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)

Do you honestly believe that PoV violations can only be found in the body of articles, and not in e.g. the title of them? The why does Wikipedia:Neutral point of view have a section on "Article naming", with things like "Wikipedia takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, by using the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources"? You acted on your PoV, you didn't only show it in the discussion (before the moves, and again here). Apart from that, I have shown a hostility to PoV pushing. If any other hostilities or prejudices are apparent from my posts here, please list them with diffs (here or on my talk page), so I can work on them. Fram (talk) 07:56, 4 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)

Nishidani old buddy: Firstly, SlimVirgin never cited any diffs whereas I did. You must cite the exact Google diffs you have to disprove mine that I explicitly cite, and not just say well, "she also said so." Also, the problems of "confusion" she mentions would be solved with the original suffix of First Temple (Judaism) that I preferred, but I have since agreed that First Temple is a wise enough change that works. Secondly, to push "Western non-Jewish people" is to push only one POV. Even though there are more Christians than Jews in the world, nevertheless Judaism and Christianity are at least co-equal as religions per se and if one considers that Judaism is the source and mother-religion of Christianity, in fact there could not be Christianity without the existence of Judaism, it is logical that the positions of Judaism are key in many Christian-Jewish situations, especially if backed up by Google hits. Thirdly, as to Hebrew usage on Wikipedia, for that matter any language's usage on WP, your contentions and worries hold no water because number one "First Temple" is English and it's not even a true translation of the Hebrew for "first temple" which should be rendered "First House" if it would be like you say. And number two, so many Judaism topics, and the First Temple is a key Judaism topic more than to any religion, there are hundreds of actual Hebrew words used for articles such as Sukkot (not "tabernacles" or "booths" which is archaic by now); Shavuot (not "pentecost"); Yom Hazikaron (not "remembrance day") and so many more, so your "fears" are totally misplaced and not called for. Finally, Proust is no proof of anything. Sure the Hebrew Bible with its attendant moral codes is Judaism's gift to humanity with all its nomenclature, ideas, and practices. Too many editors are just not cognicent of that and are making light of basic facts and truths. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 05:16, 4 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)

Please, no one is claiming that Google is the be all and end all and only factor. It is just a very handy tool provided by modern technology to arrive at decent rough measurements. None of us here has time to do research on a PhD level right now, and it is ridiculous to belittle the usefulness of Google when it's handled right. Can someone please explain how a 140,000 to 5 and a 23,000 to 5 count can be dismissed as "meaningless" when they reveal just the opposite? No one claims that each and every one of the 140,000 or 23,000 hits are all equal, even if you take away 90% or 95% of those hits they instantly and automatically and quite easily outweigh a mere 5 hits no matter which way you slice it. So let's stop venting about Google, it's not perfect and this is not MIT or the CIA doing evaluation of statistics, it's a good indicator, it's used all the time in AfDs and in all sorts of discussions. It's a universal tool and you have to know how to handle it, but it does work. IZAK (talk) 09:15, 4 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)

• IZAK (and everyone else), for a discussion like this one, you shouldn't be using Google Hits, but Google Books hits and Google Scholar hits (and even then you obviously have to check whether most of the hits are relevant and reliable). These represent more of the kind of sources that we want, and avoid most of the blogs, fora, personal webpages, etcetera. This also may yield significantly different results from the one you used, e.g. "Destruction of the First Temple in Jerusalem" gets only 286 Google Books results[1] vs. "Destruction of Solomon's Temple" with 1700 results[2]. Like you say, "It's a universal tool and you have to know how to handle it". Fram (talk) 10:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Isn't it great to make up rules as you go along?! Google was used to bolster my arguments that WP itself confirmed in the "Third Temple" and "Second Temple of Jerusalem" (note "Second Temple") so that it's correct use "First temple" as well especially since it what's been for 2000+ years in Judaism, and in the process that no WP policies or guidelines were violated making the changes. You know next you gonna tell me that WP is not a reliable reference as is often argued off-wiki by lawyers. So quit the WP:LAWYERing. IZAK (talk) 10:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't make up rules as I go along, thank you. You need external arguments to show that two articles were correctly named, and one incorrect (why couldn't it e.g. have been the other way around?). You used Google to do this, when you should have been more correct when using Google Books or Scholar, since these contain a much higher percentage of reliable sources than simple Google hits return. Using reliable sources (in English) to decide a naming discussion on the English Wikipedia is a rule I have defended from the beginning of this discussion, not something I just made up. And again, "especially since it what's been for 2000+ years in Judaism" is a totally irrelevant PoV argument. Your PoV is that what is used in Judaism is decisive for the title of a Judaism-related subject, which goes against Wikipedia policy, as has been said by many editors by now. Fram (talk) 10:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
      • WP policy does NOT change reality, it describes and explains it. It's not "my POV" to point out CORRECTLY and VERY accurately that the two temples were and are central to Judaism much more for more than 3,000 years. Please do not participate in discussions, and certainly don't sit in judgment over them, if you display great ignorance about them and are proud of it. What don't you get about that? IZAK (talk) 10:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
        • "you display great ignorance about them and are proud of it." Please provide diffs or remove this personal attack. A correct statement can be a PoV argument. I have not claimed anywhere that the temples are not central to Judaism, nor that the names you prefer may not be the most often used ones in Judaism. I have claimed that these statements are irrelevant arguments for this discussion, and are only used because of your PoV, namely that whatever is correct in the context of Judaism, is the names that should be used on Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 10:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Fram you are funny. You escalate things with rough attacks when you should be calming the waters, you certainly started out that way, but then for some odd reason you came back and with every comment you feel you have the right to attack me. Plenty of examples here. Finally when I give you a dose of your own medicine you react as if you are "innocent". Please stop your provocative and offensive comments to me and other Judaic editors right now. Thank you. Just look at all your words lately, starting here, your utterly false and untrue allegation that my "statements are irrelevant arguments for this discussion, and are only used because of your PoV, namely that whatever is correct in the context of Judaism, is the names that should be used on Wikipedia" --a total INSULT !!!! when I have been editing for over 7 years and never have I been cited for "POV" violations in my work. Check it out !!!! Yes, I speak bluntly, and I like to discuss more openly on talk pages ONLY, but when I edit, I do so in full conformity with WP:NPOV to the absolute best of my abilities. There was nothing "wrong" in labeling the temples of Judaism as being "First Temple (Judaism)" etc and that's not a POV either, it's an accurate and factual name for such an article. Or are you blind to your own wild allegations against me? And you expect me to sit quietly while you repeatedly attack me. I am tired of your antics. Go home and play with your ducky but please don't attack me at every turn and expect me to remain silent forever. Thank you IZAK (talk) 11:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I have not made any claims about whatever you have done or shown in your previous years of editing. In this discussion and in the moves, you have shown that you consider your PoV as more important than Wikipedia policies, and have acted upon it. I have always given quotes (plenty to choose from) to support this. All you have as defense for your personal attacks above is "you attacked me first!". You claim that I insult you when I make the "utterly false and untrue" (yes, utterly false and untrue!) allegation about "your PoV, namely that whatever is correct in the context of Judaism, is the names that should be used on Wikipedia". However, you stated early in the move 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. That's precisely my point."[3] Fram (talk) 11:12, 4 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)

Objection! This would be a closing by an involved admin. Sorry FormerIP, they are citing the whole bible of WP that has nothing to do with the basics of this situation, because now any move of any page would be subject to all kinds of things that are just not relevant aside from your lengthy exposition which is not a definitive explanation, you can't be the "presenter" of the situation and it's effectice "closer" as well, even though respectable others have come here to disagree with you, including three admins, Avraham, Malik Shabazz and Slrubenstein who agree with me. They must be afforded an opportunity to agree or not to close, if you want unanimity, as you insist on dragging this matter out in spite of all the clarifications and testimony I have given here. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 04:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

"you can't be the "presenter" of the situation and it's effectice "closer" as well" Isn't that exactly what you did? Fram (talk) 08:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

No comparison. You are looking at things back to front, at best. What is taking place here at ANI is not the same as what took place at WP:JUDAISM, and FormerIP is the wrong man for the job here because he was welcome to join the centralized discussion over there at any time. He did not. He did not come to voice his concerns there and did not contact any editors from there. Nothing was "closed" to him. He only woke up after the moves and complains that WP:JUDAISM is the "wrong" place to hold a centralized vote central to Judaism that in any case was about moving 4 pages not one. Here he has put the entire WP:JUDAISM on trial and created a hostile environment to its editors making them seem like wrong-doers when all the requirements were met setting the stage for a move, which I did based on the clear mandate there. A long discussion was held. All effected pages were notified on their talk pages. And there was a clear-cut WP:CONSENSUS arrived at, a 9 to 1 majority voted for the moves. Now he and others are claiming that Jews and Judaism must be "monitored" by Christian editors. Is that fair or normal? What kind of harmony or respect for Jews and Judaism did he unleash? Don't you fear that might even be called antisemitism by some, and I know it's a tricky thing to say, but it has to be said, you can't trample on Judaism's editors as if they were "wrongdoers" and claim some sort of "wrongdoing" when every single requirement was met according to all WP policies and guidelines. I am surprised at you for being so petty when I have complimented you multiple times on the wisdom of you own editorial moves in this situation. Please stop your personal silly attacks against me that only increases the recriminations and bitterness rather than leading to reconciliation and acceptance of each other. IZAK (talk) 09:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

