Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive810

Repeated violations of NFCC

JoBrLa (talk · contribs) has repeatedly added multiple non-free covers to Revised Standard Version, which clearly violate WP:NFCC. Ive warned the user several times about this but the user is ignoring both me and policy. Werieth (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

These covers are fair use. There is no reason to take them down. I'm tired of people taking the articles I have worked so hard to improve and wrecking them. --JoBrLa (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Some of them may be {{PD-text}}. Maybe get input from Wikipedia:Fair_use_review? Some key ideas seem to be images of multiple printings or releases of what looks like the same one topic of the article and/or multiple images of the same item itself. DMacks (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Its just multiple releases of the same book, which isnt allowed. Werieth (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• In my opinion, File:Title Page to RSV.jpg is below the threshold of originality. The few lines of text which can't be read might be copyrightable, but as you can't read them, this should be no issue. I also suspect that File:RSV CE large version.jpg is below the threshold of originality. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
• Assuming copyright on the images, I am unsure whether the uses of multiple images meets the criterion set forth by 3a of WP:NFCC. —Dark 21:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
• As the case is not crystal clear, the proper venue for controversial images is not edit warring for boldly removing them from the article without discussion nor discussing them at ANI, but taking them to WP:NFCR or WP:FFD. No action needed. Cavarrone 05:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Need help dealing with SPA

The user Catiiitv (talk · contribs) has been on Wikipedia since September 2012. In that time, he/she has created an article about a non-notable band which as been A7ed three times [1], and then subsequently inserted the name of the band into the Outsider music article. The account has made no other edits except to my talk page yesterday and today. I have twice cleared the Outsider music article of redlinked, non-notable bands, yet this editor continues to sneakily try to reinsert this one band in amongst other edits [2]. I warned them about their seeming attempts to promote this non-notable band and their failure to provide a reliable source establishing that this band is notable. Although they responded on my talk page that they would read the guidelines I provided, they again tried to insert the band into the article amongst other edits [3]. The editor seems unwilling to establish notability first and appears intent that this non-notable band be listed on the Outsider music article. A warning and subsequent attempt to discuss the matter with them has failed, so the next step appears to be a block. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 03:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The article was A7ed three times nearly a year ago, and the editor tried to work with you on your talk page. If the article is recreated without meeting policy and those edits continue, a warning is in place but for now, no block as its clearly a new editor you are dealing with WP:BITE. Secret ^account 03:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Bite? They're deliberately sneaking the band's name back into the article by hiding it with other noncontroversial edits, and even did so AFTER I told them about what policies they needed to read and AFTER they were "working with me on my talk page". I do not think this is a new editor. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 03:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The user The Master (talk · contribs) is also inserting a false red-linked subject into the Outsider music article. He is copy and pasting the article with 'tine-'tine and numerous errors from before he supposedly corrected the article. I believe his judgement is faulty and clouded. I am working on references for Grand Reefer and apologize for the inconvenience. 17:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Catiiitv (talk)

• Tine-tine is gone: The Master reinstated a hidden note, "The persons in this list should have a Wikipedia article attached to them. If it redlinks, it will likely be removed.", and should do well to heed their own advice. Grand Reefer likewise will only make the list if there's an article. I don't see any need for administrative action, unless some admin wants to figure out who, in this discussion, should be called "pot" and who "kettle"--a distinction without much difference. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
• By the way, it's entirely possible that Grand Reefer will turn blue one day (for longer than a day!), but I doubt that I will live to see that particular day. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I don't normally go to Wikipedia for a quick laugh. You must be on your death bed, Drmies.Catiiitv (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I may well be, but I won't be going to Mobile for my last breath. With my luck, there will be a drizzle of rain and all the streets will be flooded. Good luck with the reefer and Roll Tide. Drmies (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
• Catiiitv, please do not re-create the article or insert mentions of the band elsewhere. You admitted in your talk page edit of 03:21, September 28, 2012, now deleted, that you are or were a member of that band. (see WP:SPAM, WP:COI) Even if the day somehow comes that the band is unquestionably notable (and I have an opinion of the likelihood of that event), it wouldn't be appropriate for a band member to write the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing some sanity to this thread, Andrew. Sometimes I wonder why I sometimes still care. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 02:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Indonesian vandal range block?

Re-reporting the problem raised some days ago at ANI (archived), whereby anon editors overwrite content of Indonesian football club articles with fantasy name, badge, achievements, ownership, coaching and playing staff, and match schedule. For the 36 hours that ANI thread was open, there was no vandalism. Once the thread was archived, the vandalism resumed, and since then three further pages, Persih Tembilahan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Persenga Nganjuk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and a couple of hours ago PSBL Bandar Lampung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) have been overwritten with the same nonsense.

All the IPs are in the range 114.79.16.xxx to 114.79.19.xxx. Would a range block be feasible? or any other helpful suggestions? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Range 114.79.16.0/22 (up to 1024 users would be blocked). Though the range is small, there seems to be several people making useful edits from the range. I think a better choice is page protection. I will semi-protect Persih Tembilahan, Persenga Nganjuk, PSBL Bandar Lampung, and Persema Malang for a week. If the problem persists after that point, please apply for another round of protection at WP:RFPP. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Pity about the range. I suspect they'll just find another unprotected target next time they have spare time to kill. But thank you anyway. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

That's likely to happen, and if it does, please list it at WP:RFPP for some protection. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Narvekar ameya

Could someone please take a look at this page? It certainly doesn't seem to be an appropriate use of a user talk page. Not looking for any sanctions, just some more experienced eyes to perhaps figure out just what it is and if anything should be done about it. As I am not looking for any sanctions, is it still necessary to leave a notice on his talk page? I don't know how he would find it amid all the Sanskrit. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violations. The material is all copied from various websites. For example, this came from here. Everything from 22 August forward needs to be removed - I will do it as revision deletions. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you maam! Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Fyunck vs. diacritics

In octu oculi canvassed the Serbian WikiProject so I noticed this. I'm not sure if they should be sanctioned for that, but anway. The more egregious piece of flamebaiting is Fyunck(click)'s edits to random articles about Serbia referring to Ana Ivanović just to remove the diacritic from the surname: at "Grobari" last night and at "Serbian culture" two weeks ago. I've brought up the latter recently at WT:UE#diacritics flamefest, and there's a bit more detailed description of the general problem there, including a link to two extended discussions.

IMO Fyunck's behavior is now well beyond the normal content disputes - they seem to have been on what appears to be a crusade against even the most trivial of the diacritics. This has been going on for over a year now - I think I first noticed this at Talk:Saša Hiršzon in February 2012, but it could be earlier.

We've all seen it escalate in two other cases of the anti-diacritics clique - User:LittleBenW and User:Kauffner. Harping and harping on the same point until they hit a wall.

This pattern of editing Wikipedia just to prove a point needs to stop. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd support an indefinite TBAN on diacritics for Fyunck, similar to the one on his friend LBW. Continuing to fan these flames after what has already happened (including to LBW) is just plain suicidal. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• How many different RFCs and other discussions have there been over the last couple of years? How many more will it take before Fyunck(click) gives up their crusade and recognises the consensus? Edits like this and this change spelling "per wiki consensus and wiki tennis project"; surely Fyunck(click) is the only editor who interprets the result of this RfC and this one as anything other than "stop removing diacritics". bobrayner (talk) 11:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I actually didn't know until just now that one of the ringleaders of the clique was also community-banned recently. Does Fyunck still not see where this is going? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I actually wouldn't go so far to say that we have complete consensus on the matter of diacritics. For example, Herostratus' comments in the Fontang RFC have some decent counter points to what is the organic consensus. At a minimum, it is a worthwhile discussion to have. I do however think that we have a consensus that this kind of behavior is grounds for an indefinite topic ban. IOW Fyunck(click)'s disruptive behavior is not doing anything to aid this discussion. Heck, it may be argued that it should stop because it will prejudice people against any argument that he supports! --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree with that; good points. bobrayner (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree too. But I should point out that Joy's op left out arguably the single worst case (see here and here), although it centered around macrons in romanized Japanese rather than diacritics in general. Just aside that if you're gonna include Kauffner you should probably include JS as well. ;-) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Wait a minute. It's not like I'm doing this to all kinds of articles... I'm putting in direct links to Ana Ivanovic, an article that by consensus is sitting at Ana Ivanovic. And why? It was brought to my attention that editor Colonies Chris was direct linking "thousands" of articles. Every time I turned around another one popped up on my watch list. Did Joy or In ictu oculi complain about all those direct links? They knew of them since I kept pointing them out. But no, so I direct link "only" the Ana Ivanovic articles and an ani is called for? Wow. We even had this the last time IIO complained where others chimed in with "We should list it here the way we have it in our article" and "you know very well that this question has been bandied about on Talk:Ana Ivanovic and the current consensus is not to use the accent." Why am I being singled out by User:Joy? You'll note I'm not reverting diacritic articles left and right, you can check the stream of complaints to administrators I have had to make against IIO, so his stuff is meaningless to me. Joy on the other hand should know better and should bring up something recent other than "consensus established" Ana Ivanovic. My behavior is not disruptive, I am simply doing what others are doing but in this case it seems to be against what Joy likes, and because he's an administrator his bias on the situation is showing it's colors. That's really unfair. I have no problem talking about this situation but it would sure be nice to see some different folks, away from the fray, willing to discuss it here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I've no idea what you're talking about with Colonies Chris. I reverted your edit to Serbian culture pointing you to WP:NOTBROKEN two weeks ago. Nevertheless, you proceeded to make these kinds of glaringly contentious and pointless edits, despite the year and a half of history of disagreement in the exact same topic area. Did you seriously expect someone to more explicitly notify you of how this is wrong? Or were you just doing drive-by edits with no regard to what happens next? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually you are referring to a post made by an editor who happened to find an edit I made, reverted it and I reverted it back. Then he posted this exchange where you saw it. If you have no idea about Colonies Chris (CC) then you aren't reading all the back and forth and problems I'm having with IIO and his disruptions, and you are being biased against me because it's something you don't like. Otherwise you wouldn't be bringing items up from years ago. Did you or will you issue warnings to all others who do thousands of direct links on a regular basis or is this because it was brought to your attention by an editor with a huge history against me? Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

One other thing of note. Administrator User:Joy states that I have "been on what appears to be a crusade against even the most trivial of the diacritics." I don't know what he means about that. If he means I !vote a particular way when I see a rm or rfc, then I see nothing wrong with that at wikipedia. If he means I now revert any and every diacritic I see, then he would be lying. If he means that when rm's conclude with an article name change, that I revert that article name, that would also now be a fabrication. But as an administrator, if he's going to pick on direct linking, just because he doesn't like it, and do nothing about direct linking by other editors because he does like it, then that is biased and unfair to me, and unbecoming his administrative badge. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

JFTR I don't "dislike direct linking", doing such a thing is simply a violation of WP:NOTBROKEN. Doing it en masse is suspect of WP:NOTHERE, doing it en masse in a topic area where you know that it is likely to annoy people is WP:POINT. Even if we all somehow disregard all history, and take your being oblivious to these issues now at face value, it's still a disruptive act that one should apologize for, but instead you resort to trying to throw mud at others (straw man, ad hominem). I think you've merely proven my point that there's no apparent benefit in the community continuing to tolerate you in this matter. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I am really not liking the tone you are setting in this conversation. I'm "throwing mud" at others because I see an extreme bias of you to this situation. You seem to be willing to apply rules but only if it fits your liking. At least as far as Ana Ivanovic is concerned. Did you read those other posts agreeing with me that they should be directly linked. Did you check to make sure how many were created since Ana was moved to her present location and that needed to be corrected for a long time now that I finally got around to fixing? Certainly I can apologize and certainly I can say I won't change any more en masse to their direct links. But on the obverse if I see even one person change multiple instances of direct links in the future I would expect that if I reported it to you that you would come down with the same thunder and lightning that you are doing to me now. I would expect you to be even-handed. I would expect the same warnings on their talk pages regardless of which direction the diacritics took. I would expect up to date diffs. That would show me good and fair intentions instead of one-sidedness. Go ahead and ask me all my views on diacritics and see just how much of a "crusade" I'm on to verify that ridiculous statement. I'm an open book for queries from all, except one or two editors who I have been told to stay away from. It's not like I have something to hide or that I act hypocritically from one situation to the next. I try to be fair in accessing things and I try do do what many others do on a regular basis with no repercussions. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

An article can be moved from one title to another, but that never means that all references to the old title should be replaced with the new one. I don't know who you discussed this with, but it wasn't anyone with an actual knowledge of WP:R. That you would endeavour on such a replacement, without reading the generic rules, and regardless of the specific circumstances (contentious topic area), because some undetermined people told you so or because some other undetermined people are doing something else "with no repercussions", is proof enough that you lack the judgement to be editing in a contentious topic area. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I never said I was perfect. But your statement can work both ways. A particular editor has been told over and over that he is failing to apply the same standards to all articles and that he is singling me out for his complaints (we are talking 1000's of making sure links are direct vs my 100s), and that same editor comes running to you or to places you frequent to complain (and make no mistake, that is why you are here). We have other editors agreeing that my direct links are how it should be (and i gave you that diff).

— Fyunck(click) — continues after insertion below

I found no diffs in what you wrote earlier, but I did find a piped link to Talk:Serbia at the 2012 Summer Olympics where I found no agreement that would give you carte blanche to go about your disruptive stripping of diacritics. Exactly one person's opinion there, GRuban's, was strictly in agreement with this approach, and a few more could be interpreted like that, but on the whole it's moot at best because several opinions there are predicated on matters of consistency - and Ana Ivanovic is indeed currently inconsistent with the rest of the encyclopedia! Heck, the mere fact that it's the middle of the summer in the northern hemisphere, and that number of respondents there was smaller than the number of respondents to other RfCs, should have given you at least a trivial bit of pause. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yet, I probably shouldn't expect much attention to the spirit of quorum given Talk:Ana_Ivanovic/Archive_6#Requested_move_2012_.231... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

If you don't take all that into consideration before bringing this to an/i, then perhaps you lack the judgement to be administrating this. Because I'm being judged on an unlevel playing field. I don't know where this tone of contempt is coming from, rather than trying to understand what this particular situation is, but it is unfair. You come up with wording like "his friend LBW"... he's not my friend...and why would you bring that up? Do you have disdain of anyone who disagrees with you? I notice you go right to asking for a ban, you don't come to my talk page and ask the reasons why something is being done. I disagree with you on !votes so I must be banned. I do what some others are doing with impunity and I must be banned. Seemingly most unfair. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

You're ranting at the wrong person here. Please read more carefully who wrote those comments. (If I was cynical, I'd ask you whether you are trying to reinforce the impression of yourself as careless...) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You know it's really easy to get into a judgement "tit for tat" thing. I can honestly say I don't like doing this as it makes me uneasy accusing fellow editors. There are many many wiki guidelines that are ignored every day. Some are contested and some are not. We all know this to be true. What is policy one day changes the next. I truly believe that if an article changes to its diacritic form, and editors start changing all the direct links to conform to that, that no one would care; that that editor would never see the inkling of an an/i. Why, because I have seen it and it's what made me figure, to be fair it should work both ways. I didn't do direct linking until I started seeing all the changes to other articles. If things are done fairly and openly I tend to abide by results. I'm not quite sure what's happening here with this whirlpool. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I think I fundamentally disagree with your notion of tit for tat - we shouldn't support the idea that things change arbitrarily at a whim of any partial choice. We shouldn't have groups of tag teams at each others' throats all over the place. That's the definition of disruptive behavior. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Groups of tag-teams? I'm not sure what this means? Both sides of the issue have a few editors that get involved more than others to be sure. Fyunck(click) (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Folks, Fyunck actually has a "full house"; WP:OWN, WP:POINTY, WP:IDHT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT, on his hand, ultimately adding up to WP:GAMING. He has been at odds with the greater community of editors for a long time now, and has only been saved from lengthier blocks or bans by being smarter (more soft-spoken and sophisticated) than for instance currently banned/blocked editors GoodDay and LittleBenW. Overall, though, his behaviour is a nuisance to the project. He has been waging a retreating (edit) war to the brink of being blocked for edit-warring over individual articles, but stopped just short of it, for instance on:

• Facundo Argüello (tennis),
  • diffs: [4], [5], [6], [7]
• Jörgen Windahl,
  • diffs: [8], [9], [10], [11]
• Jelena Janković,
  • diffs: [12], [13], [14], [15].

Dozens of editors have reverted Fyunck over time, dismissing the additions as trivialities and insults to readers, but he keeps re-adding it. Fyunck has, possibly worried about being blocked for edit-warring, given up the above articles, and is now – as far as I know – only "protecting" the article on Ana Ivanovic (history) from diacritics; the latest altercation there was with Mareklug on 28 July 2013. (This is the one article that In ictu oculi has referred to several times in this context.)

I think it's time to seriously discuss whether a topic ban on diacritics would be appropriate.

HandsomeFella (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

This edit and edit summary on Gérard Solvès is rather telling: no reason for changing name throughout.

HandsomeFella (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note, this is one of two editors (mentioned above) who has been blocked for edit warring on the same issue (both long ago). He has been talked to by multiple administrators for harassing me. And these diffs for a year, year and a half ago are ridiculous. You'll note many had nothing to do with diacritics but whether censorship could take place on wikipedia when items are heavily sourced. A recent rfc decided we could censor here so there's not much to say on that anymore other than items that go against tennis project consensus and additions that the project feels is important to add. I'm not at all surprised to see him post here. In fact I would have been shocked if he didn't. As far as being a nuisance to the Tennis Project I guess you'd have to ask there among my peers... I can't speak for them. I simply try to do my best. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Heh, you conveniently forgot to mention that the other one was you. I have not been "talked to" by multiple administrators. I was asked – once – by an administrator, and I responded that I had mislabeled my report on you as 3rr instead of edit-warring. It did indeed have everything to do with diacritics, only you tried to disguise it as – don't laugh now, folks – "censorship". You know, it's strange that so many editors have "a huge history" with you. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The statement "it's strange that so many editors have "a huge history" with you" is untrue. I only claim to have a history on this with two people...and you are numero uno. I talk to anyone and everyone on my talkpage to come to compromises or change my mind. It happens a lot. But two of you have lost that right because of harassment and lies. Only two I can think of. One of which is extremely vocal and I know influences a lot of editors. There's nothing I can do about that except plod on doing whatever I can and trying to ignore attacks and such. There are plenty of editors I don't agree with 100% of the time but we almost always work through our differences with compromise and an agenda of improving tennis and other articles. Sadly, with two of you that won't work anymore. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Citation needed. Editors coming to your talkpage and asking you why you're carrying out changes against consensus is not harassment, it's how we communicate, although you obviously dont want to listen. It may ultimately lead to warnings to report you – although you label that as "intimidation" and "threats". Comply with consensus, and you'll have no such "trouble". Also, it's not the first time you are accusing others of lying. Can you provide diffs? HandsomeFella (talk) 11:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Fyunck, there is a veritable United Nations Security Council-worth of editors who have found your crusade against diacriticals both wearisome and destructive of the project. Tennis players cannot become a walled garden of articles where the sanctity of the diacritical-free Modern English version of the Roman alphabet is preserved against "foreign" influences. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Orangemike. Seriously, you use this term crusade and I'm wondering if in the last 6 months you're basing this crusade on fact or heresy heresay. Please ask me what my stances are and what I intend to do about them and I think you'll better understand me. I don't recall interacting with you before so I'll take you as fair and balanced in your assessment. You can ask on my talk page to save room here if you like and I'll try to be clear in my answers. You also have to remember that things weren't so clear 18 months ago so my actions on what I do on wikipedia may have changed substantially. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I assume you mean "hearsay", not "heresy". HandsomeFella (talk) 11:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

oops, yes, thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

New spelling is also wrong. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I notice Fyunck's userpage flaunts a quotation from WP:DIACRITICS: "follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language". I wonder, therefore, if he has consistently followed usage in English-language reliable sources, regardless of which way it goes? Has he ever supported an RM toward a diacriticized spelling because that is how all the English reliable sources spell it? I'll admit I generally prefer diacritics to none, but I have a consistent, systematic philosophy on this matter: for living people, spell their names the way they spell their own names; for dead people, spell their names according to reliable sources (read: university presses first, personal blogs last, and everything in between defined in order). I'd challenge Fyunck to show up at Talk:Empress Jingu where I recently opened an RM, and where almost all the RSs favour the diacritic spelling, and !vote in favour of the move. Or don't: I'd be happy with evidence that Fyunck has ever supported a single RM in favour of using diacritics. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

In answer to that... I can only say, I don't know. I usually stay in tennis/sports discussions so I can't be sure. I can say that in prior discussions that I have said, even if in English sources it showed only 40% diacritic usage then the article should probably be at the diacritic spelling. One instance is recently I noticed that Bjorn Borg has quite a few English sources spelling it Björn Borg. I would not !vote for moving that page. Would I !vote for keeping it as is? I'd like to think I would. It's why I was against using only the governing bodies of tennis' official name spellings. We had an editor that wanted to base spelling only on that. It didn't seem appropriate to do that at wikipedia, that we use all sources, and I told him thusly. But I don't think that has anything to do with what we are talking about here though. We are talking about an article that has consensus at the English alphabetic spelling where I directly linked those spellings. Editors try to change those links all the time and get reverted, and not just by me. Yeah I get flak for it, but I usually just plod onward to do other things. And it's not like I'm hiding it as I even talk on my user page about it and the fact it seems to be the norm. Except since my direct links seem to go to an article title some don't like, I get picked on more as I scratch my head at the hypocrisy. I pretty much assume now that getting more flak is the norm... but An/i's are a different level of that. I'd go to Talk:Empress Jingu and take a look but at this stage wouldn't everyone just think it's disingenuous? Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Frankly I don't think this approach makes any sense, it can be argued that you're just taunting him now. I never intended for this discussion to spawn any new tendentious or disruptive behavior, it was supposed to put an end to one particular set of it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Close thread and fix source of problem - although this is long-running, this is a content dispute fixed on one article per Talk:Ana_Ivanovic/Archive_6. The reason I notified WikiProject Serbia is that this affects Serbia articles, but the solution I have proposed at WikiProject Serbia is upgrading the Serbia/Croatia/Bosnia MOS, not running to ANI. As far as the ground zero article goes, you, Joy, expressed the problem here:

I see the WP:TENNISNAMES clique managed to push their agenda through here as "consensus" with barely anyone else noticing it in time to object. I'm requesting we revert this bad move because it's got nothing to do with WP:CONSENSUS. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

However irritating it may be to have this variant surface after 2 WP:SNOW RfCs WP:TENNISNAMES and WP:TENNISNAMES2 Fyunck(click) believes he is within his rights to go round 150 articles deleting the ć from just one Serbian name. Then there's two solutions, either WP:TENNISNAMES3 to cover the new variant, or a simpler solution: Joy, Bob, Mike, Hijiri 88, someone, do as Fyunck himself has suggested and if we think singling out one Serbian for removal of ć from 150 articles is not consistent, then put in a RM for the ground zero article. I realize that you didn't have time to comment on the last RM before a non-admin made a quick close (following Fyunck's request for a quick close) last time, but this would take the problem off ANI's plate and Fyunck has already said he will follow article title if title is ć. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, no, this is really just a slippery slope to a tag team attitude. Cf. WP:TAGTEAM. Besides, we have absolutely no reason to believe that resolving one particular content dispute one particular time will end this whole madness. The pattern of behavior where one doesn't have it their way and then they keep incessantly finding ways to get around that - is a sign of battleground mentality that is fundamentally incompatible with the process of making an encyclopedia. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Joy, well we'll have to agree to disagree, going by either RM or RfC process WP:TENNISNAMES3 or fix MOS:SERBIAN is actually a way of avoiding WP:TAGTEAM behaviour - rather than waving the topic ban stick at ANI. And process isn't Tagteam, unless we count the WP:SNOW in WP:TENNISNAMES and WP:TENNISNAMES2 as one giant tag team - which it wasn't; large number of new faces.

What I would like to see from Fyunck would be not a change on his belief in "ATP names" (he's entitled to his opinion) but that WP:BRD applies to him too. If Fyunck was willing to accept that his edits were subject to WP:BRD we wouldn't have needed WP:TENNISNAMES2, since it was the understanding WP:BRD if reverted, put it straight back in with an edit summary complaining about censorship that made WP:TENNISNAMES2 necessary, all for one editor. If Fyunck accepted that WP:BRD applies to him too we wouldn't be here, now.

This can be solved off-ANI by either (a) RM, (b) RfC (c) MOS tighten. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• Close situation can be solved away from ANI. At this moment in time I would think that a topic ban for Fyunck(click) would serve counterproductivly. It is true that a number of people have been banned due to their activity in this issue, but that was due to their unreasonable behavior (eg socking). Agathoclea (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

  Battleground mentality is an issue of course, but let us see if it continues after this particular issue is solved. At this moment in time I am actually quite hopeful. Looking at the current infobox mess this seems quite harmless. Agathoclea (talk) 08:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

If so, what do you think we should do about those references to Ivanovic's article? Do we ignore them, roll back those edits, do we expect Fyunck to undo it, something else? What happens the next time he decides to change 100+ articles, who cleans that up? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Unapproved BOT Activity

See Wikipedia:Help_desk#Lists_being_broken_into_individual_articles_for_no_reason The user seems to be set on mass creating pages. While the Solar eclipse pages have since been deleted, a quick look at the user's contribs shows they're still doing the same activity. They claim they're not running a bot, however it seems clear there's no human way possible for the mass creation of pages. In fact right after claiming not running a bot, it shows they ran one to fix the problem that was pointed out with another mass creation. Account was linked to darafshbot which currently shows unapproved and blocked, but is where the templates he's using are being stored. Caffeyw (talk) 10:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Also just for reference Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/DarafshBot Caffeyw (talk) 10:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't run bot! i use this template and creat article manually. this is illicited? Darafsh Kaviyani (Talk)‍ 10:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

There's no way to have multiple pages changed/created within the same minute that is humanly possible that I'm aware of. Even if it's not an actual bot and just a tool, there's no way each and every change/creation is being approved by you. This would make whatever tool being used fall under the bot policy. Also mass creations are prohibited under the policy without approval. While I'm assuming good faith on your part the closing reason for denying approval of your darafshbot seems to be coming to mind. WP:COMPETENCE Caffeyw (talk) 11:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I repeat again: "I dont run bot or use tool, i creat this article manually". but if is illicited, i don't creat more pages. Darafsh Kaviyani (Talk)‍ 12:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that the edits could have been done manually. But they are so so fast and so regular that they are indistinguishable from a bot (specially 24 August). Consequently, they fall under bot policy even if they are done manually, and they are "illicited" (you mean "illicit"). I would like others to give an opinion:

edits per minute when creating new pages

22 August edits-per-minute 13:29 4 13:28 2 13:27 2 ... ... 03:49 3 03:48 6 03:47 4 03:46 4 03:45 8 03:44 4 03:42 3 03:41 9 03:40 2 03:39 03:38 03:37 2 03:36 2 03:35 03:34 4 03:33 3 03:32 3 03:31 1 03:30 8 03:29 1 03:28 03:27 03:26 1 03:25 4 03:24 1 03:23 03:22 3 03:21 03:19 2 03:18 2 03:17 1 03:16 4 03:15 3 03:14 3 03:13 1 03:12 03:11 03:10 03:09 5 03:08 2 03:07 6 03:96 4 03:05 1 03:04 2 03:03 2 03:01 1 24 August edits-per-minute 06:07 1 06:08 06:09 06:10 06:11 1 06:12 1 06:13 1 06:14 1 06:15 1 06:16 1 06:17 1 06:18 1 06:19 1 06:20 1 06:21 1 06:22 1 06:23 1 ... ... 07:22 2 07:23 3 07:24 4 07:25 2 ... 07:37 1 ... 07:45 1 ... 07:56 1 07:57 2 07:58 1 27 August edits-per-minute 11:19 1 11:20 11:21 4 11:22 3 11:23 6 11:24 3 11:25 1 11:26 2 11:27 4 11:28 4 11:29 4 11:30 4 11:31 4 11:32 4 11:33 4 11:34 1 11:35 1 11:36 11:37 2 11:38 11:39 11:40 1 11:41 3 11:42 3 11:43 3 11:44 3 11:45 3 11:46 3 11:47 3 11:48 2 ... ... 23:11 2 23:12 5 23:13 2 23:15 2 23:16 3 23:18 1 23:21 3 23:22 4 23:23 2 23:24 5 23:25 4 23:26 2 23:30 1 23:31 4 23:32 3 23:33 6 23:34 2 23:36 4 23:43 5 23:44 5 23:45 5 23:46 6 23:47 1

(The articles on solar eclipses are not here because they were all deleted). --Enric Naval (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

P.D.: See also what Caffeyw says about reviewing each edit and approval for mass creation. Post in Wikiproject Iran about mass-creating the village articles, they may like the idea or they may tell you not to do it. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Close thread The user has gone through 4 bot requests officially and had 2 approved. If they wanted to run a bot, they know exactly how. Which means, there is no competence issue and WP:AGF says we take the editor's word that he's not lying if we cannot prove he is. As far as the multiple edits in the span of a few minutes, we have no idea if he's got tabs open in his browser. He could have tabs open with the template, copying and pasting the words in the right boxes. Tough to know for sure.--v/r - TP 12:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Look at the section on the jamoats in the HelpDesk conversation. You can see the template he used has numbers in them. When it was pointed out that he reversed the final two fill-ins, (numbers 11 and 12 if I remember) he went revised the template and ran it again. All where reversed not just one or two. (ie Originally the line was reading there where 13 people, in 133 families instead of 133 people in 13 families.) No matter what the BOT policy applies. Caffeyw (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Question: if he's running an approved bot then why is he claiming to not run one at all? MM (Report findings) ^{(Past espionage)} 15:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• WP:AGF would say that it is a failing of his English, rather than an untruth. His English isn't exactly textbook standard, so it's entirely probable that he mixed up "don't" with "didn't". Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
• I'm noting his user page has the following "This user runs a bot, DarafshBot. It performs tasks that are extremely tedious to do manually." posted on it. Might not be using it under that username, but it seems it is being used. Caffeyw (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

He was running an unapproved bot. I used the Mediawiki API interface to obtain the exact seconds of each edit.

24 August: edits exactly every 60 seconds, and edits at specific seconds inside each minute

The edits from 24 August, exactly one edit per minute? No, they were exactly every 60 seconds. One edit is off by 1 second, but goes back to normal in the next edit: 06:11:14 [16] 06:12:14 [17] 06:13:14 [18] 06:14:14 [19] 06:15:14 [20] 06:16:14 [21] 06:17:15 [22] 06:18:14 [23] 06:19:14 [24] 06:20:14 [25] 06:21:14 [26] 06:22:14 [27] 06:23:14 [28] The batch of 4 articles per minute? Launched at :10, :20, :40 and :59. See the gaps? They are the places where the script found a problem while processing its input, and skipped the edit: - :10 21:00 [29] :20 21:20 [30] :40 21:40 [31] :59 21:59 [32] - :10 :20 22:20 [33] :40 22:40 [34] :59 22:50 [35] - :10 23:12 [36] :20 23:38 [37] :40 23:48 [38] :59 23:59 [39] - :10 24:08 [40] :20 24:18 [41] :40 24:29 [42] :59 - :10 :20 :40 25:39 [43] :59 - :10 26:11 [44] :20 :40 26:40 [45] :59 - :10 27:12 vlimit=5 :20 27:26 [46] :40 27:39 [47] :59 27:55 [48] - :10 28:12 [49] :20 28:25 [50] :40 28:40 [51] :59 28:54 [52] - :10 29:10 [53] :20 29:27 [54] :40 29:40 [55] :59 29:57 [56] - :10 30:10 [57] :20 30:25 [58] :40 30:40 [59] :59 30:55 [60] - :10 31:11 [61] :20 31:25 [62] :40 31:41 [63] :59 31:55 [64] - :10 32:11 [65] :20 32:25 [66] :40 32:45 [67] :59 32:55 [68] - :10 33:12 [69] :20 33:29 [70] :40 33:40 [71] :59 33:55 deh&prop=revisions&rvprop=timestamp|user|comment&rvlimit=5 - :10 :20 :40 :59 34:52 [72] - :10 35:06 [73] :20 :40 :59 -

And in 27 August he said all his edits had been manual...:

• [74] "i dont run my user for automated"
• [75] i just use the template and creat articles, manually. i member of BAG in fa.wiki and know this task that runing bot on my account, need approval."

