Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive628

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Happymandem is out of control

We need an admin/clerk there ASAP as Happymandem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Mandemhappy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are being racist to each other in that SPI and they are fighting. Break's Over Roach, let's go (talk) 10:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Both accounts blocked. See my comments the SPI page. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Sjakkalle, I'm sure there are some sleepers. Break's Over Roach, let's go (talk) 11:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Caden

I am leaving this message here out of concern that a potential problem relating to the ongoing rfc for Blablaaa (talk · contribs) may balloon to the point that an admin may be needed, but in the interest of transparency the matter I can not handle the matter since I am one of a number of the current admins and coordinators of the military project presently involved in the above mentioned rfc.

My concern relates to the behavior of one Caden (talk · contribs), who over the last few days seems to have tried very hard to inflame not just those opposing Blablaaa in the rfc but also Blablaaa himself (interpreted by me from this discussion here, where Caden appears to canvass a little until Blablaa asks him to stop). From where I sit on the matter, the behavior exhibited by Caden could be interpreted any number of ways from unsound advise given in good faith to disruptive editing.

Over the past 48 hours Caden has alleged that a so called conspiracy exists, and has openly rather unsubtly called several different editors out his RFC post (full details), and has singled out both EyeSerene (talk · contribs) (see banned editors link for details) and The ed17 (talk · contribs) out as problematic editors (against ed), even going so far as to defend a banned editor by claiming he was a victim of EyeSerene's abuse of admin privileges.

Certainly I feel that the matter is explosive enough without his two cents, and that is why I am asking for an outside opinion on the matter. I do not believe Caden is acting for anyone's good, I think he is capitalizing on the situation to maneuver a couple of people around so he can further his position that we are all involved in some kind of conspiracy. As I noted above, I'm involved, so I recuse myself from taking an official action, but (and I believe I speak for everyone at the this point) an outside opinion on the matter would at this point be greatly appreciated. At the very least, we must protect Blablaaa from Caden's influence to ensure that the RFC currently running on him remains doesn't collapse into conspiracy theories. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

My relevant contribution here is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Blablaaa#An annoyed and slightly off-topic second outside view by The ed17. I regret showing so much of my annoyance in that post, but the overall sentiment is (I hope) clear. Caden's use of these unfounded, baseless, and quite offending accusations without any sort of evidence has gone on for too long. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Caden means well. My impression of him is that he's younger and holds the moral absolutes of the young. When it comes to anything remotely political, he's right and everyone who disagrees with his position is part of a (gay or liberal or anti-German) conspiracy. He does quite well when he's editing music or model articles, but he gets really easily worked up when he edits articles that are political (for lack of a better term). He's been topic banned from articles in regards to sexuality before, and he's managed to stay away from those since it expired. I'm not familiar with this situation, but he's a fine editor when he's not emotionally invested in the topic. AniMate 01:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll let it be then, however the others may have different opinions on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm just giving background. If he's as disruptive as you say, another topic ban might get him back to editing productively. AniMate 01:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm slightly hesitant about posting here, but thank you AinMate for your advice. I must admit I'm starting to wonder if I've run over Caden's cat or something; it's quite disconcerting when an editor I've never encountered before turns out to be able to dismiss four years' work here as POV pushing and admin abuse using only their logic and common sense. However, I certainly don't feel any need to defend myself against Kurfurst's lunatic notions - his record speaks for itself, he remains indefblocked and Wikipedia's a better place for his absence. If certain editors feel that citing him as evidence will improve their case that's their decision, though it's not one I would be making in their position. It is disappointing, though perhaps not surprising, to see the RfC/U being used as a vehicle for unsubstantiated personal attacks and daft conspiracy theories, but I'm still hoping something worthwhile will come of it all. Stranger things have happened :) EyeSerene^talk 08:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• I actually don't know a lot about Caden, but on his allegations of a conspiracy: As I pointed out here (which EyeSerene responded to here), there is some funny (as in bad funny) activity going on by the group against Blablaaa. No administrative misconduct by Eyeserene that I've seen but the understanding of WP:SYNTH is not what I would expect of an admin (see EyeSerene's response for details). People here might be surprised at what EyeSerene considered forumshopping (EyeSerene admitted in the above response that Blablaaa really wasn't forumshopping at that point): Blablaa raises an issue about a WWII battle at a talkpage where people disagree, discusses it a bit at the disagreeing people's user talk pages, then raises it at WP:MILHIST. EyeSerene argued that when Blablaa raised the issue at WP:MILHIST it was forumshopping - that is, the first attempt to seek uninvolved help in a dispute was forumshopping. This has to raise eyebrows and suggests that EyeSerene may not be the best person to be issuing unilateral blocks for disruptive editing. EyeSerene has a decently nice internet tone and seems willing to admit mistakes, and I do think everyone involved will be able to work it out, but I felt compelled to mention this because I think these interpretations of policy are off and I think it can be helpful to discuss policy clarifications. I strongly suspect the editor EyeSerene blocked in question was disruptive, but there's some overall behavior in regard to British-German WWII battles that suggests to me that there is a pro-British spin on the articles. Considering we are the English Wikipedia, it's not all that surprising, but potential English bias also an obvious blind spot that we can watch for. And it's not like admitting that the Germans might have had a good battle or destroyed a few extra tanks is supportive of Nazis or anything either. II | (t - c) 11:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

II, might I ask for some diffs of this alleged pro-British/Allied bias? Yourself, Blablaaa and Caden have stated this numerous times, but I've yet to see any diffs to back this up; you yourself have said several times that you haven't look deeply into the matter (ie Kurfurst and the potential area of bias). Do you have any evidence of this please? It would be interesting to see if there is such a bias, and what could be done to correct it. Skinny87 (talk) 12:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I had a response here but I guess it didn't end up being submitted. Did you read my RfC, where I documented fairly clearly a case where original research was clearly used to support a more favorable interpretation of a certain battle, yet nobody supported Blablaaa in the effort. Blablaaa recently brought my attention to the Battle of Jutland which, I think, is a similar case - Blablaaa presents 90 sources with quotes which call the battle a tactical victory for the Germans and a strategic victory for the English, yet there's no budging from the status quo of "tactical inconclusive" except for a single editor. II | (t - c) 05:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Can I respectfully add that although you've made quite a serious charge about my interpretation of a fundamental article writing policy at the RfC and again here, you haven't actually explained anywhere why you think I don't understand WP:SYNTH. I gave you a full explanation of why I believe your take on the policy is not entirely correct in this case and is out of step with good article-writing practice. I'd be very interested to hear exactly what your understanding of WP:SYNTH is and why you think I'm mistaken. Obviously ANI is probably not the best place for this, so I'd be happy to take it somewhere more appropriate. However, I do appreciate that you've indicated elsewhere that you don't have the time to endlessly debate this, so if you'd prefer to spend your time doing something more productive I completely understand. EyeSerene^talk 20:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for not explaining and I appreciate that you have remained calm in spite of what could some editors in this emotionally-charged website would view as personal attacks. The honest truth is that I was hoping you would revise your explanation of SYNTH/OR, since your major argument was apparently that since the OR was not used "to advance a position" and it occurred in the lead, it was acceptable. Let me know if you think I've just set up a straw man there. I added my response on why I don't think that makes sense. Summarizing my response for anyone viewing here, I think you need to keep in mind that every sentence in Wikipedia articlespace advances a position, even if the position is a simple fact. The lead actually needs be more directly supported by the sources, not less, regardless of what you've experienced. This makes sense because introducing misleading or original facts (which don't come from actual scholars directly) into the lead is very dangerous - it can seriously confuse the factual record on a topic. II | (t - c) 05:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I've read your response at the RfC. I'll reply there because I think this is going beyond the scope of ANI. However, from your post there (and above) I think we may be more in agreement that it first appeared. Thank you for taking the time on this, EyeSerene^talk 08:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Nazi comment

Just thought I'd drop in here to point out that user Caden has been to my user page and practically threatened me because I questioned user Blablaa's unanimous editing. Furthermore, I have seen SOME articles where use Blablaa has edited with a large amount of sources, but I've seen others where he clearly mis-represents the sources and simply mis-quotes then and claims he's reading out of a book. What is more opaque is that EVERY edit he makes understates German losses and claims the source that quotes the lowest German losses and highest Allied losses is the only worthy source. This is essentially contrary to academic opinion since the historians he quotes are often relatively unheard of or simply collating previously debunked figures. I would go into more depth, but this is about Caden, so I'll reiterate on my relationship with him. User BlaBlaa and I got into a conflict where I felt he was unanimously editing an article so I checked his talk page only to find he's repeatedly been blocked for uncivil behaviour and disruptive editing. There I find the only person supportive of him is User Caden. I comment there. Soon after I have a threat from Caden on my talk page.--Senor Freebie (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

... Facepalm WP:BOOMERANG, anyone?

Sorry, SF, what Caden said was not a "threat" by any stretch. In fact, I'd say he was pretty well justified being upset at your comment here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh, what does "editing unanimously" entail? Did you mean to say "anonymously?" Beeblebrox (talk) 00:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This guy needs to be blocked per Wikipedia:NPA#Blocking_for_personal_attacks:

"Extreme personal attacks, or personal attacks based on race, religion, nationality or sexual identity of an editor are often grounds for an immediate, indefinite block until the remarks are retracted".

Calling someone a Nazi is on a similar level as calling someone a pedophile. Simply because someone argues that the Germans were superior militarily or whatever doesn't make that person a Nazi and such comments should not be allowed. Further, as Blablaaa has documented, Senor's inconsistent use of a source suggests that Senor actually did not know what he were talking about and may be misrepresenting sources. II | (t - c) 00:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: He means "unilaterally" I think. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 05:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It would probably be helpful if several participants in the RfC moderated their comments. I note, for instance, that Caden labeled me "anti-German" (among several other slurs) in his contribution to the RfC. All the RfC seems to be establishing is that this situation is probably going to end up at Arb Com. Nick-D (talk) 07:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Nick. Things have got over-heated in places, but in Blablaaa's defence I've never seen anything to indicate he has an extreme right-wing agenda. In Senor Freebie's defence, while his comment was not WP:CIVIL he didn't call Blablaaa a Nazi; many people, incorrectly in my view, loosely refer to the Germans during the 1930s & 40s as "the Nazis". Perhaps we could usefully invoke Godwin's Law and close this thread? EyeSerene^talk 08:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I only happened to see this because I was here to comment on something else. Godwin's law is fit for stirring up thought, but invoking it to end a discussion is almost always mistaken, whether or not the discussion should indeed be ended for more meaningful reasons. Calling someone "pro-Nazi," without a ream or two of diffs to back it up, is not on here. I've both heard and read a lot about the German military in the early 1940s and by most accounts, it was better equipped, educated and motivated than any other in the world at that time. Saying so is not "pro-Nazi." That it was built up and dispatched to what can easily be called evil ends is widely understood. That Germany lost the 1939-45 war through overwhelming attrition and inept leadership can likewise be cited. The meaning of the word Nazi has become so widened and fuzzy as to be almost meaningless in most contexts where it is hurled, other than as a wanton slur, meant only to halt discussion, much as the nouns racist and pedophile and I might also throw in, troll as to anything online. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, there's absolutely no place for racial, sexist, political or any other types of slur on Wikipedia. I was charitably making the assumption that since Blablaaa has never displayed any pro-right wing bias that I've seen, Senor Freebie couldn't be making such an unfounded accusation and had therefore chosen his words poorly and used "Nazi" when he meant "German" (as many people wrongly do). If he needs to be sanctioned for his attack, so be it - I've blocked editors myself for similar violations of NPA. My reference to Godwin's Law - an internet joke - was a light-hearted attempt to take some of the heat out of the uncivil accusations and counter-accusations that have been thrown around during the RfC, none of which are helpful. It wasn't an attempt to end the discussion or avoid scrutiny, it was poorly considered and I apologise that it came across as badly it clearly did. I'll leave attempts at wit to editors better qualified than I am in future. EyeSerene^talk 09:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it was me. I'm likely too over-keen about Godwin's law because there was a time here on en.WP when it was indeed invoked by some to squash threads into archives. Doing so has always been mistaken, since Godwin meant it to be funny (as you did) from the beginning and moreover, it only has to do with the truly high likelihood of the topic coming up sooner or later if any thread goes on long enough, but often got wrongly cited as meaning "now that you've brought it up, we're done here." Gwen Gale (talk) 10:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that it has actually been seriously invoked to close discussions - that seems a bizarre interpretation of its intent to me. I have to confess my heart sank a bit when I saw your post though. I've been accused of all sorts of misconduct on the RfC, one repeated theme being that I've tried to quash discussion and defended (including misusing my admin tools) misconduct from editors where I support their alleged POV. I read your post and thought "Oh crap... I know where this is going to end being quoted :(" Not your fault in any way - it was my own goal and I've given myself a good hard kick - but I hope it explains any over-defensiveness in my earlier rely. Best regards, EyeSerene^talk 10:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