IZAK, you are continuing to make very wild claims about people. I suggest when you do so, you provide a link. Nothing you assert here about motives and effects (persecution, Christian monitoring, being put on trial) strikes me as reflecting what has been argued, and to continually evoke persecution and witchhunts by Christians is not conducive to tempered debate. Thank you. Nishidani (talk) 09:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani: You love this, it's obvious. You throw bombs and then you say why are people screaming, don't you? Do you ever read what you write yourself? because you are the main one making lots of the accusations and asking for punitive measures. I have tried to respond to your words with detailed responses, that just lead nowhere. All I can say to you is please stop your tactics of poisoning the well and then pleading "innocence". Thanks, IZAK (talk) 10:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

(Please don't do this. The last time I heard of bomb throwing in my family was when my father refused to pay a subscription at his local Celtic Club, for the IRA. If you prefer vituperation provide with due courtesy links to underline the grounds for what are inflammatory accusations. The danger is that the discussion will get unfocused and personal, and wikipedians will lose sight of what is, after all, a simple technical matter about naming conventions and moving protocols.Nishidani (talk) 11:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC))

You start about perceived antisemitism and then complain that others are poisoning the well? You make, like Nishidani said, pretty wild allegations. Backing them up with diffs and specific quotes would be helpful. Retracting the statements is always another good possibility of course. Fram (talk) 10:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that the pages should stay named what they are for now and be listed at WP:RM for moving back. FormerIP, if you are so certain that the move was not correct, then a consensus for the return should become clear. If there is no consensus to return the pages to the older names, then why shouldn't they stay as they are? -- Avi (talk) 05:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That's fait accompli logic, Avi. A term which, used absolutely, I've never heard in conversation all my life, in several Western languages, which you guys hear from childhood because it is the standard term within your faith, is not 'the standard term' in English. I am not surprised several of you might think this odd, because it's what you all heard. But Debresser said as much when this debate in that nook of wiki was opened. I'm not arguing for Christendom, as IZAK suggests, or full of fear, as he repeats. I'm arguing from what should be obvious to any native user of English not raised within Judaism. What is obvious to one group can be weird to another, and it is exasperating that ulterior motives are adduced to suggest there is something odd in expressing strong surprise that the English language and its linguistic preferences can be ignored in the way they were by users trusting in what it their own idiolect, to put it technically.Nishidani (talk) 07:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It appears to me that there was a discussion, a call for opinions, consensus and then an action. This may not have formed with the bureaucratic method currently in place, but it seems to have formed with a real consensus. I am unsure of what to do other than relist it for a move back. Basket of Puppies 08:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

However, the way the discussion was set up was such that the consensus formed would, inevitably, be biased in its decision. Silverseren^C 08:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The procedural errors are inadvertent, since the discussants were thinking of a different question from the one that is central to any such move on the English wikipedia, i.e., what is the default term in our community for this site, which has a peculiar potency for Judaism. Everyone was absolutely in good faith in the original move. It was a procedural error to think that a question of usage of the English language could be decided in a small forum where only, it appears, one constituency of users weighed the question. To most of them it was obvious. It is like asking a small group of Englishmen or Americans what is the proper word in English for the strip between houses and a road where people walk. Brits will concur 'pavement' or perhaps 'walkway', Americans will say 'sidewalk', and Australians will say 'footpath'. They all all in good faith, all assured they have it right. But for this very reason, linguistics distinguishes dialects, and idiolects from standard common speech. (2) Procedurally it was wrong because none of the participants appeared to realize they were setting a precedent. If words denominating places revered by several faiths are to be chosen according to who named them first, or which group has the oldest traditions, then much of the English language default terminology will be subject to challenge on historical proprietorial grounds. No one noticed this. It is an unintended consequence of the way this was done. This is a decision about English usage, not about religion or ethnic preferences, and obviously needed a wider constituency of wikipedians from all walks of life. The obvious only emerged to all when this was broached by people ignorant of what had taken place, and coming from different backgrounds. As it is, you have a 'consensus' on what Jewish usage prefers, but no consensus at all about what is the default term in English, familiar to people of all religious denominations. This is why the proper move would be to remove the name to the 'status ante quo', and then call on all to determine what is the most familiar term to English speakers.Nishidani (talk) 08:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Silver, consensus is by definition biased. It's the bias of a group of people for a preferred action. Basket of Puppies 08:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

And when detected, is usually corrected out of respect for WP:NPOV, the fundamental aim.Nishidani (talk) 09:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani, please stop trying to re-frame the situation your way. The subject is not about a topic in the English language. The subject is about the subject itself! The subject was and is already called Third Temple (not "Ezekiel's Temple" although it is a recognized name for it) and was called Second Temple of Jerusalem (not "Ezra's Temple" although it's also named that in Biblical scholarship) so WP already acknowledged and reflected correctly through its own naming that the topic and subject is about a series of temples, all I did in essence was to adjust the name of the first one to the First Temple. It would have actually been historically and theologically most correct to add the qualifying suffix (Judaism) because the subject and not the mere name is about the Temples holiest to Judaism and not to any other religion. So this is not as you allege about "word games" it's far more serious than that, trying to convey the most accurate historical and religious aspect of the subject and not just what many people may or may not call it. In any case, as I have proven again and again, the term First temple is just as good and even more used than any other in learned circles. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia, it does not go by what a popularity poll says a topic should be called it deals with the content of the topic. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 09:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

"In any case, as I have proven again and again, the term First temple is just as good and even more used than any other in learned circles." No, you have shown that it gets more regular Google hits, which include all fora, personal pages, and so on. A better indication, like I said above, is Google books and Google Scholar. The results on Google books are: ""First Temple" Jerusalem" gives 99,600 hits[4], and ""Solomon's Temple" Jerusalem" gives 159,000 hits[5]. You are incorrect in your "proven" claims, and again add irrelevant theological arguments. Fram (talk) 10:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but this a VERY theological subject. What do you think the 1st Temple was? a tennis court? was it part of sports? And who do you think worshiped in it? Europeans? Americans? Zombies? It was built by Jews, for purposes of centralized Jewish worship that lasted for 400+ years for the Jews only and the 2nd one was was also built by Jews for Jews and Judaism, and lasted another 400+ years for the Jews only, so are you expecting Judaism editors to bail out of this key subject because WP is having a discussion about it with all sorts of cries that poor Christians did not have their say here when no one stopped anyone from saying anything? How absurd is that... you obviously do not understand this subject and should recuse yourself from this discussion. IZAK (talk) 10:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I have never and nowhere suggested that Judaism editors should leave this discussion. I have only stated that whatever the preferred name of a subject is in one country, religion, language, or branch of science may not overrule the name most generally used in reliable sources in English. The irrelevant theological argument you used was "add the qualifying suffix (Judaism) because the subject and not the mere name is about the Temples holiest to Judaism and not to any other religion." This has nothing to do with whether I understand the subject or not, but with the fact that you want to name the page based on religious arguments, not based on Wikipedia policies. Fram (talk) 10:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry again, but the subject is one that is first and foremost related to Judaism, shouting WP:IDONTLIKEIT won't change the facts and truths of history and religion. The First Temple stood from about 1000 BCE to about 586 BCE, there were none of today's religions or cultures around they are all dead and gone, certainly not Christianity and Islam that came 1000 to 1500 years later. So that should be the true starting poin and progression and also reflected in the name of the article, as this is already in the article/s. The naming conventions are minor, almost veils, that hide the truth, reality and actuality of the subject, and WP should reflect the facts and the truth and NOT give deference to the deceptive veils covering the actual subject. Now what's wrong with what I have said here? You don't like theology, that's just your prejudice and POV, but that should not stop or hinder WP from its mission of conveying information truthfully and accurately. You see now I am using logic, history, theology and facts, no recourse to Google needed, although Google must be used correctly, you must choose good reliable source that reflect the truth and not the veils and cover-ups and revisionisms of later times of others with POVs that wished to blot out Judaism's strict connections to its temples and vice versa. This helps WP gain credibility. IZAK (talk) 10:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The naming conventions are minor, almost veils, that hide the truth, reality and actuality of the subject, and WP should reflect the facts and the truth

Please review Wikipedia:Verifiability, which opens:'The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.'Nishidani (talk) 10:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps RfC is the best option now

Perhaps the best option, now that moves have been made, is to open an RfC, appropriately publicized, on each of the pages, and use the RfC to select the best, or least problematic, page name, and then move the page(s) [if necessary] to the consensus page name. If there still remains no consensus after a full RfC, binding mediation would be the next step. This way, we can sidestep the probelm of "what is the default name" and concentrate on what should be the accepted wikipedia name. Thoughts? -- Avi (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

No, because that would reverse the onus and almost certainly end without consensus, based on the discussion above. Since you helped IZAK with the recent page moves, though, I think a reasonable way forward might be for you to think about whether, in hindsight, that was for the best. --FormerIP (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you are under a misconception, Former. With an RfC, unlike an RfM, there is no onus as we would not be discussing the move, and by extension the former name (whatsoever we decide that should be) but we would be discussing a priori what should the name be, and whatever consensus at which we arrive would be the final name, regardless of what it is at this moment. If we cannot arrive at a consensus, we would not decide the current name stands, but we engage Wikipedia:Mediation Committee in binding arbitration, which is the final step in content dispute resolution in any event. Therefore, "onus" is irrelevant, As for your second point I've done many C&P move fixes over my years as an admin, and it makes sense that IZAK comes to an admin which he is 1) familiar with and 2) trusts in their competence to correct his error in moving the pages. -- Avi (talk) 18:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Just an interim query. Is there any history of any of hundreds of editors raising an issue over the 'problematic' nature of the original name, Solomon's Temple, from the article's inception six years ago until these last days, when change was made? If there hasn't been, the logical thing would be to respect the tacit testimony of 6 years, rather than acquiesce in a "fait accompli" which was questioned as soon as the wider community noticed it. If there has been a consistent querying of it, on the other hand, then leaving it as it is, and proceding to a full RfC is probably the logical next step forward. Otherwise I think the history of the article would support a revert to the uncontroversial name, followed by the same full RfC. Izak could help here, since he has been active on the article from day 1.Nishidani (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

