopia's definition is the one used by all the mainstream Christian churches. A view that one can be a Christian but not believe in Jesus pretty much as depicted is rejected by the Roman Catholic communion, the Protestant communion (the overarching group of all Protestant denominations that consider themselves to be in communion with each other - everything from the Church of England to the 7th Day Adventists), and the Eastern Orthodox communion. Yes, there are entire groups (Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarians) that hold other views (although I believe all of these groups are of the opinion that a historical Jesus existed), and yes, there may be individuals who claim to be Christian while holding a set of core beliefs that does not include a historical Jesus - although on that point it should be noted that both of Slrubenstein's examples support a historical Jesus who needs to be 'rescued' from being buried under the church, as do Cupitt and Spong, and every other "non-church" Christian author that I've ever read. So Cyclopia's point that all Christians have a vested interest in a historical Jesus is way more true than Slrubenstein's rant would suggest, and goes vastly beyond a tightly drawn evangelical doctrineElen of the Roads (talk) 13:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. You and Cyclopia are both mixing and matching academic disciplines in a troublesome way to arrive at your conclusion. Within the study of religion the scientific view of religious belief is formed around the studies conducted by those who actually measure and describe such beliefs ... by social scientists. You see if you are going to suggest that the religious affiliation of an actual individual like a scholar is meaningful in terms of the scholarship they produce then you need to prove that the religious affiliation of such a scholar is actually meaningful. Christian dogma does not, in any way, provide a scientific basis for making such a suggestion simply because it exists. Dogma only tells us what the official position of the institution is. This is like claiming that the dogmatic statements of a national government define all the beliefs and practices of its citizenry. Once again there are groups that do in fact adhere more strictly to their own dogma and in order to argue against them, to the relevance of the dogmatic statements of those they argue with (E.g. conservative Catholics and atheists). I can make that statement based on the studies of social scientists, and not based on the mere existence of these dogmas. My point here is that in order to claim or suggest human bias you have to enter the realm of the social sciences. If you are going to enter that realm you'll have to stick to the methods of that realm of inquiry to provide evidence of your claim.Griswaldo (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, will you pack it in with the insults. There really was absolutely no need to make this personal. Cyclopia is a Christian fundamentalist (I think he's actually an agnostic, but what do I know), Grand Inquisitor Cyclopia, a fundamentalist like Cyclopia, Cyclopia is simply ignorant, if Cyclopia were Pope he would excommunicate those Christians who do not fit Cyclopia's definition. What the hell were you even thinking of? Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry. His behaviour will be enlightening for other readers, and perhaps for himself too, later, when he will think about "bigotry": I'm sure Slrubenstein is familiar with the "mote in the eye" parable. --Cyclopia^talk 13:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. I guess I was thinking that it is a shame when someone makes up their mind about what "Christianity" is, to the point where they think there is no need actually to read what someone educated at a seminary or divinity school has actually written. That is what I was thinking. Right now, I am thinking about an interesting slippage in your reasoning: you point out that "non-Church" Christian historians present a historical Jesus that is quite different from that presented by Church orthodox and from this you conclude that all Christians - wow! ALL, that is pretty big and pretty definitive, who knew you had time to talk to every Christian on earth? - believe in a historical Jesus which just falls down on its own logic, since these historians begin their books by saying that there is no certainty Jesus existed, and the portrait of Jesus they come up with is confounding enough to Cyclopia and perhaps you too, that Cyclopia insists they therefore cannot be Christians, or you say since they are Christians they cannot mean what they say ... it gets all so confusing, I think, to try to follow your reasoning, and I think this would be so much easier if you actually read their books. And I am thinking that it is interesting that you phrase your own point in terms of how Cyclopia's views are "more true" than mine. I am thinking about the wisdom of the Wikipedia dictum, "verifiability, not truth" - that once one starts playing the "truth game" (in the Wittgensteinien sense), nobody wins because it is inevitable that each person's understanding of "truth" will not allow even the possibility of the others' understanding of "the truth." I am thinking that it is really wise, that Wikipedia tells us not to play this game and instead simply to report verifiable accounts of different views. This takes us pretty far away from some pointless debate about defining what "true" Christianity is. And if we do not know what "true" Christianity is, it is no longer enough simply to identify someone as a "Christian." We can no longer make flippant assumptions that we know someone else's view just because we know what someone's race is, or creed, or color ... because no matter what one's identity, one can have have a variety of views, people of the same identity can have different views. "Verifiability not truth" means that there are different views of Christianity, just as there are different views of the Bible. And finally, I think that this means that as editors we cannot just write what we believe to be true, we need to look at sources, we need to read sources, we need to be able to assess sources in context, which usually requires us to read more sources. And I am thinking: in this long discussion, I provided the names of two of the most notable Bible historians, both of whom got their degrees from seminaries, and both of whom are cited in the Jesus article, and I know that in their books neither of them assume that Jesus existed, and that they work as professional historians. And I am thinking, how do these two so-called wikipedians manage to speak with so much confviction and presumed authority, when it appears that they have not bothered to read any of these books? Well, that is what I have been thinking, thank you for asking. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Close

OK can we close this. Its diiffted way off topic Andrew C's poor shoice of words. He has appoligised and aknowlegded that his action are wrong. I think promised to moderate his language in future. Now the issue of his actions in reraltion to his adminship is another issue (I bleives there is a board for that, and that aspect of his action should b taken there). But other then that I fail to see what function is being served here.Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, its gone from one admin abusing poor Noloop - apparently for not believing in Jesus, to another admin abusing poor Cyclopea - apparently for saying that Christians believe in Jesus. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

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

LGBT adoption and LGBT parenting

For those familiar with him, user Destinero is once again engaging in edit wars on the LGBT adoption and LGBT parenting page. He is not only refusing to allow other users to make any edits but also using profanity and name calling. User Destinero has a very long history of abuses and has been sanctioned many times in the past, although it has never done any good.Tobit2 (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia policies to push up religious right propaganda bring out by Tobit2. Everybody can see and check this. What is more, Tobit2 is incapable to discuss thing just because he do not want to read other user comments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:LGBT_parenting#Tobit2.2C_please_stop_doing_vandalism_immediately.21 --Destinero (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You're being (at least a bit) over the top here. I cannot see any "religious right propaganda" or, as you put it boldly in the talk page's section header, "vandalism". You might not agree with those edits, but you need to talk about it. Simply listing the removed snippets and saying "important information" won't help much. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Tobit2 cannot just came up and totally change of articles on which there is broad editorial consensus developed over several years and remove sources info. Somebody should explain him Wikipedia policies if he is unable to do it himself. --Destinero (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Destinero, this is not a page for slander (besides I am not of the religious right but of a more scientific ilk). Whatever the biases of editors, we must still work together. This page is to report that you are refusing to work with others and instead are reverting their edits without conversation. Moreover, the LGBT parenting article is not one of broad consensus. Most editors, like myself dropped out long ago, because they were simply too tried to work with Destinero. The Talk page reflects this.Tobit2 (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

[25] religious right propaganda? Please don't be silly.--Ancient Anomaly (talk) 22:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Pointing to the fact that Tobit2 is a Catholic editor (see his user page) repeatedly removing important facts about research and rephrasing summaries of research reviews to weak them is definitely not silly, it is needed to be aware of issues. We have deal with editor with catholic agenda here and he can not just came and delete what credible sources says just because he do not like it. --Destinero (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

My goodness; you can't be serious? My user page indicates information about me so that other editors will have a sense of my background. I was raised Catholic, so, yes, my early experiences in life color my world view, and I firmly believe all editors should be upfront about their backgrounds. But to twist my explanation of my background into "a catholic agenda," is just just being silly. I am only involved in these pages because they impinge on the adoption series of articles, of which I have a keen interest.Tobit2 (talk) 05:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

User Destinero has a very long history of abuses and has been sanctioned many times in the past, although it has never done any good. You mean these two blocks?--Ancient Anomaly (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Tobit2, we'll need to see WP:DIFFs on the alleged violations and concerns before being able to act. Once you supply them then we'll have more info to work with. Basket of Puppies 22:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles (Unconstructive Reverting Other Editors Work)

1) First revert of LGBT parenting of good faith edit [26]

2)Second revert of an edit of LGBT parenting, an edit that had incorporated Destinero's specific criticism. [27]

3)First revert of edit on LGBT adoption; revert claimed POV but edit had only repeated info straight from an article Destinero had added [28]

4)Second revert of good faith edit on LGBT adoption, this one with profanity in the explanation [29]

5) Last edit by Tobit2 on LGBT adoption. It removes little of what Destinero had originally and focuses on adding info directly from sourced article. [30]

Talk Pages (Slander)

1) Refer to last paragraph for first instance of slander [31]

2)Refusal to cooperate, instead tarring other editors with unfounded labels [32]

3) Not sure what to call this? Perhaps an admission from being banned in his native Czech Wikipedia> [33]

4)Another instance of name calling, this time another editor is called "incompetent" for note having read 30 pages of an attached document. [34]

If you are so lazy to read the document, then do not write lies about failing to cite any studies where there are dozens of studies cited on several pages that nobody who open the document could overlook them: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LGBT_adoption&diff=prev&oldid=376622258 Collaboration on Wikipedia really requires some fundamental abilities and I actually suspect you got them. --Destinero (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Constructive editing means working with others and not expecting them to read your mind. I skimmed the 30+ page attachment you cited and found nothing related to adoption. Did I miss an article? Maybe. But it is incumbent on you to tell people which articles you are referring to rather than making them guess. Your anger is out of bounds, unhelpful, and damaging.Tobit2 (talk) 05:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

suggestions

1. Destinero should back off and calm down and voluntarily refrain from editing for some time. Just because he was treated badly on cswiki is not a reason to point his anger to enwiki.
2. Yes, I know he is theme banned on cswiki. However, his ban is still subject to debates after more than six months and is considered unfair by many editors.
3. It's not a good idea to assume bad faith based on the czech wikipedia. The situation there is rather bad - administrators are unwiling to ban/block trolls and clearly disruptive editors, but very willing to block others who lose patience with them and call them trolls. Even obvious bad faith acts are ignored, like inviting others to discuss articles prepared in the user's sandbox and then posting harassment complaints with a very sarcastic tone on the administrators' noticeboard that the contents of his sandbox are being discussed by others.--Ancient Anomaly (talk) 02:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Ancient, each of your suggestions references Destinero's cswiki banning, but the current incident is not on cswiki, and I only mentioned it once to provide context that this is not a language problem only. Destinero's edit warring, unconstructive behavior, and incivility are well documented on enwiki and I have provided fresh examples above in the DIFFs. Should anyone be confident that Destinero will change voluntarily if he has not done so in more than 1 year on enwiki? How does tolerating poor behavior help the Wikipedia project?Tobit2 (talk) 04:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

While I may not agree with Tobit on some things, I tend to agree with him on this. I gave up trying to edit some of these articles because the approach to editing on the part of the editor in question was so frustrating. - MishMich - Talk - 08:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe Destinero's recent activity, including his posts above, indicate, he has not taken Ancient's suggestion to back off. Will the admins act to maintain the community's standards of civility and constructive editing?Tobit2 (talk)

User:Triton_Rocker

Triton Rocker has been making a number of fairly insulting edits today at the British Isles Special Examples page. In this diff [35] for example, in a new section entitled "Updated list of Combatants" he accuses a lengthy list of editors of "grooming administrators", sockpuppetry, edit warring and various other insults. Subsequent edits to this list, attempting to remove the insulting bits were reverted and re-inserted by Triton. This has been a controversial subject which we have tried to calm down and have been approaching systematically and it is very disruptive to be trolled like this and forced to spend time repeatedly correcting. I would like to request he be dealt with firmly as it's very frustrating trying to work seriously on the topics in that article without being distracted by this foolishness.