He even awarded me a good faith barnstar, for believing him[76].................. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, now he has changed to Wikipedia:Page Curation, a manual tool. I hope he doesn't return to using the old tool. As far as I am concerned, this issue is closed for me. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

As long as he understands mass creates fall under the BOT policy regardless of if he uses a fully automated or not tool then I think the issue is done with. Caffeyw (talk) 07:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

1RR restriction at 2013 Ghouta attacks?

Greetings, I was wondering if an admin could have a look at 2013 Ghouta attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to see if a 1RR restriction would be warranted. Since information on the subject is rapidly emerging, it would be great if we could avoid full protection on that article, which I fear is the only alternative. No notifications sent, since I am not trying to target any individual here. VQuakr (talk) 00:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: The article was full protected until 29 September. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 09:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Removal of an image under discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would be grateful if somebody could reinstate the "broom" election-symbol image at article Aam Aadmi Party (cf this version), while the image remains under discussion at Wikipedia:NFCR#Multiple_non-free_logos_for_same_organisation.

My understanding is that while an image is under discussion at WP:NFCR or WP:FFD standard procedure is to leave it in place, so (1) people can easily see the image being discussed and its use in situ, and (2) so that the image doesn't get auto-deleted as orphaned content while the discussion is still ongoing.

There is a reasonable discussion to be had that, since this is the image that the party needs to identify itself with on the ballot-paper, this is a image that is significant to the topic of the article (NFCC #8), and the textlogo does not convey the same function (NFCC #1). I accept that others have taken different views; but while the discussion is still open, our convention is to keep the image up.

I have tried to persuade Sitush (talk · contribs) of this (it being he who originally nominated the image for discussion, and has most recently removed it), but to no avail.

I have already made two reverts, so don't want to put it back myself. So I am coming here (even though this may seem a bit trivial for AN/I), to ask an experienced user to take a view and reinstate the image until the discussion at WP:NFCR is formally concluded. Jheald (talk) 09:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. After some to-ing and fro-ing with the image, it was deleted at Commons as being a copyright violation. I then queried at WP:NFR whether or not we could use two non-free images for the purpose of identifying this political party - all perfectly good faith stuff. Jheald reinstated the image during that discussion, it was left for a while and then Seraphimblade removed it following another discussion at Commons which resulted in the alternate image being determined as {{PD-Text}} and thus made the one currently under dispute potentially in breach of NFCC #1. Jheald has been arguing exceptions, which is fine but until the exceptions are accepted by the community this remains a potential breach of our policies. I've said on umpteen occasions that I am not good with image-related stuff but it seems obvious to me that if there is a potential breach then the thing should be removed until that is clarified. Furthermore, Jheald is repeatedly mis-stating the purpose of this image (the party does not need the image on the ballot paper for example, nor does it otherwise use it) and is making some pretty odd claims along the lines that it is impossible to judge on merit unless it is shown in the article. There is no admin action needed here, just a bit of common sense: two discussions at Commons, a good faith centralised discussion at NFR and only one person attempting to keep it in the en-WP article. Let the NFR discussion be closed, by all means, but otherwise this is not a matter for ANI. - Sitush (talk) 09:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User posting copyvio, removing AfD headers, etc

Special:Contributions/Boss02 does not seem to understand that one can not remove AfD headers. Also he's removing CSD tags for copyright violations, and his files he's uploaded are all currently marked as PUF. Seems he just doesn't understand how to follow Wiki rules. Caffeyw (talk) 09:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Also it appears the account started it's first edit on Aug 8. I'm suspecting user IP 180.149.0.249 is also the same user. They're editing in the same fashion, removing AfD flags, and seem to be interested in the same articles, resulting in the same type of reverts to their changes. Caffeyw (talk) 10:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I've deleted one article as a duplicate and closed that AfD in favor of the older article/AfD. I haven't the time now to look at the other stuff, but I think there's some action necessary. —SpacemanSpiff 10:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree the editor is not the most clueful, however I only find removals of PROD tags, which are explicitly permitted (tag removal is exactly how you contest a PROD). Just for the record, can you link the edits where he removed AfD tags? --cyclopia^speak! 10:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Since Spaceman deleted the articles I can no longer pull up the information. Caffeyw (talk) 10:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Paglu_3_%282014_film%29&action=history will show where the IP has done it not once, but twice removing the AfD flag. An article of course created by Boss02. After doing a little looking at the fact that IPs all in the same close range seem to be doing the same things I'm came across this Sockpuppet_investigations/Niloy229/Archive The naming convention and IP seems to also go along with those listed. Add to the fact they're all interested in the same type of articles "Tollywood" films it seems like this is just an additional sock. Caffeyw (talk) 10:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• Just to note that I've cleaned up the copyright issue at Khoka 420. I don't know if it's relevant, but a Niloy229 sock flagged it for copyvio deletion on 4 August, and it was deleted accordingly (unfortunately, in error, since the blog it was supposedly copied from postdates the content). But that doesn't mean the Niloy229 sock didn't want the article, as he had been busily trying a copy-paste move to Khoka 420 (2012 film). If this were certainly a new contributor, I would drop him a friendly notice about what he can and can't do - both in regards to copying content from other sources (as he copied the plot here) and in regards to removing maintenance tags - and proceed accordingly if he continues, but if there is reason to believe this is a sock I would leave that to others. I think it's very plausible. The sock taking action at Khoka 420 (2012 film) and Khoka 420 was User:Don02. I find the history of this article significant - almost significant enough for me to block immediately, but I'll leave that to people with more experience in SPI and, perhaps, time. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I am very much worried about this user. He is working about Bengali Film related article. ( which I do too!). But he is ignoring all wiki policies. His another article Best Movies Of Tollywood , which is totally OR. He may be sock of user:Niloy229 - Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 11:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I've NAC'd the duplicate AFD for Paglu 3 (2014 film) in favour of the original one which had more participants. I've also replaced the AFD tags at that article with the ones relating to the original AFD which remains open (though heading for a WP:SNOW deletion). Stalwart111 11:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• With a few more minutes of review, I'm seeing enough quacking for me - new account created several days after the block of the last, immediately picks up the actions. Indeffed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
• (Non administrator WikiProject India editor's observation) These are regular issues, see this and there are reports in almost every noticeboard. Like others, I also think there are many socks involved here. --Tito☸Dutta 13:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Prizren article fighting

Hi there, I just want to point out that the article Prizren is in danger. I have spent a lot of time on the past on this article, and there are a few pro serbian radicals who continue to make this article pro serb and removal all other information. I spent a lot of time to collect rare media User_talk:Mdupont#Orphaned_non-free_media_.28File:Prizren_14_May_1934_GermanyLang.ogv.29 that is being removed among other things, I dont have the time to fight this any more, but I do want to ask someone who does to review this. I would suggest to put some type of stop to the heated fighting on this article and put someone neutral in charge of monitoring edits. thanks mike James Michael DuPont (talk) 11:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I am the one who removed the files due to excessive non-free files of a town. Werieth (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Seeking topic ban for Hgrosser

I am seeking a topic ban for Hgrosser (talk · contribs) from further edits related to the non-notable individual Nicole Hamilton, author of Hamilton C shell, also mentioned in C shell#Influence. His sole objective appears confined to calling unnecessary attention to Ms. Hamilton's private life and to her gender transition, contrary to our guidelines.

Edit history:

C shell: 10 edits, beginning 6 March 2013 with this result, and 4 edits beginning 26 August 2013

Hamilton C shell: 2 edits, beginning 25 August 2013

User talk:Hgrosser: Warnings 9 March 2013 and 25 August 2013

User talk:Msnicki: Hgrosser's response 26 August 2013

Though Ms. Hamilton's product appears notable based on multiple print sources, no such sources appear to exist to establish notability for Ms. Hamilton. Further, notability is not inherited nor is there evidence Ms. Hamilton might be notable for other reasons as might apply under WP:ANYBIO. Most of the available sources are Usenet posts and online blogs by her and her friends. All are clearly WP:QUESTIONABLE. The only possibly WP:RELIABLE source is an iTunes recording released by Stanford University of a panel discussion held at Stanford in 2007. But all of the content pertaining to Ms. Hamilton is her speaking about her own life in her own words, making it unmistakably WP:PRIMARY. Ms. Hamilton is simply not notable.

Nonetheless, Hgrosser insists on calling attention to the private matter of her gender transition in the late 90s by inserting her former name in unnecessarily prominent ways into these two articles, doubly so when the main subject isn't even her software. This information is irrelevant to any discussion of her software product and the inclusion is unnecessarily intrusive into a non-notable individual's private life, disrespectful and contrary to our guidelines. Further, he's been warned twice.

From Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, "Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material."

And from Wikipedia:LGBT#Guidelines, "The Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidelines on identity indicate to refer to transgender individuals according to the names and pronouns they use to identify themselves. ... In cases where a gender variant person was not notable under their prior name, but has subsequently confirmed a different gender identity, the prior name should be limited to the main article. There is likely no need to bring attention to this by adding to the lede or an infobox. (See Do No Harm.)" In this particular case, there is no main article on Ms. Hamilton and no need whatsoever to call attention.

Our guidelines notwithstanding, I'm aware there is always a tabloid fascination among some with the private lives of others, especially when there's a titillating sexual aspect. Hgrosser is not the first editor to have discovered, by comparing early and current documents describing her C shell, that Ms. Hamilton must have changed her name and gender. He's also not the first to decide this fact needed to be shared with the widest possible audience. To avoid having the information come and go in very likely completely inappropriate ways, which by itself would call unnecessary attention, my solution was a footnote to the author's name in the lede of the Hamilton C shell article, stating that she's discussed her transition at the Stanford panel discussion and giving the iTunes citation. If you really, really think you need to know more, you can go listen to her tell her story in her own words.

Hgrosser was the first to insert her former name into the C shell article as well, where it truly is peripheral and completely inappropriate. This resulted in his first warning. But recognizing that if he had tried to insert it into that article as well, others might try also, I chose the more discreet approach of citing only the footnote contained in the Hamilton C shell article in the C shell article. I believe both articles now contain absolutely all that needs to be said on this private matter of this private individual's private life and probably more.

Hgrosser has been warned twice, the second time that if he did this again, I would take it to WP:ANI. Here we are. After the second warning, he decided my citing only the footnote in the C shell article wasn't good enough, and that the whole thing, including the mention of the old name had to go into the C shell article as well. In his defense, Hgrosser argues that the name change is "confusing" and needs to be clarified. But (a) it obviously wasn't too confusing for too long to Hgrosser and (b) we are often confused by the things other people do in their private lives but that does not entitle us to find the answers on Wikipedia.

There is simply no valid encyclopedic purpose to Hgrosser's behavior and it is contrary to our guidelines. The only edits Hgrosser has made to the C shell and to the Hamilton C shell articles have been for the sole purpose calling undue attention to Ms. Hamilton's personal life.

I have no objection to Hgrosser editing either of these articles (or any other) for any other encyclopedic purpose should he ever have one, but I am seeking a topic ban on the subject of the non-notable individual, Nicole Hamilton. Msnicki (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Sheesh. The issue is, as Hgrosser describes, that our sources for Hamilton Shell say that it was written by Douglas Hamilton. Our Manual of Style, as expounded ad infinitum above, says we need to say it was written by Nicole Hamilton. There is no way around writing "Nicole Hamilton was, at the time, Douglas Hamilton," and backing this with a reliable reference. We don't have to go into long details about the transition but we absolutely have to write this, otherwise we have an article that says A and a source that says B. And it looks like this is all Hgrosser has done, one sentence, one ref. Far, far less than the wall of text just above. --GRuban (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

(EC) While I appreciate this is a very sensitive area, I don't see the need for a topic ban at this time, the number of edits are small and it seems clear Hgrosser is fully willing to discuss it. Problems can and should be resolved via discussion and WP:Dispute resolution (probably WP:BLP/N) with recognition that given the sensitivity and WP:BLP issues involved, consensus should be reached before any changes are made rather than following BRD. While I agree we should not draw unnecessary attention to the subjects personal life, I think Hgrosser has a point that there is merit to mention the name change in one or both articles in some way since the limited notability which results in the subject being mentioned in the articles comes from the shell and as I understand it, she was involved in the shell before the name change and so people may recognise the older name and be confused, in addition to the fact that other documents including ones written by the subject herself may use her older name. I would note both articles currently use sources which are cited under each name, whether or not these sources are useful I have not looked at. And I am not saying we definitely need to mention both names in both article, simply that it seems to be a valid thing to discuss and we should WP:AGF that Hgrosser wants to make the change not to bring undue attention to the subjects personal life but because they feel not mentioning it causes unnecessary confusion. Whether or not it is necessary to mention and how is of course ultimately something that should be resolved via discussion. Personally, I would agree a footnote is probably best although I would note that the footnote which you seem to support where the transition is explicitly mentioned seems more intrusitive than simply mentioning the name change, but that's neither here nor there at ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh wow, I just noticed the footnote to a footnote of another article inside the huge wall of text: <ref>[[Hamilton C shell#cite note-3]]</ref> . Msnicki, you absolutely can not do that. One article can not cite another Wikipedia article as a reference. Our articles are not reliable sources - they can change at any moment, they are written by anonymous editors, and it is a non-trivial effort to find who wrote any given line. Since Nicole formerly Douglas Hamilton is neither crucial to C Shell nor, as you write, notable enough for her own article, I'm just going to elide her name from the C Shell article and hopefully reduce the field of conflict by half. --GRuban (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Nil Einne, it is not really that I "support" the footnote I've written but the edit history of the article that tells me other editors will be satisfied with nothing less. Case in point, why we are here.

GRuban, the reference in one article to a footnote in the other is certainly not being offered as evidence of anything. It's only at best a "see also" on a minor detail that certainly doesn't need to go into C shell#See also. But to the extent it matters, if you click the link, you learn there is an apparently WP:RELIABLE source. If there is a better way of coding that, I am all for it. Hgrosser raises the concern that a cite note might be renumbered; I tried inserting an template:anchor instead but while wikilinking to it will scroll the page, it will not highlight citation. I am happy to promise to monitor the articles and fix the link if it does get broken. Msnicki (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Followup to GRuban: I just saw this edit. This is an excellent choice. Thank you. Msnicki (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban as unjustified. The rest is a content dispute. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
• Just as the courts, when someone files a frivolous lawsuit, not only dismiss it, but impose sanctions on the filer (such as making him pay the defendant’s attorney fees), I feel there should be some cost to Msnicki for bringing this frivolous/vindictive case, such as perhaps a 24-hour ban on editing. Hgrosser (talk) 02:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  • That's not warranted either. Blocks are preventative not punitive. A one-time overreaction is not something that is sufficiently frivolous to result in any sort of concrete sanction; WP:TROUT at best. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

User:autovandalbot is malfunctioning and turned rogue against its creator

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

---

help my vandal bot went rouge and is now trying to block other bots

please help me fix it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tehautobot (talk • contribs) 13:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have gotten the username wrong - the rogue account is User:Tehautobot, which has already been indeffed for a particularly stupid bit of shenanigans. Autovandalbot isn't a real user, so I deleted that bit of vandalism as well. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Mckhan issuing unwanted warnings

Hi this user Mckhan doesnt agree on the sources that i supply to him on his talk page but instead issues me with warnings. On articles like "Rohail Hyatt" he has reverted my edits and has added no sources to that. While i have given him sources, also on article "Shahid Masood" he was not able to provide me with sources but instead just kept issuing warnings to me.His past record clearly indicates he just wants to add information he feels right. If you can look upon the reverts of these articles i hope you will find the answer and if you also have a look at his contributions mostly are in the form of edit wars — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I have yet to see a "wanted" warning - that's why they're warnings. But on the face of it, this seems very much like a content dispute escalating into disruption. It would be helpful if you and User:McKahn would back away from each other and the topic for a bit, let tempers cool down. Then maybe a proper discussion could continue. I see allegations of racial and ethnic bias floating around your talk pages, and that's bothersome - some cooling down time might not be out of order. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Ahn Sahng-hong and World Mission Society Church of God

Hi,

I've been tracking two pages in particular the past couple of weeks. The pages are Ahn Sahng-hong and World Mission Society Church of God. Pretty much every day without fail the user Nancyinthehouse or people who appear affiliated with her revert almost any edits made that quote third party sources critical of beliefs involving the World Mission Society Church of God. Even after experienced editors like MarkMiller stepped in tried to make some of the articles more neutral sounding, the edits were eventually reverted. This has been happening since March. If you look at the Talk section of either page what ends up happening is users like Nancyinthehouse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Watts9595 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Galemw2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) revert the page to a state that has information either incorrectly cited from sources or cite almost entirely to the World Mission Society Church of God Website. It's really absurd that this is allowed to continue--right now neither page has an objective, third-party view--both are a complete mess. Numerous attempts at discussion are seen in the Talk pages but nothing ever gets settled because these users refer to the cited sources as "lies" and then revert the page.

For example, after Galemw2 was done editing one page: Diff 1 After Watts9595 was done editing the page: Diff 2 After Nancyinthehouse was done editing the page: Diff 3

Here's another diff from the WMSCOG page Diff 4.

If you look further back in the history of the page edits you see that such users have been consistently making massive edits to both pages for the past few months. Please help get this under control, it's just deteriorating the information on Wikipedia.

75.72.176.22 (talk) 13:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• I add to the above the observations that (a) both Galemw2 and Watts9595 are accounts created within the last 3 days, Galemw2 was created 03:22, 26 August 2013 and Watts9595 was created 17:26, 27 August 2013, that (b) both accounts are single purpose accounts only editing in Ahn Sahng-hong and World Mission Society Church of God,[77][78] that (c) both accounts made deletions of sourced material from the articles within 8 minutes from account creation,[79][80] that (d) Galemw2 have made lengthy objections on both talk pages claiming certain sources are unreliable,[81][82] that (e) both Nancyinthehouse and Watts9595 have supported,[83][84][85][86] that (f) all three accounts seem to imply they speak or understand Korean, the native language of the Church,[87][88][89] while (g) Watts9595 repeatedly accuses Superfly94, Peter1007 and I for socking.[90][91]

• The blind are leading the blind there. That talk page is atrociously unclear. Now, I'm not an authority on people who claim to be Jesus (I knew one of them one time but I'm pretty sure it was the heroin doing the talking), but I smell spam when I see it, even if it's Korean, and removed a "bibliography". Are we dealing with a conflict between adherents of the New Covenant Passover Church of God and the World Mission Society Church of God? Perhaps it could be even juicier if we had apostates from all involved parties in there. Or we could ask Dougweller to dedicate yet more of his life to the project. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Diffs have been supplied, very good. Now please notify the other users as described in the large, bright orange information bar at the top of the page. JanetteDoe (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I haven't received any notification 75.72.176.22. You must notify other users about this. Before I edited these articles, they were all written without neutrality relying on opinions, biased websites, and personal blogs that were all created to slander. So that's why I edited deleting all those UNRELIABLE SOURCES that does NOT meet the requirements of the Policy of Wikipedia. I really wanted to add secondary sources but couldn't find any RELIABLE SOURCES. Then, User Peter1007, Sam Sailor, and Superfly94 blanks the whole page without discussing in the TALK PAGE, using Unreliable Sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ahn_Sahng-hong#References_that_are_all_UNRELIABLE_SOURCES https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_Mission_Society_Church_of_God#References_that_are_all_UNRELIABLE_SOURCES mentioned by Galemw2. Watts9595 and I agreed to this, and yet Peter1007, Sam Sailor, Superfly94 did NOT reply to these problematic unreliable sources. They just reverted to their previous edits using these Unreliable Sources. You cannot say that a religion is "CULT" or "HERETIC" in Wikipedia. Basically every edit that they have made defines the religion "CULT" or "HERETIC." Please be neutral. Thanks. Nancyinthehouse (talk) 01:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Nancy, you were the one editor who actually was notified, here. It looks like it was put on your talk page out of sequence, which may be why you did not notice it.

On a different topic, you may wish to familiarize yourself with WP:RS. If you "couldn't find any RELIABLE SOURCES" then one option is to add citation needed tags so that other editors may be alerted and try to find sources. Reliable sources are absolutely required and if they can't be found it may be that the article needs to be reduced to a stub.

On a third topic, I notice that you did not create your talk page initially, but it was created by Peter1007 [92] with the following text: "I'm going to assume that you are a member of the WMSCOG. Please correct me if I'm wrong. We are trying to create a complete article about the World Mission Society Church of God, Ahn Sahnghong and Chang Gil Jah." This raises a question of conflict of interest. Wikipedia encourages extreme caution when editing a subject that you are close to, please see WP:COI. JanetteDoe (talk) 02:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

It's very frustrating to edit these pages, for a while I almost gave up. If you make any changes that is are n/ot from their official site, they would revert the change. Correct me if I'm wrong, but all the information is not always at an organization's page, otherwise there would be no point on having Wikipedia. I'm not a member of the WMSCOG but I've been researching a lot about them and everybody I ask, they tell me that even through the way they write and defend it, Nancyinthehouse, Galemw2 and Watts9595 sound like WMSCOG members. It wouldn't be surprising if their IPs are also from South Korea. I haven't seen anybody writing in the Wikipedia article that the WMSCOG is a "cult" or that they are "heretic". I think they are only trying to act like the victims. I invite any admin to see if "every edit that they have made defines the religion "CULT" or "HERETIC". Right now the World Mission Society Church of God is just pretty much the WMSCOG website in Wikipedia. Nancyinthehouse, if you want to discuss further with me you can go to my talk page, don't want to take the space of the admins. --Peter1007 (talk) 12:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

When mentioning another editor in a post on a page they do not necessarily follow closely, as you e.g. did here [93], it can be a good idea to "ping" them using {{U}}. Commenting directly on another user's editorial behavior, e.g. when you imply on your own talk page [94] that my editing is unspecified WP:NNPOV, my behavior WP:OWN, and outright accuse me for derogatively "considering other religions as "cults"." (all without providing any reasons for your concern, but your reply is expected in the appropriate thread), a {{TB}} on my talk page could have initiated a dialogue towards resolving any such problems. You now [95] continue here and state that I have blanked "the whole page." Please provide a diff supporting this statement so an admin may correct my mistake. Sam 🎤 18:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

JanetteDoe, I have mentioned in the talkpage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ahn_Sahng-hong#Dispute long ago. I'm not a member of WMSCOG, as I have told Peter1007 to begin with. Peter1007 you are acting like a victim as IF you own the articles of the religious movement, the founder. You said you have nothing to do with WMSCOG and the messiah claiming person, and you are digging in sources that reject the requirements of the Policy of Wikipedia. You are using unreliable sources and you never reply (or cannot reply) to the explanation made in the talkpage. The sources are false fliers, book that was found guilty to be used or published, and biased websites that only considers other religions cults. NO I'm NOT a member of the WMSCOG or related to it. Stop defining other's identity with your own imagination Peter1007. I don't know why you are so EAGER to make these articles with unreliable sources. It just seems that you personally hate this religious movement or messiah claiming person. It was 75.72.176.22 who first wrote on this noticeboard and Not me. That's why I came.--Nancyinthehouse (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I have been sitting back and avoiding any major edits on these two pages, except for reverting the recent blanking, because I've had my hand slapped a couple of times so am content for now to hit up the talk pages to work things out there. I have asked Nancyinthehouse several times to provide specific examples of what sites she considers are unreliable so that we can address each one, but she is adamant that any reference she has not provided is unreliable and that anyone using any other reference is trying to slander the WMSCOG

1. a
2. b.

Watts9595 prefers to simply egg people on without providing any type of rational argument

1. a
2. b
3. c
4. d.

I have a strong suspicion that Watts9595 is in fact Sticks830, as is evidenced by the following retort #. You'll notice that this entry was done by 75.67.112.116 but signed by Sticks830. 75.67.112.116 also seems to be playing along in the blanking #

The only editor who seems to be willing to address each item separately is Galemw2 at both talk pages here and here. I have been trying to answer things piecemeal but there is a lot there. Unfortunately I don't seem to be working fast enough for Nancyinthehouse here. Superfly94 (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

You'll all have to sort out these two articles on their talk pages as I've fully protected them. Dougweller (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Guess what, M.H. again!

I have added information to the SPI on this user, which they keep deleting. [96] [97]  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me to me (as per my comments on the SPI), but I also believe it to be a violation of WP:TPO, and interference with administrative processes. (User was just warned in yesterday's ANI about refactoring and deleting other's comments)Gaijin42 (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, as I saif to Hijiri 88 yesterday, and per my general comments in the original AN/I, you need to disengage from each other. The dispute had died down and was happily waiting for SPI clerk notice - had that shown no connection then it might have been appropriate to raise the images issue in a non-confrontational way. As it is you've just re-ignited the drama for no really good reason. As with Hijiri 88; you need to unwatch those pages and walk away. --Errant ^(chat!) 17:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

If we have access to the evidence now, why not add that evidence to the SPI now? It may eliminate the need for CU, which is supposed to be a last resort? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Gaijin42 Please get off my back. I have just contacted Wikipedia emergency email about the mocking way you have placed my photos. You should never so such things! This is the 2nd time you do that (the first time was publishing my blog screenshot which you unlawfully uploaded falsely claiming it's your own work. I spent the day helping another editor and am now wasting 2 hours on this attack of yours. MH (talk) 17:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Gaijin42 has agreed to step away. I've endorsed the SPI for a CU so it can get resolved ASAP (removing the point of contention for everyone). Hopefully both of you can get on in peace. --Errant ^(chat!) 17:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• Michael has now been blocked, but based on a separate SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Photopinka. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Block needed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Niqaluva (talk · contribs) needs a block.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Didn't see this, but saw the edit and blocked. Dougweller (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

abusive user Jerry Pepsi

hello. user jerry pepsi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jerry_Pepsi is being malicious and vandalizing the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory:_Married_%26_Dating he keeps undoing our factual edits simply to start a fight. for example, we keep including information like, megan is the girlfriend of 3 years, and he keeps undoing it. we believe he feels he owns this page and is not being a team player. he also continues to write the cast's full names when their full names are not associated with the show (aside from media articles, which he provided one that only identifies 4 of the cast members). we ask that you please ask him to stop or prevent him from further editing the page. "tvfanatics" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvfanatics (talk • contribs) 17:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Didn't you just bring this here a few days ago? Also, do you have diffs of his unproductive editing, instigating, or failure to abide by WP:RS or WP:BLP? 192.76.82.90 (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit: Also, you haven't notified the editor about this thread. You only said you've e-mailed Wikipedia about his actions. 192.76.82.90 (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Is TVfanatics royalty of some sort? If not, then the only other reason I can think of for him to write "our factual edits...", "we keep including..." and "we ask.....", is that he is some way represents the TV show in question, Polyamory:Married & Dating. If that is the case, then TVfanatics should probably read our policies on not using Wikipedia as a promotional medium and editing with a conflict of interest. TVfanatics should also be apprised that the article does not in any way belong to the production or its producers, or even its fans, and that any attempt to assert ownership of the article by shutting out the contributions of other editors, or by insisting that the "ground rules" for the reality show be followed by Wikipedia as well, is going to end up badly for him.... them... whomever. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Jerry Pepsi, on the other hand, should stop calling the other editor in an content dispute a "vandal" in edit summaries, as he has done a number of times. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I've requested temporary full protection of the article to get the combatants to start talking to each other, after which, if they don't start playing nicely together, an admin may have to deal out some blocks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Notified Jerry Pepsi of this thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I've fully protected the article for four days. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 22:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm more than happy to engage with this editor to try to hash something out. In fact I have made those overtures at least a half dozen times, on his talk page, on my talk page and on the article's talk page. I have tried to explain various editing conventions (how episode numbers are reported in the infobox, how participation is recorded by season, etc.). I advised the editor through several warnings that removing valid sourced information for no valid reason could be considered vandalism and lead to consequences for his account. I explained in edit summaries and on the article talk page why various edits were being made and various pieces of information included. I received nothing in response beyond accusations of harassment and trolling.
• It's hard to find a middle ground when dealing with an editor who believes that The Globe and Mail does not meet the threshold for reliability. It is difficult to find common ground with an editor who changes his/her reasons for his/her actions from one edit to the next.
• I also suspect, based on the single-purpose nature of the editing, that User:Swingerlove is a sock puppet of Tvfanatics, who I also believe has a conflict of interest based on his/her statement that he is editing on behalf of the show. If these are the same person then one, the other or both should be blocked. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Sarot23 quacks about Nicholas Alahverdian

Further to this ANI discussion and this sockpuppetry investgation, would someone please block the latest sock, User:Sarot23? Since this is not a simple case of self-promotion and has BLP implications (see the original ANI report), I suggest salting Nicholas Alahverdian and Nick Alahverdian to make future attempts just that little bit more difficult. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• This page should not be speedily deleted because the article has citations from The Boston Globe, Associated Press, The Providence Journal, NBC and CBS affiliates, and other national sources. Sarot23 (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Deleted (G4) and salted. Are there other alternate spellings that should also be dealt with? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Sock blocked. --Rschen7754 20:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'd suggest salting Alahverdian v. Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth and Families, et al and similar titles, to try and reduce the effectiveness of any future socks. That, or an abuse filter for the surname might help. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

An edit filter might be better, if only because it would also catch the insertion of the case into unrelated or loosely related pages (as with this). UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

 Confirmed sock of Fred newman (talk · contribs) - Alison ^❤ 22:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Other articles this sock has a history of editing to add information to are Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth & Families, John J. McConnell, Jr., Robert G. Flanders, Jr., United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, Matthew Fabisch, and Manatee Palms Youth Services. If a couple of other editors will add them to your watchlist or add a filter to prevent the repeated additions of the same photos and paragraphs about Alaverdian's non-notable lawsuit, that would be great. Thanks! NewAccount4Me (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, here is a link to the second ANI that has since been closed. Just so we keep all the records of this mess together (this is the third related ANI). NewAccount4Me (talk) 23:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Enkyo2 continuously violating WP:SELFREF

My last ANI on this was poorly put together, so I might as well just start anew. I have drawn Enkyo2's attention to the relevant policy several times,[98][99][100][] but he is continuing to protest my removal of his commentary on Wikipedia policy from the article space.[101] I think he doesn't understand why this is problematic. Could someone help me explain it? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

This is still clearly a content issue, just like it was a few days ago when multiple editors told you the same thing here. Look for WP:3O or another form of dispute resolution. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Two users expressed their POV that it was a content issue. This time I have provided evidence that this user, despite being told multiple times what the policy is, is continuing to dismiss it. It has nothing to do with content, since none of the edits concerned affect article content. The problem is with Enkyo2 adding references to Wikipedia policy to the article space and refusing to desist even when pointed in the direction of the relevant policy. I was not given a chance in the last thread to respond to the question regarding what kind of admin action I want. I want Enkyo2 to stop assuming bad faith on my part, or for someone in authority whose good faith he HAS TO assume to tell him the same thing I have. No one has thus far disagreed with me on the substance here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Someone should definitely help this user out on the matter. (I would, since I've worked a lot in self-referential parts of the 'pedia, but I'm a bit busy.) However, he's clearly not the only one doing this. I've noticed several articles where there's a blacklisted link and it says in the footnote "(link not allowed by Wikipedia)"—there's one on Nate Silver that I've been meaning to fix for ages. I.e., this isn't an incident, since it's a fairly common mistake. Maybe the Help Desk or the Teahouse would be a better place to find assistance in explaining it? — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 17:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hijiri, there are multiple interpretations of what is and is not acceptable under WP:SELFREF (which, by the way, is a guideline, not a policy), and your complaint appears to be not about an editor's behavior but about content being put in an article--that makes this a content dispute. Based on my brief skim of the diff you gave in your first ANI posting on this, that user's edit does not look egregiously out of line (pronunciation notes are not uncommon in articles), so instead of coming to the drama board you should be looking for a reasonable consensus.