To me, it would be six of one, half a dozen of the other if we move the articles back or not prior to the RfC; the result is the same: A new opportunity to build consensus on the proper name for English wikipedia, which if it fails, would proceed to binding mediation. -- Avi (talk) 18:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that we should go there yet. The move although initially apparently proper, clearly didn't reflect the consensus of the wider community and should thus be reverted. A request for changing the title can than be made. Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_potentially_controversial_moves. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, talk about "reverse the onus and almost certainly end without consensus" is wikilawyering. The intent of any discussion should be to determine whether the new name does have sufficient support beyond the original group of editors who wanted the change. If there is, then the dispute is, in effect, resolved. If there is not, then, unless the wider community is overwhelmingly against the change, no matter which forum or process is used, there will be a fight to revert back to the original names. I say that not based on fairness, or what the "true name" of these buildings are, but based on simple interpersonal politics. I would like to point out to both parties that unless you try to resolve this matter in a way where all parties involved feel that they were at least heard with respect -- if not achieved something -- then it's going to be messy & people will be given the Wikipedia equivalent of sitting in a corner with a dunce cap. So unless someone starts acting in a way that requires sanctioning, take it away from here to one of the discussion forums proposed above. -- llywrch (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Not wikilawyering, I think. Rather an elementary grasp of wiki dynamics. If it goes to RfC and Binding Mediation, it will almost certainly not return to its original name, which no one objected to, apparently, for 6 years, for the simple reason that RfC will not secure a consensus, and in the Binding Mediation that will follow necessarily, the result, being necesarily a Solomonic compromise, will not be 'Solomon's Temple', whatever else exhaustion will produce. It is precisely this which means that not reverting to the status quo ante will be prejudicial to one favoured outcome. In short Avi's recommended procedure, which is perfectly rational in formal terms, excludes one of the two outcomes vetted here, whereas a return to the original, enduring and normal English name does not prejudice the possibility that in an RfC or later, some variation on 'First Temple' may emerge. Nishidani (talk) 19:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

So, in other words, you need to win this dispute because you're right & the other side needs to lose because they're wrong? I'm not saying that the current set of names is the best & most accurate choice, but either you believe that discussion will eventually lead to the best solution despite the rules, or we just forget about the implications of WP:IAR & decide that slavish obedience to words & process is a better guide than using common sense. And if there is truly enough opinion against the new terms (which I admit are unintuitive, if not bizarre, to me), then these articles will return to their original names. -- llywrch (talk) 21:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I have not followed much of this dispute, but it seems to me that if this particular argument is applied all around that a lot of articles are going to be in for name changes. Just to give one example: Masjid al-Haram. How many English speakers will recognize this as the name of, what is more commonly know in English, as the "Grand Mosque" located in Mecca? Should we change it to the English, or leave it in Arabic? The possibility of such arguments filling up AN/I for months to come, as heated disputes over names spills over to here, is not an attractive prospect. Vasio (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Your general point is correct. Your illustrative example not so. For here we are speaking of name conflicts between two traditions which recall, memorialize and honour the same thing. The Grand Mosque is not part of non-Islamic tradition.Nishidani (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Vasio, I don't think your general point is correct. If there is WP consensus for Masjid al-Haram then sobeit. If the English title would be better, then it can be RM'd. The difference here is that there is not (per most users and all admins who have commented here) a genuine WP consensus in favour of the page titles that these articles have been moved to. They've been moved wrongly and should be moved back. --FormerIP (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

His general point was correct in that, if First Temple stands for the reason given, a large number of articles names will be up for change depending on who can assert a greater cultural or ethnocultural attachment to them. That is why we have the rule, in naming conventions, of accepting the standard terminology endorsed by any national language, in this case English.Nishidani (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The example is good. Virtually no English speaking non-Muslim recognizes the name "Masjid al-Haram", but it is used in the article instead of a more descriptive name, that everyone recognizes, anyhow. Personally that does not bother me, and see no need to start a massive fight over changing names. Vasio (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

To return to the original point, and recap. From memory, consensus formation and binding mediation tend to ignore Wikipedia:Article titles the primary rule for naming, i.e.,

'Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article. In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article.'

The normal name in English, apparently, never challenged since the inception of the article, was 'Solomon's Temple' over six years, and edited by hundreds of people. The article was taken, with its title, directly from a major encyclopedia.

Both consensus-building, and binding mediation involve compromises, and given the differences expressed above, 'Solomon's Temple' will not be accepted. I'm all for compromises when there is some doubt. I can't see however, any doubt over the fact that 'the most common English-language name' here is the term that preexisted this name-change, and in that rapid and small discussion, its proponent did not originally justify the change as being consonant with English usage' but because primarily it belonged to Judaism. That is based on a false premise, and is sufficient reason to ask that we simply return to the page name that has stood there for six years, not just a few hectic days, and then work through an RfC and if needed, Binding Mediation, if that is necessary. To adopt the policy for resolution suggested will practically mean prejudicing the chances that the standard term be retained, by ignoring 'usage' arguments (objective) in favour of results from the arbitrary numbers of people in the process of consensus building (subjective).Nishidani (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• That an article name was never challenged does not mean it's right. In general, names should be politically and religious neutral. To me, Fist, Second, Third ... are the obviously neutral names and totally free of religious preference. There might be others temples called such, but the ones at Jerusalem are certainly overwhelmingly the best known in English, so there is no need for disambiguation in parenthesis. To me , "Solomon's Temple" implies an uncertain historical statement, that Solomon was responsible for the construction. It could be interpreted as , the temple called Solomon's Temple, and I think most English speakers would recognize it--but there's a name that requires no interpretation: First. DGG ( talk ) 23:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Please can we veer back away from discussing which titles are best. This is not what ANI is for. The question is about process. Thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

This is becoming more and more bureaucratic as it continues. A group of editors came to a consensus regarding a topic. The manner of that consensus forming was objected as out-of-process, violating the bureaucratic requirement. Now there is a call for another bureaucratic procedure to determine is the process was accepted or not. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Ok? I am not saying I agree or disagree with the renaming. What I am saying, however, is there was a consensus and that is the overriding principal. Basket of Puppies 23:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

There was a restricted discussion. There was not a WP:CONSENSUS. However, I agree that new bureaucratic proposals are not needed, just for an admin to please move the pages back. --FormerIP (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

To be precise, Former, I believe you are incorrect. There was a consensus reached on the article pages. You feel the consensus reached is not representative of the greater wikipedia community because the discussion was only listed on four or five pages which do not reach what you consider to be a large enough portion of the wikipedia community. But to deny that a consensus of the participants was reached is incorrect. -- Avi (talk) 02:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I have a good question to ask of you then, regarding the consensus made. How many of those who voted were not a member of Wikiproject Judaism or regular contributors to said Wikiproject? In short, how many voters were those from outside the Wikiproject? Silverseren^C 02:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing that a new discussion is necessary; I'm just pointing out a flaw in Former's argument, as he seems to place much emphasis on bureaucratic process. In my opinion, it is irrelevant, and we need a new discussion. But to say that there was no consensus amongst the participants is wrong; the issue is whether or not the consensus reached is representative as the discussion may not have been broadcast widely enough outside the natural areas of interest. -- Avi (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I can agree with that. Silverseren^C 03:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Move this discussion?

If this discussion is not going to wrap up soon (I haven't been following it), perhaps it should be moved to a sub-page? It's pretty big. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Right on. IZAK (talk) 06:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Relist the move (already!)

I read through some of the discussion (admittedly skipping some of the longer stretches) and this seems fairly straightforward to me (disclosure: I'm clueless about the subject matter and don't know which end of which temple is which!). An informal move discussion was listed in a wikipedia project and closed and the moves done by the discussion initiator. This, obviously given the discussion above, was not an uncontroversial move. So, it would appear that the right thing to do is to revert the moves and list new discussions on WP:RM. Seems simple enough. If the temples should rightly be titled first, second, and third, then that's what will happen. That is the right 'wikipedia' thing to do. --RegentsPark (talk) 03:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Hi RegentsPark: If that's what you think, you obviously need to re-read the entire discussion, (top to bottom, from one end to the other end) to understand why what you suggest is not acceptable because what you express is only one interpretation when there are are others who oppose it. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 06:33, 5 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)

• Oppose removal of TK-CP's access to Twinkle. If he uses it to cause disruption outside of his talk page then I'll support, but whether or not it's a politically savvy way to behave, users are entitled to remove talk page comments without any explanation. There is zero policy reason or due process basis to remove someone's access to a common tool for these reasons. Shadowjams (talk) 05:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It constitutes the abuse of a tool. If I had oversight and decided to oversight every comment on my page, it would be abuse of the tool because, while I am allowed to blank my page, I am not allowed to blank my page in that manner. Regardless of where it occurs, knowingly clicking the "Rollback (Vandalism)" button when no vandalism has occurred is an obvious misuse of the tool. --Smashville^talk 21:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The way I read Shadowjam's message, it sounds like he's referring to TK-CP's edits where he reverted messages on his talk page without reason, not the ones where he labelled non-vandalism edits as vandalism, which are the edits in question. It may not be the case, but that's what it sounded like to me. I left a message for Shadowjam on his talk page, just to make sure we're all on the same page. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess I could go neutral at this point, but I don't think the labeling issue is so severe either way. It's probably a moot point now in any case. Shadowjams (talk) 00:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral - I have my opinions about this, but as an admin/crat at a known vandal site, I must abdicate my !vote. Huw Powell (talk) 06:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support removal. This user has clearly and repeatedly misused Twinkle; therefore, I think they should be prevented from using it, until they can prove to an admin they know what vandalism is. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 23:45, 4 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.[6] 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[7]. 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[8]. --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)