Triton Rocker was blocked recently for 48 hours by TFOWR for violating the British Isles Sanctions and given a final warning today [36] by Skomorokh on Triton's talk page for having a bash at Dave Snowden, who as User:Snowded is another participant in the WP:BISE article. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Tritons actions are clearly designed to be as disruptive as possible, it is certainly beyond the point of someone simply not following the rules correctly. Permanent ban until he accepts never to add British Isles to an article again or harass other editors. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• Note - Recent discussion on this noticeboard may be relevant: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive629#Breech_of_General_Sanction_by_User:Triton_Rocker.  Frank  |  talk  16:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

See also that he created trivial and pointy templates against User:Snowded such as Category:People from Ongar, Category:People from Ongar (district), Category:Ongar, and Template:Too-many-snitches. --HighKing (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Triton Rocker is clearly being absurdly disruptive here. I've had no previous involvement here and would probably have happily indef blocked him at this point - but as always with these disputes, it's probably best that someone who's not visibly British or Irish takes any required action, just for the sake of appearances. ~ mazca ^talk 17:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I think anyone looking at this has to apply a filter adding just a little suspicion at the motivations of any of the major proponents, such as User:HighKing. and User:Snowded.

What happened here is that I walk in on some nationalistic dispute which has been going on for years when a couple of the editors started to perform total revision of my work. If you look at my work in generally, you will see that I do a lot of editing adding references.

Strangely, but conveniently for them all, I have been made an example of and become the scapegoat within the British Isles naming dispute. For the record, I do not take a nationalist point of view and support the use of the geographic term as the non-political solution and on non-political topics. This is clearly documented. --Triton Rocker (talk) 23:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

As a "hardened Irish nationalist" (by Triton Rocker's definition) I really thing that TR should go back to editing what he knows best....and that is British bikes. TR has kind of lost the plot when it comes to BI, Sd and HK. We really don't want to loss good editors but if his behaviour continues as is that is what will happen. Bjmullan (talk) 23:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I could understand your actions at first Triton, it is hard for editors when they first arrive at the British Isles dispute, but you have had plenty of warnings about the rules, you just do not seem to follow them. Any inclusion or removal of British isles to articles by "involved editors" of which you are now certainly one, should be cleared on the BISE page. It is not difficult, some of the proposed places you wanted to use it would have won support for inclusion, but you have to raise it there first. And when you are subject to general sanctions you have no choice but to obey the rules or get a block. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Triton, you say that anyone looking at this should apply a filter adding a little suspicion at the motivation of the likes of HK and Snowded. Do you also think there is anything suspicious in the motivations of Jamesinderbyshire (who opened this ANI thread) and BritishWatcher? Jack 1314 (talk) 00:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Triton has had three blocks for inserting "British Isles" into articles without discussing the change first. He is the only editor who has defied the general sanction and the only one named there. My sin in his/her eyes has been to report the breech in the sanction and reverse edits with a request to discuss them first as per policy. As one of the monitoring admins (TFOWR currently on holiday) has told him, I am one of the few editors to take each case on its merits and I have never proposed a removal or deletion, just put the effort in over the years to try and create some order in this mess so I do rather resent the name-calling. What we have here is a good content editor who lacks the maturity to follow community rules. The lashing out at anyone who prevents him doing what he feels he has a right to is a clear sign of that. If anyone can think of a way that this can be rectified without further disruption to the community I for one would appreciate it. It would be a pity if painted himself into a corner in which the only option was an escalating series of blocks. --Snowded ^TALK 02:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

@ BritishWatcher. This persecution or scapegoating is all little bit one sided.

• The problem first is when people 'talk' by 'not talking'. That is to say, they refuse to engage in a discussion they might lose ... and then claim the issue "was not agreed" and use it as a "gotcha".

This is what is happening over non-political issues like the flora and fauna of the British Isles, tenants farmers, arts etc ... where my interest lies and more than often, I am the only contributor. I have no interest or involvement in "The Troubles". 99.99% of the time, flora and fauna and historical culture etc cannot be fixed into a political box like Britain and Ireland. The term British Isles is the only universal, respectful, non-political one we have for ... the British Isles.

• Second problem is one of intent. Is their intention really content creation or is it to bog down developments that goes against their POV?

Time and time again I am having, by the likes of Snowded (talk · contribs) not the term removed but long sections of well referenced content & citations. Often with cutting and false summaries. That is malicious and authoritarian. It is designed to hurt and provoke and damages the goodwill of others to contribute. The truth is, I don't recognise User:Snowded as having any authority.

In my opinion, he being an Essex (English) born Welsh nationalist (by his own page), this whole issue is psychologically motivated for him. That kind of motivation should not belong here therefore I am happy to take censorship from others ... but not him.

In most case, even he agrees, so I don't see why I just don't carry on editing and if they want to pull specific ones out, please do so. --Triton Rocker (talk) 04:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Triton - no one refuses to engage - check out WT:BISE and see how many sections are marked resolved. The reason you can't just carry on editing as you want is (i) you are under a community imposed sanction, (ii) you are constantly breaking WP:AGF and WP:NPA (both in the above post), (iii) you have to work with other editors which means using WT:BISE, something which ALL other editors involved are doing. No one is censoring you, several people (from both sides of the debate and neutrals) are all asking you to behave in a civil way and follow the rules. TFOWR suggested that you contact her after your last block, it was good advise I suggest you take it. --Snowded ^TALK 05:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Agreed with Snowded here. Triton is just trying to avoid the issue I referred to at the start of this one with irrelevant debating points. Clearly his own behaviour is the issue - if he behaved in a reasonable way, eg, without painting insulting remarks all over the place and generally trying to provoke and troll, we wouldn't be here. I certainly have better things to do. Can an admin now please take a look at this? It's really nothing to do with "British Isles" as such (and I certainly am not on the "anti" side of that particular debate), it's just to do with silly, disruptive and provocative behaviour that is the last thing needed in a page that has been becoming a basis for serious and considered discussion. I feel sure this will persist unless blocks are applied. Thanks for any help from an admin please. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't have much of a problem with anything Triton is saying or doing (apart from calling me a sock, which he's obviously picked up from unfounded accusations made by someone else). The fact is, this whole dispute is by and large caused by just one editor, aided and abetted by a couple of other 'deletors' helpfully identified by Triton. It's noticeable that when the major cause of the dispute takes a break, the dispute miraculously goes away. The whole debacle is nothing but an orgy of POV pushing by editors who are more concerned with using Wikipedia to promote their own politics than they are with developing an encyclopedia. Keep up the good work Triton. LevenBoy (talk) 09:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This administrator has been paying attention, to muck in in the absence of Black Kite et al.. For what it's worth, LevenBoy is quite wrong. It's pretty obvious even to the least attentive what happened. Triton Rocker came off a block, immediately edited Squealer, Grass (disambiguation), Rat (disambiguation), Squeal, NARC, Nark, Narc, Informant, and Dave Snowden, in that order, and then started on this. The blatant nature of the attempts to provoke here is only equalled by their sheer childishness. I held off blocking because I hoped that this would subside. There's been a spate of gloating at Template talk:Too-many-snitches, and that, too, is clearly a userbox intended to be divisive, provocative, and inflammatory. I notice that right at the very start of Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples there's a discussion of strict adherence to the civility policy, which this is clearly not. Suffice it to say that if there's one single edit more of this, editing privileges will be revoked. And I tend to the one-one-one-one school of block escalation, I warn you now. The last blocks count as one day and one week, so the next one will be one month. This sort of silliness will not break out in the absence of the administrators normally handling it. This includes pot stirring and game playing by others, too. Uncle G (talk) 10:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Very funny! First off, and note well - Editing IS NOT a privilege. Editors generously donate their time to this project for the good of - well, something or other. They are not paid, they volunteer, and many of them have to put up with the crap in various paragaphs above, so don't tell me it's a privilege to edit here - it isn't. And who are you? You've not had one jot of involvement in this dispute 'till now, so you'd be well advised to brief yourself on the issues, in detail. Yes, some of the stuff that's been going on is devisive, but how do you rate the POV attempts to remove British Isles and replace Londonderry with Derry - they are what's really devisive and they are the root causes of all the problems here. Maybe you would be better employed dealing with problems rather than the symptoms. Thanks.. LevenBoy (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Uncle G was stating that editing is a privilege, not a right. It's not that it's a special thing to edit here, but that you are graciously allowed to edit here, so long as you abide by the rules. The rest of your diatribe isn't relevant here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• In that respect Ungle G is wrong. If I choose to do so, I graciously provide my time and effort to the Wikimedia Foundation. They are privileged to receive the time and effort donated by all editors. Don't confuse rights and privileges. While it's not a right to edit Wikipedia, neither is it a privilege. Being an admin, on the other hand, is a privilege. LevenBoy (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• ... Facepalm Read up on the concept of personal rights versus privileges, then get back to us. Or, simply hit up Wiktionary. You are misusing the term. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Try this. I commend definition number one. It's a bit like people who wrongly say driving a car is a privilege not a right (I come from the perspecitve of the UK, btw). It is a right to be enjoyed by everyone unless an individual forfeits the right by not adhereing to some rule or other. The operative word to be used in connection with privilege is special. LevenBoy (talk) 16:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Whereas Wikipedia standard usage has always been the World English Dictionary usage on that page, ie. "1. a benefit, immunity, etc, granted under certain conditions." You may feel free to use the other definitions, but that's not what Uncle G was referring to. Regardless, this has wandered into WP:LAME territory, and way, way off-topic for ANI. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Back to subject in hand

Triton Rocker, I hold dual Irish and British citizenship (mam was born in Limerick and dad was born in London) and I can safely say that half the arguments of the Irish are WP:LAME and half the arguments of the Brits are WP:POINTY and half the time the English forget that it's not the English Isles, but if you don't want running street battles from Kerry to Lerwick, the only way is to list any changes you want to make at WP:BISE and wait for 48 hours. 99% of the time, you would have got the change you wanted, if only you'd done that. Instead, if you keep this up, Uncle G will block you until the Autumn Term. Got it.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