Now on to you. Your own behavior in this dispute, as far as I can tell (I have not taken time to dig up all the relevant diffs and history), has not been above reproach. You started a frivolous ANI thread about article content, where you accused your opponent of not speaking English, when that was nowhere close to true. The four complaints that you raised in that thread were all content concerns, and you never explained the issue (which I saw you mention on the user's talk page, not in ANI) of the clarity of the user's talk page posts, so I have no idea which thing you are actually upset about. Finally, as far as I can tell, User talk:Enkyo2#"Jimmu" and others is the only place where you have attempted to have a discussion with the user about that issue (the other diffs you provided are a revert of his edit--reverts are not discussion--and your own ANI thread). This ANI posting is completely premature. The user in question had already responded to you at his talk page before you posted this second ANI, and yet you chose to return to the drama board rather than actually respond to the user. Why don't you try to go resolve this content dispute in a constructive way? rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The user in question responded on his talk page, but the response essentially said "I don't care what the guideline is, and I'm not going to listen to you". There may be multiple interpretations of SELFREF, but surely inserting one's own controversial interpretation of a Wikipedia style guideline into an article in order to undermine an ongoing RM is near the bottom of potentially acceptable SELFREFS... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, since you have made absolutely no effort to explain the context of this disagreement, why should I (or any other editor here) just take your word that your view is right and the other editor's is wrong? Secondly, you still have not indicated how this is anything other than a content dispute. ANI is not a venue for solving content disputes; people have already given you links to appropriate venues. Continuing this discussion here would be a waste of time. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any idea how hard it is to edit English Wikipedia on a Japanese smart phone? I have mentioned a couple of times in the last few days, including here on ANI, that my computer is in bad shape and I can only post from my phone. I have made a TREMENDOUS effort to explain the context. Enkyo2 didn't like my proposed move of Emperor Jimmu, and he responded by posting a note in the first line of the article that expresses his personal interpretation of a guideline that myself and a number of other users including In ictu oculi clearly interpreted the opposite way. This edit did not alter the content of the article, but clearly represents an attempt to bring a dispute about style guidelines into the article space. I can't take it to DRN because there is no content dispute. The closest thing to a content dispute is the original RM (which is still open) which only concerns the spelling of one word. But my problem is Enkyo2's way of dealing with this, which is posting comments that belong on the talk page in the article itself. I am sorry if I sound hostile, but it's NOT fun trying to deal with issues like this exclusively from a phone that keeps trying to convert everything I type into Japanese. (That's also why it's difficult to post a full record of diffs.) Seriously. The other issue I'm dealing with at the moment is an obvious sockpuppet/vandal/POV-pusher, and I wasn't even able to open the SPI myself... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Based on what you just said, this is absolutely a content dispute. A footnote is article content; if you guys disagree about a footnote, you are disagreeing about article content. Your claim that Enkyo2 refuses to discuss the issue is bogus, because he had already responded to your discussion attempt before you opened this unnecessary thread. Let me say it again (this is the last time I will say it): this is a content dispute.

Also, your problems about your phone are exactly that: your problems. It is frankly ridiculous that you expect someone to take administrative action against some other editor because you can't find a practical way to edit. (Ever think to try a library or internet café?) Likewise, the fact that you're dealing with an unrelated sock is totally irrelevant to this dispute. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Either you're misreading what Hijiri is saying, or you're deliberately making things up. Claiming that Hijiri is asking for administrative action because they're editing from their phone is ludicrous. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. He's explaining why he's having problems with diffs (and his comment about the SPI was an aside - not unusual here). I will say that I looked at the comment about a blocked link at Nate Silver. A good example of why such comments are a bad idea - the link isn't blocked, but does lead to a parody page now (hijacked?). Self-references to Wikipedia are a bad idea - they are similar to using Wikipedia as a source, which we don't do. Dougweller (talk) 15:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Still none of you have said anything to even remotely suggest that this is anything other than a content dispute. No administrator action is needed, and the discussion does not belong here. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

1. Rjanag's insistence that I can go to a library to edit Wikipedia shows an ignorance of Japanese public libraries. Internet cafes are also rare in my area. But I'm in one now, thankfully. The dodgy browser randomly closing tabs I have open is not helpful, though.
2. This is not a content dispute. Posting a note in the article space that doesn't change the content of the article in any substantial way, but misrepresents current Wikipedia guidelines and serves to undermine an ongoing RM is not a content issue.
3. This is not a content dispute. I raised a number of issues with a user's behaviour, which have been consistently ignored by Rjanag (and no one else, despite his above claiming that "multiple editors told you the same thing"). This included (a) the aforementioned posting of a problematic note in order to undermine an RM I had just started;[102][103][104] (b) using the passive voice past simple ("A note was added") instead of simply saying "I have added a note", thus initially misleading me into thinking that it was added according to consensus at some earlier date, rather than a deliberate and unilateral edit that he had just made; (c) this isn't the first time Enkyo has been challenged for refusing to use plain English on talk pages -- he has improved, but there's still a way to go in my opinion; (d) !voting against the RM solely as "revenge" against me for deleting said note, despite previously indicating that he would not !vote until more people got involved (which no one did);[105][106][107][108] (e) posting a large amount of peripherally-related text both in the RM and on his own talk page (I'm pretty sure this is also something for which he's been taken to task before);[109][110] (f) closely following on my heels to a bunch of articles.[111][112][113][114][115][116][117][118][119][120][121]
4. Rjanag, do you honestly think if I posted the above 6 complaints on DRN they would take it seriously as a content dispute? Or do you think they would send me back here because I clearly have a problem with user behaviour?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Another (much lesser) problem. In the past, Enkyo has cited questionable, very old primary sources as references for things that happened after they were written.[122] I don't know if he is still doing this, and his 2007 edits wouldn't be an issue, if he didn't come back two days ago and re-format the reference, without noticing the problem.[123] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Information added to article space (regardless of whether it's in a footnote or the main text) is content. Hence, content dispute. WP:SELFREF is a content guideline, not a behavioral guideline.

As for the rest of the diffs you just posted, to be perfectly honest I have not looked at them. If there were legitimate behavioral problems with the user's conduct at talk pages, it should not have taken you this long to mention them. Your original complaint was about the wording of content the user put in articles, and that issue is obviously a content dispute. If there was a behavioral issue, you should not have wasted days making irrelevant complaints about content issues. rʨanaɢ (talk) 11:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

My original complaint was that, having posted questionable material in an article, in problematic response to my RM, Enkyo refused to use plain English on the talk page to discuss it, instead posting vaguely related gibberish. He's been called out for this in ArbCom cases before, so your refusal to take it seriously now is just plain baffling. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

No, your original complaint claimed the user was posting non-English in article space, which was not at all true. You also claimed that the user wouldn't respond to requests for discussion, which again was not true because the user had already responded before you brought this ANI (and instead of engaging in discussion, you came here to open this thread). If you expected me to take previous arbitration cases into account, you should have made at least an ounce of effort to provide links or diffs. I cannot read your mind. You have made barely any effort to provide explanation or background about any of the issues you are trying to bring here. This whole thing is extremely unproductive. If you want a productive solution, people have already told you where you can find content dispute resolution. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

No, go back and read it. I complained that he was posting problematic material in the article space, and that I was unable to discuss it with him constructively because he refuses to use plain English on the talk page. My header was poorly worded and tongue-in-cheek, but I have since made it very clear that when I said he "needs to start speaking English", I meant I want someone to help me convince him to be coherent in his talk page comments. I said he wouldn't respond to me in a reasonable, coherent manner (his response implied he hadn't even clicked on the link to SELFREF I provided, as he didn't refer to it, and some of his later comments had absolutely nothing to do with the argument). I figured going back and mining ancient diffs was a little off-topic -- I expected you to look at the diffs I did provide to see Enkyo making a !vote and then problematic self-withdrawal on one RM and posting another RM in which he was the OP but his incoherent argument made it seem like he actually wanted the page to stay where it is. I still don't want to go to DRN with this, because I already have gone there with a user conduct issue, and while DRN took me seriously the other user in the dispute didn't and I wound up taking it to ANI within a few days. This is not a content issue, it's a user behaviour issue, and you are the only one who has been interpreting it otherwise. GiantSnowman said the diff I presented was clearly problematic, Kudpung asked me what exactly I was looking for (at which point you closed before I got a chance to respond, with a sudden insistence that mine was a content dispute that belongs on DRN), PinkAmpersand said someone should help me, Lukeno and Dougweller both said you were wrong in ignoring what I was saying. No one has said this should not be dealt with here other than you (Kudpung hadn't seen enough evidence, which I admit was my fault), and given how many people have clearly disagreed with you on this I don't see why you continue to ignore all the evidence. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd have to agree here that Rjanag seems to be completely missing the point. The fact that is Enkyo2 has been adding a selfref into a footnote and that Hijiri reverted it would put it as a content dispute. However the issue is that Enkyo2 completely fails to understand why Hijiri is arguing against its inclusion. This is completely an editor issue and is likely related to a familiarity, or lack thereof, with the nuances of english. Blackmane (talk) 13:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Problem IP range

Further to the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive808#Possible_Problematic_IP_Range, the vandalism is ongoing. I have collated all the problematic IP addresses below. Interestingly there seem to be two ranges (2602:304 and 2600:1006) so I don't know what is going on there, but there is a huge overlap and a similar MO. Betty Logan (talk) 00:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I was just in the process of doing the same work. This list of I.P addresses is the same editor and an absolute pest. I am pretty sure they are block evading but I haven't had time to go back and match against registered usernames who have been blocked. Support a long block for all of these I.P numbers. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• 2600:1006:B00D:30F5:C91C:4177:4B2E:941F (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Warnings (May 8)
• 2600:1006:B120:CCCC:9C55:8353:686:199E (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Warnings (May 8)
• 2600:1006:B128:76E6:D71C:4EE9:B640:3976 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Warnings (May 28)
• 2600:1006:b121:805f:8969:dcf8:80b5:3b4c (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Warnings (June 8)
• 2600:1006:B11E:79D6:E088:FCD5:D35B:C1F9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Warnings (June 13)
• 2600:1006:B10C:8A77:DEAF:987A:431C:4A41 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block, warnings (June 14)
• 2600:1006:B121:90C4:FCB8:11C9:7EA:1258 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block (June 15)
• 2600:1006:B116:B0B4:93A7:BE9E:5DC3:9F7B (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block, warnings (June 16)
• 2600:1006:B113:DF3E:D6D4:C04E:C952:D765 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Warnings (June 18)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:5085:2436:2F06:8253 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block, warnings (June 21)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:8161:20E5:4812:6CAF (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Warnings (June 22)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:7C87:6003:D0DC:F798 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Warnings (June 23)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:E83E:A792:7798:A961 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Warnings (June 24)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:A0CE:8C9F:2737:DF4B (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block, warnings (June 24)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:C19A:A376:C9AD:25C (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Warnings (June 25)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:8DE7:A919:12DE:D0A9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block, warnings (June 25)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:598A:E225:CC32:756E (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block (June 25)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:AD42:5402:9D3:F2BF (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block (June 25)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:7C61:46EB:E03F:5D2D (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block, warnings (June 26)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:6CC4:C07F:AEE8:A53F (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Warnings (June 26)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:F165:F628:4232:ED76 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block, warnings (June 28)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:EC09:2593:5ED5:53AB (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block (June 28)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:B137:43AA:F356:85F0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Warnings (June 28)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:922:2AC4:C2AF:B609 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Warnings (June 28)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:1545:7DE8:35BD:F71 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Warnings (June 29)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:5849:DF70:94:898F (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Warnings (June 30)
• 2602:304:CD01:1F59:695F:67EF:B28D:C510 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block, warnings (June 30)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:C1CD:C4F5:41CA:D57E (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block, warnings (July 1)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:31EC:6415:6846:32AD (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block, warnings (July 2)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:4DC4:24B6:BA6A:55A9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block, warnings (July 3)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:3D34:580A:B97F:F635 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - warnings (July 3)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:BC78:8796:1777:7754 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - warnings (July 4)
• 2600:1006:B12D:B804:E2F8:EABA:AB30:754E (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block (July 4)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:4D18:EA16:7F72:4A6E (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - warnings (July 7)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:89:67FF:96F4:5A6F (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - warnings (July 8)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:A4A2:B867:8C97:2004 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - warnings (July 8)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:5D64:3D6A:1606:85C8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block (July 9)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:9931:357C:17C5:FAB6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block (July 9)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:6C8D:3732:9B0D:44B2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - warnings (July 10)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:C98D:A4D8:2C3E:4A8D (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - warnings (July 11)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:88A2:BBB2:D3C3:5E85 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block, warnings (July 11)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:AC44:2834:CF66:E28C (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block, warnings (July 12)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:2C4B:F6A:56CB:384B (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Warnings (july 13)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:3452:FAAE:480E:958B (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Warnings (july 13)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:480E:FF16:D5A:90DF (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block, warnings (July 13)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:7000:9355:2DE6:8B16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block, Warnings (July 14)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:1C8B:93FD:27BA:B0D1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block (July 23)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:9077:650A:B40D:66E8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block (July 26)
• 2602:304:AF53:3E99:7D9E:7FF5:2713:452F (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block (July 26)
• 2600:1006:B10C:8748:A93:BFB:6DEA:4579 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block (Aug 4)
• 2600:1006:B11D:90F7:CF99:6D89:DA26:7727 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block (Aug 9)
• 2600:1006:B108:23BC:57CD:B7C9:775D:54B9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - warnings (August 15)
• 2600:1006:B127:6F24:9AB8:2E7D:C1C1:C836 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - warnings (August 16)
• 2600:1006:B123:7502:C86D:9705:C421:DDE (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block (Aug 18)
• 2600:1006:B124:DB15:1369:665:1593:700E (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block (Aug 20)
• 2600:1006:B100:6E88:DA40:D1D3:F90E:C8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block (Aug 21)
• 2600:1006:B10A:82A7:59F4:6D7:E95E:A797 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block (Aug 22)
• 2600:1006:B121:8B8C:A259:526B:BE1A:C78F (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - warnings (Aug 26)
• 2600:1006:B107:41A4:4F32:BD88:12AE:3703 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block, Warnings (Aug 26)
• 2600:1006:B11D:20E1:B00D:3476:D1F9:5437 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - warnings (Aug 27)
• 2600:1006:B111:45F1:1C11:610B:F420:A9E1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block, Warnings (Aug 28)
• 2600:1006:B117:ECB:83BB:F313:3F6F:D35D (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Block (Aug 29)

• I'm a bit shaky on IPv6 rangeblocks, but I think these two ranges are 2600:1006:B100::/56 and 2602:0304:AF53:3E99::/64. (Someone will need to check that, before I block half the USA). I'm guessing that's a single user on a home IP (the latter /64) and possibly a work or mobile range (the /56)? Black Kite (talk) 01:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I think your mistaken regarding the /56. While I probably understand it even less, the chart at mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Range_blocks/IPv6 suggests you would need a much larger rangeblock, as best I can tell a /42. /56 would appear to cover only 2600:1006:B100:0000-2600:1006:B100:00ff. Monty₈₄₅ 03:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• The 2602:304:AF53:3E99::/64 addresses are still covered by the rangeblock mentioned in the ANI thread mentioned by the OP. However, unless a CheckUser can absolutely clear the 2600:1006:B000::/39 range of collateral damage, I cannot recommend rangeblocking, even at the /64 level, because this is a mobile network with many users on each subnet (a /64 might have limited collateral, especially given that we may need them because of this user's IP hopping, but since the user is hopping across multiple /64's, I don't think it will be useful to do so). Depending on the nature of the situation, an abuse filter might be a next-best option.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Date of Birth

This seems almost trivial compared to some of the stuff here. The main editor of Anitha Shaiq has been trying to remove her DoB because the subject of the article doesn't want it there. My first thought is that we shouldn't allow people to censor articles, but I suppose that it could be argued that it's sensitive information.

I wouldn't normally bother people with this, but I've been quite involved in this article, trying to minimise the spamming, inappropriate ELs etc., and sometimes bludgeoning a bit because the editor will only discuss when coerced into doing so (even reverting xbot!). In view of my involvement, I'd welcome an independent view Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• I believe it is common practice to remove a date of birth from a BLP if the subject requests it, and, if I remember correctly, it may even be in the BLP policy. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Date, yes. Year, no! The aim is not to indulge peoples vanities. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    • If there is no source for the birth date, the entire thing should be removed immediately, and that appears to be the case here. Claiming someone was born earlier than they were in reality is considered defamatory in some circles, and so should absolutely be considered a BLP violation here. If the birth date can be tied to a reliable source, then simply giving the year is common practice if the subject requests it. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

This is what you mean: WP:DOB. I've advised the main editor of Anitha Shaiq that the subject should contact OTRS if she has a plausible reason for not wanting the DoB shown. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

For clarification, there has been no claim that the DoB is wrong, just that she doesn't want it there (perhaps, as a performer, she doesn't want her age revealed). If I removed it as unsourced, I might as well delete the whole article given that the one ref doesn't support much of the text, but I'm reluctant to do that having helped/coerced the editor to clean up the original hagiography Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Abiding by WP:BLP would mean deleting unreferenced content which may be defamatory, whether or not it is challenged. The rest of the content is another issue. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I've cut out all of the personal/early/family/school life because it was all unsourced. We're not a substitute for a personal blog; if the information has been discussed in reliable sources, we can cover it, but, if not, it's not important enough for inclusion (and, to be honest, much of that wouldn't be suitable for an encyclopedia article even if it were sourced). Qwyrxian (talk) 12:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Visite fortuitement prolongée#Gatestone_Institute

I am asking for advice regarding what appears to be a disruptive pattern of editing which involves drive-by tagging and removal of citations from tens of articles in the past week (~250 edits in the past week alone, see [last 250 edits]. The common denominator to these edits were initially citations from articles published on gatestoneinstitute.org. user:Visite_fortuitement_prolongée initially removed several such quotations as copyvio (see diff and diff). Another editor reworded the quotes (diff) to avoid any such possible violation however the quotes were then removed by user:Visite_fortuitement_prolongée who tagged them as unreliable source (diff). At the same time

User:Visite_fortuitement_prolongée started applying the unreliable source tag to tens of different quotes from Gatestone articles on a variety of wikipedia topics, deleting many of these citations altogether. His edits are very rapid, moving from one topic to another at times at less than 1 minute intervals. For instance in 30 minutes (on August 27,2013 starting at 20:00[diff] till 20:29 [diff] ) I counted edits in nearly 40 separate articles (is this even humanly possible without a script or a bot?). Among those later edits citations from another source(europenews.dk) in multiple separate topics were also deleted.

He doesn't discuss most of those changes in the articles' respective talk pages. I mentioned in his user's talk page several days ago that each citation has to be reviewed separately since "Many sources are reliable for statement "X," but unreliable for statement "Y"; I also mentioned that "sources needn't necessarily be neutral, unbiased, or objective" to which he answered "indeed" (User talk:Visite fortuitement prolongée#Gatestone_Institute) and continued nonetheless with the same behavior.

I ask for guidance on how to approach this as the editor basically ignored my 3 entries on his talk page in the past week and these edits are ballooning at an unmanageable pace. N1of2 (talk) 06:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

EDIT: I crossed out a paragraph above to avoid sidetracking from the main issue and made a new entry (below) to express myself more clearly since the problem seems to have been misunderstood. There are hundreds of independent authors that publish on Gatestone Institute's website. N1of2 (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

VFP is correct about the source not being reliable. If you want to retain the content, you should find a reliable source. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that one cannot make a blanket assumption that a source is unreliable for all statements; each statement needs to be evaluated on its own merits. In this case many different authors /articles cited in multiple different wikipedia articles were mass tagged and deleted without individual consideration. N1of2 (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Are there places where a VFP Gatestone source was being used to support statements about itself or its members? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean Gatestone Institute source? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I originally wrote something else, changed my edit, and wasn't very thorough. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Roscelese, please see my added paragraph below with clarifications. There are hundreds of authors listed as having published on Gatestone Institute's website and most don't appear to be members of the institute. N1of2 (talk) 21:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

There is an error above, in "user:Visite_fortuitement_prolongée initially removed several such quotations as copyvio [and later] tagged them as unreliable source". This month I always tagged as unreliable (for example 569455895 and 569456468) before deleting as copyvio (for example 569456507 and 569456861). Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, I crossed out that paragraph because it is sidetracking the discussion from the overall picture. N1of2 (talk) 21:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the striking. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Please also notice that I did not deleted when needed as WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV (see for example Israeli targeted killings or Civilian casualty ratio) and when needed as biography (see for example Tuvia Tenenbom or Richard Miniter). Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Let me restate or reemphasize the problem. There are hundreds of authors listed as contributors on the Gatestone Institute's website, some well known, some less so.[Author list]. Does anyone mean to say that ALL their Gatestone articles are automatically deemed an unreliable source for any wikipedia statement and that these articles are basically banned from being cited as source on wikipedia? According to WP:RS "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is an appropriate source for that content." It seems absurd to mass tag and mass delete tens of different articles by different authors as unreliable source without judging individually whether EACH is reliable for the statement being made! I just do not comprehend this mass automated deletion without any discussion in the relevant topic's talk page. These topics encompass tens of different wikipidia articles and hundreds of different statements and I do not see how this wonton mass deletion in a matter of minutes without due consideration could possibly be allowed. N1of2 (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes, they're unreliable on their face. Maybe you could make a case for an individual article or two being reliable if the author is some sort of super expert in the real world, but generally, if what they're saying is true and important, why can't they get it published in a real source instead of on the website of some fearmongering think tank? This is really not an ANI issue, VFP's actions are neutral at worst but probably a positive contribution. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what fearmongering you're talking about but you're entitled to your opinion. Also, authors that appear on Gatestone seem to publish in mainstream media (see "in the media" link on Gatestone's website). Nevertheless, after looking at the reliable sources noticeboard, it seems that they are very strict regarding whom they consider a reliable source, and Gatestone's website may not pass scrutiny. The question is whether wholesale "automated" deletion of Gatestone citations is the best way to approach this; from a look at several of those deleted articles, they contain direct links to mainstream media sources which should qualify as a reliable source and could be used for that purpose instead. N1of2 (talk) 03:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

User:OTEx

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

User:OTEx has appeared at Talk:September 11 attacks with what appears to be a Truther agenda, demanding the placement of POV tags [124] and accusing other editors [125] [126], and possibly the government [127] of hijacking the article. They moved on to focus-on-contributors-not-content [128] and baiting [129]. Based on my engagement on User talk:OTEx they're concealing their primary account [130] and basically beating around the bush [131]. They were warned about the general 9/11 arbitration enforcement sanctions [132] and are clearly in violation of the original, narrow sanction terms. I've blocked a sockpuppet account, User:Ishishgibberish, as OTEx's "cypher changed itself by the sheer power of its will." Whatever. Since I don't consider myself an uninvolved editor for the purpose of 9/11-related sanctions, I'm asking for a review of OTEx's behavior and appropriate action. Acroterion (talk) 01:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

A good block that should be followed up with a block to User:OTEx; that user wasted more of our time then we should've allowed. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

After taking a look at Talk:September 11 attacks#Unlock the article I suggest an indef block per WP:NOTHERE. Admins should not take the trouble to go through the Arbcom sanctions process for someone who is making no effort to contribute in a normal way. EdJohnston (talk) 04:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

That's probably the most practical approach. I strongly suspect that this is someone who was sanctioned under the arbitration remedy some years ago, returning to try to settle scores, but it's not really worth the trouble to find out who it might be. Acroterion (talk) 04:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support indeff. OTEx is obviously WP:NOTHERE who ever he may have been in a past life. The suggestion of a focussed group is a ridiculous interpretation of a full page protection. Those rants are purely disruptive. I would do the block myself now, but I prefer to add to the consensus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef as per WP:NOTHERE. Regardless of which banned editor they may be, they're not any remote benefit to the encyclopedia. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef Obviously a "editor" with an agenda against Wikipedia and this article in general. Someone who sees conspiracy everwhere and has made allegations of editors working in a cabal - without any evidence. David J Johnson (talk) 09:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Ask and ye shall received--user indeff'd under discretionary sanctions. I've left them the option of agreeing instead to an indefinite complete topic ban on anything related to September 11 in all wikispaces...but I doubt that will occur. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Just a general note that I missed most of the fun here...--MONGO 23:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Easy block

The easyblock script isn't working for me today (drop down menu appears, but click has no effect). Is it just me, or is there a problem with this wonderful tool? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm having the same issue. NativeForeigner ^Talk 09:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Me too. The dropdwn drops down, but the page just goes green and nothing else happens. Is it a Twinkle issue, or is it an issue for Bugzill, or something to do with the defaylt login to https since two days ago? I have a couple of other scripts not working since then too. 11:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

I doubt it involves the default https although it's a possibility. I've been using https for at least two months, and never had an issue. I haven't tried to use the script in a week or two though. NativeForeigner ^Talk 14:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll see what happens next time I want to use it and if it persists I'll mention it on the VPT because I'm not sure who develops it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Found it: importScript('User:Animum/easyblock.js') - I'll contact the author. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed it. More details on VPT. Legoktm (talk) 08:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

BLP incident

• Note this incident: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Asaram_Bapu. It is an incident where Bbb23 has been removing talk page comments citing BLP policy. It is time sensitive since it is preferable if this issue is resolved quickly considering the large number of readers looking for the information: [133]. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

We need an admin to override an admin who has been wikipedia-absent for 53 hours

This is a meta-request to any admin, so I will not give details here. We need an admin to override an admin who has been wikipedia-absent for 53 hours following a full protection action and has not reacted at all to editors' talk page consensus (s/he might have gone offline for perfectly good reasons). See Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#2013_Ghouta_attacks for details. I didn't put subst:ANI-notice on that admin's talk page because that admin's wikipedia-absence is his/her private business. Either Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#2013_Ghouta_attacks or Talk:2013_Ghouta_attacks#Is_such_a_high_protection_warranted.3F would seem like the right place for following this up. Thanks. Boud (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Done. Dropped protection to semi. Black Kite (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Whitney Center 3RR, COI, etc

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Whitney Center (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created Whitney Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which was A7ed. The user has repeatedly removed the CSD notice from the article, has obvious COI and username us in violation of WP:ISU. There are so many places to report this that I opted for ANI. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Please block this user and also delete Whitney Center, user:Whitney Center, and remove the invalid speedy delete notice from Renzo L. Ricca. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Return

please block quacker Whitney Center II (talk · contribs) and delete Whitney Center again. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

 Note: These are two new accounts of User:David Beals. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate user page at User:Phil Sandifer

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Phil Sandifer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a user page that is a clear breach of WP:UP#POLEMIC, which says specifically mentions "statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors". The page should be removed. I also question whether this editor is really here to build an encyclopedia, or is just being disruptive. StAnselm (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I have not notified the editor per the request on his talk page. StAnselm (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Given that Phil has only made 13 edits in the last two years apart from the Manning brouhaha, I hardly think his refusal to contribute here is going to lose anyone a huge amount of sleep. As for the vitriol, well ... I doubt if anyone who supported moving the article back is going to be particularly offended by an editor venting. The same attacks are all over the various talkpages, after all. Black Kite (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Though having said that, Phil's comments on one of the move request closer's talk pages are quite unpleasant. Black Kite (talk) 21:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't really see the problem, we allow users to express their views on their user pages, and there is nothing that violates any policy on his user page as far as I can tell. (For the record, Phil Sandifer has contributed since 2004 and remains a Wikipedia administrator.) Josh Gorand (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe the page violated any policies, but as I am currently working on a blog post detailing the entire saga I have altered it in the interests of not being unduly inflammatory. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Copyright problem: Jozef van Wissem

I have removed copyright violations from Jozef van Wissem, added associated acts, updated career, and updated style and influences. But Ymblanter suddenly appeared, reverted all my edits (re-added copyvio material, blanked associated acts, and removed well-sourced material without explanation), and protected the page indefinitely, saying "you goal is not improving Wikipedia but something else". I don't think his editing behavior complies with Wikipedia policies and guidelines such as WP:BLP, WP:CV, and especially WP:PREFER, which states that "administrators should not protect or unprotect a page to further their own positions in content disputes", in this case. I would like to hear other editors' opinions about his administrative actions. Jvwissem (talk) 19:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The history page of the article (especially in March) may give a hint who this new user is and what they want.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I also suggest that administrators consider a hard username block.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

For the record, Ymblanter somehow changed protection level of the page from "indefinitely" to "3 days" and visibility from "disable" to "enable" after this issue being reported here. Jvwissem (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm... For some odd reason i cannot escape the impression that users Jvwissem and Jozefvanwissem have a very definite agenda relating to the composer mentioned in the article. They seem to fit the profile of a single purpose account. They are not the only ones making an appearance in this article. Looking a bit further we have

• Joevw
• 82.93.76.81
• 122.26.248.237

What's going on? Socks? Promotion? Inquiring minds want to know. Kleuske (talk) 11:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that Jozefvanwissem is Jozef von Wissem, and Jvwissem is the former 122.26.248.237 (aka IP editor from Tokyo) who is not Jozef von Wissem. They are both single-personpurpose accounts. Whereas it is pretty clear what Jozefvanwissem wants, Jvwissem also have their own agenda, which includes listing certain people in the article and not listing other people. Last session, in March, included taking the issue to the Dispute resolution noticeboard and a number of blocks and protections. The full story is probably still at the talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that you are right. I've soft blocked both accounts under WP:USERNAME but left what I hope is a helpful note for Jozefvanwissem, since I believe he is probably the individual in question. My note to Jvwissem includes some of the same language, but also a note about not conflating different types of edits under an edit summary suggesting one action. I'm looking into the alleged copyright issue, but I suspect content developed naturally on Wikipedia. I'm already seeing signs of that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The phrase "An incessantly touring musician...." was added here, by itself. The rest of the material about touring differs from the supposed Facebook source. The line about the Cannes award does not appear on Facebook and was added here, but is of minimal creativity. I don't believe there is a copyright based reason to remove it, although User:Jozefvanwissem could use a few more words about how to use his own bio on the page. I'll add that in.

By the way, in case this is misunderstood, my soft block is not meant to preclude other actions, as appropriate. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

"In 2013 Van Wissem won the Cannes Soundtrack Award for Only Lovers Left Alive" was taken from here. "An incessantly touring musician, [...] Van Wissem studied lute in New York with Patrick O'Brien" and "was commissioned by London's National Gallery to compose a sound piece to Hans Holbein's painting The Ambassadors" were taken from here. Coolhandlute (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

And can an admin whack the above sock for username (impersonating User:Cool Hand Luke)? —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 06:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done by DeltaQuad.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

FlyAkwa: Ownership problems on High-speed rail and TGV

FlyAkwa (talk · contribs). FlyAkwa is in essence a single-purpose account that behaves as if they own High-speed rail and TGV. An SPA with a clear pro-French and anti-Chinese agenda that for a long time has removed, sometimes against consensus but usually without even trying to get consensus (I can in fact not recall a single instance where his actions have been supported by any consensus, at least not on High-speed rail, which is the article that I have been following, even if mostly from the sidelines), all material that mentions Chinese progress in the field of high-speed rail, or in any way shines a positive light on Chinese high-speed rail, while at the same time trying to portray French high-speed rail in as positive a way as possible. To such an extent that it is impossible to make the articles as neutral as they should be. FlyAkwa has repeatedly been told to stop, and has also been given warnings telling him to stop, but he just keeps on going, pushing his POV on both articles, including repeatedly removing properly sourced content relating to Chinese high-speed rail. So I'd appreciate if an administrator would take a look at it. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 18:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I can add that he has removed the same properly sourced content relating to Chinese high-speed rail three times on High-speed rail between 17:10UTC and 18:28UTC today. Which shows how determined he is to "defend" what he sees as his article. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 18:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• It does look like there is an ownership issue, but I think we should be careful not to overreact here, as this seems to be a Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth situation. If the information from the reliable source is in fact wrong, it shouldn't be included at this point. The problem is that the discussion on that has gotten mixed in with the ownership issue, and only inflamed things. This sort of situation can be very confusing for editors, and that needs to be taken into consideration when deciding how to respond to FlyAkwa's actions so far. Monty₈₄₅ 02:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Lx 121 seems to be objecting PRODs because he is "not a fan"

So about two weeks ago, I placed a PROD on Laguna (album). It was removed two days ago with the edit summary "suggest merge to the group's article, rather than prod". I was a bit confused by this, as he didn't explain what exactly he wanted to merge or anything, so I inquired on his talk page in this thread. After he replied saying he didn't like PRODs in general, and I saw a couple more threads on his talk asking about PRODs, I decided to look through his contributions, and I found that he was removing a whole bunch of PRODs with little to no explanation.