Since this isn't the first time a user has done something like this, I wonder if one solution involves asking Gavin to create a subpage in his user space for discussion, allowing him to link to it if he so wants to invite participants. Would that work? Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 4 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 [9]. 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 [10]. 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 [11]. 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)

Since I'm the one who deleted Дунгане's material at Roman Empire, I'd like to add a comment in addition to Dougweller's. The deletions were not made because their content had to do with the subject of homosexuality per se. The article is by definition a very broad overview on a topic of general interest. I deleted the material because (a) it placed extremely undue emphasis on homosexuality as a theme, perhaps because of the source used (the sources should be standard literary and art histories of Rome); and (b) it made a fundamental error of fact that showed the contributor didn't understand the topic. The deleted material focused on an author of the Roman Republic, not of the Roman Empire as historically defined. I also question why the only quotation should be a poem that begins with "one of the filthiest expressions ever written"; in addition to the fact that this example is not from the time period covered by the article, the first lines of the Aeneid are a far more obvious choice to represent Imperial literature, if one isn't pushing a POV. I would've had the same objection of undue weight had the example been Ovid cataloguing what sexual positions work best for different female body types. Дунгане should withdraw his accusation that this deletion was "homophobic." I leave copyright questions to others. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

, While you're quite right, Дунгане, that we need to check to make sure that articles are clear, there is still quite a lot of valuable assistance you could provide. If you can identify and correct copyright violations of other Wikipedia articles by following the processes at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, that would be a tremendous help. It would also be very beneficial if you can identify those articles into which you did copy content, narrowing down the sources you have used. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Can't do it for my own articles. Some of my edits on the same article are copyvio, while on other edits in the same article, i wasn't that lazy and i rephrased and cited them correctly.

But i know another editor before me who did copyvio on a book on the Liu Wenhui article. its the paragraph on him fighting tibetans which was directly copied from the book which was cited. Theres also an anon ip who is direcly copying text from books on Second Sino Japanese War. On 1939–1940 Winter Offensive the another ip did a copyvio, but i believed i fixed it by rephrasing the sentence and deleting parts of it.

Anyway, the whole article Second Sino Japanese War is a total mess.

I'm going to take back part of what i said about editing mainspace articles, the only edits i will make on the mainspace are removing the copyvio on articles i created.

Дунгане (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

We have serious copyright issues on multiple articles, many of which were not done by me. im in the process of fixing them now.Дунгане (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Liu Wenhui has been fixed.Дунгане (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That's great! Thank you. Copyright cleanup on Wikipedia is a constant struggle. I may not have been clear above; what I meant in my first sentence was to ask if you can identify articles into which you have copied content from other articles. We can do this, but we're required to link to the source articles to comply with copyright, as the license on that content requires attribution. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:06, 4 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)

• Revert by Arnoutf: 14:50, 3 August 2010

• Revert by Teeninvestor: 12 (20:00, 3 August 2010)

• Revert by Arnoutf: 20:06, 3 August 2010

• Revert by Teeninvestor: 13 (20:13, 3 August 2010)

• Edit by Gun Powder Ma: 21:29, 3 August 2010

• Revert by Teeninvestor: 14 (21:41, 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)

Neither is forum shopping as I already told you here, but it shows again how much your 'argumentation' relies on unsubstantial allegations and self-righteous interpretation of WP guidelines. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

With his latest 5 diffs, GPM is engaging in misrepresentation of diffs, pure and simple. The first three diffs were removals of POV and copyright violations which another editor (User:Arnoutf) mistakenly reinserted and reverting removal of quotes which he thought was not attributed. When I pointed this out, he acknowledged this and stopped reverting, as shown here. The fourth "revert" consists of me reintroducing material that Arnoutf objected to it in quote form, but had no objections in paragraph form; hardly a revert. The fifth "revert" is an even bigger representation, as I merely modified the quote because said editor was misrepresenting his source. His forum shopping and misrepresentations was also rejected here as well. 12.

Quite the opposite, User:Tariqabjotu is adamant that your case belongs rightfully here to ANI:

But if it's some long-term problem that requires an FBI investigation into the history of all parties with more than a dozen links, it's not appropriate for this noticeboard. And you seemed to know that; hence, why you went to WP:ANI first. That's where this issue belongs.

Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Eugeneacurry talk page

Resolved

 – Subject has replaced his talk page contents with "retired" template. - Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

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. [12] At 03:15, Ari89, one of the editors who often reverts alongside Eugene, restored it. [13] 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." [14] 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)

Actually, Noloop already brought somrthing similar to ArbCom [Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Many_Jesus-related_articles]. The problem is that Arbitration has a lot of criteria [Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Guide#Rejected_requests] particularly "Not all parties agree to mediation" you have to meet. Sadly with that set up all it takes is one editor to keep it out of Arbitration and the spectacle in the Christ Myth Theory monkey house continues. Part of the problem with Christ Myth Theory is the literature itself as many of the definitions uses are vague or contradictory and we now even have a reliable source tellings us why and yet the circus goes on.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You're confusing mediation at MedCab (the Mediation Cabal), to which all parties have to agree, and arbitration, which ArbCom (the Arbitration Committee) can accept without agreement of all parties. ArbCom's decisions are final and binding. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

As of 4 August 2010 at 13:57, Eugeneacurry put the "Retired" template on his talk page -- which I assume means he has left the project. (If he returns under another user name in order to pursue his agenda, I believe he can then be blocked for abusively sockpuppetting.) Shall we close this thread as being moot? -- llywrch (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

May as well. I've placed the template. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:04, 4 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)

HTD, which mass moves are you talking about?. You wrote on my talk "Hold your horses on Philippine provinces move fest". Which moves of Philippone provinces do you refer to? Where are the so called mass moves? Schwyz (talk) 01:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Can I look at your move log? The last time I did that, it took me six pages to finally locate your mass moves of Philippine province articles. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 04:22, 5 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. [15] [16]

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 [17] (where they then also edit warred with others [18]) 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. [19]

Allowing myself to be baited resulted in ArbCom handing out a "civility restriction" for me, [20] (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. [21] The case evidence I presented [22] 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. [23] The way in which the case name was chosen most likely did not help matters all that much either. [24]

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. [25] After I was unblocked by another administrator who reviewed what was said and had transpired, I immediately apologised to Sandstein for the venting [26] [27] 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. [28] I documented Theserialcomma's interactions with others in detail [29] and began to do the same for Miami33139 [30] and JBsupreme. [31] 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 [32] due to his continued behaviours but it really doesn't seem to have had much of an effect. [33]

I just took an entire month off from editing due to both the continued wikihounding and my workload. [34] In that month, Miami33139 regained his internet access and picked right back up where he left off. [35] Some of his very first actions were to MFD and CSD pages I had sandboxed, [36] including one which JBsupreme moved from the sandbox to mainspace. [37] [38]

Some of Miami33139's next actions included MFDing subpages from within my userspace, [39] [40] (which both Theserialcomma and JBsupreme then became involved in as well. [41] [42] [43] [44]) 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. [45] [46] [47]

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)
    • Something else I noticed after posting the above is that Hm2k did something similar with another draft I had within my userspace. What was odd is after he moved it to his userspace, Miami33139 immediately initiated a MFD for that in-progress article. [48] I know Hm2k has good intentions as far as improving the draft article so if he wants to work on it, he has my support. The immediate MFD by Miami33139 is certainly strange though. (It is probably also worth noting that Theserialcomma wikihounded and baited Hm2k previously as well, eventually leading him to lash out and be blocked for a short while. Theserialcomma is also the one who initiated an AfD for mIRCStats in the first place, when the wikihounding by Theserialcomma first began.)

      Shortly after JBsupreme moved the above mentioned draft from my userspace, he also removed the majority of the content of Comparison of mobile Internet Relay Chat clients [49] just before initiating an AfD. [50] This is actually the second time JBsupreme has attempted an AfD for this page and the MO of blanking the article before nominating it for AfD is one of his regular tactics. Considering how JBsupreme argues against reliable sources and so on in AfDs [51] and considering that even an ArbCom restriction has failed to curb his behaviour, I honestly don't see any point in even trying to participate in that AfD because I feel he would just attack me (as he has done previously) anyway.

      Sigh. What a complex, tangled mess. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

    • Given this edit [52] I moved the page back to my userspace and redirected it for the time being. --Tothwolf (talk) 06:17, 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)

While not meaning to be a prosecutor or some such, but isn't calling the fellow's comments "paranoid ranting" a violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL? I am sure it can be described with a bit less crass? Basket of Puppies 07:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Persistent unfounded accusations also a violation of NPA and civil. It is not ad hominem to say he is paranoid. It fit pattern. You see above he accuses three editors of persecuting him. What shown in previous dispute resolution was all disagreements result in Tothwolf writing long screeds about being persecuted. For two years when someone edit his articles in a way he don't like he runs to a noticeboard talking about people out to get him. Enough of that! Paranoid is simple adjective succinctly describing situation. Miami33139 (talk) 07:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

So then there should be two blocks- one for him and one for you. And how is it not ad hominem to call him paranoid? It's minimally NPA. Just don't do it. Basket of Puppies 08:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

BOP, paranoid can describe a pattern of behaviour as well as a mental illness. It would be better if Miami says "displays paranoid behaviour" but I can't see it as a PA myself.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I think intent also has a lot to do with whether or not something can be considered a personal attack. Shortly before Jehochman tried to help me with filing an ArbCom case, [53] Miami33139 made this comment [54] in which he also called me "paranoid and delusional". While the term "paranoid" can be used in a way in which it isn't a personal attack, I think the way in which Miami33139 uses the word both above and in previous discussions really does seem to be meant as a personal attack.