My botch! I was too eager to hop up on the ol' soapbox and preach about a pet peeve of mine :) Gwen Gale (talk) 10:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, no worries :) We've all got our peeves - mine tend to emerge Grumpy Old Men-style at random moments, usually in response to handcream or mobile phone adverts on TV (I mean, thousands of years of human civilisation and this is the pinnacle of our aspirational development?) It tends to attract what I can only describe as 'old-fashioned' looks from my kids... EyeSerene^talk 12:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Guy Stone / Aussieboy373

(edit conflict × 2) When I was RC patrolling, I came upon the edits of Aussieboy373. They're blanking and prodding pages claiming that the article subject wants them deleted. Due to the BLP stuff, I didn't revert, and instead decided to bring it to others' attention. I'm not too sure about what to do in these instances, hence my bringing it here for others to see. (X! · talk)  · @743  ·  16:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I created that page, and I want it deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussieboy373 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

No, MANDIC777 created it (see the page history here). You created a redirect. Even if you did create it, replacing the content with a prod is disruptive. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The page was created by MANDIC777 (talk · contribs) and significantly edited by someone not logged in using the IP address 24.46.211.161 (talk · contribs). Are both of those you? If so (and you can demonstrate it, for example by posting here from both the account and the IP address) then we can delete the article immiediately under G7 of the speedy deletion criteria. If not then it will be deleted if noone objects to the PROD for a week.

Having looked at the sources, I don't think they really confer notability to Stone so deletion in one way or another is fine by me. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

X!, you seemed to be talking about multiple pages but I just see the one. Am I missing something, or...? Olaf Davis (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Even if you create an article, you still do not own it, so it is not up to you to delete it if others contribute. That is what you sing up to when startin to work in Wikipedia

All of them. This is a BLP issue, so this needs to be treaded on with careful steps. (X! · talk)  · @846  ·  19:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Additionally not you but User:Mandic777 created the article in February 2010. Arnoutf (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok then, this is me as: 1. aussieboy373 asking for deletion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.212.171 (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright, now as 2: (whatever my IP address is) I am asking for deletion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.212.171 (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

So, now as 3: mandic777 am deleting this page. I hope that this is proof enough that I did create the page, I am going to delete the contents of the page (again) and ask for speedy deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MANDIC777 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

i would appreciate if my request for a speedy deletion would not be fought against. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MANDIC777 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

On the one hand a good number of other users have contributed to this article. On the other, though, I would question whether they qualify as significant contributors. Thoughts? - Vianello (Talk) 20:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, when you say a good number of users, you mean me. That is my IP address that appears so frequently, and my two user names. The only other edits seem to be people monitoring pages to check if the sources are accurate and have proper citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MANDIC777 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Why are you using two user names? Did you forget the password for Aussieboy373?   — Jeff G.  ツ 20:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

No, his first comment here came from the Aussieboy ID. The editor seems to edit using both IDs and a fixed IP address. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll also point out that the subject of the article, Guy Stone, is said in the article to be born as "Guy Mandic". One of the editors IDs is MANDIC777. If there is a relationship between the subject and this editor, that would possibly mean they have a conflict of interest in regard to the article and should take alook at WP:COI. Also, if the editor involved is the subject of the article, he should probably contact OTRS if he has a complaint about the article. I'm not sure why there would be, since they contributed a great deal of the information in it -- but others have contributed as well, so it's possible that some misinformation crept in. If so, the answer is not to delete the article, but to correct it, using OTRS or the procedures suggested in WP:COI. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It should also be noted that one cannot revoke their contributions under the CC-BY-SA; this is made clear between the edit box and the edit summary everytime someone goes to edit a page. –MuZemike 01:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That being said, it would behoove MANDIC777/et al to quickly go over Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Dealing with articles about yourself and send an email to the OTRS team at the email provided there if there are problems with the article. –MuZemike 01:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I filed an SPI, even though it's a self confessed duck. Aussieboy tried blanking the article again, I reverted and warned, he switched to MANDIC777 and tried it again, leaving a message on my talk page saying he's the "sole" contributor. I was gonna leave him alone on the two accounts, but the warning dodging, the potential COI, and snubbing the contributions of others (assuming he knows what "sole" means, here) gets under my skin. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not notable. The guy who wrote it, and presumably is the subject of it, wants it deleted. What's the problem? Just do the right thing. Jesus. Anthony (talk) 01:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is not Facebook or MySpace, we're not here for people to write stuff about themselves and then maintain control of the content and the fate of the article. He, apparently, wrote an article about himself, and it's been here for almost half a year, when all of a sudden he decides he doesn't want the article – but that's no longer his decision to make. The article is now ours, and the community decides what to do with it through policies. If you or anybody else thinks the subject is not notable, take it to AfD. If he thinks the article he wrote about himself isn't accurate, then he can to to OTRS and make a complaint. What he doesn't get to do is control the fate of the article on his own say-so. In the meantime, he's been playing fast and loose with multiple policies, and we need to decide if this person is someone that we wish to allow to have access for future editing, since they seem to have no real purpose in being here outside of self-promotion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I knew all that. Who will benefit from us keeping a non-notable, autobiographical puff piece? And who will be hurt by it? Exactly what are your motives here? Anthony (talk) 04:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

How pleasant to have my motivations questioned. I suggest you AGF, and if you think the subject isn't notable (the article's not a puff piece at all, it's pretty much a standard actor bio) take to to AfD.

I think we're done here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, motive. It's time someone enquired into that. What is your aim? What are you trying to do here? Did it occur to you to be kind? All I can see is you making someone live with a blp when they don't want to, when, apart from {{reflist}} and some tags and categories, they wrote the whole thing. Surely I'm wrong but it just looks gratuitously petty and cruel.

Now we're done. Anthony (talk) 05:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep, gratuitous pettiness and cruelty are my middle names, they're what motivate everything I do here. I'm really surprised no one's picked up on it before now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

How about nominating for AfD and deciding based on notability? Despite your disagreement in the last couple of comments, this seems to be the point of convergence of what you both say. Antipastor (talk) 12:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

What exactly are your motives, Anthony? Hm? Why do you want the article deleted? Maybe you're a sock for Mandic777/Aussieboy373? Or maybe you're a communist spy? Hm? Or perhaps you're part one of the Illuminati, trying to hide the cover of one of your top agents?!? And I'll turn off my mind control lazers that are totally preventing you from taking the article to AfD, which is why you've been forced to question the motives of and badger others for not doing so. Although, you could have just put on a tin-foil hat to block the beam, honestly. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

(Colander firmly in place)Sorry Ken. That was a pretty superficial reading of one single thread. Anthony (talk) 13:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I know how things can get, sometimes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed block of MANDIC777 and Aussieboy373

Why not? He replaces the content of an article with prods and db tags after being told repeatedly not to, acts like he WP:OWNs the article, snubs the work of others, has a COI, and is spreading warnings out over multiple accounts (if it was a single account, it'd've been blocked by now). Then again, I've been drinking, so if I need to be trouted, please do so. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

As a result of the SPI, Aussieboy373 has been blocked for a couple of weeks, and MANDIC777 has been indef blocked. I believe the static IP has been autoblocked as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

OTRS ticket

I feel I should explain my actions in deleting the Guy Stone article. I'm an OTRS volunteer almost exclusively - I hardly ever edit Wikipedia if I can avoid it. I do read AN and ANI, and the VP occasionally, but not hourly. OTRS received an email from the subject explaining the situation, and although the email itself is confidential, MANDIC777 and Aussieboy373 are editing from the same household and are not sockpuppets, although they didn't intend to promote the subject, and didn't do it with the subject's permission or awareness. Because both MANDIC777 and Aussieboy373 wanted the article deleted (and performed the only significant edits to the article), and the subject wanted that version of the article deleted as soon as he was aware of it, I felt the only recourse was to delete the article under G7.

The notability of the subject did not enter into my decision, and no-one has any problems with a new article being created. I only made a common-sense decision that as MANDIC777 and Aussieboy373 were the only significant editors, both wanted the article deleted, and the subject (who was not aware of the article) wanted it deleted, the only sensible recourse was to delete that version.

I'm also concerned at the number of non-administrators who turned down the speedy deletion request without an administrator reviewing it - I was under the impression that only admins could outright cancel speedy deletion notices. Did an admin even get to see the deletion request? Was there an AfD discussion - did anyone inform the editors of the possibility of an AfD? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

1RR on talk pages?

Resolved

 – answered. 1RR rule does not apply on talk pages. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

On Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes I changed a heading that was misleading. This got reverted [1], I reverted back, and then it got reverted again: [2]

So the question is, is the talk page also under 1RR rule? --OpenFuture (talk) 06:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Specifying where the 1RR sanction has been logged would help users answer the question you are asking.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I was the one who initially placed the article on 1RR. Only the article and not the talk page was placed on any limitation. However, editing another's comments or edit warring on the talk page is just profoundly ridiculous, and will be met with blocks for general disruption if necessary. Just leave the header as is and counter the points they raise instead. (That applies to everyone, and not just you). NW (Talk) 13:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Trouble with user Ariana301

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.

---

Hi, I made a small change in Afghanistan#Foreign relations and military and provided reliable source as well as explained my reasons at Talk:Afghanistan#Foreign_relations_and_military then Ariana310 (talk · contribs) appeared and started replying in a rude tone, deleting my sourced edits and calling me a pro-Pakistani POV pusher everywhere. Ariana310 violated 3rr after I warned her and refuse to stop deleting sourced content. [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] --119.73.1.34 (talk) 08:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not only me who finds 119.73.1.34's edits as POV and confusion, but other users too agree with me on the same point. Here, here, and here, reverts by two different users User:Begoon and User:John.

119.73.1.34 is overly-emphasizing on Afghanistan-Pakistan relations, while skipping and ignoring more important and healthier relations with other countries. He/She is trying to show off the Afghan-Pak relations to be friendly and without any tension, and is relying purely on one-sided and unreliable sources. A wikipedia article should have a balanced approach; we cannot focus solely on a single country.