Removals like this and this are what I'm talking about, and a lot of other ones just say "suggest merge, oppose PROD" or something similar. This thread on his talk page followed. Now, while I know an explanation isn't technically required, it's generally looked down upon to not include an explanation from what I've heard, and since he said he has stuff against the policy, I can't help but think he's doing this just to get rid of PRODs, which would violate WP:POINT. Thoughts? TCN7JM 21:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I'd say he's doing it wrong. WP:PROD, as a policy, is particularly vulnerable to this kind of behavior. PROD was designed precisely to avoid AfDs like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eurasian union youth of Jordan, which he didn't even bother participating in. I think if you're going to decline a PROD (I'm sure I've done so) you need an actual reason and there needs to be follow-up, either in the form of improving the article or taking it to AfD. Drive-by declines aren't cool. Mackensen (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
• Given that he removed a PROD from this collection of complete bollocks, this article that clearly fails NSONG, and whatever the hell this is, I'd suggest he steps back from removing PRODs at all. No rationale given in most cases ("suggest merging someplace" isn't a rationale). Black Kite (talk) 00:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• hello; with all due respect: then why not SPEEDY it instead of prodding? if it wasn't a clear enough case to speedy, then it wasn't a clear enough case to object to making it an afd instead of a prod. Lx 121 (talk) 07:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Because none of them actually fit into the ridiculously narrow definitions of speedy as they stand. Black Kite (talk) 10:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• therefore, afd was appropriate, q.e.d.. if you want a less-restrictive speedy-deletion policy, you are free to advocate for it. & if the community agrees with you, it will happen. if not, then please don't try to "back-door" it via re-interpreting prod. Lx 121 (talk) 15:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed. When they removed the prod from the album and specifically suggested a merge to the band's article, that's fair (and in that situation, they were also correct to point out that a removed PROD shouldn't be replaced). A few of the others I looked at were fine too, imo. But a bunch seem intended only to subvert the process, and that is where the problem lies. Resolute 00:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

  I agree that not all of this user's PROD declines were bad, but there were enough for me to take concern. TCN7JM 01:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

  The List of current UFL team rosters de-prod is particularly infuriating as their rationale made it obvious that they neither read the article as it stood or checked the history. Resolute 02:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• hello; yes i did check both the article & its history; i was SUGGESTING that it might be worth untangling the mess of already prematurely deleted info, & transferring it into the article about the league; presumably as "history" itself. unless i've missed something, & all this info is already hiding somewhere on the page about the league? because i didn't see it there... Lx 121 (talk) 06:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Please, do not lie to me. If you had checked the history (like I did), you would have known there was no content at any point in that article's history. It was only ever a holding place for templates that had been deleted years ago. There was nothing to merge, ever. Further, if you had checked into the league's history (like I did), you would see that the league is defunct. That alone makes a page dedicated to current rosters rather pointless. Resolute 18:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Yup - given that a 'list' with nothing in it is a sure-fire delete, an admin (volunteer please) should speedy it, and avoid anyone else having to look at this example of pointlessness. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

  Done. Have to admit I didn't even realize the UFL folded. Mackensen (talk) 03:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• While we're at it, why DOESN'T removing a PROD require an explanation? If someone nominates something at AFD and doesn't give a reason, they'll get a speedy close and a faceful of trout for their trouble. I don't think it's too much to ask for dePRODders to at least state their reasoning. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• note that there is a certain functional difference in action & outcome, between starting an afd, & ending a prod (as keep/oppose). Lx 121 (talk) 07:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Possibly Wikipedia:Proposed deletion policy needs revising - I don't think it is too much to ask that an edit summary giving at least an indication of reasoning should be provided. And the reasoning should relate to article content, rather than to dislike of PRODs in general. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• in that case, if we're looking to improve the process, then why don't we also change the rule for DELETING prod-ed articles, to require a proper summary by the closer, as well? because if you look, & count, i think you'll find rather a lot of them are closed as "unopposed prod" or similar & equally uninformative text (if any)... ("as per nominator" actually counts as an unusually "in-depth" explanation)

because it's not as if removing a prod is the only situation where the requirement for explanation of action is "lax".

Lx 121 (talk) 07:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• I, too, think the first numbered bullet in WP:DEPROD should be required, not just encouraged. If it was, stuff like this wouldn't happen. TCN7JM 03:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'd support that too. The drive-by deprod is the main reason I almost never use the prod. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'd personally favor moving all PRODs to AFD and eliminating that little-watched cul de sac of the deletion process altogether. Carrite (talk) 06:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Agreed...at this point PROD is just a minor stumble that very few actually take seriously; I've only had four-five PRODs in my eight years here go through the required seven days without intervention. When a serial vandal removes a PROD and you put it right back it ends up with an admin telling you that you have to go through AfD anyways; I just prefer to go right to SPEEDY or AfD straight off because you're just giving anyone any cause to remove a PROD without explanation. Nate • (chatter) 06:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

  • to sumarize my response to the above group of comments: if you'd like to start an rfc about revising or eliminating prod, i'd be more than willing to support that. i'd favour abolishing it, personally.

HOWEVER until that happens (a community-wide discussion & vote), the rules stand as they are. a "prod" is a SUGGESTION. anyone is free to prod any article once. anyone is free to object by de-prodding it, for any reason. if the first user wants to pursue the matter, they are free to start an afd & have a proper conversation about it.

that's how it works; prod is a "shortcut" for deletions to which no one objects. & every user has the right to a liberum veto of every prod.

unless the complaining user can point out some way in which i have violated the rules, i stand by my editing decisions. said user is free to voice their disagreement, & free to start afd's, as they like.

such is the wikipedia community process.

Lx 121 (talk) 06:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• HELLO -- yes, this other user & i have been having a little discussion about the prod rules, which the other user is consistently failing to read, or understand.

User_talk:Lx_121#PROD -- as you can see we very quickly reached the point of simply going-in-circles. he is unhappy with my de-prod choices, i am unhappy with his failure to understand how prod works.

i will also note, in passing, that the user failed to notify me of this discussion (here), as is clearly REQUIRED in the instructions for filing complaints (in a big, amber warning box, no less).

yet another incidence of this user failing to understand or follow the rules.

Lx 121 (talk) 06:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Actually, if you care to look, he did notify you. He just didn't use the template (which isn't mandatory anyways). Still, I wouldn't be talking if I were you. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 06:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• "Still, I wouldn't be talking if I were you." -- what exactly is this supposed to mean? Lx 121 (talk) 07:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

You were notified here... --Rschen7754 06:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• ''actually, NO, the USER did not notify me of anything, which is the clear requirement:

"You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. You may use Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. to do so."

Also, please provide links and diffs here to involved pages and editors. The templates Example (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (for pages) and Example user (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (for editors) may be helpful. "

there was nothing about it on my talkpage.

i was automatically informed that my name had come up in a discussion here, because i happened to have the appropriate widgets (& javascript) turned on.

if not, i would have remained uninformed...

• i stand corrected, there is a notice, in an indented section (as an inline, text-masked link), on my talkpage. i don't recall seeing it there when i scanned the page for new msgs, but because it's buried, i might have missed it. it would be nice if it had been displayed more prominently; a new section would have been the "normal" form, no? . Lx 121 (talk) 07:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Lx 121 (talk) 07:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The fact that PROD technically works in the way you say, Lx 121, does not mean that your actions are helpful to the encyclopedia; in fact, it could even be said that they are disruptive. I recall a few years ago there was an editor who regularly removed prods and didn't provide any rationale, and was doing it so often that eventually they were told they had to stop de-prodding for any reason or face a block for disruptive editing. I don't recall who it was, though I'm fairly certain they were part of the high profile group of inclusionists who regularly intervene to keep as many articles as possible. If a number of editors consider your activity disruptive (and I include myself in that category), then you need to revise your behavior. There are all sorts of example of things that are technically permissible by our rules, yet, when taken to extreme, can result in sanctions. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• "I'm fairly certain they were part of the high profile group of inclusionists who regularly intervene to keep as many articles as possible" -- are you REALLY going to bring that into this conversation? & should i then assume that you are part of a "high-profile" deletionist cabal? :p Lx 121 (talk) 08:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• & let's clear one thing up FOR THE RECORD

EVERY SINGLE PROD I HAVE REMOVED HAS INCLUDED AN EDIT SUMMARY; with the possible exception of one, when i accidentally wrote & saved the summary without removing the prod template; which i did in the next edit. the fact that user:TCN7JM doesn't agree with my choices, is that user's right, & the user is IN NO WAY prevented from starting an afd for any article they want to see removed.

Lx 121 (talk) 07:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• well, if you feel comfortable in going through the entire review process, then sanction away. because i feel comfortable that my de-prod decisions are perfectly in accord with existing wp policies, & i stand by them. i also "don't do" threats. :)

if you can find any of my actions that are a violation of policy, please indicate them to me?

Lx 121 (talk) 07:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I think it's clear that User: Lx 121 is WP: NOTHERE, given that they have openly stated that they intend to continue their disruption even after the problem has been brought up. They clearly either don't get it or don't care. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 07:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment -- no, i've stated that i do not feel that i have committed any "offences" here, & have asked for clarification of any alleged violations of wp:policy. (& btw, you have still not provided an explanation for your above comment, which i found unclear? why exactly "shouldn't i be talking"? o__0) Lx 121 (talk) 08:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Standard PROD is for uncontroversial deletions. If someone objects, no matter how stupid or meaningless the objection looks to other editors, it is not uncontroversial anymore and it has to go to AfD. Simple as that. The only case I could fathom of someone abusing PROD is someone that looks at all articles being prodded and deprods them, for the sake of it. This doesn't seem to be the case. Therefore, this discussion is ridicolous. I concur with other editors above that PROD should be seriously rethought or even abolished. --cyclopia^speak! 07:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, that's not the case - if the objection is stupid and meaningless, or the user is removing PRODs from obviously failing articles without saying why (see the three I linked), then that's clearly disruptive, and editors have been warned off doing it before. Black Kite (talk) 09:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• sorry, but that is not the case. if you would like to insert such a clause in the prod rules, then i invite you to start an rfc about it. Lx 121 (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Black Kite. Removing PRODs because one does not like the proposed deletion process itself does not make the proposal to delete the article controversial. All it says is that an editor is willing to abuse process to waste the time of others, which is disruptive. Some of Lx 121's deprod reasons are legitimate. Many are not. Resolute 19:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with abolishing the PROD process and just using AfD. About the current case, I don't see clear violations of the WP:DEPROD process here. No action required. Cavarrone 08:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

  I never claimed there was a violation of DEPROD. A user's actions don't have to violate a policy or guideline to constitute disruption. TCN7JM 15:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• WP:PROD has always been an awkward blend of too much bureaucracy and too little oversight. If you're looking for a process to trim we could do much worse. --erachima talk 09:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• PROD fulfils an important purpose - it gets rid of the articles that haven't got a chance of surviving AfD but don't fit neatly into the ridiculously narrow boundaries of CSD. If you got rid of it, you'd end up with horrible backlogs at AfD. Black Kite (talk) 09:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• That is the standard argument in its favor, yes. But if AfD allows deletion if an article is nominated and nobody objects before the clock runs out, then the exact same function is filled with one less process. --erachima talk 10:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Exactly. A larger use of soft deletions would be sufficient to replace the PROD process without significant problems. Cavarrone 12:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Why would you want to move something that is never going to be a viable article to another namespace? That's a complete and utter waste of everyone's time. A better idea, of course, would be to expand the CSD criteria to cover articles which are (for example) complete failures of OR or WP:NOT. Of course, "the exact same function is filled with one less process" suggested above would be perfectly well fulfilled if people stopped de-PRODding articles that are going to end up failing AfD anyway. Black Kite (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• with respect, moving an article into userspace, or not moving it into userspace is beside the point. if it goes into userspace, then it is no longer relevant to 99% of the users of wikipedia, & i do not begrudge anyone their "pet projects", within their own userspace.

as regards the suggestion to "expand the CSD criteria", i think that is an amazingly BAD idea! ^__^

...but i also don't think it would win community approval in an open discussion & vote, either.

Lx 121 (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

also; i agree with the 2 above users who correctly point out that the "afd-backlog" arguement is a fallacy. assuming the same quantity of articles being presented for removal, the deletion workload remains EXACTLY THE SAME, whether you do them as prods or afds. you're not reducing it with prods, you're just moving it around... Lx 121 (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, regarding moving the deletion workload around, what logical point do you think there is of having a community discussion to delete any of those three articles listed above? Clearly none of them deserve their own articles, so having people waste their time to place an obvious delete !vote is not worth it whatsoever. This is why PROD exists in the first place. TCN7JM 16:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The number of deletions will be the same but there's a fair chance the workload will change. For people who check out AFDs, there will be more to see that they will have to consider whether to comment on. And it's not unresonable to presume people will respond even if it's a clear cut case because they may feel others may dispute it or whatever, which means more of their time will be spend responding. Since AFD as with all wikiprocesses except choosing arbcom (and WMF stuff) is not a vote, any closer will generally need to read any response even if it seems clear cut. All this adds up to more work even if the number of deletions remains the same. On the plus side, if we completely eliminate prodding no time is spent prodding and deproding an article in cases where it's not clear cut. Note that this doesn't apply to deprodding, if you deprod and send an article to AFD, the workload obviously increases compared to just allowing the prod. Of course by requiring community discussion, in those cases where an article would have been deleted under prod but are kept under AFD you reduce the workload required to resurrect the article in some way in the future. Oh and the existence of a community discussion may reduce unnecessary resurreection. While only the closing (plus possibly the resurrection where applicable) is likely to be admin workload (technically it doesn't have to be since in a clearcut case a NAC could happen but it's IMO resonable to consider it admin workload), I don't think people were only thinking of admin workload. (In terms of the backlog, a change in workload could easily affect the backlog. For example, if people spent more time on clear cut cases, they may have less time to spend on less clear cut ones meaning these will take long to processes. Plus of course, there may be people including afraid of AFD for whatever reason. On the opposite end, admins not needing to undelete articles can spend more time closing AFDs and time spend prodding/deprodding may go in to other AFDs, remembering of course any time spent on the prodding/deprodding is always going to be in addition to time spent at a latter AFD.) Of course long discussions like this and any wider disputes such as what started this discussion also equal more workload. Then again it must pale compared to the number of person hours spent on the Chelsea Manning kerfuffle. Ultimately, to even begin to consider workload, we need to start with basic statistics. How many articles are prodded and deprodded? How many are prodded and then deleted? I said 'begin' because even with these statistics, we can't really say for sure how things will change in different scenarios. Nil Einne (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

"For people who check out AFDs, there will be more to see", you're right, but the automatic counterargument would be "For people who check out prods, there will be nothing to see". I used to regularly review prods one year ago or so, and it is a fucking nightmare, there is no sorting in categories, no preview for the prod rationales, prodded articles are just ordered alphabetically and you need to open every single article just to understand about what is the article, then you should verify the rationale, check the article's history (sometimes the prodder remove sources and/or claim of notability) and so on. There is always at least a 25% of prods which are frivolous, baseless, biased, retaliatory, without any rationale or patently improper for a process which should be used just for uncontroversial deletions. I deprodded at least 200 articles, and I don't think more than 10% were actually deleted. Cavarrone 19:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Back on topic

Let's try to get this back on topic. ANI is not going to be the place that is going to change WP:PROD policy (either by making parts of WP:DEPROD a requirement on one side or getting rid of WP:PROD on the other hand). The topic is essentially two-fold:

1. Is there a consensus that Lx 121's approach to de-PRODing articles is disruptive to the encyclopedia?
2. If the answer to the above is yes, what is the appropriate remedy?

Personally, given the nature of the issue here, I'm not sure ANI is the appropriate venue (at least at this time). I think an WP:RFC/U would make more sense to guage what the community thinks, and see how Lx 121 responds to what is raised. While at this time I agree with most of what Black Kite has raised above about the problems created by the user's recent de-PRODing actions (I say nothing yet about the larger policy issues that have been raised) I don't the disruption has reached the level that we shouldn't consider an RFC/U before jumping to administrative action. Singularity42 (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• I agree that this is absolutely not this venue for discussing the PROD policy, and unfortunately that's what 90% of the discussion has turned out to be. So discounting all that, there is a consensus that Lx 121's approach to de-PRODing articles is disruptive to the encyclopedia .

I don't doubt that Lx 121 thought he was doing it in the best of intentions, but disrupting the process is not a method of getting it changed, so he question now remains:

How can we encourage (or if necessary, force) him to stop doing it? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• I think the "distraction" points to the answer: get him to redirect his efforts into changing the process if he dislikes it so, rather than disrupting it. --erachima talk 05:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't actually work, erachima, because Lx121 is following the letter of the process--rather, he's arguing that those of us who say he's disruptive are the ones who need to change the process. I believe that de-prodding things simply because one does not like the process is harmful to the encyclopedia. Is it enough for sanctions? Probably not, but I think Lx121 should be made aware that if he is mass de-prodding, and if the reasons provided are not actually related to the quality of the articles (for instance, if he's regularly de-prodding things that are soundly deleted at AfD), then then he needs to stop that, as continuing along this line will be considered disruptive. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• • (for instance, if he's regularly de-prodding things that are soundly deleted at AfD) - Why should this be considered disruptive? It is entirely unrelated to the concept of PROD. If a deletion is controversial for someone, even if then ends in consensus to delete, then it means PROD was not the right tool. --cyclopia^speak! 08:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Lx121 should simply raise his bar a little bit. There are no violations of the WP:DEPROD process, and his deproddings appear to be made in good faith. I don't consider him more disruptive than editors who mass-vote "keep" or "delete" in dozens of AfD in a few minutes, or editors who nominate hundreds of articles for deletions and less than 10% are actually deleted, or editors who have a discouraging statistic ratio at AfD. "De-prodding things that are soundly deleted at AfD" is not more "disruptive" than voting delete for things that are soundly kept at AfD or voting keep for things that are soundly deleted at AfD. Editors who have these kinds of minority POV (and they are... a lot!) should be encouraged to be more thoughtful in their actions, to improve their knowledge of our policies and guidelines, to apply WP:BEFORE even if not prescribed, but any other action towards them would be counter-productive and a bad precedent. No administrative action needed. Usually time and experience solve these kind of problems in a natural way. Cavarrone 07:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• Five points (since I guess my RFC/U idea is not going to be followed up on):

1. I do believe that Lx121's dePRODing has been disruptive. DePRODing because you object to the reason for the deletion, or because you disagree that the proposed deletion is uncontroversial is fine, of course - and while giving a reason for the dePROD is strongly encouraged, there is currently no policy requirement to do so. However, dePRODing because you generally object to whole concept of PRODing is disruptive, and I believe contrary to policy. It is WP:POINT-y.
2. In response to Cavarrone above, I disagree that this disruptive behaviour is equally as disruptive as someone who just !votes keep or delete in every AfD, no matter what. !Voting keep or delete creates a small amount of additional work for a closing admin. DePRODing to make a WP:POINT creates an additional make-work project by making editors have to open an AFD, editors !vote on the AFD, and an admin close the AFD where no one has actually raised an actual objection to the deletion of the article. That is more disrputive.
3. Cyclopedia has a point that just because the AFD of the dePROD'd article results in a consensus for delete, that is not equal to the article should never have been dePROD'd in the first place. However, I should point out that if the AFD results in a snowball delete, without any keep !votes, that that would be a very, very strong indicator the article should not have been dePROD'd.
4. I disagree with Cyclopedia's point that the dePRODing meant it was controverisal for someone. DePRODing should be mean that deletion of the article is controversial for someone (or anticipated to be). What Lx121 is doing is dePRODing because the entire concept of PRODing is controversial to the editor (which I've already discussed in point 1).
5. Normally, I would agree with Qwyrxian that we should wait and see how Lx121 responds to the above. However, I did not get the impression that Lx121 was willing to take these concerns as constructive criticism. So, while I wouldn't object to a "wait-and-see approach", as an alternative I am also willing to propose and support a six month topic ban on Lx 121 dePRODing articles (with an exception to articles created by the Lx 121); instead, Lx121 is to give a reason why s/he objects to the PROD on the article's talk page. The purpose of this topic ban would be to focus Lx121 into making context-related objections to the PROD (so that after the six months, we would have less concern abot Lx121's dePRODing) rather than dePRODs to make a WP:POINT about objecting to a valid Wikipedia policy. Singularity42 (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I regularly review prods, and I've done so for the past six years. I do it because I consider PROD an effective method of decreasing the workload at AfD and decreasing the number of disputable speedies, as long as one or two people check it. FWIW, my method is that I work on every PROD or BLPPROD that do not involve entertainers or athletes, checking a day or two before they expire, using WP:PRODSUM. I deprod those that seem not to justify deletion, move to AfD any that I think need discussion. & if any in a field I'm interested in that need an immediate fix to justify removal of the tag, I fix and deprod. I normally do not leave notices; but I would if someone builds these into twinkle. If I have time, I also sport check new prods to look for obvious ones that don't belong there, such as BLPPRODS that do have an unnoticed reference, but especially to spot those that can and should be deleted by speedy. Most of the time, there have been one or two other editors working similarly, but there have been times I'm the only person. I miss some; there are usually visible problems somewhere with a higher priority. The reason I avoid sports and entertainment is because in those fields I'm not that competent at sourcing, and don't have the judgement & background to spot errors--and because they're about 3/4 of the workload, & it reduces the number to something I can keep up with. The lack of subject classification can be dealt with by the popups gadget, and by the reasons people give. I wish more people used prod instead of AfD, but it would also help if people did not use Prod when they know there are going to be objections to deletion: e.g. if someone declines a speedy as "clearly notable" there's no point prodding it because they will surely remove the Prod--someone who disagrees with the notability should go straight to AfD. DGG ( talk ) 19:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I actually doubt that a huge amount declined speedies end up as PRODs, for the reason you mention. The main one, I suppose, is where the subject makes a claim of notability (thus defeating the speedy), but that claim turns out, on further investigation, to be bogus. Whilst doing CSD patrol I have, though, converted speedies to PRODs - usually where the CSD reason was faulty (i.e. A7 on something not covered by A7). I think we just need to make it very clear to users that if they're going to deprod, they need to give a clear reason why they're doing so. (And yes, it would be useful to have a deprod functionality in Twinkle that left a note for the user who added the PROD.) Black Kite (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• WP:PROD states "PROD must only be used if no opposition is to be expected." It should therefore not be used in cases where opposition is likely such as the page about the King Crimson track, Frame by Frame, which seems to be of particular interest to guitarists because of its technical virtuosity. That title was used for both a notable collection of King Crimson's work and for a book about the band and so there are obvious alternatives to deletion. Lx121's action in removing the prod was therefore quite reasonable and he should be commended for protecting tenable content. Warden (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Involved actions and edit warring by User:Bbb23 at Talk:Asaram Bapu

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Over the past day admin User:Bbb23 has reverted or redacted comments, in whole or in part, at least five times (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), each time citing BLP; he is removing mentions or attempts to discuss allegations against the subject which are omnipresent in the Indian press. This is despite a strong consensus both at the article talk page (Talk:Asaram_Bapu#Dare_I_ask_why_is_information_being_suppressed_here.3F) and Jimbo's talk page (User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Am_I_violating_BLP.3F) that (at the very least) the worthiness of such allegations being included should be able to be discussed. When asked why, s/he replied simply "Because they violate BLP" (note how the preceding diff also includes the refactoring of another editor's comments). Am I off my rocker, or does something need to be done here? I'd rather not block (although I have no objections to others doing so), as my one revert may be taken as being involved. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I should add that I personally went and researched this and I was very careful to introduce, in a calm and neutral manner, only exact quotes from reliable sources to discuss the unfolding controversy, only to have these removed by Bbb23 (from the talk page) without discussion and only, as Crisco 1492 indicates, a cursory and slightly bewildering reason of "BLP" given. It is never a violation of BLP policy to post exact quotes of reliable sources on the talk page to facilitate discussion by editors of how a controversy ought to be treated in the article space. I am at a loss to understand why Bbb23 thinks removal is within policy, as no specific cites to policy have been given. I have reviewed the relevant policies to be sure that nothing weird changed while I wasn't looking and I find nothing. It seems very relevant, as Crisco 1492 suggests, that Bbb23 is a highly involved editor on the article itself - so this only makes worse his attempts to bully through deletions of reliably sourced quotes on the talk page. A block, if a change of course is not evident, does seem warranted.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Already being discussed - see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Asaram Bapu. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• There was no evidence presented there, at all — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As I just stated at AN, I am (angrily) bowing out of this. I have unlocked the article and will have no further involvement in it or the talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's good enough. I think you need to resign your admin bit. Your actions are very very far outside the standard that I expect admins to follow.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

While I don't agree with Bbb23 in this and would not have done the same myself, I think blocking or desysopping would be way over the line, especially as Bbb23 has said they won't do it again. BLP is tough to grasp even for experienced users, and we shouldn't attack someone for overzealously erring on the side of caution when it comes to rape allegations. Besides, setting a precedent of "revert Jimbo, get desysopped" wouldn't exactly look good. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Except the 3 revert rule is pretty darn clear, and I (for one) don't want to start a precedent of "break the 3RR, no worries". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• If we desysopped every admin that had broken a rule once, we wouldn't have many left. Black Kite (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Am I promoting desysop? No, I'm saying a block is necessary (at least 24 hours, per WP:3RR). Nowhere have I said that I want Bbb23 desysopped, and Starblind opposes both blocking and desysoping. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Ah, OK - from where you placed your comment it looked like you were supporting Jimbo's assertion. Black Kite (talk) 01:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• No worries (hoping Flow will take care of stuff like that!) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we should take a hard line on edit warring (I've given my share of 3RR blocks), but at this point it seems that Bbb23 has voluntarily disengaged from the article, so I don't think blocking is needed. Of course if the situation changes we can always reassess. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but what? "I'd rather admins worry about losing their bit and being kicked off the project than staying on the side of caution with regards to one of the most important policies on Wikipedia". That's completely absurd. After all of the good precautionary admins are gone from that precaution, what'll happen? People will get by with BLP because the rest of the admins will be to worried about losing their bit? ~Charmlet ^-talk- 01:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC) (post post addendum)Sorry for the messed up indent, first of all, second - BLP is a valid exemption to 3RR, and the fact that the admin in question was overly precautionary is great, not bad. It'd be like a lifeguard saying "well, that kid might be drowning, but I'm not sure and I don't want my boss to get mad at me so I'm not going to save them". Sooner or later, the kid will drown. Or the subject will see it and sue. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 01:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Assuming it can be agreed that BLP is in effect (I've already considered this). Consensus has been that Bbb23's reverts were not based in BLP as commonly understood, which would mean that the exception does not take place. Otherwise we could wikilawyer our way out of everything with "Oh BLP!" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)From what I can see, Bbb23 disengaged after that consensus even began to form. Thus he was not doing anything wrong in my opinion (worth about as much as a rusty nail). ~Charmlet ^-talk- 01:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• He had two reverts after the consensus at Jimbo's talk (see above). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• revisedI see it now, sorry. It was hatted. This concerns me however: "It is always going to be acceptable to, at a very minimum, discuss on the talk page a criminal allegation that is being clearly reported on by a New York Times blog." (by Jimbo). I hope Jimbo realizes that most times a blog is not a reliable source (for example CNN blogs aren't even reliable sources), and allegations have no place on Wikipedia as fact. Thus, discussing allegations can veer into BLP territory if they are discussing them in such a way that it could be assumed they are true. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 01:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• Furthermore, as the blog states: "This report on India from the journalists of The New York Times and a pool of talented writers in India and beyond provides unbiased, authoritative reporting on the country and its place in the world. India Ink also strives to be a virtual meeting point for discussion of this complex, fast-changing democracy – its politics, economy, culture and everyday life.", I question it's reliability. Just because someone is a journalist does not make what they write reliable. I don't see evidence that the "editors" aren't just the other contributors to the blog. I strongly support removing any allegation supported only by that site. If other sites report it in news sections, that's a different story. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 01:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• This is one of the wackiest threads I've ever seen on ANI. It's like a Wikipediocracy user's fever-dream vision of how Wikipedia is. JIMBO: "If you don't stop, I'll have you blocked" BB23: "Fine, I'll stop." JIMBO: "Not good enough, now I want you desysopped too!" WHAT?! Seriously, WHAT?! Someone, anyone, tell me how the above exchange makes even the slightest lick of sense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Indeed, they must be having the time of their lives over there tonight. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
    • You know, if Jimbo Wales wants to do the "I'm just another editor" schtick, he ought not to try to throw his weight around just because someone disagrees with him. What a stupid suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calton (talk • contribs)

• It's not just you, it's OK. Asking for someone to resign their sysop bit because they may have been too heavy on the BLP angle is, frankly, ludicrous. Black Kite (talk) 01:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Question: We came with the same two issues last week. Our posts were much more detailed than what Crisco and Mr. Wales is posting today. It was directly asked why the comments are being redacted. Then we did not get a single support or comment in our favor. And Bbb23's acts were endorsed by few editors. And one or two editors from this noticeboard went to the article talk page to protect Bbb23's and redact sources. And suddenly the same noticeboard is taking a 180 degree turn. The references which were "gossips" last week are suddenly becoming "reliable" and "trusted" --Tito☸Dutta 01:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• As stated elsewhere, the consensus you get depends on where you post. ANI is frequented more often than AN, so this may get more of a reaction. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, we posted at ANI, our thread was merged with the AN thread (see there are two threads there). And it was merged after 8 hours and 59 minutes of posting at ANI. So, it was here for almost 9 hours. --Tito☸Dutta 01:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Note since the same conversation about Bbb23/Jimbo etc. is also happening at WP:AN, should they be merged? Black Kite (talk) 01:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• Um, no, we don't desysop people for being too agressive enforcing BLP, thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to clarify the BLP policy text to explain better when and how it applies to talk pages. Count Iblis (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Possible, possible. I wouldn't be against this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• I have told the same thing here. --Tito☸Dutta 01:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Calling for Bbb to be desysopped is over the top. Why not read those quotes on the talk page as violating BLP? I don't see how that's impossible. Our BLP policy doesn't tell us we can put stuff on article and talk pages just because it's printed. Anyway, really, Jimbo, no. Really, it's ridiculous and I'm surprised to hear that from you. Crisco, no block, of course not--a. because he was trying to do what he thought was right, and even if he was wrong, the BLP exemption alleviates the charge of edit warring. Besides, he's already gone from there, so a block is just punitive (I'm reminded of someone blocking me, no warning, for some supposed imminent danger when I had already logged off and was probably at the grocery store). Perhaps Bbb is a BLP warrior, but he's no Off2rioRob or so. As far as I'm concerned, we swear a silent oath when we get the tool that we will enforce our BLP policy to the best of our ability and our understanding, and that's just what he did. Thanks Bbb23. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• The usefulness of this thread has already expired. Bbb23 has clearly disengaged and there is no threat of disruption. There is no admin action required and I don't think anyone is asking for desysopping by ANI. So closing this thread is the only reasonable action left imo. FWIW my views on his actions are here. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• Jimbo is normally clever enough to avoid being dragged into something without first getting the history, and it's a shame an undue escalation has occurred in this case. I started watching the article when Bbb23 first asked for a review of their actions (protecting the article) at AN on 23 August 2013. I have been watching User talk:Bbb23 since then, and at AN and the article and user talk it has been very obvious that Wikipedia is extremely fortunate to have Bbb23 working as an admin—their contributions have been excellent, with a very calm and reasoned approach. To understand the extreme BLP violations that have occurred at the article, see this 23 August version with heading "Murder of 2 little kids in ashram" and a paragraph that does not mention the person who is the subject of the article. The "references" in that version of the article are mostly links to excited commentary with wild accusations but little encyclopedic information—just he-said-she-said reports with no mention of charges, let alone convictions. I imagine Bbb23's involvement in the article is like mine—complete disinterest, but dismay to see the encyclopedia used for coatracking gossip. However, in recent days Asaram Bapu has faced legal processes and it would now be possible to write encyclopedic information based on that. Unfortunately Jimbo posted at the article talk with a bunch of links to media reports—something that has been going on in the article and talk page for several weeks. It may be that Jimbo's links were reasonable given recent legal processes, but when faced with Bbb23's revert (based on consistency), there should have been more effort to talk about the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 03:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• Jimbo... the standard that you expect admins to follow? Heaven forfend someone offends the godking himself while doing their best to enforce the BLP policy. Right or wrong in this instance, he's doing more to protect BLP than you are. Resolute 04:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Indeed, and well said. Andreas JN466 07:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• Jimbo-you used a blog as a ref? You have become totally out of touch with the community. You run around making speeches and TV appearances to rake in big bucks and once in a blue moon drop in showing how you have lost any concept of what is going on onwiki. He shouldn't resign and you have no call to ask him. It's a question of what the community wants, not what the former godking wants. You'd be far better off going after truly bad admins--for you I probably need to name them, but I won't here as it'd cause anohter ruckus, or to get Arbcom to do their job for a change. BTW, Arbcom has lost its compass and needs to be abolished. Also, how about doing something to keep the good editors around? Recruiting new ones does no good when most are driven away by the dysfunctional anarchy wiki has become. PumpkinSky talk 11:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request Admin Assistance

I am writing to request the removal of a sentence on the Aesthetic Realism Talk Page posted by User:Degas525 in the section Re: change to section on homosexuality. I wrote a note to Degas525 on his/her Talk Page with a request that he/she remove the sentence "I do recall that this same man later committed suicide" but there was no response.