I believe this comment made by Miami33139 yesterday could also be considered a personal attack. It is also clearly an attempt at escalation, which is something he been warned for previously. [55]

To refocus this back on the behavioural issues (which as I noted above is why I brought this here), Miami33139's current behaviour seems to fit the very definitions of tendentious and disruptive editing to the "T". I found that the only way Miami33139 and the other two named above would leave me alone was to be completely "absent" from Wikipedia and not edit anything. This doesn't seem right.

Disruptive editors who engage in tendentious editing, wikihounding, bullying, etc have a history of being restricted and eventually blocked if restrictions fail to curb such behaviour. Unfortunately, it seems like many times such disruptive editors end up doing a lot of damage to the community (often including the morale of other editors) before the community notices and finally decides to take action. It seems like the random page blank/junk text/explicit image type vandals, etc (which in general really seem to do far less overall long-term damage to the encyclopedia) are dealt with much faster than those who take steps to attempts to evade detection and scrutiny of their actions. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:AGF applies here. From what I can tell you have a prior history with Tothwolf, so your objective judgement is questionable. Simply express your concern and don't make asumptions about other users behavior. Hasteur (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Elen, calling someone paranoid is a violation of NPA any way you look at it. It's not appropriate at all for this project. I'll have a look at the NPA policy, but I doubt there is an exemption for calling someone paranoid. Basket of Puppies 22:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with this. In the circumstances, its also baiting. I would be somewhat reluctant to block on the basis of what's said at this intrinsically contentious page, but I think it's way over the line. Tothwolf is certainly entitled to come here and say that disruption has continued even after an arb com decision which should have put an end to it. The question is whether we can do anything about it without a second arb com. DGG ( talk ) 23:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is and combined with the tl;dr comment above, I'd say a block is in order. It's very obvious that he's come here to try and inflame the situation, troll and harass the other user.--Crossmr (talk) 23:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't use NPA as a bludgeon. The whole statement above was basically baiting (as DGG says) and shouldn't have been said, but we are getting really parsimonious in referring to words describing actions (paranoid ramblings) to mean words describing actors. when accusing someone of making personal attacks, a semantic discussion shouldn't be necessary. If you find yourself in a good faith semantic discussion after leveling an accusation that someone is making a personal attack, they likely haven't violated NPA. Remember, NPA is a big stick in policing discourse, don't use it unless it is abundantly clear that it is necessary. Protonk (talk) 01:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

No, you misread DGG's comments. DGG says that calling Tothwolf paranoid is baiting and that he is entitled to make his statement. Stop calling other people paranoid. As far as I can see, there is a concerted effort by at least JBsupreme and Miami33139 to hound Tothwolf off Wikipedia, so I wouldn't say Tothwolf is at all paranoid in suggesting this. Miami's comments to "Call the Waaaambulance"[56] are crossing the line into mocking. Fences&Windows 03:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It was not my intent to "bait" so I have removed my statement and will restate it. This accusation that I am hounding him is false. I work on deleting a lot of articles and it is not a personal crusade against him. Arbcom listened to him bring this argument months ago, maybe even a year. They found it baseless. I am tired of hearing this accusation. Making persistent unfounded accusations is against NPA, That Tothwolf violates NPA by making persistent unfounded accusations is part of Arbcom finding of fact. Miami33139 (talk) 04:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

What was your intent with the "tl;dr" comment? Did you think that was a helpful comment to make towards someone you're engaged in a dispute with? Do you honestly think that could be reasonably seen as anything but?--Crossmr (talk) 04:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a note, Miami33139 removed that statement you are referring to along w/ his strikeout of the above remarks. So it might be right to assume it to be retracted. Protonk (talk) 04:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I would consider his statement "It was not my intent to "bait"" to be a bald-faced lie. Taken in conjunction with the previous tl;dr post, his nomination of articles in Tothwolf's userspace and his canvassing of cohorts JBSupreme and Theserialcomma with blatantly taunting language (whaaambulance, whine one one) , there should be no other interpretation of his behavior. Redacting a comment days later in an effort to avoid being blocked is not a real redaction. Seth Kellerman (talk) 05:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Placing {{[[wikipedia:Substitution|subst]]:[[Template:ANI-notice|ANI-notice]]}} on their talk page not canvassing when they are mentioned here by the original poster who did not follow instruction do it himself. I use joking language with people who have been through this accusation before on their page, because it would be inappropriate here. I am obvious frustrated after ArbCom say Tothwolf should stop making these accusation, and here he is still making accusation. Miami33139 (talk) 05:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm yes perhaps canvassing isn't the proper legal word for it. Though there must be a wikipedia policy out there which discourages contacting your cohorts so they may participate in a pile-on against your rival. WP:TAGTEAM, perhaps? (I am of course aware that citing WP:TAGTEAM may itself be considered incivil; I feel that there is adequate evidence of malicious collusion between Miami and JBSupreme targeting Tothwolf to justify the citation)

But more obfuscation from you - you didn't use Template:ANI-notice, did you? No, you accused Tothwolf of "dialing whine one one" for the "waahmbulance".

Let us read WP:CIVIL#Identifying incivility, section 1d. belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts

Would you care to explain how your tl;dr post and your posts to JBSupreme and Theserialcomma's talk pages were not gross violations of civility? Seth Kellerman (talk) 06:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You miss the part that I did use ANI-NOTICE template and it was Tothwolf responsibility, not mine, to apply that notice. The pile-on here, is on me, even after Arbcom found six months ago I was not hounding him. What is your part here, Seth, to inflame against me? Miami33139 (talk) 07:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Retracted or otherwise, it goes to his claim that he wasn't trying to bait. There is no other way to see it. Using joking language with a user that you're that embroiled with is just inappropriate. It can do little beyond inflame the situation.--Crossmr (talk) 06:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not use joking language with a user I am embroiled with. I used it with users who were similarly accused without being notified of the accusation. Miami33139 (talk) 07:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

So what is the appropriate public/admin response to a comment like that after it has been retracted? Protonk (talk) 06:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I have requested Amendment from Arbcom Miami33139 (talk) 07

07, 5 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." [57][58] Examples from the current campaign include:

• "Your vote rationale is completely dishonest" (directed at Epbr123, repeated in multiple AFDs) [59][60][61]
• "You lie" (directed at Bali ultimate) [62]
• "pissing on my article contributions" (directed at Bali ultimate); "contributing NOTHING, and telling others what to do" (directed at me) [63]
• "I have been remarkably restrained considering that this Nomination was made in the most belligerent and biased manner" (directed at Bali ultimate) [64]
• "the belligerent oafishness of the editor who put these particular images up for deletion" (directed at me) [65]
• "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) [66]
• "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) [67]
• "Somehow I had the impression you were one of the "honest" deletionists... " (directed at DAJF) [68]
• "Not notifying me was just one of lesser of the dishonest tactics taken by the nominator" (directed at Bali ultimate) [69]
• "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) [70]
• edit summary of "cultural bias & ignorance at work" (directed generally at editors in disagreement with him) [71]
• edit summary of "culturally biased and ignorant nomination)" (directed generally at editors in disagreement with him) [72]
• "It's the ham-handed oafery of Deletionists in doing even this simple task which caused all this" (directed at me and/or Kww) [73]
• "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) [74]
• edit summary of "thanks for joining the edit-war under false claims" (directed at Kww) [75]
• "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) [76]

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)

And, my God, you would know about that, Wolfie. --89.211.204.29 (talk) 10:59, 4 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)

I'm in communication with him on these items. Don't forget, these AFDs are directed at articles which he's spent no small amount of time building so I don't blame him for being a bit pissy... though he does seem to have gone a bit beyond what I'd consider to be proper conduct. However, I do agree with Fences that the AFDs could have been better worded, and perhaps being spaced out a bit more temporally in order to avoid any appearance of WP:POINT. Tabercil (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

+1. Second that. The recent crusade against those articles, and the characterization of those of us who believe the articles and images are worth saving as "wankers" and "perverts" and so on is enough to make anyone angry. His challenge to bali about taking the articles to AFD was not support of deletion, rather to get the monkeys off his back.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that the situation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fascinating Woman: The Temptation of Creampie has got out of hand, with both User:Bali ultimate and User:Dekkappai squabbling over irrelevancies. It's particularly frustrating since there's quite an interesting and worthwhile issue about notability and sourcing in there somewhere. I hesitate to suggest remedial action since I want to hear the arguments on all sides, but am inclined to think that all the useful points that are likely to be made have been made by now. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been playing nice for days, at least. I do of course disagree with him on the underlying issue.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