I have added reliable sources for the reverts I made and for which there weren't any prior references: in here and here. The rest of my edits were removal of pure POV, for example in here. Ariana (talk) 08:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The source you provided simply says that Iran has relations with the ethnic Tajiks and Shia Hazaras in Afghanistan, those are not Afghan rulers. The Pakhtun are the ruling people of Afghanistan and you need to provide a reliable source that states that the Pakhtun leaders have or had relations with Iran. As far as history goes, they were at war with one another since the time of Hotaki dynasty in 1709. You are falsifying sources.--119.73.1.34 (talk) 09:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Direct quote from the source: Iran has close linguistic and cultural ties to AfghanistanAriana (talk) 10:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• 119.73, are you Ali (talk · contribs)? Reason I ask is your post at WP:ANEW. Incidentally, isn't this WP:FORUMSHOPPING? TFOWR 09:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

My name is Ali, no I'm not that user.--119.73.1.34 (talk) 09:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Understood. I've amended the WP:ANEW report to use your "username", which is 119.73.1.34 - confusing though that may seem ;-)

My comment about WP:FORUMSHOPPING may need some explanation. In general, you should only report an issue in one place. I'll leave it to others to decide whether this issue should be handled here or at WP:ANEW. TFOWR 09:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll suggest here what was said in reply to 119.73.1.34 on my talk page. Since this appears basically to be a disagreement on content between just 2 editors, why not close this thread and the one at WP:ANEW and take it to WP:3O for a third opinion. I have no view on the content issues, my revert was purely for an edit that seemed on balance POV and unsourced, and I encouraged the user to discuss this on the article talk page, which he has done. I think it needs extra eyes, because it's stuck, but this probably isn't the right place. I'd hope both editors can remain calm and get this resolved amicably.  Begoon^talk 10:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I added two reliable sources, one from the Journal of International Affairs of the Columbia University for the Afghan-Pakistan's long-lasting tension (in here) and the other for Afghan-Iran historical and linguistic ties from the Council on Foreign Relations (in here); but 119.73.1.34 removed both sources in here. In addition, he/she placed the CFR's reference after a sentence which has nothing to do with it (here), and in addition without even writing the source in a complete reference style. That's a vandalism by itself. He/She uses uses the texts published by the embassies of the two countries, instead of using the media or other scholarly sources which are impartial and unbiased. Ariana (talk) 10:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ariana310 is trying to built controversy in the Afghan foreign relations section. She should explain the long-lasting tension in the main article Afghanistan-Pakistan relations. The section I edited is mainly focusing on the current-relations. She believes the words of Afghanistan's politicians are irrelevant and decides to remove this Afghan foregin ministry statement about Afghan-Pakistani relations. I made my argument clear at Talk:Afghanistan#Foreign relations and military but there she is not writing anything important other than calling me POV pusher. Along with that she is showing anti-Pakistan sentiments because according to her she lived in Pakistan and was probably harrassed by Pakistani police, using her own personal experiance to explain Afghan-Pak relations with an anti-Pakistani way. That's why I brought this here.--119.73.1.34 (talk) 10:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Or you could both keep arguing about content here... Mine was only a suggestion, after all...  Begoon^talk 11:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous! WP:3O would offer a neutral editor with friendly advice. WP:ANEW will offer a bloody-minded admin choosing between 0, 1 and 2 blocks... ;-) TFOWR 11:38, 27 July 2010 (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.

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Happymandem is out of control

We need an admin/clerk there ASAP as Happymandem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Mandemhappy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are being racist to each other in that SPI and they are fighting. Break's Over Roach, let's go (talk) 10:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Both accounts blocked. See my comments the SPI page. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Sjakkalle, I'm sure there are some sleepers. Break's Over Roach, let's go (talk) 11:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

edit warring at Talk:New antisemitism

Resolved

 – User blocked by Dougweller (talk · contribs). Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 17:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

99.231.81.164 (talk · contribs · count) and his various clones keep on reinstating material removed by User:Mbz1 and myself on this talk page. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Franklin.vp for confirmation of the clone status and Mbz1's description of previous stalking behaviour against her.

I request that an admin either considers the CU result and take action against the various linked ids or puts the talk page on review so that the puppeetteers edits can be stopped from displaying. Thanks.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. Dougweller (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Doug.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring in user talk page

Resolved

 – Information was kept

Hello! I am currently in a edit war with Tournesol on his user talk page, in order to get personal information about myself removed. Even though I am asking him why I am not allowed to do so, he is continuing to revert it. Am I allowed to remove personal and background information about myself? /HeyMid (contributions) 15:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The personal information does not seem to violate any guidelines or policies. On top of that, it seems you added it yourself. In general removal/maintenance of talk page content is at the discretion of the user whose talk page it is. So altogether, that does not make a very strong case for you. I would not worry too much, hardly anyone ever reads talk pages, except for the owner, but (s)he read it already of course. Arnoutf (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If it leads to bullying, then I am seriously worried. I know I have to be very careful with providing personal information, unless there is a real reason as to why. /HeyMid (contributions) 16:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Looking at the history's, I'm not sure I see any personal information that you did not yourself speak off being revealed. I do, however, see that you are indef blocked at another Wiki[8][9] for pulling the same sort of stuff you attempted at the Bambifan101 SPI (i.e. trying to close it)[10] when you had absolutely no business doing so. And that you have already gotten final warnings here to stop badgering the folks who reported you for blocking there as well[11] I won't repeat the statements you have indicated you want removed, but I will say, it is NO excuse for violating Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. And frankly, I'm finding your focus on SPIs as a newer editor a bit concerning particularly when we have had an editor not too long ago get community banned who made the exact same excuses for their inappropriate behaviors. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 16:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I was actually this close to blocking outright when I saw that Heymid had continued the problematic behavior he had previously been warned for. However, I decided to give him a final chance to continue contributing constructively. And yes, that would not include SPI work if I interpret your and Deskana's comments correctly. However, his non-answers do not really inspire confidence, and I feel we have a total failure to communicate (perhaps due to Heymid's age and the fact that he is not a native speaker of English), so any input on how to proceed would be greatly appreciated. decltype (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I think HeyMid should carefully read Wikipedia:Competence is required and consider wether he can live up to these standards. I am afraid his competence is more of an issue than deliberate vandalism, but that is no excuse. Arnoutf (talk) 16:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, this has not been a good day for me. I am not sure meta discussing is for me. And my behaviour has already been too bad I can't apologize for all the bad I have done to Wikipedia. I believe my block on SvWp is nonsense; my life at EnWp has changed since then, and I have always said I would really appreciate another chance there. I see EnWp as a better community than SvWp. Thanks for your understandings. /HeyMid (contributions) 17:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If I am asking for help, I will instead be facing the negatives and criticism against myself. /HeyMid (contributions) 17:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. I promise I will immediately return to my constructive editing. /HeyMid (contributions) 17:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

When you post a complaint here, the entire situation will be looked at, including your own behavior. As it is, even after all of the above, you turned around and tried to deny requests at WP:RFPP[12] and randomly interjecting your clearly uninformed opinions in other pages and filing spurious requests. You seem to either NOT understand the warnings leveled at you, or don't intend to follow them. At this point, I'm thinking SvWp had the right idea. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 19:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If I simply just focus all my energy on improving articles, there will be no problems or need for blocks. /HeyMid (contributions) 20:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

So what is Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy then? If that is true, then I should be allowed to remove personal information about myself, due to my young age. /HeyMid (contributions) 13:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay...despite his promises above, Heymid has again injected himself into SPI[13] (which he at least self-reverted), and making spurious requests at RFPP[14] (to have a page move protected as a "high visibility" that has not had any page move vandalism that I can see). As he seems completely incapable of keeping to his own advice, and is still also pestering the fellow from SvWp[15]. At this point, I'm thinking a block, at the minimum, is needed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 13:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a few things:

1. What does high visibility mean? Alexander Ovechkin was indefinitely sysop move-protected yesterday.
2. I did not understand the headline should be deactivated in the SPI archives. Sorry for that again. /HeyMid (contributions) 13:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to understand it because you have already been told repeatedly to stay out of SPI all together. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 13:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. If it is that serious, then I will immediately leave the SPI and RfPP pages/sections. /HeyMid (contributions) 13:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd be glad if someone removes my personal information at User_talk:Tournesol (especially the part saying Asperger's syndrome). /HeyMid (contributions) 17:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Your request has already been answered. Your refusal to accept what has already been told to you is now reminding me of this where I had to repeat myself about four times for you to get it. You really are pushing your luck. --Deskana (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure he understood exactly what I meant. /HeyMid (contributions) 18:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

He answered exactly what you asked. No, you do not have the right to remove information you posted on another person's Talk page. No one here seems inclined to remove it for you, either. I don't see anything else to be done here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:OUTING states, "If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, their wishes should be respected, though reference to self-disclosed information is not outing." Thus, while User:Tournesol has done nothing wrong by posting the info, s/he is, as far as I can see at least "supposed to" remove it. At best, it's uncivil for Torunesol to leave the information up after specifically asking that it be taken down. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

True, it would be courteous to remove it, but not required. If Tournesol chooses not to remove it, a warning is about the worst we could do, since it's not personally identifying in any way. An admin could remove it if they wanted, but I wouldn't recommend a non-Admin touch it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Tendentiousness on Akins, part two

Resolved

 – blocked - 2/0 (cont.) 15:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be such a pain in the ass, but the issues over at Akins aren't getting better. I was originally the 3O on the page regarding a sourcing problem, but I guess I've become more active there. A few days ago I reported Wyvren (talk · contribs), an editor who was being particularly tendentious on this one article. He was blocked for 31 hours, but nearly as soon as he was unblocked, his editing started again. Actually, Dougweller brought this up to the blocking admin on the blocking admin's talk page, and I received a note asking me to chime in. I've tried to work with this editor on the talk page about sourcing, but they left a few small notes and have ignored the rest. He's making large edits that are largely rolling back any productive changes that have been made. I've left a note on the blocking admin's talk page about this, but their edits just don't seem to be stopping anytime soon, and I don't know what to do. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this dispute, but I do know that Wyvren did this, which puts his ability to contribute constructively to Wikipedia in serious doubt. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't you think that the POV of the current article on the Stormfront website is biased? Calling Stormfront a "hate site" is like calling the NAACP a "racist, black-supremacist, hate group". What is with the double-standard here? Using terms like "White-Rights Advocacy site" is much less biased than labeling Stormfront as a Neo-Nazi White Supremacist site. --Wyvren (talk) 04:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh, no, Wyvren, those two things are not alike. At all. Not even close. Not to anyone who has any contact with reality. You may think differently, but we go with what the reliable sources say, not your personal fantasies about the matter. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Coming back from a block and basically reinstating his edits is a bit of 'my way or the highway' and is putting off other editors. Dougweller (talk) 13:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

G-d no! Even the name has Neo-Nazi connotations - and I find it impossible to believe that was an accident. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Er, alright. Wyvren is still editing with no regard for previous opinions; they readded some images that are apparently of a dubious nature, and they just made some pretty sweeping changes to the lede, now causing it to be bigger than the rest of the article. It's also skewing pretty hard POV, I think. Can we actually do anything about this? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. Returning immediately to the same sorts of edits after a block is poor form. I have made no attempt to clean up any of these edits - if they require further discussion here, please unmark this as resolved. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of this; I've been a bit busy IRL. That's the same conduct I blocked Wyvren for, so I think a second block is the right course. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please explicate the neo-Nazi implications of his user name? I'm not getting any help from Google. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yoganate79

Resolved

 – All good - no admin action required. Users are permitted to blank their talk pages. TFOWR 20:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

User Yoganate79 seems to blank his talk page over and over again. It also seems that the user has blanked or removed article talk page content in the pasts. --Kslotte (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Although archiving is more customary, users are permitted to blank their talk pages, if they choose. Doing so is considered acknowledgement that they have read the messages. You appear to have forgotten to inform User:Yoganate79 of this discussion, so I'll take care of it for you. If there's a problem with that user's edits, messages from the talk page can be found in the talk page history. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally I found archiving a right pain to set up, and until I eventually settled on a solution that worked it was broken more often than not. Kslotte, it might be worth volunteering to help Yoganate79 set up archiving? It may be that they simply don't know about it or can't be bothered fighting with an evil bot... TFOWR 15:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

But for the most part, we have nothing to see here. As pointed out here (and your talk page...which granted, was after you posted here), users are permitted to blank their talk page. Unless you can provide us some diffs of him inappropriately removing article talk content as you insinuate, I think we can mark this as resolved.. --Smashville^talk 16:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Information about the article talk removals can be found here. But, I assume restoring talk content (I can do it) is the way to go here. I have a concern that the user may have other places where talk content has been removed. --Kslotte (talk) 18:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I must not be in the right place, since i am not seeing anything about this editor's offensive comments in Talk:Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill#Bias, where the said editor insults a people as a whole, which cost the editor a block of one day ([16]), for "attempting to harass other users" (where i read "users" as "editors"). I think that the offense is greater, particularly considering that User:Yoganate79 refuses to remove his offensive comments, which are still there to displease the reader and his fellow editors, and adds to the insult another one. I see here a tentative slap on the hand, but with no results for the moment. In my mind, the said user must comply with the rules. --Jerome Potts (talk) 01:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You do know that psychic powers are not a part of the admin toolbox, right? Also, what exactly are you asking for? Based on the information you just provided, the user did something and was then blocked for it. What has he done since the unblock? --Smashville^talk 16:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that there are two ways to go about this : he got blocked, and we do the clean-up of his offensive comments ourselves, or, he is penalised (or cautioned to be) until he removes his own filth. If the former, should i perform the clean-up myself ? --Jerome Potts (talk) 18:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Possible suicide threat?

I just reverted this, in which someone threatens that they "will commit suicide to get on Americas Got Talent. If I don't, I might just do it."