IP evading restrictions on article creation

174.49.188.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This IP has been attempting to evade the article creation restriction on anonymous users by placing article content on the talk pages of the proposed article. The first one was Talk:The Real World (Ally McBeal episode) on 23 July ([37]), which was moved to the article space shortly after. User was warned about this on 24 July ([38]), was blocked 31 hours on 28 July for other disruptive activity, and today created Talk:Detachment (film) and Talk:They Eat Horses, Don't They? ([39], [40]). I moved both to the article space, prodded one and redirected the other. I think a longer block is necessary here. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Another one after I posted this report and after I turned one of the pages into a redirect: [41]. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours. If they continue after that, a longer block. Dougweller (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Am I missing something here, the restriction was originally put in place (as I remember) to help limit the potentially libelous crap being generated in mainspace. It wasn't because we wanted to force people into creating accounts. If the creations are not unreasonable (as opposed to being reasonable) what's the issue? It takes someone else who presumably reads it first to move it to mainspace. Blocking someone for trying to contribute content seems madness. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a mechanism for creating articles, Wikipedia:Articles for creation, that can be used by IPs. I've used it myself. Perhaps IP 174 might be pointed in that direction? 81.145.247.186 (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You could have done that. I've done it. Did you look at the IP's talk page and the long list of warnings and the block just a few days ago? And the complete lack of response to the warnings? A bit of communication goes a long way to show good faith. Let's see how they respond to my offer to unblock. Dougweller (talk) 20:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that I would not have brought this matter here had this user not been warned, kindly pointed towards AfC, and blocked before for the same reasons. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see there is a technical limit on IPs creating pages, but no policy restriction on them being the originator of a page (if there were AFC would be out as well). AFC maybe the better mechanism since it's more or less chance that someone sees the talk page and then understands it's meant to be the start of the article. I still can't see what disruption, what threat to wikipedia or the community is being addressed by such a block and therefore how it meets the blocking policy. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I'm happy to unblock if he will discuss his actions. His original block was not for creating articles, by the way. What we have here is an editor who has had a large number of complaints, mainly for adding unsourced materal and has not responded to any of them either by posting to a talk page or by changing his behavior and adding sources. Dougweller (talk) 10:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

User:212.242.173.165

Resolved

 – Engaged editor, probably no further action needed.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

User has repeatedly added information to Norman Granz and Jazz at the Philharmonic without a reliable citation. Information is most likely OR. [42] Gareth E Kegg (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I've asked the IP for more detail about his sourcing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Great Gareth E Kegg (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This original research nonsense goes on. Can the ip be blocked please? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Repeated copyright violations by User:Дунгане

On 8 July 2010, the above user was warned by bot of a copyright problem on Chen Tianhua, an article started by Дунгане. The user was warned again on 22 July 2010. Today (2 August 2010) I found that Дунгане inserted information from a non-public domani source into at least three separate articles.

• In Military of ancient Rome, Дунгане added "Sex by the Roman male was sadistic. The military man would select a female to have sex, and could overpower her by force and rape her. The prize to the soldiers was a young girl, preferebly virgin. They were free of venereal diseases, a soldier acquiring virign rape by demonstrating vaginal blood was praised by other soldiers". This is very close to the source, which says "The prize to the young soldier was the very young girl, preferably virgin who had no experience of sex. They were usually free of venereal diseases. A soldier acquiring a virgin rape by demonstrating her vaginal blood was highly praised by the other soldiers. ... Sex was often sadistic by the Roman male."

• In Homosexuality in ancient Greece, Дунгане added "In the near east, homosexual acts were performed on vanquished foes. In Greece it became part of "basic training". Sparta, the most militaristic of the Greek city states, propagated the idea that homosexual conduct would yield military prowess and was expected during training." The source says "As mentioned in our discussion of homosexual conduct in the ancient Near East, homosexual acts were frequently performed on vanquished foes. However, in Greece it became part of "basic training." Sparta, the most militaristic of the Greek city-states, propagated the idea that homosexual conduct would yield military prowess, and thence was expected during training."

• In Homosexuality in ancient Rome, Дунгане added "However, the test of Lex Scantina has not survived, and little is known about its contents. Men were prosecuted under it in later centuries, for political reasons, its uncertian the charges had anything to do with homosexuality and penalties were not serious. A trial was reported in which a man gained aquittal on adultery charges after testifying he was there for an assignment with a male slave, casting doubt the the illegality of homosexuality". The source says "However, the text of the law [Lex Scantina] has not survived, and little is known about its provisions . Men were prosecuted under the Lex Scantina in later centuries, often for political reasons, but it is uncertain that the charges had anything to do with homosexuality, and the penalties do not appear to have been serious. ... Moreover, a trial is reported in which a man found in the bedroom of a married woman gained aquittal on adultery charges after testifying that he was there for an assignment with a male slave. This casts grave doubt on the illegality of homosexuality."

Old copyright violations the user has been notified of still stand, for example "In early 1904 Chen, together with his fellow Hunanese Huang Hsing and Song Jiaoren, founded the underground revolutionary society Huaxinghui (China Arise Society) in Changsha. He worked with other members of the society to incite armed uprisings among the Qing troops and secret societies" appears in Wikipedia's article on Chen Tianhua and here. Even after warnings, Дунгане still isn't getting it. Nev1 (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't comment on the copyright problem itself, but Дунгане's deeper motivation for introducing these denigrating claims into articles on Greek and Roman history appears to me to stem from a false Chinese ethnic pride and a deep-rooted anti-Western bias. I have been targeted by Дунгане several times when he tried to draw contents dispute into an ethic flame-bait by directing ad hominem attacks on me:

• Talk:Military history of China (pre-1911)#pray tell gun powder ma
• Talk:Military history of China (pre-1911)#RE: THis whole mess Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyright concerns seems serious. For instance, in a recent series of edits to Zou Rong, we have "Zou regretted the absence of a strong racial conciousness (zhongxing) in China capable of uniting the people against the oppressors." This is copied from [43]. Then we have "Zou Rong greeted the 'peasants with weatherbeatn faces and mudcaked hands and feet' as his genuine countrymen, the proud descendents of the Yellow Emperor.' Race was a catalyst of group homogeneity, it created clear boundaries...." This (and more) was copied from [44]. I'm going to look at a few more article contributions to see how widespread this is. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that a WP:CCI may be of benefit here and am about to open one. (The backlog at CCI being what it is, assistance with it would be very welcome!) Cleanup of this is going to be difficult, as he seems to have liberally copied from other Wikipedia articles without requisite attribution, which can be easily handled, but has also copied from external sources, such as content in Zhang Huaizhi that duplicates The Power of the Gun and Chinese Muslim Youth League that is copied extensively from [45]. Since many of his sources are print and inaccessible, it may be necessary to presumptively remove some content he has added in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The CCI can be found here. For those who have never participated in one, the instructions are located near the top. Any contributor in good standing who has no history of copyright issues is welcome to help with these, and there is great need for you to do so. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

whatever copyright problems it has, just remove the text/article. im not going to bother sifting through my own edits.

And about User:Gun Powder Ma, this is coming from a user with 4 blocks and a history of incivility.

The only person who would suggest these edits were denigrating to Romans and Greek articles would be a homophobe, since i did not add any of my own slander or insults to the articles, only facts on homosexuality. As far as i can tell, we have many homosexual editors and wikipedia is open to people of all sexual orientation, the suggestion that these are denigrating is suggesting that Wikipedia should be homophobic.

Anyway, the fact that homosexuality is degrading or not has nothing to do with copyvio.

The majority of content i copied from other wikipedia articles was content i had added myself to the other article.

And about violating public domains rules, Someone else violated it first by copying text on Ma Hushan, First East Turkestan Republic and Ma Chung-ying liberally from the book "Warlords and Muslims" and The Soviets in Xinjiang Before i even started editing. I saw the way they had edited, and assumed since no one bothered to delete the content on those articles, that it was allowed. There wasnt even a reference inserted in these articles for much of the content. Since most vandalism (including copyvio) on wikipedia is claimed to be reverted quickly, and the content was still there, i assumed since someone was copying text and putting it into the article was allowed as long as there was a reference. Now I am aware that content has to be rewritten before.

Of course, ignorance of a rule does not excuse someone from being exempted from it. I am willing to refrain from editing mainspace articles when all copyvios are checked and not to add them again, pending any action by an admin that is required such as a ban.

However, if you check, not all of the content is copyvio, and should not be subject to blanket deletion. most of my references have links in them which you can check. and some of my edits are only adding names and pictures, links, and corrections.Дунгане (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You can't be bothered to sift through your own edits? Someone has to as several times you've blatantly breached copyright and I'm not particularly impressed that you don't seem to give a crap enough to help clean up your own mess. Nev1 (talk) 18:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

In the situation that someone vandalizes an article, no one is going to entrust the vandal to clean up the vandalism. However, i can point out which articles i remember not copying any text from other sources. Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission, Islam in the United States, Muhammad Naguib, Battle of West Suiyuan, Sulfur mustard, and several other articles. But you can check these first.

By the way, i never marked any minor edits as minor edits, so you will see things as trivial as linking and other things in the edit history on the page.

Gedimu, Xidaotang, and Yihewani were directly translated from their corresponding articles on German wikipedia, i did not change much.Дунгане (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

His edits were also reverted at Roman Empire after a discussion, see Talk:Roman Empire#User:Дунгане's overemphasis on homosexuality is unbalanced. Dougweller (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and other issues during RFC/U by User:Teeninvestor

In the recent days, Teeninvestor (talk · contribs) has engaged in multiple edit-wars over many articles against a number of editors, despite an ongoing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor opened by User:Nev1 (17 July 2010) and an ANI complaint about his removal of tags by User:Gun Powder Ma (15 July 2010).

All the issues which are addressed in the RFC/U have even aggravated since, in particular revert-warring, WP:Peacock, WP:POV, WP:Own, rude language, tendentious editing and misinformative edit summaries. Since I find it impossible to give a complete account of the dimension of the problem with the editor's behaviour, I refer to the Outside view by User:Athenean instead. This summary, which has been endorsed by no less than seven users since, tries to identify the numerous incidences on half a dozen articles after the RFC/U has begun.

Disruptive editing and removal of tags without prior discussion

Here I will concentrate on Military history of China (pre-1911)). Since the opening of the RFC/U, Teeinvestor's revert-warring has become even more intense:

• Revert (removal of tag) by Teeninvestor: 1 (18:44, 20 July 2010)

• Edit by User:Athenean: 04:55, 24 July 2010

• Revert by Teeninvestor: 2 (02:31, 25 July 2010)

• Self-revert 2 (02:44, 25 July 2010)

• Revert by Teeninvestor: 3 (17:08, 25 July 2010)

• Revert by User:Arnoutf: 17:18, 25 July 2010

• Revert by Teeninvestor: 4 (17:23, 25 July 2010)

• Revert by User:Arnoutf: 17:37, 25 July 2010

All these these reverts were done, although a clear consensus of 6 to 1 to remove the quote had already long formed on talk page (the discussion had started as early as 21 July 2010).