For the last few years I have been working on articles in the Pink film genre. This is a very notable genre of Japanese film which has only recently drawn significant attention in the West. It is NOT the equivalent of Western porn videos, as has been implied. These are often well-made softcore erotic films in many genres-- comedy, horror, science fiction, thriller, etc. Japanese critics have named some of them as among the best 200 Japanese films made in the last century. At least two full-scale books have been written on the genre in English. Besides the linguistic difficulties involved in this work, there are major difficulties in locating Japanese sourcing due to its notorious absence from the Web, and its tendency to quickly disappear and then be blocked from archives. In spite of these huge hurdles, I have been starting film stubs on films which are notable in their genre due to having been awarded at the Pink Grand Prix, which reliable sources, both English and Japanese, call the "Academy Awards" of pink. During an ANI report on the edit-warring on the part of instigator of this thread, for no reason relating to that discussion, Bali ultimate searched and ridiculed my work. Before the mass-AfDing of my work had started, and before I had had any interaction whatsoever with Bali ultimate, I was called a "fanboy scrabbling around filing wikipedia with as much non-notable soft-porn as possible", a member of "[t]he wanking community", and articles I had started on these films were called "wanking material" and my "emissions". At the AfDs, again, before I had had one word of input, the articles were called "horrible spam pages touting obscure Japanese porn spammed onto Wikipedia", I was accused of "spamming articles on cheesy Japanese porn movies." the articles were labeled "vehicle(s) to have pretty girls titties displayed", and it was suggested I should be banned from Wikipedia simply for having worked in this genre. Now, the main argument at these debates has been that WP:NOTFILM-- which they all pass-- is irrelevant due to WP:GNG. This endangers not just my work in the Pink film, but literally hundreds of articles that I and others have started on award-winning Korean and Japanese films. Like these Pink films they are award-winners, but cannot easily be shown to pass WP:GNG. Frankly, if these AfDs close as Delete, I see no point in continuing to contribute content here, as my editing interests naturally drift towards the obscure, the indie, cult, old, silent, etc. So pardon me for being a little "pissy" as Tabercil says. I am facing the end of my contributing career here, while the other editors, claiming now to be "playing nice" have nothing to lose. And, yes, I am trying to restrain my invective here, believe me. Dekkappai (talk) 22:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Bali Ultimate has not been "playing nice" - he has been baiting Dekkakappai, who has been over-reacting. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 06:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Latest Irvine22 sock

Resolved

 – Sock blocked - Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

Blocked, I guess I should also template it but I'll do that later if you don't. Dougweller (talk) 04:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Done and thanks, will just wait for the next one to pop up --Snowded ^TALK 08:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Once a socker, always a socker. GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary

Resolved

 – Inappropriate to post on a high-traffic forum for a matter of this nature. Consider contacting an admin privately if you wish to continue. --WFC-- 15:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the edit summary for (diff was here) should be removed? It is clearly a personal attack against another user. /HeyMid (contributions) 13:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Heymid, instead of discussing other (Swedish) users that have been blocked a long time ago, perhaps you should stick to editing articles, like you have promised several times when you were told to cut it out? - Tournesol (talk) 13:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That edit is from December 2009. I can't imagine how you even found it. What problems has it caused you? I have lots of crude insults in my talk archives and user page history; it's never occurred to me that there would be any point in removing them all. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

This is odd- I assumed that the insult was directed at you, but it seems to be directed at User:Flyer22. I can't find where he expressed any interest in it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Reverts to Chelsea Clinton

Resolved

 – Content dispute, no admin action warranted. ~ mazca ^talk 17:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I just expanded the Education section in this article to have it reverted by two apparently different editors within a matter of seconds who have decided the material is unencyclopedic. The timing and two different editors leads me to believe "something fishy" is going on. I have one revert to my name at this point. I will revert one more time because I want to expand this section and take the article to GA. This is frustrating. Please advise. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 17:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The talk page is there for a reason - discuss this. Nobody's resorted to edit-warring, personal attacks, or anything else that warrants administrator intervention. ANI is not part of the dispute resolution procedure, please attempt to settle disputes via discussion. ~ mazca ^talk 17:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

People should be sanctioned for running to ANI without a complaint, this running to Mummy for absolutely nothing appears to be increasing recently and should be made clear that such unwarranted reports are not to to made to ANI. Users should be sanctioned for making such valueless reports. Also, complainant has failed to notify the people she is making a complaint about, I have noticed but even after I pointed it out to her she has failed to notify User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz - Off2riorob (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I just received what I perceive as a taunting message: "I have been to ANI for multiple issues but this is one of the most amusing. Very fishy indeed, hilarious. Off2riorob (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)" I feel the above: "Users should be sanctioned for making such valueless reports, etc." is taunting as well. I would like to assume good faith but I feel after three hours of honest work for Wikipedia I've been used as a punching bag.Susanne2009NYC (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Well go ahead then make your case what do you think is worthy of a report here, please read the templates at the top before you make a comment that it seems fishy to you, also if you are going to continue with your valueless complaint please take care and watch out for the WP:BOOMERANG. Also if you are going to carry on , you should notify all the people you want administrative action taken against. Off2riorob (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

In the spirit of assuming good faith, the first thought when multiple established editors revert your addition should be "Hmm, maybe there's a genuine problem with this edit". Assuming a conspiracy or something otherwise fishy is not a good first step to resolving a dispute amicably - all parties in this should simply disengage from any personal jibes and sort out what the actual problem with the content is, via a talk page discussion. I doubt it's anyone's intention to use you as a punching bag. ~ mazca ^talk 17:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand, but quite honestly I feel the editor involved is aggressive and punchy. I don't see how anyone can interpret it otherwise. It's so evident in his series of posts above. Coming back again and again to threaten, taunt, and punch and push. Now something is coming my way called a Boomerang. Anyway, I'm not up to it. I've decided to run away and not return to the Chelsea Clinton article for my own peace of mind. Someone will take it to GA and I'll be rooting for it! Good luck! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You're much more informed about nitty gritty and the the ins and outs of Wikipedia than I am and I don't stand a chance against your aggressiveness nor your taunting, punchiness. You win. I won't return to Chelsea Clinton. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the administrators' incident board. It's a good place to ask administrators to help solve problems by doing things that administrators can do. Administrators can block people, protect pages, and delete pages. Which of those would you like us to do in this situation? If you're not looking for that, but just for people to take your side in an editing dispute, rather than WP:ANI, you should try some of the suggestions at WP:DISPUTE. Be aware that those people might also disagree with you, too- but if you're certain that you're right, and can clearly explain why Wikpedia's rules support your desired edits, that's probably the page you're looking for. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Re-opening

Does she even qualify for an article? She has some news coverage but her fame is solely derived from being Bill and Hillary's daughter. Could an admin quickly answer this question so a probably controversial AFD doesn't have to be done. Basically, some administrative wisdom that it should be an article. If the consensus of administrative wisdom is that it should not be an article, then an AFD could be considered and it could be created by somebody else. RIPGC (talk) 04:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. If you think otherwise, nominate the article for deletion on the basis of WP:N and see what kind of reaction you get. In any case, that's not a question admins have any special knowledge about, nor can do anything about it, so I've restored the "resolved" tag. You might want to raise the question on the article talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Administrator blocking others when engaged in a dispute

Resolved

 – No administrative attention required.

I'm getting extremely concerned about the blocking habits of User:SarekOfVulcan, specifically that Sarek appears to be headed down the path of blocking others he’s involved in a dispute with as well as appearing to block without warning and sometimes blocking in anger.

I myself was the recipient of two short blocks from Sarek which I feel clearly violated policy. Mainly, Sarek began imposing blocks and bans in a dispute resolution situation where he was heavily involved and had been a major party in the discussion. The proper thing to do, per every rule in the Wikipedia Book, would have been to alert an uninvolved administrator and let them handle it. I submitted an unblock request, but quickly withdrew it, since the block was not that long.

I am currently under a topic ban from discussing the subject of Sarek’s blocks against me, but can provide diffs and evidence so long as I won’t be in violation of the ban.

This noticeboard request, however, is not about the block Sarek made against me. I was perfectly willing to forget about it until I stumbled across this, where Sarek apparently became involved in another dispute with someone else and stated that they had better stop “disrupting the template page” or they would be blocked [77]. Again, Sarek was involved directly with the editing of this particular page [78] [79], and the proper thing to have done would be to have let an uninvolved administrator handle this.

Sarek also appears to occasionally block without warning. This is not a major issue, I feel, since a good 60% of Sarek's blocks are vandal revert only issues. However, I do see a lack in Sarek's edit history of warning users prior to blocks.

My last concern is that Sarek appears to sometimes block in anger. This administrator clearly gets frustrated with some users, and some of the posts appear to be a bit “hot” [80]. Administrators should not behave this way. They should approach users calmly and rationally, explain what the user is doing wrong, and proceed to blocking action only as a last resort. Directly from WP:BLOCK:

“Blocking is a serious matter. Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved.”.

This is not a personal attack against Sarek and I have nothing against this administrator. I am just getting concerned about what I am seeing since the behavior Sarek is engaging in is almost identical to the same kind of behavior seen in an Arbitration Case a while back.

If I am wrong or out-of-line here, then I won’t press this any further. Thank you admins for your review of this situation. -OberRanks (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Listening to see what other people have to say here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I see no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of SarekOfVulcan. Toddst1 (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see this as a big deal at all. That's a pretty mild expression of frustration. Threatening to block a user for repeatedly relocating an active discussion isn't an issue with me either; I agree that it was disruptive to do that, especially in a unilateral fashion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Toddst1 and Ohnoitsjamie in general. In my view, "involved admin" blocks only become an issue if they're visibly biased or used to win a dispute - an admin who's familiar with a situation but remains impartial is a good thing. None of the blocks mentioned here are ones I disagree with - in general I feel Sarek's done a good job of getting stuck into messy situations and dealing with the problems therein. ~ mazca ^talk 17:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

For clarity I think that SarekOfVulcan was talking about this, this, this and this rather than the discussion. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 17:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Mazca's analysis, above - the blocks look OK to me. More problematic is the idea of an editor who is topic-banned from discussing blocks by Sarek on themselves, and so elects to open an ANI discussion on Sarek's blocks of everyone else. I don't think that this request is particularly disruptive, but it bumps up awfully close to your topic ban - and, arguably, breaks its spirit. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That's how I read it the first time, but what he actually means is that he can't talk about another editor, his dispute with whom resulted in the blocks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I've marked this thread resolved - I've always found Sarek to be quite reasonable, and I'm sure he would be happy to consider any advice regarding his administrative activities at his talk page or privately. –xeno^talk 23:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Should this block be longer?