It looks more like some desperate attempt to appeal to Simon Cowell, but I want to err on the side of caution and report this here. I will notify the user. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 18:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Some of the things in that post strike me of being red flags of people who have suicidal ideation, so I would take this seriously. I'll try to help.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The IP is a comcast address, geolocates to Owings Mills, Maryland, but I wouldn't take that as reliable. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 18:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Fwiw, i found this.

Dial 911
Non-Emergency complaints	410-887-2222
Terrorism Hotline	1-800-492-TIPS
Metro Crime Stoppers	1-866-7-LOCKUP
Gang Hotline	410-823-0785
Crime Information Hotline	410-583-2216
Gun Hotline	410-887-GUNS

Pilif12p :  Yo  19:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I dropped an email over to bcpd@baltimorecountymd.gov with the details and WMF contact info. Someone should probably call if they get a chance; I just don't have time to spend an hour on the phone with them. :P --slakr^\ talk / 19:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"I'm willing to COMMIT SUICIDE to get there." somehow I'm not quite picking up on the cause-and-effect here. --Golbez (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

On a side note, isn't Simon a judge for American Idol, not America's Got Talent? 174.52.141.138 (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't know if this is of any help, but apparently there is a video entry for the show from someone with that name. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I called and reported it. Had to relay the info three times. They said they'll take care of it. I found two Vo families in Owings Mills, MD using whitepages.com, so he could be at one of those. 174.52.141.138 (talk) 21:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Minor disruption -- Darkstar1st deleting talk page comments

In violation of WP:TPG, User:Darkstar1st has, for some reason, decided that he is entitled to outright delete the talk page comments of other editors even when they are directly discussing the progress of the Wiki article. He removed my comment (and another editor's with this edit.

I insisted that he restore the comments: [17]

Instead, he gave a statement to justify his actions: [18]

I find User:Darkstar1st's apparent WP:OWN issues with the talk page to be disruptive. (I also find them disgustingly ironic, given that he's garnered quite a reputation for soapboxing, as mentioned in a previous ANI.) Of course, I can revert his edit to restore my comment, but -- given his declining of my request -- it seems the underlying issue would persist. BigK HeX (talk) 18:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The comment has been restored, i have asked darkstar to not remove comments unless they are blp violations or personal attacks per WP:TPG, i am sure he shall not make the same mistake again mark nutley (talk)

A note that the comments were restored by an editor not discussed or represented here. BigK HeX (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

User:GoldVillage

Resolved

 – troll-be-gone applied. Horologium (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Judging by the latest comment at User talk:GoldVillage, I suggest it might be time to block Talk page access too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the comment, and disabled talk page and e-mail access for the editor. Horologium (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

New editor redirecting to sock

Resolved

Not sure what is going on here but user:COAOneHundredTwo started by removing the permanent block notice from User:MidnightBlueMan and has now redirected their user and talk pages to Midnight. --Snowded ^TALK 19:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Quacky enough for me, if not then still very odd behaviour. Can always use an unblock request to state a rebuttal. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

...which they've done. Apparently they're not a sock at all: they just "admire MidnightBlueMan very much". Quack! TFOWR 19:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It's all locked up now, marked as resolved. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Administrator Fut.Perf.'s self-issued topic ban to User:Hkwon

Background: I have been working on a content dispute on Kimchi for about one month. I came to this dispute (if I recall correctly) because of an RfC about how to word the lead. The dispute essentially boiled down to User:Hkwon having a preferred way to state the lead, and between 2 and 5 other editors, myself included, preferring another. During that time, due to edit-warring being conducted by several participants, the page was fully protected twice (once for 3 days, once for a week). There was a bit of incivility, mostly between Hkwon and User:Sennen goroshi and, to a lesser extent, User:Melonbarmonster2; incivility which I believe spanned across this page as well as user pages and other Korean-related pages. At one point User:Hkwon was blocked for a week for personal attacks [19], later reduced to 24 hours [20]. By the end of the last protecting, we still hadn't reached consensus; however, once the protection was removed, edit warring did not recommence--instead, the lead was changed to the majority view, and Hkwon requested assistance from the Mediation Cabal (the request for mediation has not been acted on yet, and can be seen here. For my part, at least, throughout the Kimchi debate, I found Hkwon's insistence on his version to be tendentious, but I also felt that he was providing solid, policy based reasons for his opinions along with reliable sources to support it. He didn't seem to be edit warring any more or less than other users. I further felt that he was no more incivil than other participants. During the same time frame, though, Hkwon was also involved in what I believe were heated discussions on other Korean related topics; I wasn't involved so I won't speak to his behavior there.

On July 22, however, Fut.Perf. posted on Hkwon's talk page [21] that s/he believed Hkwon had been "persistently disruptive" and "fuelling one of the lamest edit wars I've ever seen." Then s/he stated that Hkwon was "indefinitely topic-banned from all edits relating to Korean cuisine (including, but not restricted to, the Kimchi article and anything to do with dog meat). If you make any edits about this topic, you will be blocked with no further warning." I am requesting community review of that "decision." According to WP:BAN, bans (both full bans and topic bans) can be only issued by community consensus, ArbCom (directly, or by uninvolved administrators in areas they have specifically delineated), Jimbo Wales, and the WMF. Therefore, I don't think Hkwon is actually banned, because I don't think Fut.Perf. has the authority to do so. User:Martin Hogbin and myself questioned FP about this "banning" on FP's talk page, both stating that we felt it was excessive; other users (User:Heimstern and User:Cydevil38) argued that if Hkwon deserved a topic ban, so did others, for employing the same basic behaviors. FP has so far stated that he believes his actions were right, that his experience with Korean topics leads him to believe strong administrator action is needed/justified, and that the burden is currently on Hkwon to "comment on the situation and explain how he plans to conduct himself more constructively in the future."

So, two questions: 1) Is Hkwon really topic banned (that is, does FP's comment have the force of policy), and 2) Is it appropriate for an administrator to act unilaterally in this fashion?

tl;dr:FP unilaterally claimed to topic ban Hkwon. Is this acceptable and legitimate? Qwyrxian (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I came as an uninvolved editor to the kimchi article as a result of the RfC. After a while of trying to mediate in a simple but intractable discussion on whether kimchi was 'a fermented food' I was staggered to find that the supporter on one particular view, Hkwon, had received an indefinite topic ban from Fut. perf. I commented on FP's talk page that I thought his action was too strong and later made this simple and positive suggestion to FP: 'Can I suggest that you lift the ban on Hkwon and allow the uninvolved editors to continue the mediation, with the strong suggestion that all the involved editors refrain from editing the article and on the understanding that if we get nowhere we can hand the topic back to you for tougher action'. This was rejected. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• This was recently discussed (can't seem to recall where), I believe the notion was generally disfavoured as it had too much potential for abuse. In general, my thoughts are that if the behaviour in question could justify an indefinite block, then the topic ban to prevent disruption is being offered to the user as a lesser measure. Haven't looked at this in any detail, so I can't say whether it would apply here. –xeno^talk 14:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Disclosure - I was previously blocked by FPAS. I'm not otherwise involved. I believe that it is beyond FPAS's authority as an admin to topic ban an editor. Bans are to be imposed by the community or ArbCom, and an admin does not have that authority. Further, based on the fact that FPAS exceeded their authority as an admin, I believe that a subsequent block by FPAS would be ill-advised, and that either the community or another admin should handle the situation. I do not have any input on the conduct of any of the other parties in this matter, and am just commenting on the procedural issues. As far as I can tell, FPAS is otherwise a decent admin - there should in no way be any sanctions, just a friendly word of advice. GregJackP Boomer! 14:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Despite it never having been written into policy, it's not too uncommon for admins to issue sanctions on their own, particularly is heated areas. Note that this proposed finding of fact which would have clearly asserted that admins do not have the authority to issue topic bans was firmly rejected by ArbCom. (The sanction under consideration was in fact confirmed by the community, but that doesn't seem to have factored into the voting.) My observation has been that single-admin-imposed sanctions of this sort are valid if the community is willing to enforce them. For my part, the edit warring I saw at Kimchi makes me believe there ought to be more, not fewer, sanctions here (maybe not of indefinite duration, but definitely for long enough that the article can have some rest. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

*Disclosure - I was also previously blocked by FutPerf and also have been the subject of a topic ban (topic ban was nothing to do with Futperf) I have found that while FurPerf is not as lenient as other Admins, his actions (including this one) have been spot on every time. This isn't about punishing various editors, neither is this about a content dispute - this is about making specific set of articles free from disruption. The editor in question has been recently blocked twice in a few weeks for actions related to these articles and each time comes straight back and continues with the disruption. I consider a topic ban to be far more effective and lenient than a number of consecutive blocks that slowly increase in duration, with periods of disruption between each block. My topic ban saved me from my own stupidity and saved me from a far longer block than I have ever had the dubious pleasure of experiencing, it also allowed me to edit unrelated articles and contribute to wikipedia on less controversial articles. I wish Hkwon good luck and have confidence in him making constructive edits, I just don't think that will ever happen if he edits these particular articles - if it isn't on the Kimchi article, it will on another Korean cuisine related article. This topic ban probably means that he is unable to edit about 0.01% of the articles on Wikipedia, not such a heavy price to pay for some stability on these articles. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This block does not affect just Hkwon. How is the issue now to be resolved? Hkwon is no longer able to put his side of the argument leaving the uninvolved editors who were trying to mediate hearing only one side of the story and thus unable to make any progress. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

They can read the archives to find out what he has to say -- it's not like his opinion has been completely removed from the discussion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who's been around the Korea/Japan related topics knows Futper has done this in the past. The ban is harsh but Hkwon picked up right where he started even after his ban instead toning it down. The situation was such that several neutral editors, and even Sennen and myself(mortal enemies) were on the same page trying to reason Hkwon into a compromise about kimchi being "often/usually/primarily" fermented to no avail. I do think a stern admin warning would have sufficed but I can't say I'm surprised and it puts the rest of us on notice.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 20:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Administrators have no authority to issue topic bans without prior authorization (normally concerning a specific topic area) by the Arbitration Committee or the community. A policy proposal (by me) that would have given administrators such authority, WP:Discretionary sanctions, did not obtain consensus. Accordingly, topic bans without basis in an ArbCom or community decision are void and can be ignored. However, admins may and often do sanction disruptive conduct with blocks, and if an adninistrator determines that a user's editing in a topic area is consistently disruptive, they are free to either block the user or to warn them that a block will ensue if disruptive editing in that topic area continues. The practical difference between this and a formal topic ban is that edits within the scope of a topic ban need not be disruptive in order to trigger a block.  Sandstein  21:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Sandstein that it seems to me Futper has applied WP:DIGWUREN reasoning to a topic area not addressed by ArbCom. There's also been a request to MedCab by Hkwon where the involved parties are welcome to comment there and I think any issue with Futper's actions should be brought here by Hkwon and not others. --Wgfinley (talk) 22:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting that Futper was strongly admonished and desysopped for 3 months about "displaying a long pattern of incivil, rude, offensive, and insulting behavior towards other editors and failure to address the community's concerns in this regard". Later Jimbo raised concerns along similar lines. ++Lar: t/c 00:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how that is relevant here. That arbitration action doesn't say anything about issuing topic bans and Jimbo's concerns appear to be about FPAS performing administrative actions related to Greece/Macedonia not him being "incivil, rude, offensive and insulting." AniMate 00:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The relevancy is to the misuse of admin power, not the specifics. Futper has a history of doing things administratively that perhaps are not completely within the appropriate boundaries and this current incident would be another example. Note that there was also an RfC in 2008. This ANI revolves around inappropriate use of admin authority (by imposing a topic ban). As did the prior incidents even if the details differ. ++Lar: t/c 12:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