• Reintroduction of practically same claim through a quote in a very similar vein by Teeninvestor: 5 (20:11, 29 July 2010)

• Revert by User:Athenean: 20:19, 29 July 2010

• Revert by Teeninvestor: 6 (20:40, 29 July 2010)

• Revert by User:Arnoutf: 20:55, 29 July 2010

• Massive expansion of article on the basis of Robert K. G. Temple, the author of the contentious quote who has already been considered close to fringe in the discussion (and later is discounted as a reliable source altogether): 29 July 2010

• As a reaction, tags restored by User:Gun Powder Ma: 00:08, 30 July 2010

• Removal of tag by Teeninvestor: 7 (00:33, 30 July 2010)

• Revert by User:Gun Powder Ma on tag plus expansion of article: 30 July 2010. Simultaneously I gave my rationale on talk page and warned of a case of edit-warring if the tag is removed again without prior discussion.

• Removal of tag and partial revert of my additions by Teeninvestor 8 (16:52, 30 July 2010)

• Partial revert by User:Gun Powder Ma (solely of tag) per clear consensus that the references from Temple should be substituted by the source he claims to cite, Joseph Needham: 17:20, 30 July 2010

Although the contentious Temple references can be found throughout most of the article, Teeninvestor now moves the tag from the top consecutively to second and then third order sections, thus trying to minimize its impact and visibility:

• Partial revert by Teeninvestor 9a (18:49, 30 July 2010)
• Partial revert by Teeninvestor 9b (01:56, 31 July 2010)

• Talk page warning by User:Gun Powder Ma

• Partial self-revert by Teeninvestor 9b (18:52, 31 July 2010)

• Edit by User:Arnoutf: 20:53, 2 August 2010

• Revert by Teeinvestor (reintroduction of quotes by Temple): 10 (22:29, 2 August 2010)

• Partial revert by User:Athenean: 00:42, 3 August 2010

• Notification of this ANI by User:Gun Powder Ma: 00:45, 3 August 2010

• Revert by Teeinvestor after having been notified: 11 (00:55, 3 August 2010)

Accusations of personal attacks

Here, User:Nev1 shows that Teeninvestor's personal attacks amount to a "pattern of behaviour". While some of the material collected by User:Nev1 refers to the period prior to the RFC/U, the edit summaries alone after the RFC/U has begun, speak a different language:

• "Improper abuse"
• "One-sided POV addition of tags"
• "POV-pushing"
• "This user is also a known POV-pusher"
• "intrusive move"
• "bombastic edit..editor's POV"

Altough Teeinvestor and me have just agreed to settle our personal differences (while those regarding contents and his adherence to WP guidelines remain as strong as ever), he went on to blame me today for:

• "Hypocrisy"

In this context, Teeninvestor displays a strong tendency of WP:Own and Wikipedia:IDIDNTHEARTHAT; the following edits fairly sums up his attitude as arbiter who believes he has the final say on every edit:

• "If not, not"
• "I don't like it"

As several editors have pointed out, this attitude makes it difficult, if not impossible, to collaborate with the user.

POV issues

Here, User:Kanguole, too, protests against Teeninvestor construing any criticism as a personal attack, while he demonstrates that it is actually Teeninvestor who habitually misrepresents sources and misconstrues criticism directed at this practice: Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor#Handling of sources. Notably, the issues also arose after the RFC/U has begun.

Since the numerous venues of solving the differences outside of ANI have all failed so far, I feel admin action is needed. I have invited the involved users to share their views here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

GPM is completely wrong on this issue. Temple is not a "fringe author" (he is an academic at multiple universities). He is an academic who is professor at several universities and his book was prepared with assistance and materials from Joseph Needham, the leading sinologist of the 20th century. Temple's work is being used on several FA's, such as List of Chinese inventions. In addition, non-temple sources also give largely the same description of weaponry at GA's Technology of the Song Dynasty and Science and technology of the Han Dynasty (Temple's book is used there as well). Attempts by this editor to decry Temple as a fringe source has been rejected by multiple editors, who have stated clearly Temple's relevance to mainstream sinology, for example here and here. I also note the book has won several awards 3. If Temple's source, summarizing mainstream sinology, winning multiple awards for its accuracy, and written by a renowned academic, is interpeted as "Fringe", I don't know what work is reliable. And contra GPM, who blatantly lied above, I am citing Temple, not Needham (though the former is his summarizer).

GPM's statement that a "consensus" was reached to discredit Temple is also spurious. Several other users (see above diffs) have indicated Temple should be used 1 and 2, and the discussion at WP:Verifiability referred to by the user wanted the user to go to WP:RSN, as that was not the approrpiate forum 3. His accusations of edit warring are also spurious. Most of his examples are from weeks ago, with discussion on the talk page changing resulting in many of his "reverts". Several of my reverts were of blatant POV and wrong info (such as the example below and edits to remove quotes from the Official Chinese dynastic histories under the impression they were from another source). This user has repeatedly tried to use ANI and other forums to get around discussion on the talk page, claiming that an edit warring situation exists when none does. I don't think this content dispute belongs at ANI.

Indeed, I will note that this user has edit warred against the consensus and common sense, instead introducing very wrong claims such as that Europe invented the cannon my revert here. Attempts to discuss the relevant issues with the user have been made 1 and 2, but said user refused to discuss the issues in an appropriate manner.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

My only input here is that Needham and (by extension his summarizer) Temple are reliable sources which contain some outdated conclusions that have since been discounted in modern science and sinology. Temple and Needham may be cited as reliable sources, but one should be cautious about each of their claims, cautious enough to cross-check them with more recent academic sources. Here is a good example of why that is the case. Teeninvestor's use of Temple is not a radical approach, but Teen, please do heed the suggestions made by others that quotes from Temple are unnecessary. At maximum, one or two quotes from Needham—the original source— would be sufficient. I am glad that, on the talk page for Chinese armies (pre-1911), GunPowderMa is now trying to demonstrate why some of the claims in the article may be false or outdated. He should apply this method to each and every case instead of dismissing Temple's book as a whole (irregardless of some strong, flowery, and opinionated language used by Temple).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

(Postscript) The disputed quotes in question are from the Official dynastic histories of China. I think there was confusion in that respect.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah! I see. I was merely referring to an earlier case, then, when Temple was quoted (I see only one Temple quote in the article now, and it is harmless).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

All quotes were improperly formatted per WP:MOS#Quotations. At removal I notified everyone of this fact on the talk page. I do not consider subsequent reinsertion, in the same improper format reasonable behaviour.
Teeninvestors defense "The disputed quotes in question are from the Official dynastic histories of China." This seems possible for one single quote (the Song quote) but the quote refers to Temple and NOT the official histories. This maybe due to the improper attribution mentioned above, but the burden to fix is on the editor inserting the stuff. The other quotes are plain Temple quote and it is completely unclear whether this is Temple or an official history. How can I guess this is a quote from an official history unless the quote is properly attributed, again the burden is with the editor inserting the stuff, not me.
Also, repeated requests have been put on talk to be extremely limited in quoting Temple, as Temple is not known for his own scholarly brilliance nor literary qualities (as he is the main populariser of Needham). Teeninvestor has agreed to limit himself, but could not constrain himself. Arnoutf (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The quotes are attributed to the source they appear in, Temple's book, but they consist of Temple quoting from the above sources I mentioned (Official histories and Needham). The article also "doesn't demand" correct grammar or nice prose, but these things are necessary for any decent article, as these quotes are. Also, Arnoutf, through reverting me you have reintroduced huge amounts of POV and copyright violations from the other user, which I removed. The only direct Temple quote was reformatted as a paragraph, as it was mostly statistics.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus that Robert K. G. Temple who made his name by writing on supposed extraterrastial contacts is not considered reliable, and that he should be removed or replaced by the scholarly source he purports to summarize, the sinologist Joseph Needham. Users who explicitly support this are RJC, Blueboar, North8000, SteveMcCluskey, Dougweller and Gun Powder Ma, while Jc3s5h and LK show implicit approval. The only one strongly arguing against it is in fact Teeinvestor.

Earlier, there was an equally clear consensus of 6 to 1 that a certain exagggerated claim by Temple should be replaced by a more balanced view. Still, in both cases Teeninvestor aggressively reverted against users who attempted to implement the consensus, as he generally did on several other articles. And actually who could blame him for these tactics? As long as he gets away with revert-warring and even enjoys success with it, it is only natural and logical that he will continue his reverting pattern, on multiple articles and against multiple users.

And all of this has been done in the midst of a RFC/U. As for Teeninvestors invariably vocal defense that all the others "are completely wrong" and his disposition to misconstrue scholarly references, I have only one question: Whose general view on Teeninvestor's chronically problematic editorial behaviour is likely to be more credible? That of half a dozen certifying and outside users (Nev1, Kanguole, Gun Powder Ma, Athenean, Tenmei and N5iln), each of them endorsed by three to seven users, or that of Teeninvestor who is basically alone in claiming the opposite? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

GPM, please stop lying regarding your so-called "Consensus". The first discussion wanted you to go to WP:RSN3 1, and the second was about a falsfiable claim that has since been removed. Repeated comments by Pericles and Arnoutf and other editors have shown that Temple is a reliable source for sourcing ordinary claims such as the state of gunpowder technology in China (and which clearly disprove your "Consensus"), while the seven editors you mention above aren't even involved in this content dispute. Nev1 et al haven't stated anything about the use of Temple for ordinary claims and you claiming that I have been disruptive is the pot calling the Kettle black, considering your record.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, in my view Gun Powder Ma is overdoing the non-reliability of Temple, while Teeninvestor is stretching what can be considered (to use his own words) "ordinary claims" too much. Arnoutf (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Falsely blaming others for "lying", falsely claiming approval of others where these people actually did not show any (let them speak for themselves), trying to cast a bad light on the integrity of others...I'll let others decide about your credibility and attitude, but it's plain to see. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

GPM's behavior is getting disruptive. He has repeatedly forum shopped here, here, here and here. I request some sort of admin action to stop this violation of wikipedia's rules.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

RSN comments by Cla68 and Objections by ChrisO

Feel free to dig yourselves into a deeper hole, but please leave the collapse box in place because most reasonable people are not interested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jehochman (talk • contribs)