Hi.

This IP made this edit of vandalism. I reverted the single main edit this IP had made, and these rude and offensive messages to my Talk page were the response: 1, 2, 3, 4.

The IP has been blocked for just 48 hours. I think this is far too short - I'm wondering if any other admins think so? In my opinion people who make these edits should be banned from Wikipedia anyway.

Please respond to this. Thank you. Beeshoney (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

IP's are usually only blocked for a short period of time because often they are used by multiple people. There's no guarentee that wehn the block expires it will be used by the same person, or even the same computer. If it were a registered account where the block was for an actual person, no doubt it would have been longer.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The block should be fine as-is; his talk page editing privileges have also been removed. Just a general run-of-the-mill moron wanting to cause trouble. I doubt he'll come back. I wouldn't worry about it too much, though. –MuZemike 18:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you discussed this with Killiondude, who made the block? No. Have you alerted them that their admin action is under review here? No. Please talk to admins first before bringing their actions here, unless there is obvious abuse. As Cube lurker says, IPs are often blocked for short times because many IPs are dynamic. If this IP vandalises again once it comes off the block, then it can be blocked again for longer. Otherwise, DFTT. Fences&Windows 18:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

As a general rule, I don't block IPs for more than a few days because of the reasons mentioned above. I don't mind if another admin increases the block length, though. Killiondude (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Block length looks fine and in line with wp:blocking IP addresses. If stuff like this upsets you, dedicated vandalism patrol might not be your cup of tea. –xeno^talk 18:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't upset by the comments, but by the length of the block. However, I haven't seen the "Blocking IP addresses" page before, and after reading it, I am now fine with the block length. Thank you to Xeno for pointing this out. However, please block the IP address again for a longer period if vandalism comes from it again. I like fighting vandalism on Wikipedia, but people like the user who edited my Talk page should shut up and keep their opinions to themselves. Can't you block anonymous editing from an IP and force people who edit from it to create accounts anyway? I'm not saying this "must be done" this time round, but I'd like to know.

Also, in answer to Fences&Windows, I didn't think that I needed to alert Killiondude about the discussion, as I thought this referred to the editor, but they've been blocked. However, next time I will discuss a block with the administrator who made the block first.

Also, I'm sorry if I've put this query in the wrong section of Wikipedia. Beeshoney (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

"However, please block the IP address again for a longer period if vandalism comes from it again." Most admins do use a sliding scale.

"Can't you block anonymous editing from an IP and force people who edit from it to create accounts anyway?" If the disruption is persistent enough, IPs may be blocked for up to a year at a time. –xeno^talk 19:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Protection please?

Resolved

 – Backlog cleared. -- Atama頭 21:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

HELLO--can someone please look at WP:RPP and clear the backlog? Cristian Daniel Ledesma has been in need of protection for many, many hours now; I just undid I don't know how many IP edits (some two hundred, actually) for the third or fourth time. Drmies (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good now, only one request not answered one way or the other as I write this message (the specific article you mentioned has been attended to as well). -- Atama頭 21:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Squank you. Drmies (talk) 22:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Vaughn R. Walker

Please keep an eye on the Vaughn R. Walker article, due to his recent Proposition 8 ruling it's already being vandalized. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes were enabled several hours ago, requiring autoconfirmed status to edit or someone who is a reviewer to sign off on the change. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Undiscussed cut-and-paste move of article Guy Stone

The IP editor User:24.46.212.171 – who is likely a sockpuppet of User:Aussieboy373 and User:MANDIC777 (see previous ANI thread) – moved the article Guy Stone to Guy Mandić. I have reverted the move on the grounds that:

• The move was never discussed on the article's talk page.
• The move was made using cut-and-paste, which is not the proper way to move an article
• The IP is likely the subject of the article,and therefore has an inherent conflict of interest regarding it.

I bring my non-admin action here for review, and I've notified the IP editor of my intention to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Without commenting on the socking issue, I'd say there's nothing to discuss here: you've done the right thing, as far as I'm concerned. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 22:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

One thing that's odd, though: the previous AN/I thread was about the editor's (Aussieboy/MANDIC) desire to delete the article outright, but he was unable to get that. Now, he's gone and moved it to another name. If that's what this was about all along, that the actor Guy Stone now wants to be known as Guy Mandić, he should just ask for that on the article talk page, or at WP:RM, or in this thread -- I can't see a reason why the move would be contested. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'd forgotten until I just saw it now on this SPI that Aussieboy373 is currently blocked, and that the IP involved here was determined to be a sock, so this would qualify as Aussieboy373 editing through a block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

New User blocked without warning

User:Colourfully was recently blocked for the 3RR rule on the New Black Panther Party article but without any warning for edit warring or being told that there is a 3RR rule either on his talkpage, the discussion page of the page he was editing, or in the comments of the person reverting him. Note: there was no discussion of whether or not he should be blocked at ANI or anywhere else either since the admin who banned him User:Malik Shabazz was the editor who was also reverting him and who also carries the same name as the leader of the New Black Panthers(although he derives his name from Malcolm X not from the leader of the Black Panther). I feel there should be a warning instated and his block removed unless he continues to edit war as currently he is unable to discuss changes on the article's talkpage and because he is a new user who was probably unaware of the 3RR rule. I would also like to state that the admin in question Malik Shabazz should know better to warn new users about the 3RR rule before banning them.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 23:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Since Malik was one of the users reverting him, he should not have blocked - he should've reported it here or at the 3RR board for a neutral admin to evaluate. Otherwise it can look like an admin using tools to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. Exxolon (talk) 23:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Notified Malik about this thread as you seem to have not done this - remember notification is required. Exxolon (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

While there may be a problem with who blocked the editor, as Exxolon states, there isn't a problem regarding the user not being warned or anything like that, as far as I'm aware. There doesn't need to be a warning before someone is blocked for edit warring, nor does a discussion need to take place - if someone is edit warring and surpasses 3 reverts in a 24-hour period, they can be blocked without notice, as it is to prevent immediate further disruption. As WP:3RR states, "Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident." It's not like vandalism, where users can be given multiple warnings. Now, that doesn't mean that warning a user isn't nice - it would probably be a nice and perhaps more constructive thing to do, especially if it's a new user who is unaware of the 3RR. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say without warning. Malik did warn Colourfully here. The warning was later removed by Colourfully with this edit. Elockid ^(Talk) 00:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 3-rr is a hard and fast rule, so, personally, I don't think Malik's block was inappropriate; furthermore, this user was warned on their talk page and in this edit summary they refer to "edit warring"; therefore, I think they were aware of the rule and, yet, willfully broke it. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 00:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I was about to concur that the block seemed unwarranted, since the admin was one of the users who involved in the content dispute, and there appeared to be no real warning for a new user, but as Elokid pointed out, the user was warned and the new user continued to do it anyway. Block was warranted, but I would suggest an early lift of the block, since the new user may now know that edit warring is very disruptive, as long as they promise to stop edit warring.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Warning issues aside, this seems to me to be a clear-cut case of an involved admin blocking. Unless I'm really missing something, Malik took part in the content dispute and then blocked. That's not allowed. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked in detail at this incident, but I am concerned by the comment above suggesting that a 3RR block does not require any sort of warning, even to a new user. A warning really should precede a block of a new user for virtually any reason, except in cases of gross abuse. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The user in question Colourfully (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be making the same edits that Trendsies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was making. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

In reply to Newyorkbrad: I was trying to be more "technical" than not, but I agree with you on a personal basis - if I were an admin, I'd make sure that a user is warned before blocking them. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

To SuperHamster: Thanks.

To Baseball Bugs: Thanks for your observation, but Checkuser does not reflect a connection between these two accounts, at least as far as I can see. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, must be just a copycat then. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

"Notified Malik about this thread as you seem to have not done this - remember notification is required." Since I opened this thread in regards to Colourfully I didn't think I needed to notify Malik. As for the previous warning I apologize, I didn't see it on his talkpage, in Malik's revert edit summaries, or in the article's talkpage so I just assumed that there wasn't one. I didn't realize that Malik has warned Colorfully but that Color then removed the warning. My bad.
As for Superhamster stating that new users don't need to be warned about the 3RR rule, I completely disagree and am troubled by seeing editors express such views.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 01:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for that: again, I was trying to be more "technical", and by that I mean more closely following Wikipedia:Edit warring word-for-word rather than using my own judgement (which, as I see it to be, that policy states that a warning is nice, but it is not required). I don't necessarily agree with it, I was just trying to "relay" it. I myself would like to see warnings given before a block. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Kk.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 01:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

A concern I would have about the block isn't because Malik is doing the reverting but because Malik is far and away the biggest contributor to the article. He's involved in the dispute any way you look at it and he shouldn't have been the one to make the block. Protonk (talk) 01:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

1) As others have noted, Colourfully absolutely was notified about edit warring.[81] In fact, Colourfully complained about receiving the warning.[82]

2) Since 3RR is a bright line and Colourfully had clearly stepped over it, I didn't think my involvement was a problem. If it is, I can unblock Colourfully. In the future I'll use ANEW to avoid potential problems.