A clarification to the above; I believe Melonbarmonster just misspoke, but Hkwon has not performed any editing since being banned. He did edit again after being blocked, and some of that editing was questionable. At least on kimchi, he did not, however, engage in any personal attacks, which is what he was blocked for. As with others above, I certainly believe Fut.Perf. can and should have warned Hkwon that his behavior was unacceptable, and that he was headed for a block (possibly even an escalating series of blocks). But banning is obviously far more harsh--it means that even should he make a good faith edit, everyone else can and should revert his edits without even reading them. Furthermore, the ban gives the appearance of being partial--it implies that the behavior of others in the topic area was acceptable, while Hkwon's was not, according to some arbitrary standard held by one administrator. In a sense, this topic ban is less readily reviewable by others than a block would be. I'll point out that while Fut.Perf. has posted on his own topic page that he wants Hkwon to account for his past behaviors and explain how he will fix them in the future, he hasn't notified Hkwon of this. If I and others hadn't brought this issue up, it must have appeared to Hkwon that he has no recourse to dispute this ban. Fut.Perf. implied that the law has been laid down, and that is the end of the discussion. Even a block has, built into the template itself, a means for disputing the block. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Sanstein has it correct. There have been a number of administrators who've inferred the ability to individually topic ban problematic users: after all, if you have the ability to physically block an editor from editing anything, isn't a topic ban a lesser included power? Consensus has been that no, it's not, and that topic bans should be proposed and discussed appropriately. This was hashed out sometime in the middle of 2009, IIRC, so I have no idea why FP thought it appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 05:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• It has been longstanding practice, ever since the ad-hoc imposition of administrative emergency measures on Liancourt Rocks, that the specific field of Korean (and especially Korean-Japanese) disputes is under a de facto "discretionary sanctions" regime analogous to those of the Balkans, Eastern Europe and the like. We've had no formal Arbcom case stating such a rule, but given recent cases, there can be hardly any doubt that if the Korean-Japanese disputes were to be brought to Arbcom, exactly such a discretionary sanction rule (as is by now routine) would be formally passed. Since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, it is only reasonable that we needn't wait for Arbcom to pass it. The amount of disruption on these articles is clearly comparable to that in other political hotspots. I have made such topic bans on several occasions in the past, and in each case that I can remember they have stuck and were upheld and sometimes enforced by other administrators. Best example I can remember was Bukubku (talk · contribs), who I topic-banned [22], and whose topic ban was confirmed on multiple occasions (appeal 1, (appeal 2) and further enforced by admins such as arbitrator Rlevse [23]. Of course, any such sanction is always open to review by the community, and if anybody wants to question this ban on its merits rather than on the formalities of how it was passed, I'm all ears. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand how the dispute over whether Kimchi is fermented is a Korea-Japan dispute. Cydevil38 (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

So it sounds to me like you held Hkwon to a standard (that he should have treated Korean articles as if they were under Arbcom sanctions) he could not possibly have known about, since it's a standard you interpolated from past Arbcom decisions. Is that what you're saying? Or am I misunderstanding you? Like I mentioned, I didn't follow Hkwon on the other articles, so I can't say for certain if he deserved it, we can raise that later (although, perhaps Hkwon should do so). I am still worried that many people have posted here that you seem to be taking up a right to act that you don't actually have.Qwyrxian (talk) 12:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Nod. Futper: Put this before the community and get a community imposed discretionary sanctions regime put in place. Properly argued, I think such is a likely outcome and will improve matters. But I think you exceeded your authority absent that or absent clear ArbCom direction, even under IAR. Inferring such broad outcomes, even if you are right, arguably may not be sufficient. Don't do this again please. I'm not seeing a lot of defense for your view, and a pretty strong consensus against it. Take that on board and let that be that. (but undo what was done to Hkwon to return to status quo ante) ++Lar: t/c 14:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It doesn't appear that he returned to edit warring over the lead and sought out mediation to help with the dispute. A topic ban is ridiculous and far beyond FP.--Crossmr (talk) 15:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it is highly revealing that Hkwon is not here arguing to have the topic ban removed, perhaps he sees the logic in it and thinks it is much better than a long term/indef block. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Well, whatever. Given the level of disagreement here, I obviously have to agree that the ban is moot, for now. This is a pity, because I still think it was objectively warranted, and as I said, such sanctions have been used to good effect in the past. I hope people will understand that I acted according to my best understanding of previous practice and implicit community consensus based on earlier cases. - For now, I have informed Hkwon that the ban is moot, but I have converted it into a one-week block (which was amply warranted based on both edit-warring and personal attacks immediately prior to my intervention the other day). This leaves me with the issue of where and how to initiate a formal community decision for the future. I think I won't bother asking for a legitimized community topic ban in this individual case, right now (it will just need to be handled with escalating blocks, the old-fashioned way). But I want the community to impose a general discretionary-sanctions regime on this topic area for the future, which would make measures like the one I attempted procedurally valid. Such discretionary sanction rules have been working well on other national hotspots, and if Arbcom can create them, obviously the community can do the same. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

  That sounds punitive and not preventative. They haven't done anything since you issued the ban which was a few days ago and now you're going to turn around and block.--Crossmr (talk) 23:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Futper: The Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation was raised at WP:AN. It became its own subtopic, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Climate_Change due to the length and number of participants. My suggestion is to review the various sanction regimes, craft a proposal, and bring it to AN (not AN/I) and see how it goes. If the proposal was similar to previous ethnic/nationalistic ones and took on board issues and concerns that folk had raised, I expect it would go well. I certainly would support a properly crafted proposal. I hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 06:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for block of Sennen Goroshi

As a related matter, at this point, I'd have to support a block on him for harassment and stirring the pot. During the last dust-up with Hkwon, Sennen Goroshi was one of the two poking Hkwon until he ended up using some personal attacks. They've been at each other for quite some time. Also during the last go around he was told to stay off Hkwon's talk page [24]. This was made clear to him during the discussion. Since then, he went back to the page 3 times to needlessly post things that others could have posted [25], [26], [27], sennen was then warned not to bait by SarekofVulcan [28]. His messages here seem to be of the same vein and tone for which was warned and directed at the same user. He obviously hasn't gotten the point yet--Crossmr (talk) 23:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

and I will note these personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith by him from Talk:Kimchi [29], [30], [31]--Crossmr (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

So in a nutshell, since being warned by an admin, I have not posted anything on Hkwon's talk page. In addition to that, I have commented on Hkwon's disregard of consensus, whilst not stooping to personal attacks at any time. Considering the blatant personal attacks made against me by Hkwon (which has was blocked for) I have been rather restrained in my comments. Baiting does not include making valid comments regarding another user's edits. There are no more problems between Hkwon and myself at this time, blocks are designed to protect Wikipedia - they are not designed to punish editors - blocking me from editing would serve no purpose whatsoever. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to be told by an admin not to go to his page. You were told by him not to go there before, you went back 3 times. During which time you picked up an additional warning for baiting by an admin who may not have realized you were told to stay off that page. You also engaged in baiting with melonball last time around to get him blocked. And of course you have no problem with him right now, he's been reblocked punitively by Futureperfect. Baiting can include making valid comments about another user. if there are valid comments to be made about his behaviours, others can do it. You two have an extensive history and your extensive picking at him is unnecessary and only makes the situation worse. There was absolutely no benefit to your comment on why you felt he wasn't commenting on this discussion. I mean, unless you can read minds?--Crossmr (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm just trying to work out why any of the above, would be any concern of yours. I'm glad you pointed out that Hkwon requested that I stay away from his talk page [32] - let me just quote his polite request for me to stay away from his page, so that anyone else reading can see exactly how rude I was to ignore such a polite request :: To Sennen goroshi|talk]]: Upset? You are not some kind of humorless blob, are you? Helping me to find content that I was unable to locate. Wow. Such an "大きなお世話". If it's not too much trouble, try not to stain my talk page any more please. Although your rambling amuses me every time, I don't want other people who look at this page to think I am associated with kinds of you in any way. Report me? Maybe you haven't completely lost your sense of humor yet. Hkwon (talk) 17:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC) - I have not posted on his page in two weeks - this complaint is stale and without merit. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 03:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Disruption on the encyclopedia is everyone's concern. You were told to stay off his page, how he did it is irrelevant. In fact if you'd like to start getting picky about what involves people, the action that got you told to stay off his page was you unnecessarily going over and trying to bait him in the middle of his conversation with me about revert counting. A discussion that was already being handled quite well in which you came to further disrupt, bait and harass. If you want to be transparent, then let's be transparent shall we? [33]. I renew my recommendation and call for a block. You've been disruptive for some time now, you've been intentionally baiting and harassing a user, and clearly don't get it, so as far as I can see that means it will continue just as soon as Hkwon can edit again. So to prevent further disruption you should be blocked until such a time that you demonstrate you clearly understand the the relevant policies like WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:BATTLEGROUND and agree to abide by them.--Crossmr (talk) 03:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

and there is nothing stale about this. Your last set of personal attacks were only a few days ago before everything blew up in hkwons face again, and there is no reason to expect that when he is free to continue editing you won't be back on him since you've been continuing this for so long.--Crossmr (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, you think I should be blocked from editing - I don't - neither of us have any authority to make or deny a block. I do not plan on wasting any more time/bandwidth on this topic, until such time as your request for me to be blocked is granted/denied or something new/valid is brought up. Peace カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course you don't think you should be blocked, but you also haven't demonstrated that you won't continue the disruption which is all the reason you should be blocked. You've established a pattern of long term harassment against a user and show no indication of stopping.--Crossmr (talk) 00:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Disruption by User Njsustain

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

Njsustain has recently engaged in a pattern of disruption across multiple New Jersey-related articles. The user has refused to present reliable secondary sources to back up his spurious claims, and instead repeatedly edit-wars with multiple editors.

Requesting an uninvolved administrator to take action with regard to this user.

---

New Brunswick, New Jersey

• 19:16, 19 July 2010 - Njsustain undid revision 374346960 by Amatulic (no talk page discussion)
• 10:36, 21 July 2010 - Njsustain undid revision 374566210 by Shimeru (no edit summary explaining this whatsoever)
• 11:05, 22 July 2010 - Njsustain undid revision 374346960 by Amatulic (again, still no talk page discussion)

Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant

• 13:36, 25 July 2010 - Njsustain adds "POV" and "COI" tags to the article - at the same time fails to present any alternative reliable secondary sources.
• 14:49, 25 July 2010 - At User talk:Njsustain, blanks out request at his user talk page, Undid revision 375376621 by Cirt, still refusing to provide any reliable secondary sources.
• 14:54, 25 July 2010 - Njsustain prodded the page for deletion, again after requests on the talk page still repeatedly refusing and failing to present any reliable secondary sources to back up his claims about the article.

---

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 17:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggested an article was a puff piece. Rather than engage in discussion, the article creator has been deleting standard WP procedures for addressing these concerns. Cirt has been both disruptive and using harrassing techniques to defend the article used to advertise the "Daryl restaurant and wine bar." He clearly has a personal interest in the restaurant is is using his position as an administrator abusively. Njsustain (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I have repeatedly requested Njsustain (talk · contribs) cease the disruption, and instead suggest reliable secondary sources to support his POV-pushing. Njsustain (talk · contribs) has repeatedly refused and failed to do so. -- Cirt (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You repeatedly refuse to allow discussion as per standard WP procudures. You clearly have a personal interest in this restaurant and are abusing your privledges as an administrator and showing your bias through these bully tactics. You don't seem interested in other user or administrator comments about the article or about this incident, only in keeping YOUR article (or should I say advertisement) for the restaurant exactly the way you want it to be. Your comments are a big flashing sign saying that the article is nothing more than I biased puff piece. It consists of nothing but positively spun lore about the restaurant and a bunch of positive reviews. It is non-neutral, non-notable, and you just can't accept it, and are taking it out on the user that happened to point it out. You are trying to smear me in order to keep your advertisement for the restaurant. This is administrator abuse for personal gain. It is totally inappropriate.Njsustain (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect assumptions. Njsustain (talk · contribs) refuses to stop making these spurious claims, which amount to violations of WP:NPA. -- Cirt (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