There is no evidence to support such a claim. It is defamatory, a breach of privacy, and it was written in bad faith. It should be removed immediately. LoreMariano (talk) 04:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

actually, user:degas525 may be confused; it seems to be Eli Siegel, founder of the movement, who committed suicide. if the user was thinking of Sheldon Krantz as the "successful covert" from homosexuality, i can't find any indication of the cause of his death.

also, i can't find any indication on the cited talkpage that the "person" under discussion is ever named; therefore i don't see how this can be considered defamatory?

Lx 121 (talk) 08:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

No, User:Degas525 isn't confused; it was written in bad faith in order put people associated with Aesthetic Realism in a bad light. Maybe I should just take it out since it is a blatant lie. I think although he isn't named, it still matters that his memory not be smeared. LoreMariano (talk) 14:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

However, it's on the talk page. Unless the person in question died relatively recently, then WP:BLP doesn't apply. That would be the main reason to remove the text from the talk page. Remember, talk is discussion to improve an article. If it's in good faith and not a BLP violation, it's generally allowed to stand, and I'm not convinced that Degas525 is acting in bad faith. —C.Fred (talk) 14:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll just put a note in the Talk Page that it is incorrect. LoreMariano (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

LoreMariano, while I appreciate you would not have read my response below at the time, as I noted below, Degas525 has not edited since their first (i.e. and only) edits on 23 August Special:Contributions/Degas525. Therefore, there's no reason to assume Degas chose not to change their statement, there's a good chance they are not aware of any of this. So could you reword your statement to say "has not responded" or something similar? BTW this is an important reminder of why you should always AGF. Nil Einne (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

(EC) Have to agree with C.Fred and Lx 121 here that I don't see any reason not to WP:AGF that Degas is either confused or mistaken about the person "committing suicide" or is thinking of someone other than the person LoreMariano is thinking of. In terms of the wider issue, although it's not a BLP issue if the person is really dead and they were not named, if it's claimed the description is sufficient to readily identify them I don't see any harm in redacting the claim unless Degas who has not edited since their first edits a few days ago is able to confirm that someone else was meant who fits the description and did take their own lif. But it doesn't seem a big deal to me and the alternative is to simply point out in the discussion and the person did not take their own life Nil Einne (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• just as relevant info: Sheldon Kranz lived 1919–1980 (no further info about his death readily available via google) & the movement apparently stopped openly promoting homosexual conversions circa 1990; so it's pretty unlikely to be a blp or recent-death issue, whoever it's referring to.

I have to say that i agree with leaving it on the talkpage, suitably annotated. it is on the talkpage & not in the article, i don't see anything that's legally actionable in the comment, & between open discourse & "respect", i think it's more important to have the open discourse... Lx 121 (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments. I agree that Degas525 likely is not aware of my Talk Page request to correct the statement. I will reword to "has not responded." LoreMariano (talk) 04:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

User:NorthBySouthBaranof and User:Knowledgekid87

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I was not going to bring this up here as it happened once before within a week but now that a second period of edit warring has happened with this user I feel that it should be brought here:

The first warning I gave North for reverting twice at Talk:Chelsea Manning despite no consensus at the time was on 02:29, 26 August 2013, I had stated that I did not want to edit war and wanted to talk this out with the discussion that was ongoing at the time on the talkpage. The warning was removed from North's talkpage with the edit summary message "begone!". The second time was today at Bradley Manning where North reverted at least three times over a category despite a discussion taking place on the talkpage where a neutral category had been put into place. Two 3RR warnings were given to North on the talkpage by StAnselm and Obiwankenobi which were both again reverted. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

You say that you don't want to edit-war, except that you actually do edit-war. See these diffs. Glass houses, stones, etc. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I dont go and break 3RR, there was a discussion going on and you were being reverted by multiple editors telling you that a neutral category was found. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't break 3RR either. You were also reverted by multiple editors. OK then. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:3RR is when you undo 3 edits on the same page within 24 hours. You undid John Cline, undid StAnselm, and undid Obiwankenobi's edits. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

While you can still get blocked for edit warring without breaking 3rr, and intentionally going to 3 reverts is likely to result in that, for an actual violation of WP:3rr more then 3 reverts are required, ie the 4th non-exempt revert is the violation. Monty₈₄₅ 04:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that you need to re-read WP:3RR, because it does not mean what you think it means. If you want to complain about a 3RR violation, I didn't violate it. If you want to complain about edit-warring on that page, fine, but that's going to include you and a bunch of other people too. I'm hardly the only person to hit the 3RR limit on that page over the last couple of days. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay noted I am going to get some rest, I have no ill will just was reporting what I thought was disruptive editing, multiple user should not have to tell one person to please stop edit warring. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a clear breach of WP:3RR - there were four reverts in the 24-hour period.[134][135][136][137] I don't know how User:NorthBySouthBaranof could possibly deny it. I thought at first he or she might be claiming a BLP exemption, though that sounds very dubious for introducing a new category. StAnselm (talk) 04:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

That's what I counted also. WP:BLP wouldn't apply - the category being removed was gender neutral, and therefore not a BLP violation. GregJackP Boomer! 05:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you're the only person, NorthBySouth. I don't see anybody else who has reverted more than twice. Blocked for 24 hours for violating 3RR. Bishonen | talk 07:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BBB76: TV fan with issues; now a block-evader

User:BBB76 is a user with a strong interest in television, including reality TV. The user first appeared on this noticeboard several months ago in connection with some disruptive editing in articles about megafamilies on American reality TV. The user was determined to prevent the article United Bates of America from including text to indicate that all 19 children in the family had been "singleton" births because the user felt that this was obvious from the table that listed their birthdates. There were also issues, documented by multiple warnings and explanatory essays on the user's talk page, about copyvios (inclusion of content that was copied verbatim from sources), the need for reference citations, and edit warring at this article and also at articles related to 19 Kids and Counting. Subsequently (during May 2013), the user earned a couple of blocks for edit-warring on that page and a discussion at Talk:United Bates of America strongly supported the view that the article should mention this information, but suggested not using the unfamiliar word "singleton". Much of that history is documented in the earlier ANI discussion and on the linked article talk page; the user didn't participate in either discussion.

After those first two edit-warring blocks expired, the user persisted in removing the "single birth" content for the "Bates" article and developed a persistent pattern of deliberately (and repeatedly) removing apparently valid reference citations from pretty much all of the articles they edit (also including articles about a TV show called Rookie Blue), often with edit summaries that indicate the user's opinion that the reference citations were no longer needed because the episode had been aired (e.g., [138], "Why does a reference for season 11 need to be put in place? The current season is halfway done.", [139], [140], "Removing references for tonight's special episode", "Removing references and this extra unnecessary spacing. Also removing Marcus' last name, as it isn't needed or used for other baby births specials.", "Removing references, Marcus is now two months old", "Removing reference for tonight's episode.", "Removing reference for tonight's episode.").

After unsuccessful efforts to convince the user that removal of reference citations is inconsistent with Wikipedia's policy on verifiability and that persistent efforts to remove the "single births" information from the Bates article show refusal to abide by WP:CONSENSUS, I've blocked the user three times (block log; one week in June, two weeks in July, and one month in August). I believe the user has good intentions (some of their work is productive, and they did start cooperating on the copyvio issue) and I had hoped to get their attention by means of the blocks. However, the user (who is currently blocked) has not commented on the blocks nor appealed them, but has been evading the blocks by using various IPs to make the very same kinds of edits that they made as a registered user. Some examples of disruptive, duck-like, block-evading edits by IPs (mostly removal of reference citations) include:

• 38.108.87.20 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)): " Removing references for special, that aired a week ago, fixing blanking.", "Removed last name, references and extra spacing that was added after this episode was listed on here.", [141], [142], [143] (Note: The current issues seem to be unrelated to the activity for which this IP was blocked in the past)
• 216.218.29.141 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)): [144], [145], [146]
• 216.218.29.167 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)): "After two months, this source is not needed anymore.", [147]
• 216.218.29.173 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)): [148]
• 216.218.29.174 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)): [149]
• 216.218.29.197 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)): [150], [151]
• 216.218.29.218 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)): [152]
• 216.218.29.227 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)): [153]

The "Bates" article is now semi-protected (the show is no longer being made, so it's no longer attracting much editing interest), so that article has been fairly quiet. However, the IPs are reverting the other articles on a continuing basis, so it's apparent to me that blocking the registered account has not prevented them from carrying out what seems to be a campaign against reference citations in TV articles. I feel like I've been overly patient with this user. Can someone else talk sense to this user more effectively than I have been able to do? Is it time for some IP (and range) blocks? --Orlady (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC) I feel that I've been involved with this for too long to act unilaterally. --Orlady (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

New IP active since the above post:

• 216.218.29.253 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)): [154], [155] --Orlady (talk) 04:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• I've placed a rangeblock that expires at the same time as BBB76's block. Elockid ^(Talk) 16:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Ban of User:Daustinc2

Virtually all of this user's edits have been to vandalize No Limit Records-related articles with false information. I've tried to revert some of his disruption, but he quickly reverted my edits. I'm not sure if the user has been warned or not, but it's pretty clear that it's a vandalism-only account. Beast from da East (talk) 01:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, Beast from da East, but it's a little bit early in Daustinc2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s brief time here for a WP:BLOCK. What I'm seeing is a lot of mistakes, and I think the best thing to do would be to talk to the editor. You've been here longer than they have, and know the subject area. They would benefit from your help. Do remember to to be encouraging: point out Daustinc2's mistakes, but tell them how they can fix them. Does that sound OK? Peter in Australia aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

A group of users framing me as a potential fringe and making allegations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Today the user jps (talk) reverted legitimate addition from me [[156]] and [[157]], following i posted on a talk page and asked him for feedback[[158]]. However, instead of discussing the issue he posted straight to the fringe board[[159]], on the talk page too he just linked to the fringe board instead of discussing the content with me. Shortly afterwards the user KillerChihuahua begun reverting other edits from me, [[160]]here and here[[161]] and made claims on the fringe board about my edits which are untrue. He claims that AAAS is a fringe source. Shortly after, the user Midgley (talk) posted on my talk page "Setting up a new and obscurelye named account when blocked: You might do better to consider the vaccination-related woes you have, and whether the views you aer putitng forward are encyclopedic[[162]]" All my edits are based on WP standards and i feel that the framing of me as a potential fringe and the following actions by different users shows some kind of mob mentality here at WP. I conclude, there is no evidence which shows that my edits promote fringe theories or give undue weight. I challenge everybody who says otherwise to present some evidence - a link - imho that should be a requirement before user start a witch hunt. Prokaryotes (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Since you asked... the new and obscure account was referred to on your own user page. You have the stigmata of the antivaccinationist. If you are not one, I suggest behaving differently from them. I appreciate this is advice, and you may react as badly to this advice as to previous advice ... Midgley (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Since you asked. A paragraph added to the Vaccine controversies article: "A database of vaccine research documents mounting evidence which describe serious adverse effects to vaccination in the scientific literature." [163] The source cited (greenmedinfo.com [164]) is clearly non-WP:MEDRS-compliant - or indeed WP:RS-compliant. It says nothing about "mounting evidence" for anything. Instead, it presents what is clearly stated to be a cherry-picked list of primary-source research material: "Greenmedinfo.com provides the public with an alternative medical and toxicological resource for ascertaining the true risks and/or unintended consequences of conventional medical interventions such as vaccinations. The research below represents under-reported, minimized and otherwise overlooked peer-reviewed data on adverse effects associated with vaccination". Presenting what is clearly cherry-picked data from an anti-vaccination website as "evidence" is entirely incompatible with Wikipedia sourcing standards. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that WP:BOOMERANG is likely to comply with anyone not willing to accept WP:FRINGE. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Until what AndyTheGrump (talk) is from a previous edit 3 days or so ago, this is not currently debated. This was reverted and i put it up for discussion on the talk page where AndyTheGrump (talk) [[165]]explained that he doesn't considers this source a database... As you asked, the Greenmedinfo website is listing all adverse effects of vaccination and uses only data from reliable sources. Prokaryotes (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The 'data' is cherry-picked, by an anti-vaccination website. That you used it as a source for an assertion that there is "mounting evidence" for anything illustrates to me at least that you do not understand Wikipedia sourcing and neutrality policies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The data on the scientific literature on reported adverse effects with vaccines, vaccine research - can be found here http://www.greenmedinfo.com/guide/health-guide-vaccine-research# my edit [[166]]here. After my edit got reverted i put it up on the talk page. Prokaryotes (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I had already linked that in my first post. Linking it again isn't going to alter the fact that the website is clearly pushing an anti-vaccination POV, or the fact that the 'data' is clearly cherry-picked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

This database includes more than 300 studies on adverse effects related to vaccines, listing 300 studies isn't cherry picking or a particular POV. In fact does this data helps to bring some missing neutrality to the article. Prokaryotes (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Bollocks... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

300 studies out of the thousands that are published every year? there is obviously some type of selection criteria going on - one wonders what those criteria might be.....(well one doesnt actually wonder, its quite clear)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)While not commenting on all of the edits, I have concerns that material that is sourced to an AAAS publication is considered not reliable or fringe. AAAS is about as far as you can get from either of those, being the publisher of Science (journal) and other highly regarded publications. Additionally, why wasn't this brought up for discussion at the talk page rather than going immediately to a noticeboard? The easier and more collegial way to address this would be on the talk page. GregJackP Boomer! 19:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't see anything in the diffs provided by Prokaryotes that looks like an assertion by anyone that AAAS isn't a reliable source... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump (talk) wrote above = "I can't see anything in the diffs provided by Prokaryotes that looks like an assertion by anyone that AAAS isn't a reliable source." As stated above Quote from KillerChihuahua = "The content is well within the arguable parameters of WP:FRINGE."he refers to his revert of the AAAS study [[167]]link. Prokaryotes (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Please provide a diff of the actual edit where material from AAAS is described as not being a reliable source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

[[168]]Link to the revert by KillerChihuahua then go to the Fringe board[[169]] and read again what KillerChihuahua wrote there. I think you contributed enough to this discussion now. Prokaryotes (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I stated clearly in my edit summary " Rm UNDUE which you seem to be adding to multiple articles.". Please see WP:UNDUE; this has no bearing on AAAS nor FRINGE, but rather is a part of NPOV. Did you not read my edit summary? My more general comment about your edits on the FRINGE noticeboard was certainly not addressing AAAS either as a publication nor as an RS. KillerChihuahua 03:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The first diff shows the removal of a ref to an AAAS publication, following the second diff and a question by Prokaryotes (as I understand it), JPS immediately went to the fringe noticeboard. The second diff was CDC and .gov refs. I'm not stating that they are or are not appropriate sources. My concern is with the fact that the user posted a question and is immediately drug to a noticeboard on fringe. Why did JPS not address it on the talk page? Might that not have avoided this drama? GregJackP Boomer! 19:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, as well as issues regarding sourcing, Prokaryotes seems to have difficulty with the English language. This was also added to the Vaccine controversies article: "However, a recent study found that weak vaccines can be attributed to an increase of diseases". The source (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com [170]) Actually states that an increase in a particular disease - Whooping cough - may be due to the replacement of an earlier form of vaccine with one which was introduced as it caused less side effects, but now appears to also give reduced immunity. I have my doubts as to whether Prokaryotes really has the standard of English-language comprehension necessary to properly interpret sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The headline of said article is pretty clear "Rise in Whooping Cough Linked to Weak Vaccine". You cite something which is in no way related to a fringe theory or the edits in question. Prokaryotes (talk) 19:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I was pointing out that you appeared to have difficulties with reading and writing in English. Sadly, you seem rather to have confirmed the point... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

AAAS is certainly a reliable source, but compare the text in his addition to the conclusion from the article's abstract: "This study suggests a role for fusion-enhancing anti-HA2 antibodies in VAERD, in the absence of receptor-blocking virus-neutralizing antibodies. These findings should be considered during the evaluation of universal influenza vaccines designed to elicit HA2 stem-targeting antibodies." The source itself is not fringe, but the way s/he is attempting to use it appears to be. Additionally, it is a WP:PRIMARY study and as such doesn't comply with WP:MEDRS. N^oformation ^Talk 19:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Could you explain how i use the source for fringe? Though i could agree that ther emight be additional sources required, but no way that it is a fringe theory. And it is not a primary study, as this article lays out. Study raises red flag for universal flu vaccine; may explain 2009 'Canadian problem' http://www.timescolonist.com/news/world/study-raises-red-flag-for-universal-flu-vaccine-may-explain-2009-canadian-problem-1.604465 Prokaryotes (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with what you're saying on the science. Is there a reason that this couldn't be addressed on the talkpage? At least initially? Then, if there is still a dispute, it could go to a noticeboard. GregJackP Boomer! 19:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that Prokaryotes is adding similar questionable material to multiple articles, and is clearly doing so to promote an anti-vaccination POV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Stop making up claims and framing me as anti-vaccination POV all my edits have been science based. Prokaryotes (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not 'framing' anyone. It is self-evident that the questionable material you have been adding to multiple vaccine-related articles is intended to emphasise the negatives of vaccination. 'Science' doesn't consist of cherry-picking sources, and then generalising them as evidence for statements they cannot support, AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

You posted now 13 times on this page, i tried to respond to all your input which can be read above, now you make claims again. For any admin who reads this, please see i tried to find a solution with Andy in regards what he calls a generalisation, [[171]]here. However after i addressed all his critique based on his on writing, he then quote = Your proposed edit is generalising from a particular study - one you have clearly cherry-picked in order to promote an anti-vaccination POV. This is entirely undue, and contrary to Wikipedia policies." Prokaryotes (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

While you may be "trying to find a solution", the solution you are trying to find : one that doesnt call out your POV pushing of anti vaccines material, is not a solution that is supported by policies or the good of wikipedia or the good of our readers. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

What you call "anti vaccine material" is a scientific sourced secondary RS. Prokaryotes (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

POV pushing is not only whether a particular source may be "scientific", it is how that material is presented. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you link to what you call "POV push"? Prokaryotes (talk) 21:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Note that Prokaryotes is proposing to add material related solely to issues with whooping cough vaccine to the lede of the 'vaccine controversies' article - and note also that s/he has provided no source to suggest that there has been any particular 'controversy' over this issue at all. Instead, we have reports discussing how problems with a vaccine have been detected by the medical/scientific community, investigated, and an explanation offered. Where is the 'controversy' here? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

This 1 edit, everybody can find it here, which is directly related to the content at hand. [[172]] Prokaryotes (talk) 22:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

That's right - I reverted your semi-literate POV-pushing attempt to skew our article by citing an article on a single issue with whooping cough vaccines as evidence of some general 'controversy' regarding vaccination. Which I did entirely in accord with Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that clearly doesn't belong there. Quite apart from anything else, the particular edit in question is sourced to a blog ... Black Kite (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Black Kite (talk) this science blog is used on the article elsewhere and most of the references there are primary sources.

Here is the entire part based on several scientific studies (read it here http://discovermagazine.com/2013/march/15-broken-vaccine#.UiJqrz9uobo): Reaction to vaccine controversies has contributed to a significant increase in preventable diseases including measles. However, a recent study found that weak vaccines can be attributed to an increase of diseases.

Prokaryotes (talk) 22:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a big place. The very very very simple solution to not being considered an anti-vaccine POV pusher is to edit in areas not related to vaccines and not bring up vaccines in non related articles and then no one will have any reason to consider this anything other than a simple disagreement about sources and weight that unfortunately got very big very quickly. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The article has huge problems when it comes to neutrality. My addition doesn't even call vaccine use into question. All it does it pointing out that weak vaccines can be bad. - I guess i have to wait till more people want to help turn a pharmacy product page into a neutral source of information. At least to me this kind of 1 sided information, where i know data is missing doesn't make things more trustful, to the contrary it is very suspicious that the moment i edit there with RS material, certain groups of users do everything to preserve the status quo. Prokaryotes (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Given your response, it appears that any reputation that comes from this incident is actually well deserved. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Apparently im not the only user who thinks that this article is 1 sided https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vaccine_controversies#Vaccine_controversies_-_Wikipedia_page Prokaryotes (talk) 22:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

calling attention to the fact that your views are perfectly aligned with other single topic POV editors is not really going to help you. When you find yourself at the bottom of a deep hole, one of the first things you should do is stop digging.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Apparently there is nothing wrong with my edits, other than some got reverted and i try to discuss them consequently on a talk page. Prokaryotes (talk) 22:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• I see above that Prokaryotes is stating I "claims that AAAS is a fringe source" - No, Prokaryotes, you are mistaken. I have not made that claim. If you will link the diff where you mistakenly think that is what I said, I will attempt to illuminate what I was actually trying to convey. KillerChihuahua 03:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

His revert was the AAAS journal edit, [[173]]see. Then KillerChihuahua [[174]] wrote = "Prokaryotes, but you've been posting some obscure stuff on several pages, including one-source questionable claims about specific vaccines on both Vaccine and Vaccination. I've removed the content from Vaccination, and commented on Talk:Vaccine, but I repeat here: giving such weight to this kind of content on the main articles is unlikely to find any support; adding it to the vaccine specific articles is still something for which you must seek consensus. The content is well within the arguable parameters of WP:FRINGE" Prokaryotes (talk) 10:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

At this point, given Prokaryotes' self-evident inability to grasp what the problem is with his/her editing, and endless repetition of the same nonsensical arguments, I have to suggest that an indefinite block per WP:COMPETENCE is going to be the only solution. This isn't just a problem with POV-pushing over a particular issue, it is a more general lack of comprehension. As User talk:Prokaryotes shows, the user has already caused us problems through copyright violation - and over that issue too seems incapable of actually understanding why what s/he was doing violated our policies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the editor is being too bold. I suggest targeting it more narrowly to medical topics and limiting to a time period such as six months or something, which would be a strong chastisement. He's only been editing since May 2013. There are editors who are as incompetent in various areas and the arguments seem intelligible enough to me, though certainly tendentious and not always consistent with Wikipedia policies. The editor also has an interest and perhaps some limited competence in global warming with a recent edit on effects of climate change, although WMC reverted an edit on the the Clausius-Clapeyron equation as technically incorrect (which is a bit scary since that is so technical that few would feel confident to question it). Copyright violations (especially images, though this appears to have involved text) hits quite a few new editors because Wikipedia has such a strict policy which is beyond what one encounters in other situations. As long as one sticks to high-quality sources, technical competence is not that necessary. But this editor is not sticking to really high-quality sources. Won't have time to comment later for a while. II | (t - c) 23:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Interesting how you both (and others) spin this topic. For the record i did not break copyright violation and i was following in all my edits WP guidelines. Further did i tried my best to explain and discuss my edits as you can read above and on all talk pages. I tried my best knowledge and carefully tried to contribute value, which you can see from edits i did on the topics in question - which have not been reverted. Guess it wasn't conflicting with other user POV's. And ironically this topic isn't about me directly - there is no single incident which would qualify what has been suggested here. Prokaryotes (talk) 23:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

For the record, you copy-pasted material from a website that clearly stated "non-commercial use only". For the record, you uploaded a graphic to Commons which was also marked "non-commercial use only". For the record, this is incompatible with the Wikipedia license. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

For the record the site states / grants the use for educational purposes. I even went and emailed them and got it confirmed. But maybe you want to go somewhere else with your accusations since ALL your input is off topic and WRONG. Prokaryotes (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

"the site states / grants the use for educational purposes". Exactly. Those terms are incompatible with the Wikipedia license, which contains no "educational use only" clause - copying material under a more restrictive license to Wikipedia is a copyright violation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't a copyright violation, i brought it up at the copyright board. It is unclear of this image would qualify under fair use terms. Get your facts straight before you make sensational claims and call for restrictive actions. Prokaryotes (talk) 00:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

You violated copyright by uploading the image to Commons. It was clearly marked as "non-commercial use", which is incompatible with the Commons license. And Commons doesn't host 'fair use' images. These are the facts. They are easy enough to verify from the relevant histories. As are the facts concerning your copyright violation concerning text copy-pasted from the same place - which incidentally you failed to indicate wasn't your own work, thereby committing plagiarism as well as violating copyright. None of this is open to question - the evidence is all freely available. That you continue to deny this can only be seen as further grounds to question your competence to edit Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

For the benefit of anyone interested, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Nature education Terms of Usage, where Prokaryotes is told by three different contributors that the image in question cannot be used. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, you make claims which are not true. Quote ="It is not what we really need, but may in some circumstances be used as a "fair use" item only." And that is exactly what i wrote above. And ofc was the text cited, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iron_cycle&diff=570722036&oldid=554813679 Prokaryotes (talk) 01:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Yup. That is the material you copy-pasted from a website in violation of their copyright - and without indicating that it was a quotation, thus also committing plagiarism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I indicated that it is the image description, which consists of scientific facts. Prokaryotes (talk) 01:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Gibberish... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Anyone who knows me knows that I have a low tolerance for fringe here or anywhere else, but this is premature imo. He's a fairly new editor with a low edit count and let's face it: writing an encyclopedia is not easy and our bureaucracy is difficult to navigate. Perhaps some mentorship would be beneficial and we can revisit this in a month or two after resolution has been attempted. N^oformation ^Talk 23:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• while the editor is new and has had a sort of trial by fire introduction, the above comments and the past incidents seem to indicate that they will continue to keep putting their finger back into the fire. If nothing is done now WP:ROPE will take care of the problem in the not too distant future. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• Topic ban say in science broadly construed (that would cover medical articles and most other fringe topics). The editor has clear competency issues, but perhaps he can learn the ropes by editing a different topic area. It will at least stop the lemming run Prokaryotes is engaged in. I'd suggest they not be allowed freely edit until Prokaryotes appears to understand copyright issues, particularly about plagiarism. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Support an indefinite block: both for repeatedly pushing fringe theories (and refusing to stop), for a clear lack of competence and for repeatedly making false allegations against other editors. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 12:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't you at least point to the dif where i "repeatedly pushing fringe theories" when calling for an indefinite block? ALso id like to point out that AndyTheGrump (talk) hijacked this topic for his claim that i push an anti vaccine agenda. However, the article he recently cites is either calling for stronger vaccines (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/?p=1321#.UiBIuT9uobo)or includes links to the published peer reviewed science. Further incidents involving me were all first time violations. Prokaryotes (talk) 01:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block until the editor has shown they are competent enough, and mature enough, to contribute without attacking other editors, and to contribute without pushing fringe theories. The copyvio issues are also a major concern. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support - I favor an indefinite ban as per IRWolfie, with the problem that it can be really hard to determine which edits might relate to "fringe theories" broadly construed. There do seem to be clear competency issues, but it is possible that some degree of help might alleviate them. I would also very strongly encourage the editor to take part in the Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user program, with, perhaps, a discussion to lift the ban if at some point in the future his "adopter" thinks he is sufficiently familiar with how things work to no longer be so problematic. John Carter (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Noformation. Until this was brought here, I see absolutely no effort to discuss this with the user, just an immediate trip to the fringe noticeboard. This proposal seems excessive and designed to punish those that have different opinions rather than to educate them on Wikipedia policies. GregJackP Boomer! 16:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I would only add as a note that there have been multiple statements regarding the editor making false allegations, copyright violations, and other concerns regarding general level of competency, which to my eyes at least are serious issues which go well beyond allegedly seeking to "punish those that have different opinions." John Carter (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Based on his/her comments here, this user either does not understand what's wrong with these edits, or does not want to understand. Either we have a comprehension issue or a POV-pushing issue, either way a block or topic ban is in order until this editor can comprehend and adhere to the rules of editing. Gamaliel (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban Garneliel has pretty much crystallized my thoughts on this. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. I haven't the patience to learn the whole issue and make a firm vote, but I should observe: first, we should not be intolerant toward claims of vaccine problems; there is no scientific reason why they should never have negative effects. The blog referenced is interesting and I see a few things on there that were truly news to me. However, such claims need to be referenced back to their original sources, and when those sources are primary, we need to present them as new research directions rather than confirmed medical doctrine. There are some MED:RS fundamentalists who want to go much further with their overbearing policy, but they are simply wrong - Wikipedia does not have a moral obligation to enhance vaccination rates by suppressing all talk of potential negative effects; our duty is to explore the evidence for those effects in detail, noting fairly the evidence and its overall limitations, without concern for the social impact apart from our role in creating a more educated and thoughtful public. Lastly, I should warn Prokaryotes that some people here have adopted a very harsh stance indeed toward WP:Plagiarism; there was actually an arbitrator called out and disgraced for once copying 7 out of 9 sentences in one paragraph. Stay far from copy and paste even when the source is truly CC-by-SA licensed, and if it's not, know the difference. But that has nothing to do with a topic ban. Wnt (talk) 17:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose and boomerang. Despite Andy's protests, he's advocating a very-much fringe view of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and trying to get someone sanctioned for it. Misusing our policies to get rid of someone you don't like is nowhere near acceptable. Nyttend (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Could you clarify that? Are you saying that the view that the pro-vaccination view is fringe?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

What the hell are you on about, Nyttend? Where have I advocated any 'fringe' view of the AAAS? Provide a diff please - or retract your ridiculous assertion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Nyttend is off-base here. Prokaryotes cited a research paper in a journal published by AAAS. AAAS was the publisher, not the source. The abstract indicates that the research study involved giving a human influenza vaccine to some pigs. The problem with Prokaryotes' use of the source is not a problem with the publisher, but rather a problem with interpreting that source as evidence of a major problem with influenza vaccines. --Orlady (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that I've not really commented on that particular issue: it wasn't me that reverted the AAAS material anyway. Not that it matters really - as Orlady says, Prokaryotes was citing the paper to make a general statement that it didn't support. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Ofc, is matters, since that was part of what this ANI is about, but since you hijacked it - people can read here ANI again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#A_group_of_users_framing_me_as_a_potential_fringe_and_making_allegations Prokaryotes (talk) 02:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. The [REDACTED] is strong with this one. Keeping them out of science-related articles will be a benefit to the project. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban for Prokaryotes on topics related to medicine. Users who don't understand policies and are not able to interpret scientific content can do serious damage editing medical topics. Maybe the user can appeal the ban after gaining competence from editing on other topics. --Orlady (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