3) I believe you'll find that the majority, though certainly not all, of my edits to New Black Panther Party have been to revert vandalism.[83] — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

In re: #3, that's a good point, I didn't think to look just because you had twice as many contribs to the article as the 2nd most frequent contributor. I don't think that this was a bad case of involved admin action (in comparison to a hypothetical admin leveraging the tools to control content or POV), just that the optics of blocking someone for anything other than really obvious vandalism on an article you are "editorially involved in" are bad. Protonk (talk) 02:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Extreme administrator misconduct

Resolved

 – Unfounded accusation. Toddst1 (talk) 05:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The administrator HJ Mitchell has defaulted on his administrator duties and has turned a blind eye towards the plight of regular users. He has become unreasonable and quite mean. He has failed to uphold the polices of Wikipedia here, during my case to regain my rollback rights. I presented my reasons and he denied my request which I would've understood if he hadn't made mistakes in his assessment of my case. I attempted to explain to him the errors he made at which point he became hostile towards me. I again calmly and rationally explained to him the errors he made in his assessment at which point he became even more enraged and started one of the most hostile and inappropriate tirades I have ever seen. In this angry and unorganized rant he personally attacked me with derogatory terms, he became bossy and arrogant and made me feel uncomfortable as if he were the leader of Wikipedia and I would need to appease him if I ever wish to have my rollback rights back, and finally he restricted me from using Wikipedia polices in my defense which rendered me to his mercy. Heartbroken and afraid I carefully wrote (as not to anger him anymore) that I found his comments unacceptable and that I would be reporting him. I am truly in fear of this administrator and his tyrannical ways. I hope some sort of solution comes from this otherwise I may be forced to leave this Wikipedia due to the emotional distress caused by him. Thank you. --Phoon (talk) 03:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Page affected: WP:RFP/R#User:Daven200520
• User notification: Here

Sorry you're upset, but it seems that this was thoroughly explained to you at WP:PERM/R. Mitchell has done nothing wrong. —DoRD (talk) 03:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• You edit-warred with rollback, so the privilege was rightly removed. A proper timeframe for asking for the flag back would be at least a month... not 48 hours. The administrator was absolutely correct in his decision. Courcelles (talk) 04:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
• I mean this in the nicest of ways, Phoon, but I'm going to have to agree with Department of Redundancy Department and Courcelles. This was not a personal attack. The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 04:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I just have a question. If a consensus is reached on an article talk page to make a specific change to that article (in this case, removing tags), if a user continually reinserts them without discussion, against consensus, wouldn't that be considered vandalism? Silverseren^C 04:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

According to the policy, no. I'd call that an edit war. —DoRD (talk) 04:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

No, that's edit warring. WP:VAND (linked right above) has an explicit list of types of edits which are not vandalism. This is a common misconception. Protonk (talk) 04:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Seems fine to me. the admin was clear and blunt. Informing someone that a discussion has past the point of diminishing returns is fine. Protonk (talk) 04:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

  Referring to an editor as annoying is pushing it. While he didn't come right out and say that, the "Try not to annoy me" would indicate that he felt the user was annoying him now. If HJ Mitchell finds legitimate questions about his decisions annoying, then maybe he's doing the wrong job. If there was evidence that the fact tag was being placed in bad faith, then it is vandalism as indicated.--Crossmr (talk) 04:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

  Saying someone is annoying you is not the same as referring to someone as annoying (even if such a bland statement rises to the level of misconduct). They aren't even the same flavor of statement. Saying that you, Crossmr, are annoying me is a statement about two things: me and this conversation. Let's look at the actual statement:

OK, I'll be blunt. The more you argue with me, the less likely I am to re-grant your rollback rights. I am not going to restore your rollback rights now, no matter how much you try to wikilawyer over technical definitions of vandalism. If you want any chance of getting them back, you'll go and do something else for a week or 2, try not to annoy me, then come and ask me nicely, demonstrating that you understand why it was revoked. Then I'll consider it.

• As I said, this is a blunt statement, but surely not to brusque for the rough and tumble likes of User:Daven200520, who proudly displays {{User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Politically Incorrect}} on his userpage! And even quoting the third statement ignores the first two which spelled out quite specifically what Phoon had dones and why Mitchell was unwilling to grant rollback. In fact the progression of the conversation speaks precisely to your last insinuation. It is clear that Mitchell has no problem responding to legitimate questions about his decisions. He gets touchy when the questioning exceeds the level of what he feels to be legitimate. And in this case he clearly said so and directed Phoon elsewhere, rather than responding rashly. The worst thing about the statement above is that it speaks to a sense of entitlement (just stabbing at the dark here since I can't peer into the heart of the speaker), suggesting that further requests will have to be made "nicely" etc. But that isn't connected with the lose suggestion that a statement about annoyance is equivalent to a personal attack. Protonk (talk) 04:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Why are you making this personal? Why are you bringing my userboxes into this dispute? In an effort to Stay cool I can not respond to your other allegations.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Daven200520 (talk • contribs)

I'm pretty sure this discussion is not about my rollback rights being removed rather its about the behavior of said administrator. --Phoon (talk) 04:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately in this case he pushes the envelope a bit but doesn't really jump the shark.--Crossmr (talk) 04:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The precedent this is setting is saying that yes as regular users we must hold administrators as higher citizens of wikipeida, we must worship them and we must beg for there mercy if we ever want anything to get done. If this is so then I am wrong. However I doubt this is so therefore it is crucial that everyone tries their hardest to see what has happened here in an neutral and rational light. Pushing the envelope is an understatement and by allowing him to continue like this with out discipline will only further escalate this inappropriate behavior. --Phoon (talk) 04:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

No. It is setting no precedent because we aren't a court of law. You misused rollback in an edit war. When you asked for it back, you were told no. When you pressed for a reason, you got one explaining exactly why rollback was removed. Rather than take this onboard you sent every possible signal that you didn't understand why you lost rollback in the first place. Then you pissed an admin off and he acted like a human being. There is no cosmic punishment for your having pissed Mitchell off. Odd are you will not have to ask him personally for rollback when you want it back. This is not a case of world historical importance nor is it a particularly galling case of admin conduct (to say nothing of misconduct). Protonk (talk) 04:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, this is not about my rollback suspension, its about an administrators actions. If he really does get pissed off that easily then I would have to agree with Crossmr in that he would need to find another job because this amount of anger and rage is uncalled for especially when there wasn't a discernible stimulus for his behavior other than my calm and rational discussion. It is setting a precedent because what ever consensus is achieved here can be used in the future to decide other cases. --Phoon (talk) 05:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Three things. First, it isn't a job. Second, your complaint was about administrative misconduct in responding to your RFP, so it is literally impossible to respond to your complaint (either to support or refute) without mentioning the posts involved in the alleged misconduct. Third, mentioning the RFP is a way to suggest to you that you weren't calmly and rationally discussing an issue, but continuing to press an issue which was pretty cut and dry. You were told as much, and now we are here. Protonk (talk) 05:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Move to mark as resolved. --Rschen7754 05:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The admin was snotty, but I wouldn't call it misconduct. Call him a fanatical, POV-pushing, bigoted troll and see what happens. The consensus at this board is that such language is acceptable conduct. I'd like to see if admins apply that standard equally all, or just to their admin pals. Phoon, could you call him that for me, and see what happens? Thanks. Noloop (talk) 05:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to withdraw from this dispute due to extreme intimidation by other Admins and an experience with the Wikipedia Gestapo. I already have anxiety issues and cant handle them being exasperated. --Phoon (talk) 06:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Dispute between me and User:98.82.0.102

Repeatedly created inappropriate edit summaries on Ostrogoths, then repeatedly attacked me for warning them. Seems to be disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

The edit summaries in question::

• [84]
• [85]

Attacks against me:

• [86]
• [87]
• [88]

In one edit they referred me to WP:Deny recognition which tells me they know that their edits are inherently unhelpful. They also know a little too much about Wikipedia policy to be a simple vandal, so the user might be a block evasion. elektrikSHOOS 04:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I might add that while it does appear the IP address user in question used inappropriate edit summaries, there was no reason to revert their edits. It appears to me that this whole dispute started because Elektrik reverted edits as vandalism, when they were just using bad edit summaries. A more appropriate course of action would've been to notify the IP editor to use appropriate edit summaries, and not revert the actual article edits, which were perfectly acceptable. I'd recommend a cease and desist warning to the IP editor for their disruption on Elektrik's page, but that should suffice. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 04:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't revert any of his edits on that page. Look at the history. I merely sent him a notice letting him know the edit summaries were inappropriate. elektrikSHOOS 04:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This whole dispute started when I sent him that notice and then he chided me for sending it. elektrikSHOOS 04:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Steven, Electric shoes is correct; he did exactly what you said he should do. My only point (which was borne out later) was that he is focusing on edit summaries more than he is actual vandalism. I just made my point that I thought it was rather silly, and not the best use of time, and then he spiraled out of control. I've left the issue behind; Electric appears to be one of those editors who would gladly spend massive time on trivial matters like this rather than building the encyclopedia; I look forward to his eventual WP:RFA. 98.82.0.102 (talk) 04:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I am a real anon, and am certainly not avoiding any block. I've done nothing blockable, nor do I plan to. 98.82.0.102 (talk) 04:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I also admit, too, that I may be on heightened alert after a run-in with one of User:ColScott's socks, which rapidly spiraled out of control (off-wiki link). I acknowledge that I may be overreacting and was planning on taking a WikiBreak anyway. elektrikSHOOS 05:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's a heck of a lot more than I expected from you. For my part, I consider the slate clean. I'll steer clear of you, but if I run into you again, I'll remember the way you ended this and not how it began. Thanks, and Happy Editing, Electrik. 98.82.0.102 (talk) 05:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Include:

• [89] and
• [90] towards an unrelated editor

as addons to the 'personal attack' section. elektrikSHOOS 05:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)