They are not assumptions, they are conclusions based on the article. You seem to believe that only your conclusions are correct. You don't seem interested in waiting for other opinions, only in pointing out "rules" that are in your favoer and inappropriately ignoring ones that are not. I may not have 40,000 edits or a jillion barnstars, but I can see a puff piece, administrator abuse, and someone looking for a fight when I see them. Njsustain (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why you were inappropriately ignoring simple rules like WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPA, and so on. If you have a concern that an article is POV, why have you failed to produce reliable sources to verify claims that suggest that the article is POV? It's all very well if an article is presenting positive reviews, but if no negative reviews exist in reliable sources, are you still going to allege that it is POV? That sure sounds like your argument at the moment. What evidence do you have to demonstrate there is a conflict of interest? That's what is needed rather than the bickering. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, well don't make ANI another venue for the two of you to continue a dispute. Hold fire while a third party admin takes a look at things, that way neither of you talk yourselves into something else. Take heart the lessons of Wikipedia:Catch Once and Leave S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, SGGH, understood. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, SGGH. Njsustain (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I honestly think Njsustain is being a bit of a dick here. Assuming Cirt has a conflict in interest with the subject of the article just because he wrote it doesn't really make sense; plenty of editors write articles about things that they don't have a stake in. The claims that Cirt is abusing his authority as an administrator are also fairly ludicrous; until I've seen a diff of Cirt threatening to block, or protecting "his" version of the article, or something similar, I suggest Njsustain drop that particular line of complaints. If Njsustain thinks the article is so bad, he's more than welcome to take it to WP:AFD, especially since the prod is very much contested (and Cirt is well within his right, even as the article author, to remove that). EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, after several years on WP, I clearly don't understand the standards if it is (apparently) okay for administrators to go around calling other users "dicks." Fine, Cirt, you won. Have your advertisement, and keep hiding behind the white wall of silence. Have a nice day. Njsustain (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If you keep acting like a dick, I'll keep saying you're acting like a dick. You've made unsubstantiated claims repeatedly, both about the article and Cirt himself (the former is a mere content dispute, but you're the one that started making the dispute personal by making allusions of COI, which you never provided evidence of). You thanked SGGH for his comments that a third party should look at things, and guess what, third parties (myself and Ncmvocalist) looked at things and don't think you're right, so now you're just going to "give up" the argument with a potshot at Cirt as a part of your concession? Lame. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You're making my point for me. You and Cirt aren't interested in rational reasons for why I'm wrong, you're interested in smearing and name calling (i.e. swearing). If your arguments were logical, you wouldn't need to do those things. You would make them in due course, not use ad hominem attacks. Talk about lame.Njsustain (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

And you've just suggested EVula and Cirt are not rational (which goes to mental stability); I think you are heading towards a block with this behavior. I've asked you a question and given a view on how you are appearing based on site policy, but your refusal to civilly respond to that is problematic - that you also choose to engage in bickering with those who are disagreeing with you is compounding the concern. Where are your reliable sources to verify what you are saying? Where is your evidence? If you don't have anything, why not simply say so? Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Cirt should be warned as well for assuming bad faith.--68.9.117.21 (talk) 02:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment from the peanut gallery: I got caught in the middle here merely because I observed what I thought was a pretty good, well-sourced article about a clearly notable restaurant, which was orphaned, and subsequently added a wikilink to another article to help out, which Njsustain reverted at least once or twice. I must say I am surprised that after so many claimed years of participation on Wikipedia, Njsustain seems evidently unaware of several policies and guidelines related to content as well as behavior. If Njsustain thinks the Daryl restaurant article is a "puff piece" or "advertisement" as he claims, then he should prove it. From where I sit as a disinterested party who knew nothing about the restaurant before I saw the article, it was blatantly obvious that it wasn't an advertisement, but an article about a restaurant that has well exceeded Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Nsjustain's behavior regarding this article and its author have been, in my opinion, curiously lacking in good faith and knowledge of the standards around here. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment It appears that you all are ganging up on Njsustain a bit unfairly here though perhaps s/he hasn't approached this correctly. If you ask me a majority of these articles should be deleted as advertisements -- category:Restaurants in the United States by state. The restaurant in question appears to currently be popular enough and has had good enough PR to have garnered a significant amount of promotional write ups in the lifestyle sections of various local media, and a insignificant mention or two in similar sections of the NYT. The article is exceedingly well written, and indeed was pretty much polished the minute it was added to Wikipedia. I have no idea what the truth of these COI allegations are, and I would suggest that making those allegations was inappropriate. On the other hand it is odd to see this kind of article pop up in such a polished state like that -- but maybe the writer is fan of restaurants or just a fan of this one? Who knows. I would suggest that if this article, and the other offenders in the category in question technically meet our notability criteria (does it?) its time to have a very detailed look at how to strengthen the policy in terms of commercial establishments like this. These types of establishments garner all kinds of local attention because that's how restaurant PR works. But should an encyclopedia further this PR, by using it to construct articles about these eateries? If we did this for every similar restaurant we'd double the size of Wikipedia overnight with more promotional material. This is a very bad path to go down.Griswaldo (talk) 13:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more in principle, but the problem here is muddiness in the guidelines.

As an analogy, the consensus among members of WikiProject Wine is that Wikipedia's unclear criteria for inclusion result in the appearance of articles on arguably non-notable wineries that meet "the letter of the law" but not the spirit. See a real donnybrook argument about one such winery, as well as an even lengthier deletion review. To avoid such huge debates resulting from muddy guidelines, WikiProject Wine has a proposed guideline, Wikipedia:Notability (wine topics), which attempts to interpret existing guidelines in the context of wine, which is a huge topic of global interest. Isn't there something like that somewhere for restaurants?

For wine, we would advocate that the "coverage in multiple sources" criterion in WP:CORP that specifies "at least regional" be eliminated, leaving national and international coverage — at least for wineries. On the other hand, for restaurants, who don't ship products all over the world, I'd say regional coverage by multiple reliable sources is sufficient. (And schools are another matter, assumed to be automatically notable regardless of actual notability!)

The point I'm making with this analogy is that a single guideline doesn't fit all cases. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Can we admit that this article is bad news and doesn't belong in the encyclopedia? Further discussions are taking place regarding this matter in several other venues:

• User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Just_curious
• Talk:Daryl_Wine_Bar_and_Restaurant#An_additional_source
• Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Restaurant_notability

The last one of these venues is clearly the most significant since it is the policy page in question. Comments there would be most helpful.Griswaldo (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

A counterattack by Cirt. I wonder how much he gets paid for writing these advertisement articles. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I notice this is not the first recent instance when the communty has opined the same position... Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kenneth_Dickson_(2nd_nomination) June 2010. AFD ...Keith Dickson appears to be your basic moderately-successful member of the community: lieutenant colonel in the Air Force, elected to various minor local positions, failed candidate for the California state senate. None of this reaches the level of notability for a Wikipedia article.In the event that the article is kept, it will need a good deal of pruning: it currently reads like a promotional puff piece , there was strong community support for this rational and the article was deleted. Off2riorob (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not following. I'm sure there are tons of puff pieces being written on the encyclopedia (unfortunately). What is the importance of this one?Griswaldo (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Cirt adding Daryl's to the New Brunswick article was so blatant that Njsustain's edits seem appropriate. The disruption here seems to be the other way around.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 07:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I did not add it to that other article. -- Cirt (talk) 10:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
    • But you aren't denying that my edit to New Brunswick was appropriate, especially retrospectively in light of the current discussions on other pages. Jimbo Wales himself states that the Daryl article reads like an advertisement and should be deleted for non-notability (and also suggests it may have been created by you for COI reasons), and asked you why you removed the COI tag I placed on the article while a dispute was still on the table. Also, I was unaware that it was inappropriate to delete information on your own user talk page. I read the information before it was deleted, and while I know that I don't "own" my user talk page, was under the impression that it was not under the same restrictions as an article talk page and I was free to delete things. If this is incorrect, I think it behooves the administrators as leaders on WP to inform people of such before publically calling them "disruptive." I apologize if in my naivete of procedures that I made any faux pas, but in light of the recent discussions, I request that this discussion be closed, and I promise to be more gentile in the future, even if it means being less bold a contributor.Njsustain (talk) 11:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
      • For what it's worth, nobody has said that you couldn't remove stuff from your talk page (as you point out, you are well within your right to remove stuff from your own talk page); the diff provided by Cirt was cited in a way that illustrated that you weren't providing any reliable sources for your claims, which is a true statement. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

comment i have to say having examined the artilce, I would have suspected COI myself had not User:Cirt written it. I have to say it has a lot of puffery and peacock terms. Njsustain has not handled this well, but frankly niether have you Cirt. Your a veteran Editor, You know how to write a neutral artilce. its nothing short of an advertisement. Seems to be more properly merged into the artilce on the guy who opened it. I firmly believe a couple of WP:TROUTS all around need to be issued and both Cirt and Njsustain need to go to their repecive corners and cool off on this. Weaponbb7 (talk) 05:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Sock Block Necessary

Resolved

 – Taken care of by User:Tiptoety. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Could I get a sock block on User:User:Pez Pharmaceuticals Inc., a sockpuppet of indef blocked User:PzPharmacies? Rangeblock probably is needed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Redaction of a phone number

Resolved

Could someone please change the visibility of this edit to protect the phone number? Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 07:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Done, but you may want to contact WP:Oversight. AniMate 07:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I sent a request. VQuakr (talk) 08:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Non-file pages in Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons

I noticed that there are a few user subpages in this category, especially user scripts (example). Could some admin please get them out there? I am not allowed to edit Template:Copy to Wikimedia Commons or user scripts. --Leyo 09:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Active Banana

Resolved

 – IP has been informed of Wikipedia standards, nothing for admins to do. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Active Banana has engaged in overzealous editing over the last several days on the List of Annoying Orange episodes page. The revision history page shows four edits reverting to a description of a certain episode that was plagiarized. He also claimed that none of the edits deserved to stand because there was no reliable third party information- a threshold that, quite frankly, cannot be adhered to in this situation due to unique circumstances surrounding the article. This was explained to Active Banana on his talk page in great detail, and instead of responding he dismissed the legitimacy of the circumstances as my alleged unwillingness to follow policy. After I explained it to him again, he threatened me twice on my talk page. I did not appreciate his battle mentality nor did I appreciate his condescending attitude (which I noted as such), and I also did not appreciate the lack of good faith he showed in the edits I made. Placed here because I could not think of where else to put it. --173.54.204.113 (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what the poster is referring to when talking about Plagiarism. I am unaware that any of the content on the page is taken from elsewhere and not appropriately cited. If there is such content on the page, I fully support removing it/citing it.

On other matters, after receiving a final warning about disruptive editing on my talk page on July 22 from User:DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered [34], the IP responded on my talk page with [35] oops that was a different IP posting in the middle of the conversation with this IP. Active Banana (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought you might blame that one on me- was a little concerned. (Obviously 78.whatever has some unresolved issues with you, Banana.) However, since you bring up disruptive editing, I noticed a blatant violation of 3RR extending from your eagerness to revert the edits for no legitimate reason. The points I raise are these.