It would help if people could link to the dif and cite the particular policy i breached. Prokaryotes (talk) 02:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, but not a block. It seems obvious that this particular topic is causing problems for the editor and causing them to edit outside guidelines and policy. Take a break, relax and find something else to edit for a little bit. Stalwart111 23:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Edits here on ANI and the given diffs show that they have strong wp:COMPETENCE issues. 78.105.23.195 (talk) 03:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you please (or anybody else for that matter) link to it? Notice also that the reason i chose one of the links AndyTheGrump cites for his arguments, is that the article argument i was following up with my addition contains discovermagazine already(the exact same source as has been questioned here). It is unclear to me why in 1 case this is considered "ok" and when i add it, it is not. Quote from current version which is unquestioned = it becomes challenging for health authorities to preserve public support for vaccination programs.http://discovermagazine.com/2009/jun/06-why-does-vaccine-autism-controversy-live-on I addedm, quote = However, a recent study found that weak vaccines can be attributed to an increase of diseases. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/?p=1321#.UiBIuT9uobo Rise in Whooping Cough Linked to Weak Vaccine dif link https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vaccine_controversies&diff=571112002&oldid=570777181 Prokaryotes (talk) 14:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Hence the current version is slightly misleading and is not noting that weak vaccines can increase diseases. Prokaryotes (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you have been told several times I know that you have been pointed to the policies, but I will state it again here. We as Wikipedians cannot take a study and analyze and interpret and generalize the results. We need to find a party that actually makes such a claim based on the studies, and in regards to medical claims, the sources making the analysis need to be at the highest level of peer review. To make such analysis and generalizations without proper third parties making the claims is what wikipedia calls "original research" and it is not allowed. Editing requires not only sources but the proper application of sources. I hope you do realize that by insisting on including WP:OR you are simply affirming that you either not competent to understand the policies or here to push an agenda, either of which is full reason for people to support at least a topic ban if not a complete block? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment – shortly before this incident I had an exchange with Prokaryotes on my talk page[175] which seemed to result in some progress being made towards a better understanding of sourcing; unfortunately it doesn't seem to have sunk in. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

There are no indication that this source is not reliable or this is considered original research. The thing is that this secondary source is part of the wikipedia article in question (vaccination controversy) studies confirm the finding and even CDC officials. "These results are supported by other studies that have found significantly higher risks of infection with the newer, acellular vaccine" and "The resurgence is not the fault of parents who haven’t immunized their kids. “We don’t think those exemptors are driving this current wave,” Anne Schuchat, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), told reporters at a July press briefing." http://discovermagazine.com/2013/march/15-broken-vaccine#.UiSl1j9uobp Prokaryotes (talk) 15:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban from medical articles per Orlady. I note particularly Prokaryotes's wild gesturing at random principles in the section he/she opened below (conflict of interest? what?), and the complaints that Andy "hijacked the ANI with his interference". It's clear that P hasn't even looked at WP:BOOMERANG, despite being referred to it several times. Incompetence from a new editor is all very well in itself, but combined with unwillingness to listen to advice (exemplified many times in this thread), and with wearying repetitiousness, it becomes a major problem. Medical articles have a special potential for doing harm if they're incorrect; they're absolutely not the right place for Prokaryotes to practice his/her comprehension of Wikipedia's principles. Bishonen | talk 15:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC).
• Comment Though, i decided to take a break from editing vaccine related topics here. I don't have the motivation or time to help improve these wiki pages with this kind of different opinions what is NPOV or OR or RS or COMPETENCE etc.. Prokaryotes (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Although I still support an indef block, particularly due to Prokaryotes' refusal to read any policy page on Wikipedia above, I am also supporting an indefinite topic ban from any medical-related article. And quite what the hell Nyttend was on about, I really don't know; no evidence of ATG pushing a fringe POV is shown, or of ATG misusing policies. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support an indefinite topic ban, all medical and scientific topics. Midgley (talk) 21:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment he is so similar to some past users I wonder if he is one of them, or knows them, or is affiliated to them. Midgley (talk) 21:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User AndyTheGrump notoriously makes false accusations

I suspect a conflict of interest with the actions of user AndyTheGrump (talk) at the following discussions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#A_group_of_users_framing_me_as_a_potential_fringe_and_making_allegations He filed a ANI against me on August 11, 2013. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Prokaryotes#ANI_notification The reason was i engaged in edit warring, though i wasn't aware of all the details of 3RR at the time and the only warning i got was only minutes before AndyTheGrump (talk) filed the ANI. Though you can read that story on my talk page and im aware what i did wrong. Now today, i noticed that AndyTheGrump (talk) reverts my edits suddenly and engages in above ANI request on a different subject. He repeatedly made false accusations against me, is ignoring the original ANI request content and even proposed an indefinite block per WP:COMPETENCE and even calls it, quote ="..is going to be the only solution." I tried to reason with him on what he calls POV pushing for instance [[176]]here. I offered him to use his exact suggestion with the improvements he critizied. However, after i offered him this he denied it and called me an anti vaccinater. I asked him several times above (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#A_group_of_users_framing_me_as_a_potential_fringe_and_making_allegations) to stop making his accusations, he even made ad hominem comments, calling my argument bollocks. His involvement and frequent posting has lead now to an overload of information which has nothing to do with the original ANI request. He totally hijacked the ANI with his interference, it appears that some other user at least use my response to his accusation to judge me. There is no evidence or action on my side which would qualify an indefinite block. The ANI i created was in response to a fringe board entry[[177]] which asked for an evaluation of my edits, that was all at that time. Prokaryotes (talk) 01:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, one can't sensibly call for a block "per WP:COMPETENCE", since that's only an essay. However, equally, "he even made ad hominem comments, calling my argument bollocks" does not compute. Do you understand why? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I seem to recall someone made a similar claim before. It is entirely untrue, in that people routinely get blocked for exhibiting the behaviour described in the essay. It generally falls well within the criteria laid out in Wikipedia:Blocking policy regarding blocks to "prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia". A marked lack of competence, combined with an evident inability to learn, is both disruptive and damaging, and sooner or later has to be dealt with. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Also you seem to be mis-using the phrase "conflict of interest" - what do you mean, exactly? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

He reverts my edits, he filed and ANI against me and he makes false claims - maybe these are the wrong words but somehow it appears i crossed his interests? And now he is using all possible ways to oppose my edits. Prokaryotes (talk) 01:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Yup. "conflict of interest"? WTF? I'm going to have to ask for the evidence for that one... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

So no evidence, just more BS. No surprise there... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

FYI, the previous AN discussion has been archived to here -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

It's normally an indication when someone uses terms like BS, Bollocks, WTF that he is out of arguments, ad hominem. Prokaryotes (talk) 01:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Either provide evidence that I have made "false claims", or retract the allegation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• It's never an indication of being out of arguments when someone uses these terms completely validly. As ATG has here. As he said, provide the evidence, or shut your apparently unjustified/false allegations down. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Calling you a Bollocks would be ad hominem. Calling your arguments Bollocks is not, because it is directed at dismissing your arguments, not dismissing you. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump (talk) claim #1 = "generalising from a particular study - one you have clearly cherry-picked in order to promote an anti-vaccination POV. This is entirely undue, and contrary to Wikipedia policies" [[178]]from here. The reason why his claim is wrong = The source is used in the wiki already, the source is based on several science studies, the content i added is the opposite of "anti-vaccine" since it calls for the use of stronger vaccines. Further did i tried to cooperate with AndyTheGrump (talk) on the talk page after 1 revert of my addition, i offered him to use "his" exact words plus the naming of the vaccine in question in regards to his generalisation claim. Further is the edit directly relevant to the article section, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vaccine_controversies&diff=570986369&oldid=570777181 Above he repeated his claim of what he describes as "anti-vaccination" or "POV pushing". Further did i made edits to related wikipedia pages which use sources like the CDC, [[179]]see here. To call reasonable scientific based edits POV, cherry-picking or anti-vaccination are false accusations and anti-science. Prokaryotes (talk) 09:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

And here we have yet another example of why I have suggested that Prokaryotes lacks the competence to contribute to Wikipedia. S/he repeats exactly the same arguments as before, ignoring entirely the objections I raised. S/he is still insisting that a cherry picked list of primary source material from an anti-vaccination website is somehow valid for a statement that there is "mounting evidence" regarding negative effects from vaccination. As for his/her second claim, that s/he offered to use my "exact words" in an edit, this is simply nonsensical. I pointed out that the original wording (" However, a recent study found that weak vaccines can be attributed to an increase of diseases") simply didn't make sense, and suggested that what s/he probably intended to say was "...a recent study found that an increase in disease can be attributed to weak vaccines". I then went on to explain that it was unacceptable, as it was generalising from a single primary-source study, clearly selected to promote an anti-vaccination POV. As I have pointed out above, Prokaryotes was proposing to add this to the lede of the 'vaccine controversies' article - without providing the slightest bit of evidence that there was any particular 'controversy' over this particular issue at all. That s/he is still arguing that its inclusion is valid suggests to me a fundamental inability to understand elementary principles of Wikipedia editing. While I'm all in favour of cutting newcomers a bit of slack when they make mistakes, there has to be a limit when a 'newcomer' fails to show any evidence whatsoever of learning and instead insists time and time again over multiple issues that they are right, and that everyone else is wrong. Such contributors are a drain on peoples time and degrade Wikipedia content, and as such a net liability to Wikipedia. If Prokaryotes isn't blocked from editing now, It looks an absolute certainty to happen later. I can see no merit in waiting until later... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump (talk)claims: "it was generalising from a single primary-source study" the secondary source i cite reads = "These results are supported by other studies that have found significantly higher risks of infection with the newer, acellular vaccine." http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/?p=1321#.UiNhhz9uobp | AndyTheGrump (talk) claims = "clearly selected to promote an anti-vaccination POV" the article explains that the older stronger vaccine should be used instead the weak vaccine. AndyTheGrump (talk) is proposing an indefinite ban of 2 different edits - which are based on scientific literature and secondary sources, which i brought up on the related talk page. Prokaryotes (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I am not "proposing an indefinite ban [for] 2 different edits". I am proposing the ban because your entire contribution history is full of POV-pushing, disregard for copyright issues, and endless demonstrations of your inability to comprehend even the basics of Wikipedia policy, combined with endless assertions that you have done nothing wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump (talk) claims = "your entire contribution history is full of POV-pushing" Oh really? So why does the study calls for stronger vaccines, or why did i added CDC and FDA content to the vaccination wikipedia? So much for your claims of POV. Prokaryotes (talk) 16:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump is making false accusations and bullying editors? Again? Is this a pattern of behavior? USchick (talk) 23:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

So far, no evidence whatsoever has been provided regarding any 'false allegations' - I suggest that you read the thread before posting, next time... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

This is more a case of "Prokaryotes violates AGF and NPA in a heading on ANI, to his detriment" rather than anything else. This is a common occurance on ANI. I myself am a vandal, and the number of "abusive" admins reported here has never been accurately counted. About three of the (probably over a hundred) complaints had any merit. Such is the case here; no merit to the complaint at all. Often, the choice of phrasing in an ANI header tells us far more about the author than he or she intends. KillerChihuahua 15:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Threats at Zayed University

Zuassprov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been edit warring at Zayed University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and has made threats in the past few days, eg. here. There are a few other accounts that are past 3RR and what is essentially a content dispute, however those are minor compared with the editor's behavior. Not sure if a sysop wants to indef the account (are those death threats?) and protect the page as well so this can be sorted out. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Indef blocked - threatening arrest, imprisonment and torture is way over the top. Acroterion (talk) 03:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Looking at this, it seems likely that Zuassprov is Binthaneya (talk · contribs) quacking into a megaphone - in other words, a sock. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 12:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, "likely" is putting it mildly. Both the accounts are indeffed, but I hope others will join me in keeping a lookout for fresh socks with the same characteristic behavior. (At the same time, the "torture" threat was fortunately directed at ClueBot NG only. :-D) Bishonen | talk 19:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC).

Disruptive editing and potential harassment in an article recently promoted to GA

I worked hard to get Turkish people to GA status (Talk:Turkish people/GA1), so it is annoying to see blatant attempts to make the article non NPOV.

User:Alexikoua, who got blocked so many times for edit warring in articles related to Greek nationalistic issues (i.e.: Greece's neighbours),[180], followed me to Turkish people article following a dispute in List of massacres in Turkey and Great Fire of Smyrna, as his first edit in Turkish people was to undo my contributions [181]. My previous warning on Alexikoua's talk page: [182]. Extensive discussions in Talk:Turkish people.

Even though the text is reliably sourced, and relevant [183], he continues to delete an entire paragraph based on no valid reason whatsoever [184].

The issue was also discussed here User_talk:Sowlos#Turkish_people. Cavann (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Expanding Earth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editor(s) adding categories from strategy games to articles

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

Hi Doug (or Substitute Doug),

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

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

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

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

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

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

Must get to bed, but... not SPI at the moment as no overlapping edits, although they seem to be the same person. I'm concerned about [185] which is copyvio from [186]. [187] looks like copyvio also, see [188]. I'd warn both accounts - ah, Turgeis was warned and continued copyvio (the link above), so I think an SPI is in order to link the two. Ceiscoran needs a warning - can you raise the SPI (not really hard, similar user pages (show Turgeis's old one), similar edits, times, and copyvio from both) and warn Ceiscoran? And maybe post this to User talk:Moonriddengirl? Bad sources need to go to RSN. Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

The worst of it may be that a lot of their edits seem to be only made to wikilink their favorite articles, eg [189] which is there to add a link to Revolutionary empire now up for AfD, and surprise surprise, is from the strategy game![190] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 16:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mafia state article disruption

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

I wonder who could that be. Anyway, I'm here to report the users from the same Norwegian IP range, who have repeatedly deleted the demonstrably relevant picture and several categories. The blanking was done without any prior solicitation on talk, and followed by a WP:IDONTLIKEIT edit summary only. One should note definite and substantial harm to the article from such blanking since replacements for the deleted material are not suggested at all. The deletionists have been firmly warned by me at article talk as well as at their IP talk [191], [192]. I also stopped short of violating the WP:3RR in hopes for a civil resolution of the dispute where my position is utterly righteous per regulations. Wishes, Ukrained2012 (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diffs:

• [193]
• [194]
• [195]
• [196]
• [197]
• [198]
• [199]
• [200] In this instance he removed the previously existing citation with no explanation

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

• [201]
• [202]

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

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

altering the record

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

hello;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing by HistorNE on Kurdish and Iranian related articles

I would like to report user HistorNE's disruptive behavior on article Kurdish separatism in Iran and other related articles (Kurdish nationalism, template:campaignbox Kurdish separatism in Iran, 1979 Kurdish rebellion in Iran, Iranian Kurdistan etc.). I have noticed HistorNE's refusal to obey wikipedia guidelines, his engagement in a clearly inconstructive manner of editing and complete refusal to recognize other WP:RS-supported opinions, other than his. As an experienced editor, i tried to find a common ground with him (he is claiming to be a newbie from June 2013 [203]), but all my attempts to find a compromise have so far failed. His recent actions were most clearly disruptive - in an attempt to bypass his previously failed WP:RM procedure on Kurdish separatism in Iran (protected article due to his previous disruptive attempts), he created an "alternative" article Rebellions in Iranian Kurdistan, and tried to downgrade the existing article on Kurdish separatism in Iran, by major deletions [204], replacing the campaignbox [205] and removal of intewikis from the original article [206].

1. HistorNE's involvement in editing Kurdish separatism in Iran article began in late July early August, when HistorNE renamed the article from Kurdish separatism in Iran to Kurdish insurgency in Iran (see [207]) and tried to completely change the scope [208];

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

3. HistorNE refused to discuss WP:RM and kept trying to rename the article with no procedure despite my requests, which resulted in article renaming back and forth, until intervention of an administrator returning it to original Kurdish separatism in Iran title [209] and protecting it.

4. Urged by lack of choice, HistorNE did eventually issue a WP:RM procedure at Talk:Kurdish_separatism_in_Iran#Requested_move, but got no consensus for his proposal (closed by an uninvolved editor) [210]. I must also emphasize he continued attempts to radically change the content of the article on the course of the rename procedure to fit his newly proposed title [211].

5. At that point the discussion moved far away from a purely academic dispute to aggressive responses - he started naming me a manipulator [212], propagandist, and "Israeli manipulator" [213][214] in clear violation of WP:CIVIL and without any relevance to the subject and of course refused to acknowledge any academic WP:RS (for example here) other than his few favorite sources written by "high-level Iranologists".

6. Most recently HistorNE tried to bypass the previously failed WP:RM of Kurdish separatism in Iran and tried to create a "competing" WP:FORK article Rebellions in Iranian Kurdistan, while degrading the existing article Kurdish separatism in Iran by removal of much information and sources [215].Greyshark09 (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Please notice that i did try a WP:DRN here, but nobody answered the application. Further, i did agree to insert all sourced edits of HistorNE into the article, including his proposed title into the lead (as secondary name), as long as he agrees to keep other sources per WP:NPOV. However, i didn't get any cooperation on his side (see Talk:Kurdish_separatism_in_Iran#Problems), as he did constantly remove sourced paragraphs and sources - in his understanding WP:NPOV is basing the article on a single rationale (his own of course). HistorNE didn't even agree to your restoration of the original stable version [216] from July 2013. I should emphasize that HistorNE's apparent effort is to destroy the existing article, no matter what; I however would not care if it is renamed per WP:RM, with WP:RS sources added - i've already stated so and acted in WP:GF (like here).Greyshark09 (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Short review:

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

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

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

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

• 87.115.38.227
• 87.113.220.212
• 87.113.230.153
• 87.114.24.54

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandalism from IP-Range 182.189.xxx.yyy

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

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

Questionable copyright claim

User:Cnsuperhuman uploaded a bunch of images and added them to Chad Netherland [217], claiming to own copyright. Most look like official promo images. Based on the editors name they may be the subject so may own copyright for most. But one (File:Chad Netherland 05.jpg) is a magazine cover. The magazine would own copyright to this one. What should be done here? duffbeerforme (talk) 08:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Stratos Tzortzoglou

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Stanley Galt

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Stanley Galt (talk · contribs) continues to replace the Charles Payne (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) contents with copyvio material after several warnings: [218] Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Topic ban for Esoglou

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

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

---

I would like to propose a topic ban for User:Esoglou from the subject of homosexuality. The user has demonstrated a persistent intent to push a political agenda (and, having been topic-banned from abortion on two separate occasions for POV-pushing, isn't a stranger to this concept). Most recently, this has manifested itself in adding, three times in the past two days ([219] [220] [221]), the claim that homosexuality poses a "widespread threat to life and health". However, the problem goes back much further and indicates that Esoglou's primary goal is not to follow WP policy or improve articles but rather to promote his personal opinions about homosexuality and to make the Catholic Church look good (see eg. this edit, where he wrote a lovely little speech about the real reason the Holy See opposed a particular resolution). He has a persistent habit of doing his own "analysis" of reliable sources when they contradict his personal views ([222] convoluted language which he explained here is intended to undermine the sources, [223] "a word that does not appear in the document"), of otherwise engaging in original research (eg. [224]), and of adding frivolous citation tags for reliably sourced facts with which he personally disagrees (eg. [225], [226], [227]). I used to think that he was not a native English speaker and that his misrepresentation of sources proc eeded from a non-native speaker's misreading, but since he states he does speak English, I have to conclude that edits like this are deliberate misrepresentation rather than accidental. This is only a small selection in a long pattern; I would be happy to provide more examples or to explain anything here that is unclear (since some of it isn't immediately obvious if you haven't looked at the sources). As well, some of these edits were made repeatedly; I've mostly provided only one instance. Esoglou's reliance on agenda-based sources and promoting them over neutral scholarly ones almost goes without saying, and he also has a problem with plagiarism (which may extend beyond this topic area, I haven't looked at his other edits), which he has outright declared isn't a reason to revert his edits.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am looking at the first three diffs that you presented above: [228] [229] [230]. In all three cases, it is quite clear that the claims about homosexuality are attributed to the church, and are not in Wikipedia's voice. In every case, the sentence at issue opens with "The Catholic Church has said that...". Are you saying that Esoglou's edits aren't a factual representation of what the Catholic church has said?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Religious POV-pusher engaged in disruptive edits

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

Evidence: [231], [232], [233], [234], and [235]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

What's so complicated about finding secondary sources? He does not want to do it and he scorns at it. I have nothing against his religion, since I have warned someone seemingly atheist in precisely the same terms, see [236]. So, I warned a religious POV-pusher and an atheist POV-pusher, I am not biased for or against religion. If he would have chosen to obey Wikipedia policies after being warned, I would not have had anything against him. The matter has been settled once and for all by WP:RNPOV and all editors have to obey this policy. And even more the basic policies of WP:SOURCES and WP:PRIMARY, which apply to all articles. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This proposed solution does not appear to address an important issue. In the first diff cited by Tgeorgescu[237], Davidbena said "the Hebrew Bible, is an accurate historical record of events that transpired long ago." There needs to be evidence that Davidbena understands that is not a valid premise for making article content decisions in Wikipedia. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• I'm not sure 1RR on the article is the restriction most called for here, considering that Davidbena hasn't edited Gospel of Matthew since 22 August. Since then, he has been writing on the talkpage only. Of course that's a better place for it; but the current problem is surely db's bloating-up the talkpage with repetitious, overlong, multitudinous posts and his certainty that he understands wikipedia policy better than experienced editors, assuring the people who explain policy to him that it is they who "misunderstand the rules of Wikipedia".[238] There's nothing quite like such confident wikilawyering from a new editor for wearing everybody out, especially when it's coupled with calls for special consideration for being new. Davidbena, please read WP:REHASH: "If your arguments are rejected, bring better arguments, don’t simply repeat the same ones. And most importantly, examine your argument carefully, in light of what others have said.". Some restriction regarding use of the talkpage seems to be called for here, since Davidbena has ignored sensible appeals like In ictu ocoli's "Now, please do not quote the Bible or the Talmud on this Talk page again" or "Please please please please stop posting WP:PRIMARYSOURCES". (Davidbena's response to that was "Why are you so antagonistic?") Nobody minds giving extra time to teaching newbies, but constructive, experienced editors should enjoy some protection from having their time and energy wasted on those who will not hear. I agree we can start by hoping that this ANI discussion has had a good effect, but if there's no improvement shown soon, we shouldn't wait long to institute a topic ban. In view of Davidbena's recent edit on Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews, perhaps it needs to be for more than just the Gospel of Matthew. Bishonen | talk 13:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Latest edits, chronology at Seleucid era

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

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

At [239] User:Davidbena has reiterated the behavior he already apologized for upon this noticeboard. He does not seem willing to learn the rules and abide by them. This time he cannot claim that he was not told what the rules are and that every editor has to abide by the rules. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Sar-Shalom is mentioned upon [240], so I guess he is one of many authors who noticed this problem and perhaps he is not the most important. I suggest using First's book for rendering the gist of the problem. Do notice that Sar-Shalom's view isn't consensual, so all notable views have to be rendered. Rendering Sar-Shalom's view as WP:The Truth is WP:NPOV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Proposed sanctions on Davidbena

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Problem Article

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

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

Levineps violating topic ban, again

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

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

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

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

Levineps knows quite well, from experience and from the editing restriction express terms, that the ban will remain in place indefinitely until he demonstrates he has earned its removal through formal petition. His excuse the last time he was blocked was that he claimed he thought the ban was over.[241]

It's been awhile since his last block for violation, but I have to wonder if that's only because I haven't checked his contributions since then to see if he's been in compliance, but I just noticed he recategorized an article on my watchlist. Now how many hundreds of times has he violated his restrictions, just in the past several days? I scroll through his contributions and I see little but category work. The reason why he was topic banned was because he had a long history of making a huge number of changes quickly and without discussion, both in categories and page moves. He would then ignore every attempt by other editors to get him to stop and discuss. And so we wanted him to demonstrate that he could discuss edits with other editors to achieve consensus, For him to now claim that the ban should be over just because time has gone by, and no one until now had noticed him violating his restrictions, would obviously be exactly the wrong result. For that matter, I see there are two recent complaints by other editors on his talk page that he has apparently not replied to.[242],[243]

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

Statement of ban, violation [244]. Recommend indef block per banning statement. NE Ent 17:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal to modify Levineps' community sanctions

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

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

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

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

Disruptions of DrSeehas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blatant socking, spurious AfD nominations

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

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

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

86.18.173.194 continues to make racist edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

IP editor 86.18.173.194 (contributions, talk) was warned on 14 May 2013 after he/she made racist edits to the article on Katie Leung.[245][246] He replied to the warning with a message telling the editor who warned him/her that they were a "pusscake".[247] He/she has now made an edit to the article on Lvov, denying the Holocaust (which in many countries is illegal).[248] Given that this is a vandalism-only user, please can he/she be blocked.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

disruptive editing at WP:COI

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Break/Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

Continuing WP:BATTLE at WinCo Foods

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed ban of Cantaloupe2 (talk · contribs)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

• edit Locke Cole made.

• edit of their contention point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed ban of UseTheCommandLine (talk · contribs)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

diff:::diff2

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Problem IP, attempts at discussion without success

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

Bizarre. Although some of the gnomish work is positive, the disruptive blankings are still an issue. Perhaps a short 24h wakeup block will elicit a response. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 02:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

IP ignoring warnings about unsourced material

An IP is persistently adding unsourced material to Catholic High School for Boys (Little Rock, Arkansas): 1 2 3 4

The user has been warned about this behavior repeatedly and has ignored all warnings. — Bdb484 (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Reinstatement of sockpuppet's work - 0RR request

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have been wondering how long it would be before I was told as was DeFacto. I was expecting it to be Martin hauling me into SPI.

Thing is, anyone who deals with Martin about units of measure for a long period of time is going to end up expressing the same concerns. And if you disagree with him, and aren't willing to accept his POV in full, it will be for a long period of time.

I have never yet seen Martin prepared to compromise on any substantive aspect of his POV. You either accept his POV in the article in full - that means articles that actively push metrication in the UK and UK-related articles with not an imperial unit in sight (despite WP:UNITS, which says that imperial units should be primary in many contexts) - or he will go on and on and on and never stop. On the Falklands it's been going on since 2009. I and others compromised massively, from the previous imperial-first consensus to a version that has metric units in all but a few contexts, the same that are described at WP:UNITS. Until he endorsed the current consensus (which he recently tried to row back on - insisting that because he withdrew his consent more than two years later it was never consensus in the first place), the most Martin was willing to compromise was that imperial units could be used in theory, so long as none were ever used in practice. Kahastok talk 21:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• I never said you were DeFacto, I said that you were acting like them; if you were DeFacto, a CU would almost certainly have found out after, what, five years of editing? You look like a meatpuppet, just by the way you're acting; again, that's not saying you are, but you're taking exactly the same line DeFacto and their multitude of socks did, using similar language. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

I used to think like you. I don't anymore. Years of dealing with sockpuppets and observing the effects of their presence in the WP:ARBPIA topic area changed my mind. But, like everything, I guess it depends on the circumstances. I think if an edit is worth making, it or something resembling it, will eventually be re-discovered and made completely independently by someone else at some point in the future, hopefully someone who isn't a blocked sociopathic liar, racist, ultranationalist extremist etc...the list is long. The effects of block evasion on article content can be substantial overtime. There are numerous examples, but to pick one, the BBC recently asked over at the Israel talk page about edit warring after this study was published, a study that pre-dates the imposition of 1RR across the Arab-Israel conflict topic area. Unlike sockpuppetry, edit warring is a problem with a solution that works quite well. The person with the 2nd highest number of edits to that article over the past year is a blocked editor who used 14 socks to make those edits. They also happen to be a racist ultranationalist who refers to Arabs and Iranians as apes. That is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the effects block evasion on the ARBPIA topic area. Something needs to change and if there is some short term collateral damage by people taking a stricter approach to dealing with the effects of block evasion it might be worth it in the long run. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd disagree Roscelese. The minor improvement a sockpuppet could make does not outweigh to massive disruption that would be caused if we created an atmosphere where sock edits could be "adopted." That encourages more socks to continue to edit. The point is we want them to leave. WP:RBI.--v/r - TP 18:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) about the original complaint, [250] the way Ex-Stanley's comment had been struck out could give the impression to a casual reader that it was struck because Ex-Stanley changed his mind. I think it's customary for a notation such as "sock-puppet" to be added, with the name of the editor doing the striking out. Kahastok could have posted a similar comment or just "I agree". —rybec 20:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I would not have argued with such a solution - a note in small saying that he'd been blocked. Though I maintain that the fact that Ex-Stanley was blocked for sockpuppetry was made perfectly clear already in the discussion and there is no real need at present for any change. Kahastok talk 22:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• That would've definitely been the best solution. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin assistance needed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

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

Done.--v/r - TP 18:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent disruption in Talk:Windows XP

Hi.

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

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

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

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

Dropped an ANI notification on their page for you. Blackmane (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Warned. Let me know if they do this or anything like it again. --John (talk) 18:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Codename Lisa - perhaps you should go back to school for reading and comprehension. I said " I want a computer, not a basket of "apps" for retarded morons!". So, don't come here pleading wounded and offended, as you are trying to do, and appealing to other to fell equally offended, with your "I strongly feel an entire community should not be offended that grossly".

But is just dso happens that you seem to have forgotten to mention that you reverted my edit FOUR times. You also violated this page, which says clearly in bold and italics and in bright orange that you must notify others involved if you are going to report them here.

I have in the meantime reported you for a 3RR violation.

As for the other editors who have since written to me, thanks for your efforts. But I would have expected that you look at both sides before judging. That has been the only constant of justice since time immemorial. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I've closed the report since it's already being handled here.--v/r - TP 19:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

NO, it is not being handled here - kindly re-instate that report. I logged it, therefore you deleting it - and without consultation is a gross violation in itself. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I have re-iterated the closure of the report at ANEW and would ask Gabrial to post the diffs he is complaining of here. It will be much better if we can look at both editors' actions in the same place. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

A quick look at the history shows that the talk page comment was reverted 4 times, so presumably that's what Gabriel is referring to. MChesterMC (talk) 09:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Isn't "adding offensive language" is the #3 exception to WP:3RR? Although I wouldn't know because I am using Windows 8 apps and according to RGC here, I am a retarded moron. 188.245.106.131 (talk) 10:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia I would like to offer you a nice piece of advice since I can see you are obviously very frustrated and annoyed, and I can understand why. Please read WP:CALM and take a day off to go do something fun in real life. Your current path will end up in you being blocked for disruptive editing for a period of time. Please, take a moment to relax and collect your thoughts. Happy editing. Technical 13 (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

New User possibly promoting Lyons Press books

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have just come across the edits of a new user User:Steverich711. The account was created today and all their edits have been to add Further Reading sections and items to articles. On the surface it seems fine, but looking into the edits more closely all the edits are to add book references to books published by Lyons Press, and one of the books was only published yesterday. Now I'm unsure what to do about this, if anything, so I thought I'd bring it up here. Is it advertising in a round about way for Lyons Press? It's on a large range of articles so it's not like they're just adding books they like to a subject area, they're as disparate as the Dead Sea, Jordan Sea and the Titanic, with the same book further reading being added to different articles in many places. It looks to me like it's advertising, but I'd like the advice of others. Canterbury Tail talk 21:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I see the editor has been blocked. Dougweller (talk) 10:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Excessive promotional links?

I'm being outgunned in this discussion and am unwilling to take action against a perceived consensus. Yet surely we don't need a gallery of a dozen commercials to educate us about these admittedly very interesting horses. Help, please! Bjenks (talk) 08:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done — The links to which you are referring were always in violation of WP:COPYLINK, as they are copyrighted material of Budweiser (and/or its umbrella companies). To that end, I've removed the lot. DKqwerty (talk) 08:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Hi

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

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

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

The IP-users are [251],[252],[253].

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

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

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

Those warnings will not get you blocked, they're obvious trolling -- real warnings would have links to the articles where the alleged misdeeds took place. I've removed the posts for you, so any bad karma is on me. Best reaction to trolls is to ignore them, however if it continues you can request short term semi protection at WP:RPP. NE Ent 10:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! QED237 (talk) 10:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Competence/tendentious issues relating to Indian politics

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am at a loss and would appreciate community input. TheWikiIndian (talk · contribs) registered in late July 2013, following a brief incarnation as IndiaNewsTV (talk · contribs). Their stated aim is to "edit articles connected to politics of India". So far, that has resulted in edits almost exclusively to articles related to the Aam Aadmi Party, people associated with that party and people associated with populist movements related to it, such as India Against Corruption and Right to Information activism. They have professed a desire not to be seen at venues such as this because they create battlegrounds but, I'm afraid, the battlelines have already been set and they indicate quite severe issues regarding competence and tendentiousness, not to mention the occasional comment that is completely unnecessary, eg: this.