Cla68 (talk · contribs) is attempting to stop me from commenting on the reliable sources noticeboard. At 01:16, 3 August 2010, Cla68 posted a request for input on the RSN concerning a Dutch book review.[46] I have not at any time expressed any view about this source, discussed it anywhere or commented on it in any venue. At 01:24, 3 August 2010, I posted a comment noting the similarity of the issue to that of Amazon.com editorial reviews and asking what the current opinion was of those reviews as a source.[47] Cla68 then began a sequence of edits clearly aimed at driving me off the page. After he had told me to go away [48], I said that I was not interested in continuing an unproductive digression that was not related to the sourcing issue and hatted that section of the discussion, leaving alone his question and my follow-up question.[49] He then twice moved my follow-up question into the hatted section, hiding it from other editors.[50][51]. He has now un-hatted my follow-up question and the off-topic digression that I had said I did not want to continue.[52] This is a completely malicious series of edits - assuming bad faith with no cause or provocation whatsoever, sabotaging my comments and hiding them from other editors. There is no excuse whatsoever for this. Right now I feel that I can't contribute to the RSN without being accused of bad faith or being told to go away. I can't even ask a completely neutral, on-point question without my motives being questioned or my comments being hidden by an editor who doesn't want me to contribute to the discussion. It's an absolutely textbook display of bad faith and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I've never been treated like this in 7 years of editing, and I have to say it's a shitty way to be treated. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Here is what is actually occurring. ChrisO and me are involved in a content dispute in the article The Hockey Stick Illusion. ChrisO has been very active in removing content from the article [53] [54] [55] [56]. I believe that ChrisO is trying to discredit the book from being used as a source in Wikipedia. ChrisO, in fact, requested that someone villify a person in their blog who had given the book a good review [57]. I opened a thread at the RSN on a source dispute, in which I believe I did an adequate job giving both sides, and asked the participants at the page to not argue the same thing on the RSN, because AGW debates in the past have turned into free-for-alls on the noticeboards, which I believe has inhibited participation from uninvolved editors. All the involved editors, except for ChrisO, appeared to honor the request. Unfortunately, ChrisO tried to influence the discussion. Me and another editor then reminded Chris that he was heavily involved and to let the uninvolved editors at the board take it from there. ChrisO then tried to hat our comments while leaving his original comment [58] and edit warred to try to keep it that way. ChrisO is not being very helpful here. He appears to be trying very hard to win a content dispute instead of letting it play out naturally. Cla68 (talk) 01:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Let's put this very simply for Cla68. I have never expressed any opinion whatsoever on the suitability of the source he mentions. I'm not involved in any content dispute about this source. I have not participated in the talk page discussion about this source. I wasn't even aware of the discussion until I saw Cla68's post on the RSN. All of the above verbiage posted by Cla68 is therefore irrelevant, and it includes a blatant and malicious lie - I have never asked anyone to vilify anyone else anywhere. My only contribution to the discussion on this particular source has been one completely neutral question posted here on the RSN. Cla68 has not explained why he saw fit to hide my question from the other RSN users, nor what gives him the right to do so, nor why he thinks my question - which doesn't express any opinion whatsoever about the reliability of the source - is an attempt to "win a content dispute" that I've not even participated in. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC) As everyone in the universe knows by now, Arbcom is in the final stages of negotiating the Climate Change omnibus case. Perhaps not coincidentally Cla68 has recently been stirring the pot with unfounded accusations such as this and tendentious editing of the type that is likely to provoke emotional reactions in his esteemed fellow editors. I suggest all concerned just back off, have a beer (or other beverage of choice), crank some tunes, and cool it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC) I'm not the aggressor here, Boris - right now I don't feel that I can do anything or post anywhere without being stalked and attacked by Cla68. He's stalked me to other users' talk pages, he's posted aggressive questions to my talk page and now he seems to be intent on driving me off the RSN and posting malicious lies about me here. It's not me who needs to back off. I'm not the one going around pissing in other people's cornflakes. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC) We used to have this problem with Israel-Palestine sources at the RSN noticeboard, where the same editors tended to like or dislike the same sources, and it became difficult for uninvolved editors to make a point—though it's the views of uninvolved people that are particularly welcome at the noticeboard. On the other hand, involved editors might have a good point to make too. A suggestion for the future might be for the editor who opens the request to post the query, and to explicitly invite comment from editors who are entirely uninvolved in any broader dispute that involves the source. That editor could then create a subsection == Comments from involved editors== so that involved editors can have their say in that section. People would be expected to interpret the reach of "involved" broadly. The uninvolved could then read both sides before replying. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Except that I am not and never have been involved in the dispute over this source, and I had not expressed any opinion on RSN or anywhere else about its reliability, so that would solve nothing. And it still doesn't explain why Cla68 felt the need to hide my comments. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Whether you've ever commented on this source is a little beside the point, because you're involved in the broader dispute and it makes your response (rightly or wrongly) feel predictable. The point is that when people go to the RSN it's because they want fresh input, and it can be frustrating not to get that, because where else do they go for it? So just as a matter of courtesy, where the conflict is a very contentious one, it would be helpful for the broadly involved to step back a little and make their points in a separate section. They'd still get read but it would give the editor who opened the request a sense of some breathing space. I'm not suggesting it for all RSN requests, just as an option for when the opening editor has specifically gone there to request fresh eyes. It would apply to Cla68 too if you were the one opening the request (if you wanted it to). SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC) We're not talking about an editor moving my question to a separate section. We're talking about an editor hiding my question so that nobody else can see it. This is what the section looked like when I posted. This is what it looked like when Cla68 finished with it, twice. Note also what he says about his action in the summaries - "fixed hatting", "fix hat". The dishonesty of that is obvious - he was not "fixing" it in any way, he was moving it so that my question would be hidden from view. Can you please address that? -- ChrisO (talk) 02:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC) It would have been better if Cla68 hadn't closed it, but Chris, when he did the discussion was not as you linked to above; there had been some more back-and-forth, including from you, so it was turning into another CC-conflict exchange. I think Cla was just trying to restart the discussion. It would have been better if he had done that with the use of a new sub-section. Perhaps that could be done now, if the issue is still open. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Clarification time again: I closed the bickering so that it would not turn into another CC-conflict exchange. Cla68 then hid my earlier question by moving it into the closed section so that other editors would not see it. I sought to cool the temperature. Cla68 has consistently sought to raise it, including posting a very serious personal attack above. He was not in any sense trying to "restart" the discussion - he was trying to cut me out of it. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Note: ChrisO has been a long time disruptive editor in the CC topic area, and edits consistently to promote one POV. Cla68 arrived in this topic area earlier this year and has been trying to clean things up, which naturally agitates ChrisO who doesn't like to see his POV work undone. This appears to be little more than retaliation on ChrisO's part. ATren (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC) There's certainly no rule to bar ChrisO from commenting. I saw nothing in ChrisO's fairly innocent question that seemed worthy of the mini-drama that ensued from there. Hell, he simply asked if anyone knew the current consensus in such matters. Certainly didn't warrant anyone jumping down his throat. I've removed the unproductive comments from the RSN section; I wasn't aware of this ANI at the time (or the apparent back-and-forth manipulation of the comments that seems to have occurred earlier). Feel free to revert my edit, if necessary. BigK HeX (talk) 02:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Thank you for that; I hope that the remainder of the discussion on the RSN will be more productive. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC) And predictably, Cla68 has just restored the bickering. He doesn't want a productive discussion. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Per SV's helpful suggestion, I have divided the thread into "involved" and "uninvolved" and placed Chris' comments in the "involved" section and did not restore the comments where two of us pointed out that he was involved. Hopefully, this will resolve the matter. Cla68 (talk) 03:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC) You have restored those comments. Do you think nobody's going to notice when you're not telling the truth? -- ChrisO (talk) 03:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC) What a tempest in a teapot. Dlabtot (talk) 03:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC) I think we can safely say this particular weather anomaly is human-induced.Griswaldo (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Afterwriting for Personal Attack for no valid reason.

Resolved

 – Sock blocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Afterwriting (talk · contribs) Afterwriting pu this:-

Thank you. It looks probable, however, that he has already started a new account with the user name of Sainterman for editing St Kilda Football Club-related articles - such as List of St Kilda Football Club coaches. Apart from this account being brand new and only editing some of the same articles, BrianBeahr's user name on an official St Kilda FC supporter site was BrianSainterman ( from which he was also eventually blocked for disruptive behaviour ). Over to you! Afterwriting (talk) 10:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not permitted to be stalked on wikipedia by someone who thinks I am someone from another webiste that was run by the St Kilda Football club. St Kilda Football Club supporter sites are not relevent to wikipedia. Afterwriting is openly stating that he/she is attempting to stalk someone called Brian who appears to edit St Kilda football Club Pages without establihing someones identity? I have never been blocked from a St Kilda football Club website in my life - the Saints Central website was recently shut down by the club and elements of it added to the St Kilda football club offifical website. I have made no disruptive edits and have only added factual non-biased information. Afterwriting is openly claiming that you think I am a person you are stalking on wikipaedia and have assumed authority to do the stalking. There was nothing wrong with any of the edits. You cant block me from wikipedia because you think i am someone who put posts on the Saints Central website stalker vermin. You dont have permission to be a stalker vermin person who stalks pelple who you think add things to St Kilda Football Club websites that arent wikipedia.

This person has continuosly tried to block for every edit i make - including updating statistical information that is changhing weekly for no reason - sometimes because they dont like the facts in it or the statistics in it because of the page involved and for no other valid reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sainterman (talk • contribs) 03:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact that I honestly identify myself as a gay man who describes himselsf as a Bear may have something to do with the constant harassment and blocks for nothing on the site. I want something done about this person asap. Sainterman (talk) 02:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• While discussing other editors and asking for more input on a dispute is fine, calling someone a "stalker vermin" is offensive and is not allowed due to the no personal attacks policy. Please refrain from doing so in the future. Also, there's no need to report something to every possible place, including the conflict of interest noticeboard and long-term abuse. I'll take a look at this from the conflict of interest noticeboard. Netalarm^talk 03:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• So you complain that people are continuously trying to block you, you put the same message across two noticeboards, you edit User:Afterwriting just like the other accounts did, and you create Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Afterwriting, all within your first twenty-three edits. But despite all these, you still want us to believe that you're nothing to do with the prior accounts, and that this continuous persecution that you're suffering, this "blocking" for "every edit you make", is really because of your sexual preferences, which of course everyone telepathically knew about even though you didn't create User:Sainterman until after you made all these noticeboard complaints and LTA report.

  Afterwriting isn't an administrator and cannot block you. But EdJohnston and I are, as are many of the other people reading this. EdJohnston's note to you predates your more recent edits. I suspect that xyr reaction now is the same as mine, which is: Pull the other one. It has bells on.