1) The video in question features about as blatantly obvious a Lady Gaga parody as could possibly be. From the dress of the character to the video to there being a song that's a parody of "Bad Romance", it all fits the profile. It's common knowledge, not original research. 2) The video description is lifted word for word from the video itself. That's plagiarizing. If you're going to have a description, it really should be reworded as not to have it look like it was plagiarized. Which is why every other episode's description has been reworded. 3) The reason why I've said extenuating circumstances exist (as ActiveBanana has either not understood or refused to listen to) is because you may never get to 100% with reliable third party sources. This is a problem that exists on an overwhelming majority of episode lists. However, if you were to delete all of the episode lists based on that, you would do a disservice to the people who edit those pages and relay the information. My motives are based on having the free flow of information, not an unwillingness to follow policy, and I believe ActiveBanana is not only failing to assume good faith but engaging in unnecessary edit warring, battles, and an overall lousy attitude regarding something that quite frankly isn't worth the amount of trouble he's causing. --173.54.204.113 (talk) 05:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If the contents initially inserted by other editors are copyright violations, adding "in a parody of Lady Gaga" doesn't fix that issue at all. And the fact that WP:OTHERCRAP exists in no way is an excuse to allow unsourced crap in yet another article. Active Banana (talk) 06:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You forget that Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia that contains only content licensed under the Creative Commons-Sharealike license. –MuZemike 08:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think we're all missing the point here. The description of the video that was posted on the Wiki is the exact same that is on the video. That is plagiarism and it must be reworded. ActiveBanana keeps reverting calling OR and it doesn't apply here. He's dangerously close to another 3RR violation, from what I've seen, and he's also taken on a bully/battle mentality. He is not assuming good faith, he is not allowing for the free flow of information, and I have to start questioning whether this conduct is falling under WP:OWN as well. There is no reason why the information that he has removed from the page should not be listed. None. And I'm starting to wonder why nothing has been done to resolve this yet. --173.54.204.113 (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Besides, he's misinterpreting WP:OTHERCRAP. --173.54.204.113 (talk) 06:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

First, I think you're misunderstanding what plagiarism is. Unless you can show that the text itself was copied from elsewhere, it's not plagiarism. Second, you're attempting to insert your own assumption (Lady Pasta = Lady Gaga parody) with no source to back it up. That's the definition of OR. So, without some sourcing, AB appears to be in the right here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay then. Plagiarism charge, corroboration. Description of the episode in question on the Annoying Orange YouTube channel: "Orange meets one of the hottest new artists: Lady Pasta." From the summary of the episode on the Annoying Orange episode list: "Orange meets one of the hottest new artists: Lady Pasta." Ergo, plagiarism, must be reworded. --173.54.204.113 (talk) 22:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Part deux, in regards to the so-called "assumption" that Lady Pasta is a parody of Lady Gaga, one needs to look no further than the song parody attached to the video. The song is a parody written to the tune and rhythm of Lady Gaga's "Bad Romance". I don't understand the overzealous attitude looking for a source when the connection is so blatantly obvious. --173.54.204.113 (talk) 22:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Part trois, his removal of the references to "The Ring" for the Annoying Orange episode "The Onion Ring." It is another blatantly obvious parody that Active Banana refuses to recognize due to his edit warring, which is getting dangerously close to WP:OWN. I show you the following: "The Onion Ring" thumbnail and the logo from The Ring. That should be obvious to anyone with two eyes that it's a direct parody. --173.54.204.113 (talk) 22:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, now we're getting somewhere! So, reword the description on the page for that episode. Simple fix, which didn't require all this drama. As to Pasta/Gaga, what's "obvious" to you isn't obvious to everyone. If the reader isn't familiar with Lady Gaga, why should they take your word that this is an "obvious" parody? We need sources for just this thing. Same with the "Onion Ring" episode. Until you have a source, calling it "obvious" is useless to anyone who isn't familiar with Ringu. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism concerns now addressed by rewording [36]. Are we done here? Or do we still need to address the "extenuating circumstances" of "Well there arent any reliable sources for this topic, so we shouldnt be required to provide them"? Active Banana (talk) 23:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

HandThatFeeds, the point wasn't about the edits, it was about the overpolicing of the page by Active Banana, his condescending attitude, his unwillingness to assume good faith, and his threatening stance to allow his edits to stand. Quite frankly, I should've called his bluff and risked the block because his reasoning is still weak. I explained the extenuating circumstances and he refused to listen and STILL refuses to listen, as you can see from his response here. Personally, I may give you the Lady Gaga thing (although I'd be hardpressed to find anyone, based on the way her actions have made news lately, who doesn't know who she is and there's a song in the video that's a blatant parody of "Bad Romance"), but just look at the pictures again. The logos are exactly the same, the plot is exactly the same (watch a video tape, then you get a phone call, then something lifechanging happens)- so tell me how it isn't a parody. I'm lost. It's not like the references were hidden and made for someone with a keen eye to figure out. The people behind Annoying Orange made it clear from the beginning what their intent was- to parody Lady Gaga and The Ring. I don't understand how those can't be considered obvious references. --173.54.204.113 (talk) 00:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

If you call "overpolicing" removing content that doesnt meet WP:V and WP:OR then I am going to continue "overpolicing" because "reliable sources dont exist for this topic so we dont need to provide them", is NOT an "extenuating circumstance" that overrides our policies. Active Banana (talk) 01:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

And I've told you several times that was NOT my reasoning. If you don't want to listen then maybe you shouldn't have moderator powers anymore because it's obvious to me you're abusing them for no good reason. --173.54.204.113 (talk) 01:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, then this IS over because I have not ever abused admin powers because I am not an admin and therefore have no admin powers to abuse. Have a good day! Active Banana (talk) 02:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry that you felt like I was condescending towards you, and I probably was. Active Banana (talk) 02:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted on the condescension. But then why did you threaten to block me? --173.54.204.113 (talk) 03:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I placed the standard warning templates on your page letting you know that the continued disruptive editing would lead to your being blocked. Thats not "threatening" its standard procedure. Let people know what they are doing wrong and let them know the consequences if they continue doing it. Active Banana (talk) 03:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Once was a warning. You took it to threat level, and considering you didn't have the authority to do so you should have kept your mouth shut. Sorry to be so blunt, but that's one of the reasons why we're here.--173.54.204.113 (talk) 03:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep, when you continued to ignore the information, I escalated the series of warnings to you, as every editor has the right to do. I dont have the tools to actually place the block, but when someone who does have the tools sees that you have been warned about the consequences a number of times and have decided to continue the improper behavior, then they will use their mop and place the block. Same effect.Active Banana (talk) 03:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Except you don't have the right to throw that kind of power around. Besides the point, you've been rather disruptive in editing yourself, if a reading of your talk page is any indication. I ignored your warnings because there was no reason for you to be giving them. I eventually gave up because I didn't want to run the risk of getting blocked by you. Now that I know you didn't have the power to do so, I can go further and ask the AN/I to review your behavior. Which I am asking. --173.54.204.113 (talk) 04:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There isnt any "power being thrown around". There is you being told of how your actions are not compatible with our policies and the consequence if you continue that behavior. You made the sensible choice and decided not to continue the disruptive behavior. And I thank you for that. Active Banana (talk) 04:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I made the wrong choice because my behavior wasn't disruptive. I SHOULD have filed this report sooner, once you started threatening me. YOU should've held your tongue and not claimed to have power that you didn't possess. You committed 3RR twice, threatened me three times, and refused to acknowledge your own disruptive editing. --173.54.204.113 (talk) 04:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Good day to you. I dont think anything else will be accomplished here. Active Banana (talk) 05:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

173, please read WP:VANDAL. AB was well within his rights to place those warning templates. There's nothing else for admins to do here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

So wait, he threatens me and gets off scot-free? That's screwed up. Especially since I know of one other case where someone was blocked for allegedly threatening someone else with a warning because said person didn't know/remember the template used to give the warning. --173.54.204.113 (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You were not "threatened," you were warned that your behavior was being disruptive and could lead to a block. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Last point on the matter. I was trying to keep the page in line from his disruptive edits. Mine were not disruptive. I read it as a threat. --173.54.201.250 (talk) 04:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Can this be closed now?

There is heat but not light. The IP didn't like the way he was treated, but was explained that these are Wikipedia norms. I'm not looking at evidence as I don't want to involve myself, but from what I have seen Active Banana hasn't done anything worth sanctioning (and neither has the IP). I think both parties can walk away from this. If the IP needs to keep flogging he can bring more evidence to some kind of dispute resolution. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me. Avast, ye incident report. --173.54.201.250 (talk) 02:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Template:Cite jstor

The template {{Cite jstor}} currently has cascading protection, but it seems to have an annoying bug in it. Notice the "edit" button following the citation, that directs to {{Cite doi/10.2307.2F2689754}}:

• JSTOR 2689754
  This citation will be automatically completed in the next few minutes. You can jump the queue or expand by hand

The above has the subst'ed template. Here it is, without subst'ing:

• .

As far as I can tell, the same problem appears on all other uses of the {{cite jstor}} template. My understanding of the code for that template is that the edit link should only be added when the citation is incomplete. Could someone with the tools to edit this template please investigate. Thanks, Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this is a feature, not a problem. When you first use "Cite jstor", a bot comes along behind you and create a subtemplate at "Cite doi" containing the full citation. Think of "Cite jstor" as a redirect to "Cite doi". Really, though, this system just begs to be vandalised. I don't like it. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

But, when the bot has finished the job, surely the edit link should go away? Personally, I don't think we should have a system that places permanent little ugly "edit" links on half the citations in an article. Anyway, regardless of whether this counts as a feature of the template, it's probably better just to have the bot paste the resulting reference directly into the article, rather than transcluding it as a template. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the edit is left there so that corrections can be made if the bot doesn't do it correctly (not that I've seen it do that). Whilst it might be vulnerable to vandalism, it saves an awful lot of time when referencing papers, leaving us with more time to write, instead of fiddling around with reference templates. Smartse (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of now using the noticeboard for other than its intended purpose, I would like to propose that User:Citation bot, rather than transcluding a template with an edit link, should just paste the reference directly into the article where it can be manually adjusted if necessary. I believe this will have several advantages. First of all, it eliminates the additional potential for very hard-to-detect vandalism, and I think this is a significant consideration. Second (my pet peeve), it will obviate the need for silly edit links on half of the references. Third, most adjustments to a reference will be things like adding a page number, quotation, etc. These are things that should not be done to the main doi template for the reference, but within the article itself. I may post this proposal to the village pump sometime in the next couple of days, but given that there is already a thread here, it seems reasonable to gauge whether there is likely to be support for this suggestion in advance. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Tsics

Resolved

 – Wuhwuzdat has reverted all their edits, and Syrthiss has re-blocked with talkpage access restricted. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that we're done here. TFOWR 18:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Tsics (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've just blocked this user, who may or may not represent the United Kingdom's "Trading Standard Institute & Consumer Direct". I blocked them for spamming.

Two requests:

1. Please review my block.
2. Assuming the block is OK, I'd appreciate help reverting their edits. Incidentally, their edits are quite interesting - cunningly worded to look like blatant spam (punting "cheap tickets!"), they in fact advertise the UK government's consumer service website - see this example. That evil editor, SineBot, is hindering my use of rollback (again - I swear I'm going to block SineBot in a fit of petulance one of these days... but I digress...)

Thank you very much!

TFOWR 18:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Concur. Official site or not, the spam is unwelcome and unhelpful. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Because I'm a local government officer and a nosy cow, I've contacted ConsumerDirect to ask if this was a deliberate experiment, but I'm thinking disgruntled member of staff with too much internet access is more likely.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

119.237.153.224, needs block quickly

This sockpuppet, using a different IP range, caused several hours of disruption yesterday involving two CheckUsers, several admins, and other editors to clean up. Please block it now before he starts the bot like edits. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

119.237.153.224 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Er... evidence? Link? Something? Admins are not mindreaders. Fences&Windows 22:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Argues about position of Hong Kong in a list? Check. Follows my edits? Check. Revert wars? Check. Immediately tries to start talk page discussions? Check. [37], was yesterdays SPI report, notice the absolutely huge range of IP addresses that got blocked. The behavior and usage of English is exactly the same as it has been for several years. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't that hard was it? You might be stuck in a battle with this user that's been going on for four years, but it's the first I've heard of them. Done for 48 hours, they'll IP hop soon I imagine. Fences&Windows 22:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Tomorrow, if not later today I am sure. Thanks for the assistance. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 23:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

116.49.134.214 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) I believe this IP address may be in a range used by an ISP level transparent proxy, so it may be a /24 the edits come through. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The recent edits look like them and there doesn't seem like there is anybody else on, so I've rangeblocked 116.49.134.0/24 for three days. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Repeated addition of unsourced material after a final warning is not vandalism?