Some examples of their mass removals, based usually on idiosyncratic interpretations of policies such as OR, NPOV, FRINGE, SOAP, PRIMARY etc (for a relative newcomer, they cite a surprisingly wide range of often rather obscure policies).

• A series reverted here
• another here
• this lot
• this
• this and umpteen others

If anyone dare risk the health of their eyes by examining Talk:Aam Aadmi Party then they will see some truly specious efforts throughout sections such as this, this and this. I did try to enlighten them generally here and Qwyrxian is among others who have tried but we seem to have a lot of disruption being caused by someone who is on a mission, and that mission is not to improve the encyclopedia or - if it is - is based on a very misguided understanding of policies and an application of peculiar arguments such as that something that happened in 2010 was supported by a party that did not exist until 2012/2013.

There is more to this than mere content disputes. What, if anything, can be done? - Sitush (talk) 07:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, a couple of very specific examples of apparent incompetence/disruption (take your pick) are this effort, which removed some allegedly mirrored content from a source that existed before our article did, and this, which was apparently a copyvio removal but has resulted in every request for a link to the blog being ignored. - Sitush (talk) 07:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Obvious disruption is obvious. Blocked for a week. Bishonen | talk 09:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Privacy of personal information

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You've got me there. I will make an exception. NEVER - unless the minor is third in line to the British Crown. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't patronise people TP. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will gladly be considered a laughingstock by anyone who considers us a laughingstock because we take precautions to not be actively disseminating personal information about minors. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

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

I think it is an almost entirely black and white situation. There are a few cases where the date of birth of a minor may be posted on Wikipedia with little fear that we are causing harm to the minor, but there are very few minors who are third in line for the throne of England. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the opposite, actually. There are very few cases where posting the date of birth would lead to fear of causing harm to a minor, because very few minors are notable. Lists like these can certainly be fair game for discussion since the players are mostly non-notable. But the majority of examples will be articles like Dakota Fanning, whose birthdate was on her article since she was about 10 years old, or an unquestionably notable athlete like Connor McDavid, who has been playing in the national spotlight for years already. So as I said, it is not a black and white situation, and mindless actions are not beneficial. Resolute 23:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

• remove The wikipedia policy on this is pretty clear - if they are borderline notable, delete the birthdate. This should be an open/shut case. There is a huge difference between wikipedia publishing something and a random website doing so - those random websites are not mirrored/archived, and they rank much lower. If those random websites came to their senses and decided to unpublish the information (1) We probably wouldn't even notice and (2) It would be too late for us to unpublish it, it would be in the record and in dozens of wikipedia clones. There is such a thing as security through obscurity, so unless you can demonstrate some sort of encyclopedic reason for needing date/date of birth (vs year), and can demonstrate that these kids are worthy of note besides being members of a team, why not just drop the stick and do the decent thing and not publish the birthdates? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
• This is one of the most ridiculous threads I have ever read. Are you saying we really have to wait until a person's 18th birthday to reveal a sodding date of birth, information which is freely available about notable (albeit young) people? Theo Walcott represented the England national team aged 17 years and 75 days, becoming one of the most prominent sportsmen in the country, regardless of age. Should we have waited a further 290 days to publish his DOB? No, we would have rightly been a laughing stock. Wikipedia is not censored, and this information is freely available in reliable, secondary service - it stays. Get a fucking grip. GiantSnowman 08:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  • WP:CENSOR deals with "offensive" material, which is not the argument made here. Further, WP:IINFO and WP:NOTEVERYTHING states that we're not an indiscriminate collection of info, so simply being verifiable doesn't itself merits inclusion. WP:NOTDIRECTORY lends further credence for removing this wholly-unnecessary info on the additional grounds of privacy of minors. DKqwerty (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    • How on earth is somebody's DOB "indiscriminate" information? GiantSnowman 19:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
      • In the sense that it is in no way edifying regarding the article as a whole, nor would its removal create any type of detriment to the article. In this sense, yes, it's indiscriminate, especially given the privacy concerns. DKqwerty (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
        • Going by that argument, we shouldn't list anybody's date of birth except with rare exceptions, regardless of their age. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
• Remove the non-reliably sourced birthdates, and the birthdates of non-notable players. However, I fail to understand what the fuss is about a birth date for a minor. All it does is tell you how old they are, nothing else. I've publicly displayed my birthdate for years, and most minors do. If we started including things like address, or whatever, then of course it should go. But the claim that a minor's DOB should never be present is indeed ludicrous, as per the highly notable people being referenced (one more being Rebecca Black) - partially because, in some places, a person is still a minor at 21; and yet, in others it may be 16. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  • My thoughts exactly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Your willingness to out yourself in no way justifies the outting of others' personal info, especially regarding minors. DKqwerty (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• WP:Outing has absolutely no relevance here (I have used my DOB publicly in far more places than Wikipedia). It is about issues with Wikipedia editors, not with subjects; and revealing a date of birth can never be outing, because it's not a major piece of information. I don't understand what the fuss is about at all - a date of birth is not a super-private thing, and, if the subject is notable, hasn't directly requested the removal of the DoB, and the DoB is reliably sourced, it should be included. Blanket statements like "minors DoBs should never be published" have no basis in fact, reality, or logic. Again, it would look stupid if some of the most notable youngsters (Rebecca Black, Justin Bieber, royalty), whose date of birth has been WIDELY published, was not to be included; it's an encyclopedic fact. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• I have my own view on whether precise dates of birth should be given or not, but frankly the question is of marginal importance. What is more important to me is the florid and overheated language and argumentation style from both sides here. Please calm this discussion down. It's not urgent, or life threatening, or even very important which result we get here. Heightening the rhetoric on both sides is making a sensible discussion and an agreed consensus less likely, not more so. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

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

What BLP violation is the names of the players, how many goals they scored and what teams they played for locally? You're not removing a BLP violation, you just locked the article to your preferred revision after a series of reverts including yourself.[254] If you want to remove the column with the dates while the discussion was ongoing, why did you not do that? Or even remove the dates an replace it with an age or year only? You've clearly done something wrong here blanking the whole list and protecting it. Stop trying to be a champion of child protection and use your common sense about what you are actually removing from the article. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 18:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

This wouldn't be necessary if editors weren't edit warring to keep the information in the article while this discussion is ongoing. If you have a suggested edit that would improve the article while it is locked, please use the talk page. Gamaliel (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I just suggested it to you, restore what isn't a BLP violation. Do you have cotton in your ears, or are you blatantly trying to be annoying? Blanking and protecting two articles now, is getting pretty damn close to abuse. Do you know how many articles there are on youth football (soccer) teams? There's a under-17, under-18, under-20, etc. for hundreds of countries. You want to go to all the other articles and do the same, and cause a massive shitstorm, or do you want to put the article the way it was, and temporarily remove the date column? Regards, — Moe Epsilon 20:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Dial it back, please, and take a short wikibreak from this issue. It sounds like you need it. Gamaliel (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Based on your patronizing response to the desire for constructive editing rather than blanking, and the less radical--even contradictory attitudes from your fellow admins in here, I would say something but I'm not going to. Nonc01 (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, Gamaliel, I could be easily convinced that the rosters are mostly unnecesary, but I really don't think that casting a blatant supervote and coupling it with protecting the page despite being involved is a bright idea. And no, you are not just acting as an admin there. As soon as you made such a significant content change, you lost that shield, imnsho. Resolute 23:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

BLP demands immediate action. If consensus determines that this is somehow not a gigantic BLP violation, then the rosters can be restored with a single click. All my actions are well within the purview of BLP and administrative responsibilities. The idea that I'm some kind of "involved" party because I didn't lock the page immediately is ludicrous. Locking the page was only necessary because edit warriors were determined to restore the material. BLP policy and practice has always been clear and always in favor of privacy and protecting living individuals: remove contentious material immediately, restore only with consensus. Gamaliel (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

If you want to argue the content, go right ahead. But you are now an involved party and should not have locked the page. Particularly since the edit war had ended over a day ago. You're not protecting the article from anything, you are merely locking the page at your preferred version. Resolute 23:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

What's ludicrous is your idea of what BLP content is, if you think the whole table violated BLP. BLP certainly does demand you remove anything that is being contested, but the whole roster tables were not being discussed. Their names, their local teams, and how many goals they scored? Again, I'll ask you, if they violate BLP, explain your blanking of that information right now. Otherwise, if they don't, restore it because now that you locked the article, normal editors can't. And if they don't fall within BLP, then you were simply part of a revert war which you protected on your revision. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, looks like next time I will just go ahead an lock the article immediately. I thought editors would be reasonable about a BLP issue, I was obviously wrong. Insuring BLP compliance is well within my powers and responsibilities, and I'm not going to unlock the article because you bizarrely claim I'm some kind of "involved" party when my only edits ever were part of an effort to insure BLP compliance. Your efforts are better spent gaining a consensus that this personal infodump is indeed BLP compliant instead of clumsily trying to shoot the messenger. Gamaliel (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

What is your lock intended to protect, hmm? There were only two editors involved, neither has made a revert to the table in over 24 hours, and only one editor was editing to keep the table in the article. We both know that if they reverted again, they would get blocked. So tell me, what purpose does your protection serve other than enforcing your preferred version? I'm not concerned with your view of BLP compliance - I actually disagree with Moe's argument, the entire table is the source of contention - I am concerned with your unnecessary use of the tools. Resolute 00:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm better off talking to a rock at this point. I asked you one question, and I can't get a response. I didn't ask the page be unlocked, I asked you to restore what isn't a BLP violation on the table and if anything other than the DOBs was a BLP violation to explain why you think it is. Why are the names, goals, other information other than DOB a BLP violation you felt needed to be blanked? Can you answer? That's fine, Resolute, you're within your right to disagree, but I'd rather there not be a blank section on a protected article without some justification or explanation of why a column can't be removed rather than the whole thing. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 00:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

It's kind of amusing that we are both annoyed with that action, yet for different reasons! ;) But in fairness to Gamaliel, the entire table is the source of contention. The discussion boiled down to DOB, but yesterday's edit war was over the entire tables, and Moxy's original complaint here expressed concern about both names and dates of birth. Resolute 00:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

How can a name alone be anywhere near BLP violation? This original request of what to review is totally flawed and unreasonable. A request to have youth names blocked means all national youth teams, tables, (not to mention millions of other edits) will be removed from Wikipedia. Which of course won't happen because that is censorship (and not BLP violation). Yet we have a rogue admin who has blindly accepted this proposal and begun the blackout process. An astonishing gong-show. Nonc01 (talk) 00:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Because you can justify anything by crying "think of the children". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Gamaliel needs to re-read WP:INVOLVED, I think, revert their badly-judged action(s), and, in fact, read WP:BLP. This is NOT a BLP issue; it's someone looking to create a shitstorm out of nothing, which they've succeeded with. Policy on dates of birth is very clear, has been highlighted here by several editors, and has been roundly ignored by people on both sides of the debate. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

FYI, you only locked the US article, not the two Canadian articles.--Auric talk 18:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I've also edited and protected Canada men's national youth soccer teams. What is the other Canadian article? Gamaliel (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

What a ridiculous edit, from an admin no less. I was no longer warring with Moxy I was making improvements to the page, if you want me to remove DOB for the time being I will leave it off but to blank the page and lock it is a joke. "Other" Canadian article? Do you understand there are hundreds of Wiki youth national soccer pages with this info? In that sense what is the point of you blanking and locking this obscure one? Especially considering guidelines contradict such a move just as much as any literature warrants it. Nonc01 (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I dont think those reverting understand the process when there may be a BLP violation. It should not be restore while we are here talking about the deleted content to ensure it complies with the BLP policies. Also both page did not contain sources at the time for the content being re-added. Please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Restoring deleted content. On a side note a list of all the affected pages would be a good idea to list here. I see at Category:Youth association football by country there are many as you say. Think that Wikipedia:WikiProject Football should have some advice on all this on there page but I dont see it ...They have been invited here so lets see. -- Moxy (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I suspect there are also around 60-70 women's youth team pages. I have no desire to edit or contribute further though since I do not agree with the direction this is going. Once the lock is lifted I will restore the Canadian page and remove DOB. Then I am done and I will watch this underestimated and huge thing unfold with a grin and bowl of popcorn. Nonc01 (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no consensus to remove the DOBs en masse, and any removal of information supported by reliable sources would be considered disruptive. GiantSnowman 21:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

There are plenty of other cases where the birthdate of minor sports people are mentioned on wikipedia. In the case of world youth bests in athletics, their birthdate is of great significance. With the historical nature of the records, it is important for us to retain this information. We must assume these people grow up. The majority of birtdates on that list are for people who made their notable achievement as a minor, but have now advanced to adulthood. How would you propose retaining and putting the information back at an appropriate time? How would you propose removing the important (age) math calculation from such an article? Philosophically I am against removal at all. By the time someone has achieved notability, their secrecy about their birthdate had gone by the wayside long ago. That would turn wikipedia not into distributing information but for censoring information, which is also against policy. Trackinfo (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Yesterday, a bunch of young men who had earned the right to represent their country in an athletic event were on Wikipedia -- and today, they're not. Yet, since we don't actually control the Internet or google search results, they're birth dates are just as visible but their achievements are not visible here. BLP is about "contentious material" -- obviously they were born. So by applying a draconian myoptic view of BLP we're being respectful to them how, exactly? ("I'm sorry, since your birthdate was published on the Internet you can't be mentioned on Wikipedia?") NE Ent 01:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Not only that, atheletes who are on similar athletic teams like the U-20 teams, can't even be mentioned on the articles with minors, according to Gamaliel. He went ahead and removed the names of non-minors because their names were red links too. Pretty unbelievable. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 03:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

As I said above, the only thing this action does is feed the nabobs. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Does context affect personal information?

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

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

• Face reality. Birthdates that are released to reliable sources are not secret. I understand there is an overwrought argument that someone will use this stuff for identity theft. But when doing serious work we need to recognize that for what it is - a sleazy dodge by banks to somehow make the holder of an account feel responsible that the bank had zero security and was robbed. I mean seriously, what's the difference between relying on the secrecy of a birthdate and a maiden name, and strolling out for lunch leaving the bank vault unlocked, then blaming the account holder because the bank's address appears in a phone book? Wikipedia can extend some modest courtesy about birthdates when the subjects actually care and when there is no encyclopedic point, but don't go crazy trying to push back the whole ocean with your hands to keep it from swamping your sand-castle. Wnt (talk) 00:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I suspect the intent to protect children goes beyond identity fraud; including evils far worse. I simply thought it ironic that intelligent, well meaning editors would argue with ferocious passion about a minor child's date of birth being published in a Wikipedia article, while turning a blind eye when the same information is presented as the mother's date of labor and delivery. These become part of the "reality" I face as well.—John Cline (talk) 02:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Didn't we go through this with the Obama girls? I thought there was long-standing consensus that we don't include DOB's for non-notable minors. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Which is completely and wholly logical. The argument being made as a whole here is that even notable minors shouldn't have publically-known and reliably-sourced DOBs (and apparently some people are arguing that they shouldn't even be named?), and the point in this subsection is that there's an appearance that while there is much sound and fury about that, this other issue gets quietly ignored. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment from Jimbo Wales (or any other Wikipedia Foundation members)

In the interest of full disclosure: I've requested that Jimbo Wales weigh in on this issue because 1.) there is no specific policy to which we can refer, 2.) there is extensive disagreement over how this should be handled and 3.) privacy of minors has actual legal ramifications in the real world. As such, I've request he (or any other Wikipedia Foundation members) weigh in on this and exert whatever authority is deemed appropriate. DKqwerty (talk) 01:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Potentially involved protection

User:Gamaliel reverted, multiple times, re-additions of a table containing names and birthdates of players, claiming a BLP violation. When asked on his talkpage, he could not provide a satisfactory explanation how this falls under the "any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion" clause, as multiple other administrators have disagreed with his protection, nor did he provide an explanation for how it fails the "subject not objecting" clause that is in WP:DOB. This serves as a formal request to Gamaliel to remove his protections, or provide satisfactory explanation, and also a formal request from others on the validity of the clearly involved actions. As well as being involved, Gamaliel removed clearly sourced information, which does not meet, in my opinion, the not "such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object" clause of WP:DOB. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 03:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I've spend a great deal of this evening explaining above and on my talk page why this "involved" nonsense is ludicrous and I'm not going to repeat myself here. I'm going to sleep and I'll be back online in about 12 hours or so. Gamaliel (talk) 03:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

You've not explained how content reverts which are only claimed to be BLP related are administrative actions. As I said, I'm only looking for other community members to express their views on whether you should've been the one to protect the pages. Your and my opinions really don't matter in this issue, the opinions of the rest of the community do. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 03:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I've repeatedly explained, you just aren't listening. Gamaliel (talk) 03:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

From what I can see here, you're not listening to the fact that most other editors believe it is not a BLP issue. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You have explained nothing other than made it clear that it is your opinion you were in line with all policies. I, in turn, have quoted the section of WP:INVOLVED that makes your actions not in line with that policy. Multiple other administrators have disagreed with your protection (at least from what I read). Thus it cannot be expected that any reasonable administrator would perform the same action, thus it is a violation. On top of that, the perceived BLP violations are very ambiguous, and it is nowhere near clear that there is any consensus for removal or keeping. Thus, it is not an action that any reasonable user would perform. Thus, it violates WP:INVOLVED. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 04:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Just because Gamaliel is wrong and not heeding community consensus doesn't make them admin WP:INVOLVED; that's not the issue. NE Ent 10:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED states that when an editor (who is also an administrator) has taken part in a debate in a non-administrative capacity, they should not perform any administrative actions on the page unless they are confident that "any reasonable" admin would do the same thing. Here, we have an administrator who reverted content based on his opinion of BLP, and there was no discussion that he could have interpreted as the community saying it was BLP. Thus, he was reverting solely on a personal level. In this case, I see no way, if Gamaliel read this discussion, they could believe any reasonable admin would perform the protection, heck, multiple admins (and others) disagreed with his m:Wrong version. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 12:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that this was an involved protection (Gamaliel clearly believed to be removing serious BLP violations, and protected the pages to prevent the readdition of these and as the lesser harm compared to blocks; admins are supposed to take the necessary measures to prevent BLP violations), but it's obvious from the above discussion that these are not generally considered to be such clear or serious BLP violations and so don't warrant such blanking and protection. A full discussion (RfC or the like) should determine more thoroughly what to do with these kind of entries. I'll unprotect the two articles and revert them to the pre-discussion state; I have no objections to someone then e.g. removing the DOB from all minors and/or redlinks in these articles as a pro temporis measure, but I hope that no further edit warring or overreactions will happen. Fram (talk) 13:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I guess the better question is why did Gamaliel protect (and revert) when there was a discussion going on that was nowhere near consensus? That seems like a super!vote to me. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 13:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Its pretty simple why - Its a good faith BLP violation removal and consensus is needed for it t be put back as per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Restoring deleted content. Was all done to stop an edit wars that kept putting back the info despite this talk. -- Moxy (talk) 14:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

But it wasn't / isn't a BLP violation! GiantSnowman 14:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

As all can see above the talk is on going....I was not aware the conversation was over. Yes seems to be leaning towards not protecting non notable minors but I see no close. It simply good faith and good etiquette not to edit during talks. If an admin thinks this is clear cut then it should be closed "then" action taken. Personally It looks to me that a wider conversation is what many are asking for. -- Moxy (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

And that's the inherent problem in this discussion: we're in the middle of an argument sketch ("Yes it is! / No it isn't!"). Until that is resolved, siding with BLP caution isn't a bad thing. Taking User:Gamaliel to task for erring on the side of protecting potential BLP information strikes me as over-the-top. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The way I see it, one of two things happened:

• Gamaliel saw the discussion, didn't like the lack of consensus, and so claimed BLP anyway and protected the page as a sort of supervote.
• Gamaliel did not know of the discussion, and truly believed that he was acting as any administrator would.

I firmly believe the second one is true. The protection has been undone, and Gamaliel seems to be stepping away from this issue, so I think we're done in this section. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 20:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

How do I deal with paid editors?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I know there is no explicit restriction on paid editors, but doing NPP I noticed a user with an obvious username who had created a spam article copied off of a website (actually, a google search reveals several identical websites) as their only edit. WP:PAID and WP:COI talk about this sort of thing, but I didn't find any way to deal with it - I'm not going to post on the user's talk since I'm going to bed right now. If anyone thinks I should have notified even though said user wasn't named or wants to attempt communication with them, go to my CSD log and it should be pretty obvious who/what I'm talking about. Also, if there's any reply here please ping me, I'm definitely not going to start watching AN/I again anytime soon. Thanks, Ansh666 06:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

In the abstract, if you believe an editor is here for the sole purpose of advertising, on the basis of both edit(s) and username, he may be reported to WP:UAA. I and many other administrators routinely block accounts that were obviously created for the purpose of spamming. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Page deleted and AffinitymarketingAUS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked by User: CambridgeBayWeather, page ande user tagged my me.

Have you got WP:TWINKLE switched on, Ansh666? It makes tagging (a) the article as promotional, and (b) the username as promotional very simple. (If Twinkle wasn't around, I probably wouldn't know how to do it. Also, it also may have not necessarily been a paid editor, but someone with a conflict of interest.) Pete in Australia (where the company is located, btw) aka --Shirt58 (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, if you take a look at my userpage or realize that I have a CSD log, it should be clear that I do have Twinkle. I just didn't know how to deal with it, since it's my first real encounter with it; I'd say that given the "marketing" part of their username it's probably a PR firm. Thanks for all the help, everyone. Ansh666 19:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Ansh666, let me reinforce what Someguy says. I'll often go through CAT:CSD deleting spam, and whenever I find a spammy userpage by someone with no other substantial edits, I'll levy an indefinite block as a spam-only account. Many of us administrators will do the same; file a report at WP:AIV for spam in mainspace or tag userspace pages with {{db-spamuser}} (instead of {{db-g11}}) to tell the next admin who patrols CAT:CSD that this is an account that needs to be blocked. Nyttend (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I'll remember to do that from now on. Thanks again for all the tips. Ansh666 07:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal Attacking

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please, give User:Jeromesandilanico a short block for disruptive and aggressive editing. This JSC uses quite some insulting and degrading language. I'm trying to teach him that his working experience should be considered Original Research, it's not like what Wikipedians should do. Instead of acknowlidging this, and looking for sources he tries to own the article, and yells at another contributor. Na Na Utlog (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

His behavior isn't great but other than suggesting that you're not comprehending something, I don't see the insult.--v/r - TP 17:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Saying "Clearly you are out of your mind" and implying that NNU is "a person who has a very low comprehension skill" is overly direct. I have asked the user to be more polite. Bishonen | talk 21:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC).

I already apologized if the user felt that way but im not referring to him for its just to make my point on the argument. But to end and patch things up once and for all Again, I Apologize to the user.JeromesandilanicoJSD (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

user jerry pepsi continues to be make malicious edits

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

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

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

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

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

User:Tvfanatics

This is now the third time this situation has been brought here. The first time resulted in no action. The second led to an editing lockdown on the article for four days, along with strong encouragement to this editor that s/he begin engaging with me and other interested editors lest s/he face being blocked.

Polyamory: Married & Dating. Who would have thought such an article would lead to this. Editor continues to revert without discussion, hiding his reversions among other edits, despite having been advised in edit summaries, the article's talk page and his own talk page.

• Here is where his incorrect edits were noted on the talk page along with instruction on proper formatting'
• Here is where it was noted on his/her talk page.

The diffs in which he/she performs these disruptive edits are too numerous to list.

His/her ongoing refusal to engage in any level of discussion calls for corrective action. I suggest either blocking the editor for several days or topic-banning him/her from the article until such time as he/she engages in meaningful discussion. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

continued harrassment by jerry pepsi

jerry pepsi continues to harrass me and is now resorting to threats. please stop him from further editing. thanks. (Tvfanatics (talk) 05:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC))

Where are the differences showing this? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

This is the fourth time that this editor has brought similar complaints here, the most recent being #user jerry pepsi continues to be make malicious edits. Readers will draw their own conclusions. - David Biddulph (talk) 07:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• A warning to both User:Jerry Pepsi and User:TVfanatics: if you continue this tit-for-tat AN/I-ing, you're both asking to get yourself both topic-banned. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion, resume FPP on the article until both parties are able to discuss the conflict (I see movement by one, but not the other) and encourage TVFanatics to research core WP policies and extend to other articles of interest. While Jerry Pepsi has logged some ANI reports here, I don't feel they were in retaliation but frustration from what he has been trying to do; explain to TVFanatics what they are doing incorrectly. TVFanatics has not (as of the last time I saw their contributions list) edited outside of this article other than user talk pages and other WP notice boards. I believe the onus is on TVFanatics to show competence, patience, a willingness to work with others, and at the very least a scope of articles he would work with other than this one. 192.76.82.89 (talk) 12:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Bushranger: I had no idea that either of these last two reports were filed, since TV Fanatics failed to notify me of either of them as required. I have repeatedly asked him/her to engage about the article and have received nothing but threats and accusations in response. If you have further suggestions beyond what I've already done to encourage this person or people to work in a meaningful collaborative fashion, please, make them. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

192, that simply won't work--if TVFanatics refuses to engage on the talk page, then the article stays locked indefinitely. Yes, the onus is on TVFanatics to work with others--if the user does not do so, and instead continues to edit war, then the correct result is a block for TVFanatics, not indefinite page protection. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand your disagreement. I suggested Full Protection until we see discussion from both parties (which we currently see from one). 192.76.82.89 (talk) 11:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC) Edit: I see now how what I said could be misinterpreted. I believe we are on the same page. 192.76.82.89 (talk) 17:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Falkland Islands page protection

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have protected Falkland Islands on the wrong version of a revert war. Too many people, including administrators, were using reverts rather than discussion. I welcome review of this, and I really encourage discussion on the talk page, please. Jonathunder (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Given that the Falklands uses Imperial locally (i.e. road signs, speed limits), surely that's the Right Version? Black Kite (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Discuss it on the talk page, please. Jonathunder (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Shouldn't this be on WP:AN? Ansh666 07:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Generally yes, if it's just a call for admin eyes.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ubikwit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am deeply concerned about Ubikwit's treatment of me, which has culminated in his most recent post on my user talk page. He vocally objected to a finding of fact (which was implemented by an arbitration clerk earlier today) I proposed against him in the recent Tea Party movement case. I explained my position to him several times, but he then took the matter onto my talk page with this comment (which was brusque but acceptable). After I replied to that, he returned with this condescending remark:

• I would suggest that you seek [advice] before engaging in such attempts to misrepresent reality to avoid culpability for your mistakes, even if other members of the Committee put you up to drafting that FoF

At that point, I collapsed the thread, which ought to have made it clear I did not wish to engage any more in such an unreasonable discussion. Ubikwit then posted a new section on my talk page, which made the aggressiveness and impoliteness of his previous comments pale in comparison. In that new post, he said:

• Listen, AGK, your actions have consequences in this world. Isaac Newton pointed that out to the physicists, and I'm pointing it out to an undergraduate wannabe attorney from Scotland. Capisce?

This is a textbook ad hominem, and uses personal information about me that Ubikwit may have learned on an outing thread at Wikipediocracy. (Ubikwit has previously indicated he learned about Newyorkbrad's real life occupation from that same site – see [255], last paragraph of diff.) I've nothing against people who read Wikipediocracy, which many editors generally believe can contain valid criticism, but using personal information about an arbitrator to bully or criticise him after the case in question was closed is not acceptable. Ubikwit's comment above comes after his similar comments on the arbitration case talk page:

• you, being an undergraduate law student have not earned my respect
• You are an undergraduate law student that seems to think he owns and is above the law

I originally overlooked these two latter comments because they were made in the course of arbitration business, but they must be taken into consideration due to Ubikwit's latest comment on my talk page. Arbitrators are expected to have thick skin, and I suspect I have a greater tolerance for this kind of nonsense than most editors, but I will not tolerate Ubikwit persistently posting venom on my talk page. I have therefore brought the matter here so that an uninvolved administrator can review and act on it. Thank you, AGK [•] 23:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree that this is textbook violation of WP:NPA, with mafia-style capisce to emphasize the threat of personal life details. This should be dealt with severely. Binksternet (talk) 23:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

It should be dealt with, sure, but I think users coming out of an Arbcom case should be dealt some slack. This is venting which is not disruptive to the community at large. I'm not saying that Arbs should be expected to put up with anything that is thrown at them, but a little of this should be expected to come with the territory. Formerip (talk) 23:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) FormerIP: Agreed both that arbitrators are not expected to be punching bags, and that this sort of thing comes with the territory. I think I struck an appropriate balance in my statement between making it clear I don't want to punish valid criticism, and showing that Ubikwit's comments went beyond even the limits that apply when it comes to arbitrators. AGK [•] 23:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

LOL, the use of "capisce" = mafia? What other commonly-used Italian terms uttered in this context would you think are suggestive of mafia-style threats? Some? Most? All? Is the mere use of Italian in a contentious conversation enough for you to invoke the specter of the mafia? The more important question is how much of what Ubikwit said constitutes undisclosed private information. AGK acknowledges being from Scotland and I seem to recall him acknowledging himself as a law student. So, the real issue here would seem to be that Ubikwit brought this up in a disagreement. Not seeing how that is even remotely of concern on its own.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you misremember: I have not stated on Wikipedia what I read. (Although it hardly diminishes the other conduct, I don't think capisce connoted organised crime…) AGK [•] 23:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

You identified as an undergraduate on your userpage since April up to just two weeks ago. Are you saying you have never stated that you are studying or are interested in law? Not sure if that's a terribly meaningful detail.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't think there's any outing issues here, though I do agree with Binksternet that it's very disruptive. Everything Ubikwit's said about AGK can be found on his userpage or in its history; and while Brad doesn't declare his identity as publicly, he also doesn't hide it (his real name is featured on two pages linked to from his userpage). I will never ever get how people don't realize how childish they look when they recite someone's own userpage to them as if that means anything. It's just... dumb. If something's on someone's userpage, it's clearly something that they don't have a problem with strangers knowing, yet all the time you see people throwing such things back at people with menacing "I know who you are" tones. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 23:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. On my user page I say I live in Oakland but if another editor told me that my "actions have consequences in this world" and that I was a wannabe something from Oakland then I would immediately report the threat. There is no point in arguing whether the real life details were previously revealed by AGK. Binksternet (talk) 23:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Absurd. Reeks of lèse-majesté.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I can only repeat my notice on User_talk:Ubikwit: "I think you are right the arbitrator thing had some bearing. If I bumped into an edit like this with a legal threat (... I understand that NYB is an attorney, according to Wikipediocracy, well, as I am not a complete stranger to attorneys and court proceedings, I would suggest that you seek the advice of NYB before engaging in such attempts to misrepresent reality...) and outing (reiterating real time information of a wikipedian that the wikipedian have blanked himself is an outing) I would probably blocked the author indefinitely. Since I know that you are disturbed by a result of an arbitration, since administrators and arbitrators are somehow expected to be targets of attacks of disturbed users and since I know that you (despite your long block list) is a valuable contributor (only valuable contributors have their cases considered in Arbcom) I only gave you the two weeks block..." Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Bullshit. No "legal threat" was made and no "outing" occurred. Were AGK not an Arb or some other privileged editor than no block would have occurred. Your laughably unbelievable claim that you actually went easier on him because AGK is an Arb is a nice try, but still obvious bullshit. Ubikwit was being rude, sure, but not without merit and was certainly not as rude as some of your admin peers or AGK's fellow arbitrators have been in plain sight. How many of them get two week blocks on command?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Good block. Binksternet (talk) 23:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Good Block Ubikwit's browbeating tactics were a vile and unacceptable breach of policy. Glad to see that a sysop put a stop to them, and I hope Ubikwit will learn from this mistake. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 00:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I was also disturbed by Ubikwit's "suggestion" when I first saw it, because I felt it either blatantly violated WP:NLT or came perilously close to doing so. I didn't confront Ubikwit about it at the time because I realized he was under stress and should probably be given a chance to cool off, but if he says anything else that even vaguely smells like a legal threat, I will most likely indef-block him until he fully retracts any such talk (assuming someone else doesn't beat me to it). — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• Unfortunately support block I am only here because both AGK's and Ubikwit's talkpages have been on my watchlist for ages. Although we allow people to occasionally vent, I was shocked and disturbed by Ubikwit's post on AGK's talkpage - it was essentially "I disagree so vehemently, I'm going to Wikistalk the hell out of you". The post also included bizarre accusations of "unilateral arb actions" (huh? What? ArbCom is a committee, not an individual). We don't accept threats on this project - especially threats to WP:HOUND others in an extreme manner. Although Arbs have accepted "public office", harassment and hounding is NOT a part of the job description, nor should it be permitted. This is vile and disturbing behaviour from someone who should know better, and should also be able to act more like a rational adult ES&L 00:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support I didn't agree with the Arbcom decision in that case either but the comments made by Ubikwit are unacceptable. It could be that they are just pissed and needed to vent (I have certainly been in that situation myself) but its no excuse. At minimum they need a block for a few days to calm down and take a break. Kumioko (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• In no way can I feel that what Ubikwit said was acceptable, but at the same time, I think it's understandable that someone who has just been sanctioned would be at less than their best, so I'd prefer to have seen it shrugged off. Maybe every arbitrator should be given a flame-retardant suit. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• I've ignored plenty of attacks on me, and listened to many other bits of valid criticism, but still, remember that Arbitrators are people too. NW (Talk) 04:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support block - Two weeks cool down should be enough to see if it is just the user "not being at their best" or if something more drastic is warranted. Outing or doxing, threats, and "capisce" (I have not heard it used in English outside of threatening emphasis)... not exactly the kind of behaviour we expect from any editor. If a decision falls against you, it's time for introspection, not putting on a merkin and dancing atop the Reichstag building. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support Just off ArbCom or not, that's absolutely unacceptable. I might have done one week instead of two but if Ubikwit appeals and understands the problem, it can be lifted. KrakatoaKatie 05:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit warring, soapboxing at Zayed University

A few days ago I reported one account that was issuing death threats over this article, and now I have at least two SPAs adding unsourced and poorly sourced negative content to the article, essentially soapboxing because I assume they have a bone to pick with the school. See for example this diff, which was done by 201041252a (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) after the user reverted for the third time, and after I posted a warning on their talk page. I'm also up against 3RR at this point, but I don't think these people should be allowed to edit the article at all - unsourced negative claims are just as bad as someone adding gushing promotional language about the school. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I've cleaned up many of the obvious issues but the controversy section needs to be looked at for WP:UNDUE and to make sure the sources are appropriate. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The redlinked users adding negative material have been warned. Bishonen | talk 05:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC).