  I've blocked Sainterman (talk · contribs) for fairly clear evasion of an indefinite block. Interested passers-by might want to read User talk:BrianBeahr. I'm sure that we're about to see the same at User talk:Sainterman. Uncle G (talk) 04:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this is clearly BrianBeahr returned. I've declined their Sainterman unblock request, locked the talk page, and asked them to request unblock on their original account if they want to return to editing (though I think the request would need to be unusually persuasive). EyeSerene^talk 08:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Eugeneacurry talk page

I'd appreciate some assistance with this. Eugeneacurry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was indefblocked in June for creating an attack page about me. He requested an unblock a few days ago, and it was opposed. The latest AN/I discussion about the unblock is here.

Since then he has been posting his views on his talk page about what should and shouldn't be in the Christ myth theory, the article he has largely focused on. His most recent posts are here, and they have the appearance of requesting proxy edits. There are editors at that article who in the past have reverted depending on what they think Eugene wants; the history of the article is one of serial reverting as a result, which has hindered article development considerably. To avoid that starting up again, would an admin mind asking him to stop using his talk page in this way? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

If he is not using his talk page in a way that's constructive, why not just remove his ability to edit it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks like SV is asking for assistance since she has a past history with this editor which seems pretty reasonable, her request that is.--Threeafterthree (talk) 05:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my remark was badly phrased: I wasn't suggesting that she, as an involved admin, should remove his talk page access, but rather amending her request to suggest that an uninvolved admin dealing with the problem might want to do so. Eugeneacurry's previous actions have been such that it seems best to move to that option rather than deal with unnecessary intermediate steps. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

He does seem to be asking people to edit on his behalf. At 02:36 on July 30, with the edit summary "Christ myth theory mistake," Eugene complained on his talk page that an editor had removed from the lead that most classical historians accept Jesus's existence. [59] At 03:15, Ari89, one of the editors who often reverts alongside Eugene, restored it. [60] Ari hadn't edited for a couple of hours before this series of edits, and didn't edit for three hours after it. At 03:56, Eugene removed the request from his talk page with the edit summary "mistake resolved." [61] My concern is that this has been a very troubled article because of almost constant reverting, so the running commentary on his talk page doesn't exactly help. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Ari is a professional historian and is his own man. He doesn't shill for anyone. But if you think he does, then you really ought to ask him what the deal is before accusing him of anything. You'll have to ask him on his talk page, however, since he has recently been blocked. [NPA REDACTED ] Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 06:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a point of information, Ari is not a professional historian, Bill. I don't know how much he has made known about himself, so it's best not to go into detail, but it's also important not to post material like that. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, according to his user page, he claims to be an historian. I'll ask him on his talk page to see if I misunderstood. Thanks for the clarification. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 07:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Clarification. Ari is an historian. He's got the degrees and is published. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 09:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to say anything else about this, because he has a right to privacy, but I believe that's not the case, no matter what is said elsewhere. I hope we can close that aspect now. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Noloop was allowed to edit his own talk page and me and several others had profitably (IMO) continued our discussion there, so I don't see the problem with allowing the same for Eugene. By the way, how does a person ask to be unblocked if he can't edit his own talk page? And if Eugene has any trained minions here (and I assume she means me), blocking his editing of his own talk page won't resolve that, since there is always standard email or a phone call. [NPA REDACTED ] Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 06:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Your jibe at Slim Virgin is inappropriate, as it was the community that resoundingly denied Eugeneacurry the unblock he requested, not Slim Virgin alone. As for the current situation, editing by proxy is not allowed, and if he is using his talk page to encourage that, his access to it should be curtailed. He can make future unblock requests via e-mail. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

[ Totally removed - stop taking shots ]

On a procedural note, there is always the ban-appeals sub-committee of ARBCOM, which takes appeals by e-mail. Courcelles (talk) 06:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Since the indef block was primarily for his attack article against SV, not primarily for any disruptive influence on the disputed article, I don't see much of a problem letting him talk about the disputed article on his own talk page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Really? The block notice says ...for creating an article on another user in the pursuit of an edit-war Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

[ Removed too -- same reason ]

(ec; reply to Future Perfect) It's not a problem so long as no one edits on his behalf, but Eugene was a problematic editor, editing very aggressively from a conservative Christian POV, reverting possibly more than I'd seen any editor do before, and insulting other editors and sources. Ari89 and Bill the Cat 7 supported his every move. For the first time in years after his block, that article had settled into a collaborative atmosphere. Reverting was significantly reduced, and people were building on each other's edits and discussing constructively on talk. Since Eugene started posting on his talk page on July 29, Ari89 began the serial reverting again, in accordance with the opinions Eugene was posting, and ended up blocked. I wouldn't want to see that situation continue. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

[ NPA REMOVED ]

Bill, you spend 54.74% of your time on article talk pages, 13.74% on user talk pages, and only 16.21% editing articles. You've made 295 edits to Talk:Christ myth theory and 37 edits to the article. What kind of progress have you made and how has the article improved? Viriditas (talk) 10:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

We keep talk pages open for blocked editors so that they can discuss their block, not so they can contribute to editing Wikipedia. His talk page access should be revoked. And Bill the Cat should stop hammering at SlimVirgin. Eugene's use of his talk page is not only something that if he won't stop we will, it suggests to me that we do not want to unblock him. Dougweller (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

As someone completely removed from this ongoing Christ/Jesus historical/myth thing, I am wondering when this will finally end up at Arbitration. An ArbCom case is desperately needed here it seems, or else we will continue to see threads about Noloop, Christ Myth/Historical Jesus, Eugeneacurry and others. To my eyes, this all appears to be a part of a greater POV war. Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it will eventually end up at ArbCom, but currently they've got two big cases in process (climate change and race & intelligence). This one will be just a messy as those. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

User talk:BassandAle is making threats of outing on his talk page

Resolved

 – block settings modified Tommy! [message]

The user is already blocked, but is continuing to make outing and veiled legal threats on its talk page. Active Banana (talk) 06:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the block settings.   Will Beback  talk  06:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Can someone have a word with a tendentious editor?

Can someone please take a look at the behaviour of Gd8man (talk · contribs)? He/she got stroppy over a singe edit I made to Dock jumping, which invovled unlinking some country names - common practice under WP:OVERLINK. If that wasn't bad enough the editor then reverted a whole series of perfectly valid edits that I made to Golden Retriever, accusing me on my talk page of being distruptive. If you look at those edits you'll see that they included using the {{convert}} template, adding a cited fact to present a worldwide perspective, and requesting citations for some claims. In short they were perfectly valid. For some reason this editor has taken against me and is now engaged in tendentious editing. A perspective from a third party would be useful. --Simple Bob (talk) 06:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This user has now also reverted a large sequence of perfectly valid changes that I made to Dock jumping. --Simple Bob (talk) 06:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You should have notified the editor - I've done that. Also, not a good idea to call his edits vandalism. Having said all that, I'm not happy with his telling you to go elsewhere or the edits I've looked at so far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 06:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Your advice is noticed - I shouldn't have used the vandalism function in twinkle - which he/she has now also done. As you can see I have attempted to engage on my talk page to no avail. --Simple Bob (talk) 06:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I've also noted on his talk page that he needs to read WP:OWN - I see he created one of those articles, so he's clearly got a problem there. We'll see how he responds, I don't think there's anything else to do at the moment. He has made only 296 edits overall, he's clearly inexperienced. We don't want to drive him away but he needs to rein back. Dougweller (talk) 07:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Going back I realized that I changed his edits on Golden Retriever by mistake.. But on Dock jumping he made 12 edits..changing picture placement,size,links....now doesn't that need discussion?...gd8man (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

"By mistake"? You mean you looked through his contributions, clicked on a page completely unrelated to the original source of the edit war, then proceeded to (ab)use an editing tool to revert the edits he had worked on that page without looking at them (complete with a scathing edit summary)? I have no comment on the heart of the problem, but "by mistake" was such a ridiculous excuse that I couldn't let go. Therequiembellishere (talk) 07:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Please explain why any of my changes need discussion? The manual of style for images states that a lead image should be large - up to 300 pixels - and that other images should be left without pixel sizes unless there is good reason (such as detail in the picture). WP:OVERLINK is clear about not linking country names. Quoting distance in feet and inches is not useful to people in other English speaking countries that use metric measurements, so converting the units is good practice. MOS:UNLINKDATES is clear that dates should not be linked - not that the dates in the article were properly linked as the month names were incorrectly shortened. --Simple Bob (talk) 07:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes by mistake,Golden Retriever is one of many pages I watch. I have a slow connection, so I open many tabs to save loading time.If you can't accept that I am sorry. Now as far as a lead picture there wasn't one,the image that was moved is discribing the chase method.The other images need more detail (such as detail in the picture). gd8man (talk) 07:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I moved the lead image back to its previous place and introduced a new image in the lead position. As for sizes, I can see no reason why they need to be larger than default - there is no detail in them which would need a larger size. --Simple Bob (talk) 07:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I have asked you Mr. Bob to discuss changes (images) on the talk page. And yet you make still changes! Is it because you have made so many edits that you don't need to discuss them? Well that image is not very good. Or should we be discussing it on the talk page?gd8man (talk) 08:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

As my reply to you on my talk page said, his changes were both well explained and not obviously contentious, and didn't need discussion on the talk page so far as I can tell. If there had been an earlier discussion of the issues with disagreements, or with consensus that he ignored, then yes, discussion would have been a good idea. But most edits editors made don't need any discussion on the talk page first. Simple Bob, remember that Gd8man is still a pretty inexperienced editor, and won't know about our guidelines that you've linked to above. Gd8man, remember that Simple Bob is a very experienced editor with almost certainly a lot more knowledge of our guidelines than you have. Read the links he's given above. I don't know that there's much more to say here, and hopefully there won't be any more problems. Dougweller (talk) 09:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

So when he deleted the current world record, or moved images around, changed other wording and no discussion it is ok .....And because he complained I am the bad guy. I have been editing for over 2 years, not that it means anything. But hey come on, he comes and makes wholesale changes deletes records,changes images (even he admitted the lead image was not good)and doesn't have to discuss it. Well it kind of smells like a brotherhood.gd8man (talk) 09:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Rather than arguing, wouldn't it be better to collaborate and look for coverage in reliable secondary sources before someone nominates the article for deletion per WP:FAILN. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It's difficult to please someone like you. I moved your image back to where it was, introduced a new lead image which I admit isn't great so I added a number of other images to Wikimedia commons and opened a discussion on the article's talk page. I then added even more information to the page complete with a number of references. I am an experienced Wikipedia editor who never makes malicious or childish edits. I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong, always happy to enter into discussions, and in general I'm tolerant of less experienced editors even when they start throwing round accusations of such as being part of a wikipedia brotherhood. Looking at the history of Dock jumping you obviously don't like other people attempting to improve your article, which is a shame because you really should attempt to learn from others. Perhaps a it is time for a nice cup of tea and a bit of reflection. --Simple Bob (talk) 09:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's google search conspiracy

Resolved

 – Wikipedia admininstrators can't help with your SEO problems. Peacock (talk) 12:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not a Wikipedia editor but I am a Google search engine user and I have a complaint about the apparent plot that Wikipedia seems to have in regards to overpowering other websites in Google searches. Almost every time I search for something in Google, Wikipedia turns up a match on the first page. Why does Wikipedia always have to use overpowering tactics in conjunction with sharing conspiracy theories with Google to appear before lesser-known websites in Google searches? This is unfair and very biased. Seriously, give everyone else a chance instead of paying millions of dollars to Google just so you can always appear on the first page of Google searches. Why do you have to spoil Google searching for everyone?--LanceJoeJohnny (talk) 08:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think Wikimedia pays anything to google, Wikipedia is highly ranked in the search engine because it is a popular website that many of its users search for. Additionally, there is nothing administrators here can do regardless of how Wikipedia gains its ranking on the searches. --Taelus (Talk) 08:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Taelus is right, no admin attention is needed. If you have a problem with the way Google gets results, contact Google. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

And he's answered his own question, Google ranks lesser known sites below better known sites, which is not a bad thing. There are other search engines that use methods different to those Google use and show different results, including results Google doesn't produce at all. But this isn't an issue for this board. Dougweller (talk) 09:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

lol, "conspiracy" Tommy! [message] 21:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Check out PageRank—it's pretty much the prime determinant of result ranking on a given term when it comes to Google searches. In this situation, the only "conspiracy" is that lots of popular sites like linking to our articles on various topics. On a related note, PigeonRank is still in beta. :P --slakr^\ talk / 23:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

User:173.13.71.186

Resolved

173.13.71.186 (talk · contribs), briefly known as Basenock (talk · contribs) (currently blocked indefinitely), is continuing to vandalise the article Raymond Franz, after having received a final warning from User:JNW on 24 July.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Warnings are kind of irrelevant if the user is evading an indef block. The IP should be blocked straight away, warnings or no.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Request to block a bot

Resolved

 – bot blocked Tommy! [message]

Hi all, Lavallen (talk · contribs) put up a request over at WP:EAR to block a bot account of his/hers on English WP (User:Innocent bot). Evidently Lavallen uses the account for Swedish WP edits but periodically has problems with AWB switching languages. I don't know if that's the ideal solution (one would rather fix the code causing the jump to other Wikis), but I figured I'd echo the request here where it'd get handled by admins faster. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank You! I use this bot on four projects, (w:sv, n:sv:, s:sv and commons:) and it's when I switch between projects I accidently find myself in w:en: instead. I hope this "solution" is good enough. -- Lavallen (talk) 10:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Logged out bot?

This IP, 71.244.123.63 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), seems to be used by a bot that is logged out. I have no idea whether this is something that requires admin attention or not, but I thought I would mention it here in case it's a problem. Peacock (talk) 12:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I noticed this earlier as well; looks like it may be this bot --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 12:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe it's a against bot policy for bots to edit while logged out, so I'm inclined to soft block it, but I'm afraid I'll bugger something up, so I'll wait for more input. Has anyone contacted the bot owner? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

See User talk:HBC Archive Indexerbot#71.244.123.63. I don't think it would do any harm to soft block based on that, but I'm not sure if it does any harm to permit it until he gets it logged back in again? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I've soft blocked it per a suggestion from the bot's owner and I've asked them to let me know when it's fixed so the IP can be unblocked. Any admin is free to reverse or alter the block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't, not having any idea why it's a bad idea for a bot to edit logged out. :) (I don't know if it's the potential for confusion or something much more likely to blow up the Wiki.) But it seems a shame not to have the bot doing whatever it is that the bot does in the meantime. Bots are useful. :/ I wonder if User:HBC AIV helperbot3 will still function, of if it's been logged out, too? AIV is quiet at the moment, so I can't tell. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, it's mainly a matter of not flooding Recent Changes, since (by default) bots don't show up. Sodam Yat (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It's also an enforcement issue: if we didn't require approved bots to identify themselves unambiguously, it would be much more difficult to detect unapproved or malicious bots. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

What???

Help me!!! I'm new and I have been reported to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention!!! How is my username offensive in any way whatsoever? I am very disastsfied with my Wikipedia experience of 5 minutes. I am on the verge of tears. How could the 7th most popular website in the world fucking do this to me???? Do you know who the fuck I am?  :( -Purpleloser (talk) 12:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Your username includes the word "loser", which causes an automatic bot to list the name at UAA. This is largely because we have people create accounts named "Johnnysmithisaloser" or some such, before posting a personal attack and getting blocked. It does not mean that you have been, or even will be, blocked. You may wish, however, to review our policy on civility; asking questions calmly will be much more successful than flipping out on the most-watched noticeboard on the site. Happy editing, UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd be more interested in knowing what makes you think your username has been reported to any board, considering that the last edit to the username board was a good 40 minutes before you registered. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
    • It was at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Bot, reported by the bot with this edit. I removed it. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Ah, well that explains that anyway. :) I still wonder how this new user would know about this. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• Purpleloser, a word of advice. If you are that extremely hypersensitive over something like that, then you may wish to seek professional help; coming here and acting out in the way you just did is annoying to others. –MuZemike 13:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• Something about this user page of theirs makes me think that the bot may not have been entirely wrong. Favonian (talk) 13:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • It is suspicious that a brand new editor would know they've been reported to UAA (or that UAA exists) and then have the knowledge of the project space to find ANI to complain about it. Between that, the username and the userpage, something just doesn't sit right. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Agree. I didn't know any of these boards existed for months. Then again, maybe I'm the stupid one, though... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I agree with you both. BTW, this user's userpage was (rightly, in my opinion) speedied per G10. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 15:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
        • These noticeboards have been in the newspapers. It isn't 2003 any more. But yes, the actions here are suspect. Uncle G (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Micoapostolov

The user in question has been quite disrupting for the last few days. He started by moving an article, which is under discussion whether to be moved, to a third entirely different location (as I'm writing this he has moved it again while not even dropping a note on the talkpage despite the fact I've asked him to at least try discussing it first). So far he has ignored every single message on his talkpage. He seems to be engaged in some vandal action on the very same article (since he has been warned by another editor). Additionally he has been disruptive on other pages as well. He has continuously removed content from Ivan Hadzhinikolov (including the Bulgarian transwiki link, which he seems to dislike somehow). He has done this 3 times now ([62][63][64]). I'm not going to revert him again, though, till the whole situation is cleared. Further: he has spam moved the article Bulgarian Men's High School of Thessaloniki to a ton of different locations (I'm not sure I can count them anymore, but some of them were containing spelling errors etc.). All that time he has refused to communicate with other editors in any way, just ignoring any messages left on his talkpage. --Laveol ^T 14:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

While still on the go, he has already has performed 4 reverts on the Ilinden–Preobrazhenie Uprising today ([65][66][67][68]) + one edit in which he changed the whole text.--Laveol ^T 14:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I've given him a 3RR warning, and cleaned up that high school article so that the only one article and talkpage remaining were the ones that actually had an edit history. I suggest making a case at WP:Requested moves instead of further move-warring on the subject. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Note that I have already reported this user at WP:AIV due to continued removal of large amounts of content without explanation and without discussion. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I blocked him for continuing to edit war after warning. I wonder if WP:DIGWUREN would apply here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we at least for now move Ilinden Uprising - Macedonia back to Ilinden–Preobrazhenie Uprising, as the article had been at that title or some variant thereof for about 5 years as far as I can tell? —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

As above, how about a discussion at WP:RM to make sure we have the correct title?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK copyvio?

Kuomintang Islamic Insurgency in China (1950–1958) is currently on the main page as a 'Did you know', but may be a copyright violation, as detailed here.  Chzz  ►  15:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The article comes from the New World Encyclopedia entry here. However, the encyclopedia is CC-BY-SA licensed as well as based off an old version of Wikipedia's Chinese Civil War article, more specifically [69] (see the bottom of that NWE article page). The only problem I possibly see is the lack of concrete attribution, but it doesn't look like an actual copyvio to me. –MuZemike 16:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, after spending a bit of time googling some bits and pieces; I bought it here as a possible concern, and forgive me if it was a bit preemptive. I'd be grateful if someone could check it over more thoroughly; I see bits and pieces from various other Wikipedia articles which need attributing, e.g. some has been on the Chinese Civil War one since at least 2007, some from Ma clique too e.g. "Ma Tingxian, who was executed in 1962", googling "thousands of Muslims from Myanmar and Thailand have migrated" throws up lots of stuff, and seems to have been in Islam in Taiwan back in 2007.  Chzz  ►  16:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This is an issue, and a known one. See the section above on the creator of this article, who is currently subject of a contributor copyright investigation. Copying from other Wikipedia articles can be fixed (if we can figure out where the content started), but there is a real possibility of import from print sources as well. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Moonriddengirl - I was going to ask for your input here, but you beat me to it!  Chzz  ►  18:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Brews ohare disruptive editing at Talk:Speed of light

Resolved

 – filed elsewhere

The above editor, still under sanction by the arbitration committee for past editing at Speed of light, is back there single handedly disrupting the working of the talk page, creating section after section, sometimes to make the same point repeatedly, sometimes just to ask questions that have nothing to do with improving the article. He has been doing this for two weeks, with the pace picking up in the last two days, despite his been repeatedly warned by different editors on his talk page and at Talk:Speed of light, warning he dismisses.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Brews ohare is on probation until October. If you feel there is a significant issue, your best approach would be to file a request for arbitration enforcement at WP:AE. CIreland (talk) 18:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I've done so, thanks. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Mass moves of User:Schwyz

If you'd check out his contribs page, there have been mass moves from the last days from this person, all with zero discussion. This must be stopped; these moves should've not been done en masse, but on a case-by-case basis. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:AGF or discuss it with the user, not sure why you're here. Tommy! [message] 21:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Uh, what Tommy2010 said. I'm not happy with all of Schwyz's moves either, but you posted here about 15 minutes after you left this rant, without waiting for a response. I see Schwyz removed your previous message on this topic without a response, but S. appears to respond to civil messages left on her/his talk page. There's a saying that one can attract more flies with honey than vinegar. -- llywrch (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well if anything, the "request" for him cease was in vain since he did the moves a week ago without even the courtesy of informing the RNBs handling the articles. And it's a new day he hasn't justified his mass moves. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikihounding and disruptive editing?

Crossposted to WP:VPM

I just tagged every single subpage and article in progress within my userspace as {{db-u1}} and if things continue on as they have been I suppose I'll be posting a {{retired}} notice soon as well. Despite repeated AN/I reports regarding the disruptive and tendentious editing behaviours of Theserialcomma, Miami33139, and JBsupreme over the last year and a half, it seems I still cannot edit without these editors wikihounding me while working together as a group.

My main editing focus had been to topics related to computing and online/electronic forms of communication. These were not areas in which these three individuals previously edited (the sole exception being Miami33139's prods/AfDs of multimedia-related software articles).