I've blocked one for edit-warring and done a revert. All the controversies are sourced but I agree that it needs to be checked. But it does sound as though there have been problems there. Dougweller (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban for Esoglou

I would like to propose a topic ban for User:Esoglou from the subject of homosexuality. The user has demonstrated a persistent intent to push a political agenda (and, having been topic-banned from abortion on two separate occasions for POV-pushing, isn't a stranger to this concept). Most recently, this has manifested itself in adding, three times in the past two days ([256] [257] [258]), the claim that homosexuality poses a "widespread threat to life and health". However, the problem goes back much further and indicates that Esoglou's primary goal is not to follow WP policy or improve articles but rather to promote his personal opinions about homosexuality and to make the Catholic Church look good (see eg. this edit, where he wrote a lovely little speech about the real reason the Holy See opposed a particular resolution). He has a persistent habit of doing his own "analysis" of reliable sources when they contradict his personal views ([259] convoluted language which he explained here is intended to undermine the sources, [260] "a word that does not appear in the document"), of otherwise engaging in original research (eg. [261]), and of adding frivolous citation tags for reliably sourced facts with which he personally disagrees (eg. [262], [263], [264]). I used to think that he was not a native English speaker and that his misrepresentation of sources proc eeded from a non-native speaker's misreading, but since he states he does speak English, I have to conclude that edits like this are deliberate misrepresentation rather than accidental. This is only a small selection in a long pattern; I would be happy to provide more examples or to explain anything here that is unclear (since some of it isn't immediately obvious if you haven't looked at the sources). As well, some of these edits were made repeatedly; I've mostly provided only one instance. Esoglou's reliance on agenda-based sources and promoting them over neutral scholarly ones almost goes without saying, and he also has a problem with plagiarism (which may extend beyond this topic area, I haven't looked at his other edits), which he has outright declared isn't a reason to revert his edits.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am looking at the first three diffs that you presented above: [265] [266] [267]. In all three cases, it is quite clear that the claims about homosexuality are attributed to the church, and are not in Wikipedia's voice. In every case, the sentence at issue opens with "The Catholic Church has said that...". Are you saying that Esoglou's edits aren't a factual representation of what the Catholic church has said?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Cavann That is a clear personal attack on Esoglou stating he does not have the most basic grasp. You have basically labeled him as incompetent or stupid if you like. It is also uncivil. You use personal attacks and imply he has no business editing the article due to his ignorance. What made you the one who decides who can edit and one's editing capabilities. My question why such vile comments about Esoglou? That type of behavior is not to be tolerated. 208.54.40.235 (talk) 08:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Note: Discussion restored per AN consensus that Roscolese's unilateral closure was improper. Roscolese has said they wish to withdraw the request for a topic ban and will file an RFC/U. Other matters raised in this thread remain open for discussion here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Using Inappropriate Language

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User Floquenbeam is using inappropriate words and agressive tone in talk of 2nd Battle of Kharkov article. Please take actions or it may make me to do same to him. Thank you --Obitauri (talk) 13:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Firstly, you forgot to notify Floquenbeam of this discussion. Secondly, asserting your intention to use foul language and personal attacks at another editor is probably not a good idea. Thirdly, a brief persual of the talk page suggests Floquenbeam was actually on your side and telling you to chill out. An opinion I can endorse. Chill out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• Someone please let me know if they feel I need to respond to this. A brief perusal of Talk:Second Battle of Kharkov and User talk:Obitauri should show what is going on, but if it isn't as obvious to an outsider as I think it is, I can expand. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Also, I probably should ignore the irony of Obitauri whining about someone's aggressive tone, but I can't help it. Lol. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Is it generally ok to self-indentify as a National-Socialist at Wikipedia ? Or are you all just feeding the troll ? 80.132.70.118 (talk) 14:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment. Note that I have just blocked Obitauri for an indefinite duration of time for their role in an unrelated incident.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no opinion whatsoever on the content of this dispute, as I'm not interested in researching it. But there should never be any sanctions ever placed on a Wikipedian simply for using the F-word. I have used foul language on talk pages before, but only when I was being strongly provoked by extremely stubborn users who didn't give a darn about Wikipedia policies or reliable sources. If Obitauri actually believes Floquenbeam is engaged in disruptive behaviour rather than just getting frustrated and dropping an F-bomb once, then they should change the title of this thread and present some reasonable evidence. But no sanctions should ever be placed on a user simply for using foul language. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I had an edit conflict with the closer. No reason my opinion should be stricken just because I was a few seconds late in clicking the "Save page" button. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hijiri, I think one of Obitauri's many problems is their weak grasp of English, which seems evident to me from their incoherent posts. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anti -religious POV-pusher engaged in disruptive edits

I regret feeling the need to come here re a user,Greengrounds, who has in the last couple of days, turned his attention to various articles on Jesus and has made it quite clear in numerous talk page postings that he is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but to fight for the truth. He started off by altering the lead of Historicity of Jesus, [268], and when this was reverted he reverted it straight back again with no discussion. He has appeared on the talkpage of the user who did that asking him if he does not realise that the source for information about Jesus, the Bible, says "he flew in the air like a zombie spaghetti monster" [269]. He removed a whole properly sourced section of the article "Historicity of Jesus" because he didn't like the subject header, with no discussion on the talk page [270]. He changed the opening sentence of the second paragraph of the lead of Historicity of Jesus, a sentence that has been arrived at after years of discussion from "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed" to "Apart from fundamentalist Christians, all experts agree the Jesus of the Bible is buried in myth and legend", [271],ignoring an edit notice requesting that changes not be made to the lead without discussion on the talkpage and consensus achieved first. He insists on inserting a tendentious and ungrammatical section at the beginning of the article - Ehrman lays out a the framework that historians can only establish what probably,and that miracles by their very nature are the least likely explanation for what happened [272] explaining that miracles cannot happen when the article does not discuss miracles. Just in the last few minutes, he reverted another article Christ Myth Theory,to a version from some time ago, with the edit summary "reverted to older version before apologists erased the whole article. It is for showing the theories, not for showing mainstream scholarly opinion" [273] undoing the entire, painstaking, excellent revision of the article undertaken only a few days ago by User PiCo and has slapped neutrality tags all over both articles. There is much, much more, I will supply further diffs if requested, this is only a little taste of his activities altering articles over the last two days. On talk pages, he has repeatedly made it clear that he is on a mission to proclaim the truth that the Bible states that Jesus was a "flying space zombie" [274], an expression he is very fond of and uses over and over, and accuses any one who challenges him about anything of being a Christian apologist [275]. Once again, this is a mere sampling of his talk page activities and he has made it quite clear that he is only just beginning [276] [277]. I have tried to staunch the flow of his frenzied tendentious editing of these articles to some extent but have not got the time or energy to keep doing it, something needs to be done to put at least a temporary halt, or slowing down, of this, it is turning these articles into disaster areas. I am not necessarily requesting blocks or bans right now, I would at least like an admin to explain WP policies and guidelines to him (I assume it is a him) and I feel we need to undo the damage he has done to these articles and prevent any more.Smeat75 (talk) 04:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

"Since her own style of bullying and POV pushing is quite evident in her lack of gathering consensus or using the talk page"[278][279][280] Talk pages where I have had many discussion with Greengrounds over the last two days.Smeat75 (talk) 05:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of course I did not mean "it is unacceptable to say "the Jesus of the Bible is buried in myth and legend" in conversation, or in other "real life" context, or on wikipedia as a direct quote, but that it was unacceptable for the article to say that instead of what Greengrounds changed it from - altering "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed" to "Apart from fundamentalist Christians, all experts agree the Jesus of the Bible is buried in myth and legend", [281], with no discussion first, when an edit notice actually appears whenever anyone starts to edit that sentence specifically asking any change to it to be discussed on the talk page first.Smeat75 (talk) 13:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

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

As has been pointed out here, but I was not aware of, Greengrounds has been engaged in very combative conflicts with editors on other pages, including Religious views of Adolf Hitler, where another editor left this comment back in May : "perhaps you should steer clear from articles which touch on religion. Your hatred of Christians is palpable, and bringing out your animosity towards any religious group is not appropriate here. Assigning your opponents to that religious group is also not appropriate."[282]Smeat75 (talk) 04:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Not only that, but he began to hatch down another decent article, see [283] and [284], the later edit with the preposterous reason that reliable sources are not allowed to do OR:Synthesis. I think the world has been warned enough about religious fundamentalism, now we should consider warning it of atheistic fundamentalism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, rather than slowing down his hectic pace of contentious changes to a whole range of articles, Greengrounds is expanding to new articles, including Josephus on Jesus where he has said on the talk page that he wants to remove any material cited to any theologian because theology is Pseudo-scholarship[285]. Greengrounds has already received a warning from an admin, now I think some intervention by an admin is needed, so as others above have called for a topic ban, I support a topic ban for Greengrounds to cover Christianity, broadly construed. If there is not consensus for that, I think he should be blocked for twenty-four or forty-eight hours to prevent further disruption to a whole range of articles and see if he can return in a more collaborative frame of mind.Smeat75 (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Greengrounds, moving on to Historicity of Jesus with the demand that anything sourced to a theologian must be removed [286] "We can't use John Painter as a source here. He is a theologian not a historian" and deleting material from the article Relationship between religion and science for no other reason than that it quotes an archbishop [287], edit summary "removed soap boxing statement by Habgood. This is not a place for preaching. Habgood should be removed entirely. He's an archbishop, not a scholar". I note that on this thread there has not been a single comment from any editor except Greengrounds attempting to defend his edits or behaviour and three editors,including me, have supported Kudpung, an admin I believe, in calling for a topic ban. Time for action in my opinion, what's the point of not dealing with this disruption and letting it continue?Smeat75 (talk) 03:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would like to return to a comment Cynwolfe made earlier in this thread - "We need as a community to find a better way to deal with these kinds of situations before they become cesspools that drain time and energy." Somebody who goes barging into several different pages almost simultaneously proclaiming that the Bible says Jesus was a zombie spaghetti monster [[288] or became a space zombie [289] and whose response to anyone who challenges him about anything is "let me guess, you're a Christian, right?"[290] is clearly, clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. It is so juvenile, so presumptuous, is it any wonder that serious actual scholars do not spend their time on wikipedia, who wants to deal with that sort of childishness all the time? User History 2007 and User PiCo, invaluable editors in this area, recently both retired for the specific reason, so I am told,[291], that they got fed up with constant POV pushers. This is a terrible loss to the project. The procedures you have to go through to try to do something about these kinds of editors are time consuming, drag out for weeks or months or years, and wear patience to the bone. I don't see any reason why it should be tolerated at all past one warning, which Greengrounds has already had.Smeat75 ( talk) 00:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

List of persistent breaches over several months

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

Personal attacks

• Calling an editor 'truly retarded' @19:10, 22 April 2013 for querying an edit
• He received an admin warning and ban threat for personal attacks [[292]] @ 21:22, 22 April 2013.
• But a month later he called an editor a [Holocaust Denier] because the editor requested that he provide "good sources that have survived peer review". This one may well take the cake: " If you can't handle reality (which you can't if you deny the Christian link to the killing of 6 million Jews), then of course you will be offended when reality bites you in the butt. You go around acting like a hypocrite, from time to time you will get called one." @ 09:29, 29 May 2013
• [293]]
• [[294]]
• Another admin warning 29 August [295]
• Left an edit summary calling me "lazy and disruptive" [296]5 September 2013
• He keeps calling me "meat" - see edit summaries [297],[298], just two examples, he does it all the time, even though I pointed out to him days ago that my user name is not meat [299], a trivial point, but I believe he does it to be insulting.Smeat75 (talk) 03:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Shocking set of attacks on user pages, entitled "Liar for Jesus": [300]; [301]!

Use of unreliable sources

• see here
• here.

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

• here

Deletion of reliably sourced content

• [[302]]
• [[303]
• [[304]
• [[305]]

NPOV

• Greengrounds is embarking on a campaign to remove any material in two different articles sourced to a book published by an academic press, "Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition", published by University of South Carolina, by NT scholar and theologian John Painter because, Greengrounds says, theologians are liars [306] -" Theologians are good at "Painting portraits" of lies, myths, misconceptions, and forgeries in scripture. That's where their use is done." - an argument about on the same level as the Bible says that Jesus was a "zombie spaghetti monster." He hasn't made any changes to the article texts yet, to give him credit, he does appear to be discussing proposed contentious changes on talk pages first, but his bias and pov could not be more obvious.Smeat75 (talk) 12:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually I realised that what I said about Greengrounds not removing material based on Painter from articles is not true, he did just that on the Historicity of Jesus article [307] with the edit summary "Removed "John Painter" references. A theologian is not a historian please see Wikipedia FRINGE sourcing" but it was restored by other editors (not me). Smeat75 (talk) 12:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
    • • Four editors have told him on the talk page of the Josephus on Jesus article [308] that there is no reason to remove material sourced to the theologian John Painter, just for the reason that Painter is a theologian, but he has just once again removed material from the article sourced to Painter [309] with an edit summary "Removed Painter on "what Josephus meant" Painter is not qualified to make that assessment' and left a comment on the talk page rejecting what four editors said -"Actually, I think I was right the first time. He really adds nothing to the article, and as for what I said that he can be used to compare historicity of Jesus to bible gibberish may be true, but it adds nothing to the analysis of historicity."[310] It is really contemptuous of other editors and WP policy.Smeat75 (talk) 02:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
        • So I put back the material Greengrounds deleted from Josephus on Jesus, and of course, he just took it straight out again, with further ravings on the talk page about how theologians are only qualified to discuss "zombies, apocalypses, winged angels, demons, monsters" .[311]WP guidelines say not to edit war but seek consensus on the talk page, what are you supposed to do in a case like this where rational discussion is impossible? I wish I didn't think it was important, but Josephus on Jesus is a crucial subject for study of historical Jesus, and wikipedia comes up first on most searches for information, unfortunately (I am starting to think).Smeat75 (talk) 05:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Removed the entire content of an article

Greengrounds tonight removed the entire content of an article, references and all, and blanked the whole page except for the sentence "Removed article. See Wikipedia Policies on Sourcing. A German website is not proper sourcing. Also please see Wikipedia policy on Notability. An obscure christian group is not notable." [312]Smeat75 (talk) 05:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Blanked the entire Jesus article and replaced it with childish obscenities [313] Smeat75 (talk) 01:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Harassment of editors, deletion of articles and general disruption

Greengrounds has now become a wikihound: see here. Surely, in view of his long record, this is a final straw?

Presumably because of my involvement on this wikithread, and under the misapprehension that I had written them all, Greengrounds is attempting to delete a series of articles related to Christian resistance to Nazi Germany: German Catholics’ Peace Association‎ (which also appears on the German and French wikis, but which Greenground completely deleted without any discussion - a move which was fortunately reverted by Admin user:Wtmitchell); Max Josef Metzger (an article which has existed since 2007 and appears on 4 other language wikis); Gabriel Piguet (3 other languages); Johannes Prassek (also appearing in 3 other languages); Gerhard Hirschfelder‎ (4 other languages); and Giuseppe Girotti (3 other languages). These are mostly start class or early stage articles needing further improvement. Apparently unaware of its meaning, Greengrounds has also repeatedly deleted the clearly defined honorific term "The Blessed" from these articles on the basis that it is Weaslewording!

He also appears to think the style "the venerable" is "weasel wording" and removed it from the article on Girotti.[314] I noticed a query on the talk page of Saint Sebastian "Do athletes really regularly carry his relics?...I think the word relic is being misued in the article."[315] referring to an unsourced statement in the lead of the article that athletes "often wear Sebastian's relics", so I removed it, but Greengrounds put it back in, I am sure only because it was me who had amended the lead, with the edit summary "Undid disruptive edit by Smeat75 (talk) easily varifiable uncited material need not be deleted. Try helping. Find a source. It was soooo easy" [316]. I am not sure if he really does not know what the terms "relics", "the Blessed" and "the Venerable" mean, or if he is just undoing edits ozhistory and I have made out of a battleground mentality.Smeat75 (talk) 12:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Votes/discussion for topic ban of Greengrounds

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

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

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

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

Pretty straightforward that if thousands of people are watching an article and an editor is making edits, and only two or three people are having issues, that those two or three people don't necessarily reflect the majority view of the watchers.Greengrounds (talk) 02:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban

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

• Oppose for now, I think a stern warning, preferably combined with an offer of coaching, should be given first. The warning should spell out that the next step would indeed be a topic ban. Martijn Meijering
• Oppose agree with what Martijn Meijering says and more generally, in my experience, anyone who tries to contest a strong pro-Christian pov on articles gets a rough time - ozhistory slagged me off as a negative editor and told a friend he/she would support 'any action' to get me banned or blocked for ages, - I don't think greengrounds methods or arguments are always sound by any means , but then who is without sin. Cerainly not Ozhistory imo. Sayerslle (talk) 14:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • "The source says he flew in the sky like a zombie spaghetti monster"[317]- this is your idea of contesting a strong Christian pov? Accept that the Bible says Jesus "became a space zombie", or you must be a Christian pov pusher, it is ridiculous.Smeat75 (talk) 16:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Well said Smeat75. As to what Sayerslle says of me, the precise quote from me to user:Integrityandhonesty was that Sayerslle was: "generally not constructive. I will support any further action by way of referring him to administrators, as it is clear from his talk page that he is a serial offender, who has been banned often." So the accusation that I said I would support "any action to get him banned or blocked for ages" is quite inaccurate. But this is a digression. Ozhistory (talk) 00:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I can see why you'd try and smear another user because of his talk page. I guess that's why you really see the importance of keeping your talk page clean by Removing ADMIN warnings from your own talk page. Anyone can edit their talk page, but it's really un-wiki like. Remember when we agreed not to edit the lead, but you went ahead and did it anyway? Your holier than thou attitude is not appropriate.Greengrounds (talk) 01:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Greengrounds, you are making more false allegations and topping these off with further personal attack! Disgraceful conduct. Firstly: " Remember when we agreed not to edit the lead, but you went ahead and did it anyway". No such agreement was reached, proof of this is confirmed by admin Deadbeef's explanation at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard of [6 June 2013], wherein he says: "I attempted to mediate this issue myself by crafting a draft... However, it was never fully agreed upon...". I demand an apology and retraction. Furthermore, you again insinuate that I have been involved in more than one edit war, when in fact there was only one - and that was over your conduct on Religious views of Adolf Hitler. Finally - you are again responding to questioning of your conduct with a personal attack: "Your holier than thou attitude is not appropriate". At which point in this process will you modify your behaviour?" Editors please note, despite the good efforts here to encourage him to modify his behaviour, this editor continues to employ personal attack. Ozhistory (talk) 02:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Ozhistory, you erased your history of edit warring with me from your talk page, and then accused another user for having too many complaints on his talk page. As for me apologizing to you... here goes. I'm sorry that you don't understand that when an admin writes a paragraph and says if you disagree with this, please speak up about it. And then I said no, I agree it's good. And you said nothing. And then continued to edit the lead unilaterally without discussion on the talk page. I'm sorry that you don't get what's wrong with all of that.Greengrounds (talk) 02:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support I am completely uninvolved, not a Christian, and agree this user has a serious problem playing well with others. Ultra Venia (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose From what I've seen of him he is open to reasoning and sources when approached in discussion. I think he should perhaps be reminded not to break WP:POINT, to stick to reliable sources and not to describe editors (or the rest of the world) as divided into "pro" and "anti" religion, but give a nuanced and fair descrition of the relation between science and religion. I think he is able to follow that if given a chance.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Hi User:Maunus, could I trouble you to provide evidence of this reasonableness by way of a link? Are you sure it wasn't an example of incoherence, where he argues one point for a moment then switches to another contradictory position in short order? This I have seen - "reasonableness", not so much.Ozhistory (talk) 00:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose pretty much as per Martijn Meijering above, particularly if he shows a willingness to take part in coaching, and maybe told rather clearly to tone down the rhetoric a little. The topic of "science and religion" is a pretty complex one, with, if I remember right, a two volume encyclopedia about it, and several journals. If we had someone willing to work on developing content related to this topic, and this editor seems to maybe be interested in that broad field, I could see him becoming a very valuable editor. John Carter (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Based on history of recent edits to user talk pages and Jesus, for which I have blocked the editor for 31 hours, I now wholeheartedly Support a topic ban. John Carter (talk) 23:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

• Support echo Martijn Meijering's thoughts. Considering all but one of his edits have been in the past 4 months and more than half were made in the last 10 days, seems to me he has a serious axe to grind which is "brand new" to him or something else is going on. Ckruschke (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
• Support. Greengrounds seems to think that anyone who disagrees with him does so on religious grounds--what else is "If you don't agree with us, we'll kick you out, we won't allow you to edit, and if you take the lord's name in vain, this is heresy and you will be apostatized." supposed to mean? (And why is that in quotes, anyway--who's he quoting?) That attitude is bad for talk page dynamics. But this anti-religious attitude extends to sources, also--on Talk:Josephus on Jesus, Greengrounds is arguing that one of the sources needs to be removed from the article on the grounds that the author is a theologian, so he can't be an authority on history (although first Greengrounds said that theology is pseudoscholarship). Of course, one thing that theologians do is study the history of religions, so it's entirely appropriate, and indeed necessary, to use them as sources in articles on religious history. So my suggestion is that Greengrounds avoid editing articles about Christianity until he gets a better grasp of how Wikipedia works, and until he has better familiarity with academic work on the topics he's interested in. --Akhilleus (talk) 10:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support; had been going to support this or similar a few days ago, but maybe thought it might be a bit much, but now i have to, if based on nothing other than today's disruptive editing. This is a collaborative project; an editor more interested in being insulting and childish than cooperative needs some help, and staying away from this particular area may help him learn. We can but hope. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 10:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support. I have to agree with Akhilleus's assessment above. Either G lacks the competence to weigh sources, or G is pushing a POV. If there's another explanation, I'm open to hearing it, but even after the concerns raised on this page, today G has called Smeat75 a "lazy, disruptive editor"[318] and "Meat"[319] [320](edit summary and post, so not a typo). I consider that level of deliberate incivility worth a short-term block. Editors who want to give G other options should point to diffs where G has given any indication that a second chance would be used constructively: I certainly don't find that in the shrieking about apostasy at the top of this section, the obsession with characterizing other editors' motives, the choice of a narrow set of articles to edit, the desire to arbitrarily exclude the views of scholars who meet RS standards, and the agenda of debunking (neutrality is not achieved through a cacophony of POVs). All together, it quacks like a personal truth quest. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
  • In looking at this further, today's serial PRODs [321][322] [323] [324] [325] [326] [327] and this gratuitous, taunting post to a user talk page continue to indicate agenda-driven editing that would support the topic ban (and in my opinion underscore the usefulness of a short-term block for disruption and incivility). Cynwolfe (talk) 19:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• support. I've held off expressing supopoprt because I think Greenground hadsome valid points in the discussion of the Hitler article, but his behaviour is just becoming uncontrollable, and so clearly driven by a crude anti-Christian agenda. Reasonable discussion is impossible because Greengounds seems to assume that everyone who disagrees with his edits must be motivated by religious dogma. Paul B (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

From what I can see above there are 11 who support a topic ban, and 5, including me, who do not favor a topic ban at this time. I also note that, given the subsequent behavior detailed below, I am experiencing very serious doubts about that earlier expressed opposition on my part, which would make it now more like 11 for, 4 against, and 1, me, now leaning a little for. The recent actions indicated below to my eyes seriously raise questions about whether there is any real chance the editor involved is willing to improve his conduct, and that is a very serious concern. John Carter (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support, even if he stops the blatant policy violations, I don't see his net edits being constructive in this topic. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Martin Meijering. Topic-banning a productive editor, while sometimes necessary, comes with considerable collateral damage. Greengrounds should take heed of these concerns and amend his habits. If he does not do so, I would certainly support. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Dear Joefromrandb - not only has he not done so, he has gotten worse: see: [328]; [329]; [330] and [331]! I expect (and request) that when Martijn Meijering has viewed these developments, he will switch his vote, as has John Carter. I respectfully ask that you reconsider. Ozhistory (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support-that's beyond the pale. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Resolution?

So who takes responsibility at this point? The breaches continue, and I and others are being [targeted] by this rogue editor for participating in this thread. I am not at all familiar with this process, so I am not sure how it would move to a topic ban (which the clear majority, including various admins, support above). I note that user:Martijn Meijering and user:John Carter and a couple of others wrote above that they opposed a topic ban only "for now", but have noted poor behaviour on a wide scale. Can I ask then, in light of the last few days of ongoing breaches, if they are still opposed to some sort of block or topic ban? Elsewhere, new editors such as User:Arxiloxos have been reverting Greenground's disruptive edits. My feeling is that the pattern and biases of this editor are so ingrained that he will not change - unless he is a sixteen year old or some such thing (which would explain much of his poor grammar, spelling, grasp of the subject matter and general incoherence), and in which case he may mature with age. At any rate, the consensus is clearly that he is a disruptive presence, and only a few have argued to give him time to change before a ban. It seems obvious that he should be banned from Christianity related articles, as these are the target of an especial loathing from him. But to be fair to wikipedia, I think that should be extended to cover any religious articles - at least for a period. Given that I remain the target of his harassment, a ban could not come soon enough as far as I am concerned, but I would be grateful if participating admins (User:Kudpung, User:Akhilleus etc) can advise on how this would be brought about? Ozhistory (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• I've made my suggestion in detail in another section. Please not that someone has been tinkering with the discussion to duplicate votes by editors. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Basically, you wait until an ininvolved admin takes notice of this thread and decides that s/he wants to do something about it, or until the thread dies out from lack of activity. If the thread gets archived, you then decide whether you want to try another venue (e.g. Arbcom, since a user RfC has already been conducted on Greengrounds). Dealing with a disruptive user is a haphazard and frequently disappointing process. --Akhilleus (talk) 08:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

So there's a preponderance of evidence, almost universal support from numerous editors that at the very least a short term subject block is needed, and this is probably going to die on the vine because we can't get an admin to act. Remind me not to get involved in one of these again... Ckruschke (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

It will only "die on the vine" if conversation basically dies off enough for it to be automatically archived, and the best way to ensure that don't happen is just to keep the threads going. If there is enough activity, sooner or later, probably over the weekend, someone uninvolved will have the time and inclination to act on it. ALthough I do regret the archiving of the thread which had several !votes regarding another editor, that being the thread whose title caused the renaming of this dicussion. John Carter (talk) 17:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, Ckruschke, what more is needed to make someone who can do something take some action?Smeat75 (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit-warring as IP & obscene attacks on users

It seems that Greengrounds has logged out and is now edit-warring as User:198.161.203.6. He's reverted a bunch of edits by OzHistory and Smeat75 (as the posts above show he's been in conflict with these users already), and he's just reverted me on Historical Jesus. I think a short block is certainly in order. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

And other grossly inappropriate edits to other user talk pages here. I've blocked him for 31 hours. John Carter (talk) 23:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Isn't sock-puppeting a fast track to a ban? We'd have to make sure the new disruptive IP is in fact Greengrounds, but it is natural to suspect it. Martijn Meijering (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

It is if it is clearly intentional, and it could be that this was just not logging on. I'm not sure in this case whether we can show it was intentional socking, giving their having logged on later, but maybe it could be. John Carter (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Greengrounds, logged in as such, posted obscenities all over the place. Surely that is enough now for at least a topic ban? Smeat75 (talk) 00:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

A shocking set of attacks on user pages: [332]; [333]! Dear admins, please do your duty and topic ban this guy, so we can all get on with our editing without being abused. Ozhistory (talk) 01:10, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Greengrounds is indef blocked

Greengrounds has been indefinitely blocked: [334]. Two IP addresses he used during his flame out, User:209.91.107.158 and User:209.91.107.175, have been blocked for 31 hours. A third IP address, User:198.161.203.6, belongs to the Edmonton Public LIbrary, and remains unblocked. Greengrounds has posted a retirement message on his talk page. Hopefully, we're all done with this. --Akhilleus (talk) 07:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I was going to change my vote if the sock-puppeting were proven, but that's moot now. It's a pity that this whole process takes so long, a prompt warning might have been effective. Then again, maybe not. Martijn Meijering (talk) 08:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a pity that this whole process takes so long - Ain't it the truth.Smeat75 (talk) 11:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I began this thread on 29 August with a request not for a block or ban or even a warning but that an admin would try to explain WP guidelines to him. Nothing was done for days as the situation escalated and escalated and had not Greengrounds had a public meltdown might still be going on. Once again I endorse Cynwolfe's comment on this thread "We need as a community to find a better way to deal with these kinds of situations before they become cesspools that drain time and energy."Smeat75 (talk) 12:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The trouble is that users like this can seem to have something to say at first, because they seem to be engaging with the content. So when an outside party looks at it, the user doesn't seem immune to reason. But the goal of Greengrounds wasn't to describe aspects of Jesus neutrally; it was a truth quest to shield readers from ideas and beliefs pertaining to Jesus that the user doesn't approve of. A warning never works with this type of user. It only prolongs the slow death, since they might settle down and behave for a while. You just have to stay calm and let them start throwing the cream pies, so it's on record for all to see. And I wouldn't consider this a retirement announcement. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)