Even after taking the behaviour issues all the way to ArbCom, where the case was unfortunately delayed and overshadowed by the EEML case (which was in progress at the same time), very little was addressed. [70] [71]

I personally made a huge mistake in allowing myself to be baited by Miami33139 and Theserialcomma who were editing my comments on an article talk page [72] (where they then also edit warred with others [73]) and reposted parts of my comments out of context (and in a manner in which made them appear to have been posted that way by me) on a talk page that was part of the ArbCom case. [74]

Allowing myself to be baited resulted in ArbCom handing out a "civility restriction" for me, [75] (which maybe I really deserved for allowing myself to be baited in the first place) with the behaviours of the three individuals largely still not addressed. [76] The case evidence I presented [77] was not used by the drafting arbitrator and no mention of Theserialcomma's disruptive behaviours were brought up in the proposed decision he drafted. (I suspect this is because I was the only editor who presented evidence of Theserialcomma's behaviours.) The omission in the proposed decision was openly questioned by others but was still not addressed. [78] The way in which the case name was chosen most likely did not help matters all that much either. [79]

After the ArbCom case was closed, the wikihounding increased and I finally took a break from editing articles. I tried doing Commons work for awhile but I found I still needed to update pages on Wikipedia which used the images. In doing so I found that just making those small noncontroversial edits was enough to trigger the wikihounding so I cut back on my editing even further.

I made another huge mistake when I vented some of my frustrations via email at Sandstein with being wikihounded and harassed off-wiki by Theserialcomma. He responded by blocking me for 18 days. [80] After I was unblocked by another administrator who reviewed what was said and had transpired, I immediately apologised to Sandstein for the venting [81] [82] as I had already realised that venting my frustrations at him really wasn't the right thing to do and I felt bad about it. This incident generated an enormous amount of email discussion.

While blocked for 18 days, I spent the better part of it reviewing my own behaviours as well as my interactions with Theserialcomma, Miami33139, and JBsupreme. While doing so I also began to review their interactions with other editors. [83] I documented Theserialcomma's interactions with others in detail [84] and began to do the same for Miami33139 [85] and JBsupreme. [86] Due to time constraints, I stopped work on this and never picked back up on it after I was unblocked.

A civility restriction was later put in place for JBsupreme [87] due to his continued behaviours but it really doesn't seem to have had much of an effect. [88]

I just took an entire month off from editing due to both the continued wikihounding and my workload. [89] In that month, Miami33139 regained his internet access and picked right back up where he left off. [90] Some of his very first actions were to MFD and CSD pages I had sandboxed, [91] including one which JBsupreme moved from the sandbox to mainspace. [92] [93]

Some of Miami33139's next actions included MFDing subpages from within my userspace, [94] [95] (which both Theserialcomma and JBsupreme then became involved in as well. [96] [97] [98] [99]) Miami33139 then restarted his previous behaviour of going though my contributions and removing/prodding/AfDing things which I had edited many, many months earlier. Miami33139 has done similar things to editors other than myself (such as Beyond My Ken/Ed Fitzgerald and others), but like Theserialcomma and JBsupreme, Miami33139 seems to try to make just enough non-controversial edits or edits to related/similar pages to disguise his other actions.

A number of editors and administrators contacted me via email and let me know of Miami33139's return and subsequent MFDing of subpages within my userspace. Several further suggested I not become involved in those MFDs as the actions by Miami33139 and Theserialcomma appeared to be an attempt at baiting me shortly before my civility restriction expired (see above).

I really have tried to do some good here on Wikipedia and improve coverage of computing topics which have been in dire need of expansion. Due to the wikihounding however, I'm beginning to feel as though my efforts have largely been a waste of time.

As I finish writing this, I also note JBsupreme removed my CSD tag from one of the in-progress subpages within my userspace, moved it to his own userspace, and then blanked it. [100] [101] [102]

Sigh.

I think I'll take another short break from Wikipedia as my workload really hadn't decreased just yet anyway. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• just one preliminary point--moving the material and then blanking with the history intact preserves the content, and I think it's acceptable behavior. At least I hope it is, because I once did something similar myself to preserve content for future use. However, surely he should have notified you he was going to do it. DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • It doesn't really tally, though, does it? JBsupreme wants the page deleted because it "borders on abuse of userspace", but will go to all of this effort in order to retain it under xyr own user space, including reverting a deletion request by the person who is, purportedly, "abusing" xyr user space with it in the first place. This just doesn't add up. Uncle G (talk) 01:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

tl;dr Miami33139 (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Nothing for admin to do here, this has been to Arbcom

This is wrong forum. Arbcom is over here. Paranoid ramblings of Tothwolf that everyone is out to get him were not found credible by Arbcom. I went through and suggested deletion for two of his walled garden of previously deleted articles, which were stale from 6 to 15 months. 6 months is normal timeframe at MfD to improve deleted content or have it thrown out. This is normal followup on the deletion process of things I have been keeping track of. Other than his walled garden, I ain't following his editing or hounding him. He thinks anyone who edits his toys is hounding him. Enough paranoia.

Thank you to all who previously commented for letting those mentioned in the paranoid ranting know about it, as expected by the header on the noticeboard. Miami33139 (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Balagonj786

Resolved

 – User blocked Tommy! [message]

Balagonj786 (talk · contribs)

This needs more eyes. Fresh off the second block, continues to edit-war on Floyd Mayweather, Jr., and now erases posts on the article's talkpage which are not to his liking. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked, again. The previous two blocks for edit-warring on this article don't seem to have had much effect, so a few more eyes on this article in a week, when his block expires, will probably be useful. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

And yet when I do the same thing as Cinderkun, I get blocked for 'edit warring'. Cute, guys. HalfShadow 21:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not guys, I'm just me. Did I miss something? It looked like there was a consensus on the talk page that his desired edits weren't what was needed, and like he'd been removing comments from the talk page to try to make that consensus disappear. Do you think I was wrong to block him? I don't want to be unfair; it looked like a pretty cut-and-dried case of edit-warring to me. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You were right to block him. HalfShadow is merely pointing out that he tried to fight this vandalism yesterday and got blocked for fighting it (in my opinion unjustified-ly, and I said so) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Dekkappai -- Repeated, and increasing, campaign of incivility and personal attacks

Over the last week or so, Dekkappai has been increasingly and repeatedly uncivil in discussions regarding the deletion of content in an area of particular interest to him (Japanese erotica/pornography). These comments go well beyond what has been tolerated in even the most heated discussions, and typically involve accusations of bias and dishonesty towards nearly every editor who takes an opposing position. Dekkappai has been warned regarding his incivility, and even blocked after telling editors opposing him in a similar content dispute to "rot in hell." [103][104] Examples from the current campaign include:

• "Your vote rationale is completely dishonest" (directed at Epbr123, repeated in multiple AFDs) [105][106][107]
• "You lie" (directed at Bali ultimate) [108]
• "pissing on my article contributions" (directed at Bali ultimate); "contributing NOTHING, and telling others what to do" (directed at me) [109]
• "I have been remarkably restrained considering that this Nomination was made in the most belligerent and biased manner" (directed at Bali ultimate) [110]
• "the belligerent oafishness of the editor who put these particular images up for deletion" (directed at me) [111]
• "BULLSHIT! You couldn't have made your bias plainer in your nomination if you tried" as well as edit summary of "bullshit" (directed at Bali ultimate) [112]
• "If this criterion is going to be ignored, why not take it out? That would remove the need to outright lie about it" (directed at Kww) [113]
• "Somehow I had the impression you were one of the "honest" deletionists... " (directed at DAJF) [114]
• "Not notifying me was just one of lesser of the dishonest tactics taken by the nominator" (directed at Bali ultimate) [115]
• "Among the many completely incorrect statements in the nomination, "the pink grand prix is an appendix of the porn-marketing machine in japan" stands out as particularly grossly dishonest" (directed at Bali ultimate) [116]
• edit summary of "cultural bias & ignorance at work" (directed generally at editors in disagreement with him) [117]
• edit summary of "culturally biased and ignorant nomination)" (directed generally at editors in disagreement with him) [118]
• "It's the ham-handed oafery of Deletionists in doing even this simple task which caused all this" (directed at me and/or Kww) [119]
• "Well that's interesting, except that no argument about fair use under Japanese law was ever made! Everybody stand back, Kww's got some Admin'ing to do" (directed at Kww) [120]
• edit summary of "thanks for joining the edit-war under false claims" (directed at Kww) [121]
• "Do you have anything of value to say? If you think any of those notable, award-winning erotic films are unworthy of articles, take them to AfD. In either case not one comment, not one personal attack, not one display of ignorance, bias and prudery that you have made here is of any relevance whatsoever" (directed at Bali ultimate) [122]

There's a lot more invective directed at me in particular and at several other editors in Dekkappai's recent contributions, and he's been throwing incivility in my direction steadily since the first time I was involved in a content dispute with him (in a garden-variety matter involving unsourced BLP content). It's a pattern of behavior that's been sustained for a long time, and it's hard to escape the conclusion that it's a purposeful effort to make the editing environment unpleasant for those who he disagrees with. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, well. I'm frequently a dick too so i won't have much to say here. He's a good bit beyond the pale, is what i'd say. I don't know why he's so upset, since he suggested i take them to AFD.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I have given a civility warning. Did you ask them to tone down their comments before coming here, and did you consider other avenues of dispute resolution? Bali ultimate's nominations were less than diplomatic: "The article is largely a vehicle to have pretty girls titties displayed" is an assumption of bad faith. Treading more softly with deletion nominations and treating the article editors with respect might avoid antagonising editors. Fences&Windows 22:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I was finding those AfDs troubling as well. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Compromised account?

Resolved

 – Blocked until further notice Tommy! [message]

I just blocked Jeick (talk · contribs · count) for 24 hours after a vandalism spree spanning that began on July 29. As this user has been a productive contributor since 2006, I'm suspecting that perhaps the account has been compromised. Should it be indef'd, or is the account salvageable if the user contacts us and verifies that it has been re-secured? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Both. Pedro :  Chat  20:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Pedro has it. The account can be indef'd; and because they had previously disclosed their email address, they can email an admin from that address to verify their identity and request unblocking. (There is, of course, the possibility that their email has been compromised as well - but then they have more problems than the loss of their Wikipedia account). –xeno^talk 20:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Indefed per trolling, but nice and handy message left on the talk page. I've also undone IP autoblock in this instance. Any admin is free to revert any and all administrator actions, as ever. Pedro :  Chat  20:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Latest Irvine22 sock

Our serial sock farm is back again User:Owen Glenstauner, usual name variant, usual obsessions If someone could knock this one on the head it would be appreciated --Snowded ^TALK 04:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

AIV Backlog

Just giving the heads up. Christina Silverman (talk) 04:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Admins been sufficiently chastised, Cirt and myself have used our block buttons and cleared the problem. Courcelles (talk) 04:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)