...or so I'm told at AIV. One of several IPs (70.138.34.87) repeatedly adding an unsourced list of films supposedly parodied in Vampires Suck has been suitably warned, does not respond to talk and continues to re-insert the material after a final warning. I am told this is "not vandalism"[38], so here I am. The "final" warnings (for adding unsourced material) on 16 July and 27 July say, "This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did to Vampires Suck, you may be blocked from editing without further notice." - SummerPhD (talk) 01:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Gave another final warning for WP:OR. That should do. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

To speak to the general point: vandalism is intentional disruption of the encyclopaedia i.e. bad-faith contributions. "Repeated addition of unsourced material after a final warning" is not necessarily intentionally disruptive or in bad faith – pigheadedness or obliviousness could just as easily be the explanation. cf. Hanlon's razor. Skomorokh 02:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's not vandalism, as that has a fairly narrow definition; however, it explicitly meets one or more definitions of "disruptive editing" found on WP:DE--specifically "cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability" and "Does not engage in consensus building." The primary difference in terms of stopping the behavior, if I read that page correctly, is that DE reports come here rather than AIV. The result is supposed to be the same, though--escalated warnings leading to blocks of escalating length. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

So, the "final" warning for adding unsourced material (NOT synthesis: the movie isn't out and nothing in any of the sources gives a hint of any of this) needs to be re-worded. It is clearly not a "final" warning and the editor will not be blocked again without further notice. The "final" warning was followed by two more warnings (one of which was another "final" warning). Now we have a third "final" warning. That should do... hopefully something the first two "final" warnings didn't. If not, we'll need to ready {{subst:uw-unsourced8|Vampires Suck}}: "Please, please, pretty please stop doing that or we'll be forced to briefly block you so you get the message ask you again." - SummerPhD (talk) 02:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The editor's continued with the behaviour after the final final warning, so I've blocked them. I understand your frustration, SummerPhD. (By the way, you're supposed to notify people when you discuss them on ANI - I will do so now.) Olaf Davis (talk) 10:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm the editor who added the first "final" warning (after the IP added an unsourced "forthcoming" film to this page (something that is a regular occurrence)). If the IP had then continued I would have raised a note with AIV, so I'd like a steer on what I hypothetically should have done instead. Seems like some clarification is needed here... either there should be somewhere else to raise these sorts of breaches (surely bringing each one here is unnecessary) or they need to be incorporated under the header of "vandalism" or... something else. I'd say that unsourced additions make up the bulk of the general clutter of disruptive editing and are the bane of WP's accuracy, so what to do? onebravemonkey 10:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, WP:DE says to report them here. I've never noticed a very large volume of such reports here but I don't know if that's because they're mainly being dealt with elsewhere or there just aren't that many of them that get as far as a block without an admin already having got involved. But I haven't dealt much with DE - just saw an obvious call and blocked on it. I'd say just bring them up here, unless anyone is aware of a different de-facto procedure. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Artegemini, copyright violations

Resolved

 – spam-username-blocked. JohnCD (talk) 12:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Artegemini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Persistent addition of copyrighted materials despite final warning and advice on WP:DCM.

User has added copyrighted and highly promotional material to MozART group (originating from here) and Ireneusz Krosny (originating from here). This diff occurred after final warning was given. Steamroller Assault (talk) 07:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Is also now removing COI templates from MozART group. Acather96 (talk) 07:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

And removing CSD templates, more than once. I'd suggest a quick block. Oh there it is again....... this will end up at AIV pretty quick.... Shadowjams (talk) 08:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It's at AIV, 5 proper warnings / rvs (there could have been more), but not blocked right now because they appear to have stopped, although creating some additional problems while doing that too. I'm fine with the AIV dying, but this discussion should stay relevant until the article's fate is disposed of (whether sourced and kept, or deleted). Shadowjams (talk) 09:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Spam-username-blocked because, apart from the copyvio and template-removal problems, it's clear that this is the PR group Arte Gemini ("It's all about culture lobbying") using Wikipedia to promote their clients. JohnCD (talk) 11:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Bio AfD needs closing

Resolved

 – AfD closed as delete

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kumiko Noma has been running for 17 days and has yet to be closed, it was relisted 10 days ago on July 18, 2010. —Farix (t | c) 12:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Closed as delete by NuclearWarfare. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 13:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:IMOS and its application

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 an administrator please take a look at McKownville, New York regarding the issue of having County Londonderry mentioned, originally the dispute was over having the word linked to the city of Derry which IMOS does say must be referred to as Derry and not Londonderry, but the county is to be called Londonderry. When I brought the issue to the WP:Village pump the issue was split 3-2 in favor of changing the link to the county to keep the name Londonderry as the source mentioned it and as the place would have been named in that time period. This was not acceptable to some and now they have removed all all together. After being repeatedly made fun of I replied that I would not argue but would rather this go to the next level of dispute resolution, they refused and have decided to continue to edit out Londonderry (simply changing to Derry was originally what they wanted until a compromise ruined that and now they want it completely removed). I will abide by whatever a fair and impartial consensus (ie- not a giant spam attack on this page of COI editors who work on IMOS related issues) no matter what side is done, I simply think an impartial view needs to be done.Camelbinky (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I did warn Camelbinky about WP:BOOMERANG before they chose to post here. The issue is whether a guideline should be followed, and Camelbinky's ownership problems, failure to assume good faith and abusive attitude. Comments such as "this is not an article about Ireland in any way, please stick to messing up Irish articles since that is what you know", "for someone who is so concerned about "comment on content not the editor" you are surely a hypocrite" (for the record I never said "comment on content not the editor" either), "You are a disruptive POV pusher and I do not have to respond or engage in debate with you because of that" (and "But that brings you here with a COI that is hard to ignore" and "This discussion is over, the dispute is not resolved in your favor"), "The whole purpose of some editors here is simply to remove from Wikipedia the word Londonderry and not to improve this article" speak for themselves. This is essentially a content dispute, no admin action is needed. O Fenian (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I asked that this be brought forth for content dispute resolution and that offer was declined. Taking my words out of context of what I said around them and from what O Fenian said to provoke the words in the first place is ridiculous and another example of those brought to AN/I having the thought process of "bloody the witness", boomerang is simply an essay that those with that philosophy use to try and legitimize that tactic. It is scummy when a defense attorney does it in a rape case it is scummy when it is done here. I suggest if others want to make my reactions and comments an issue that a new thread be made just for that and Ill take whatever punishment is decided by consensus. However I do not think that should muddy the waters about O Fenian's continued crusade across Wikipedia, to which he was warned previously about not doing, this is disruptive and violates common sense.Camelbinky (talk) 00:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Its worth noting for any person not familiar with the various naming issues on Irish matters, that the Derry for the City, Londonderry for the County is one of the few stable areas in a difficult area. I can't see, and I have no recollection in several years of any warning to O Fenian in respect of any wikiwide campaign to remove Londonderry, so that needs to be supported by a dif or withdrawn. I also note that Camelbinky properly notified the editors involved of this ANI thread, but also chose to notify one and only one other editor namely a SPA who takes a consistent strong Unionist position. The detective work to discover that name could as well have discovered the names of 4/5 admins with experience of this area whose invitation would have helped gain a neutral perspective. --Snowded ^TALK 05:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a clear case of a spoiled child throwing their toys out of the pram. Why oh why didn't Camelbinky engage in the discussion that I started on the talk page rather than first running off to the Village Pump and then here. Complete waste of Admin time. Bjmullan (talk) 13:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

More insults. And regarding warning there is on their talk page right above my post informing about the AN/I!!! So no warning about a campaign of Londonderry to Derry?! Whatever. Talking to Bjmullen is Bj telling me what to do and if I dont do it he resorts to insults and snipping at me. He has a COI and is a POV pusher.Camelbinky (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I've issued a uw-3 to Bjmullan (talk · contribs) for WP:NPA. Please resume your bickering politely. Toddst1 (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

So it's fine to call someone a COI and a POV pusher without reprimand but to compare someone's actions to the behaviour of a child constitutes a warning. What about assume good faith? Produce evidence of your claim or take it back. Bjmullan (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Camelbinky (talk · contribs) has been warned about edit warring, WP:POINT and WP:Battle as well. Toddst1 (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

And I brought Toddst1 to the Wikiquette noticeboard for his continued actions. If Todd is going to accuse me only of those things and not the other party then obviously there's an issue. This is not the first time Todd has accused me of this, whenever I am a party to something Todd shows up to accuse me of the same thing. Can someone without a COI please comment? Warnings from someone with a COI are unacceptable and I suggest Todd stay away from commenting on things that are about editors he has had bad dealings with in the past.Camelbinky (talk) 17:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Quick to bring others to book... but what about your unfounded accusations against me. There is a saying "put up or shut up". Bjmullan (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring is continuing on the page. Mo ainm (talk · contribs) warned and LevenBoy (talk · contribs) blocked (has had numerous BI EW warnings and was canvassed to this thread and edit war by Camelbinky (talk · contribs)). Toddst1 (talk) 13:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me but Bjmullen canvassed and brought O fenian to the discussion before I went to Levenboy and only went to Levenboy because he had previously warned one Bjmullen regarding this issue before. Get your facts straight and I find you blocking people in this dispute to be highly irregular since you are being brought here for disruptive behavior at that very dispute!Camelbinky (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Toddst1 disruptive and rude behavior

User:Toddst1 has tried to stifle discussion, first at the Wikipedia:Village pump regarding WP:IMOS implementation across all of Wikipedia first by closing out the discussion prior to a resolution, then after I undid that based on the fact that people were actually commenting and things were getting interesting he then posts a comment "See WP:LAME" which was not only unhelpful but disruptive. He claims I've been warned multiple times for canvassing and reverting, which a detailed look at the history of McKownville, New York will show my edits werent excessive or reverting, especially considering what other users are doing there. Which for the record he is the one who "warned" me, a weak and meaningless warning and I havent reverted anything on the article since discussion began other than to implement what I thought was a compromise once! He is not contributing to the discussion or to a compromise and never did. Todd simply doesnt want this discussion to take place and needs to be asked to stay away. His "lame" comment was placed at the Village pump for no reason other than to cause disruptionCamelbinky (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

See related WQA. More canvassing forumshopping similar to bringing his edit war dispute to content noticeboard discussion, ANI (above) and Village Pump. Toddst1 (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems like forum shopping to me. Basket of Puppies 21:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Correcting CB's statement above about my comment on Village pump: I added a much more specific link to Wikipedia:LAME#Ethnic_and_national_feuds which has a section directly dealing with his edit war topic.

Yes, I meant forum shopping (brain fart) Sorry about that. Toddst1 (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The village pump was for IMOS as it applies across all Wikipedia, was not intended for just that article. The content noticeboard was after others said they would discuss it there (they never showed up and it never got going). AN/I was for disruptive behavior and rude comments, not for the content. Not forum shopping. Plus this thread is about Todd's behavior, but of course this is becoming "bloody the accuser" instead of deciding whether Todd was ok in his "lame" comment and attempt to disrupt discussion. Nice. This is why people leave Wikipedia.Camelbinky (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Todd has now decided to block someone who happens to agree with me for edit warring, I havent seen if he did or not edit war and frankly dont care. It is highly disagreeable for someone who thinks the whole discussion is "lame" and is brought to AN/I to then go and block someone at that same discussion! Can an admin please ask Todd to remove himself from all aspects of this content dispute as Todd has no good contribution to actually resolving the issue at hand and just wants to warn and block people. We need admins and other non-COI editors to help compromise and resolve the issue, not just throw everyone out of the pool.Camelbinky (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

For what's it worth the limited contact I've had with Toddst1 seems very fair to me. Thanks for your impartial input and the warning. Bjmullan (talk) 22:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• WP:LAME is an apt description of the overall fight - call a spade a spade. It is not a violation of WP:NPA as it is a description of edits and not editors. The way this has been dragged through multiple forums in order to try and find a better-liked answer is, indeed, worthy of inclusion WP:LAME...perhaps the OP should actually read that page, back away, take a few breaths, maybe a glass of Merlot or two. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, please actually look at what has gone on! How has it been "in order to try and find a better-liked answer"?! In fact I've been getting more and more people who agree with Londonderry being the preferred word including User:Kotniski and User:Dmcq both of which are more active in policy-writing than anyone else at the discussion. I havent in any way gone to other places to find a "better liked answer". This is ridiculous if no one is actually going to look at what happened and instead just draw conclusions based on words that are thrown around like "forum shopping".Camelbinky (talk) 23:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: I made no overall comment about the genesis of the dispute: I'm commenting on your unbelievable insistence that WP:LAME does not apply, or that calling a WP:SPADE was somehow disruptive or rude. You completely dismantled your own argument by traipsing forum through forum, and your continued finger-pointing at one specific user when it's you who have been the cause of the problem overall. Seriously, if you were to kick the person who is most responsible for your problems on Wikipedia in the ass 100 times, you wouldn't be able to sit down for a week. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think nobody has looked at what has gone on? It appears that the consistent answers you're getting don't suit your opinions and you're repeatedly forum shopping. See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:TE, as well as WP:BATTLE and WP:POINT which you were warned about here. It's really becoming tiresome, if not only disruptive. Toddst1 (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

How have I not been getting the answers I was I looking for?! Yea, keep just saying whatever you want and hope people take your word for it. I'm sick of you just spouting whatever you want and not having anything based on facts! You have been disruptive in trying to shut up everyone from discussing the real issue at any forum so a compromise can be reached. Instead of helping reach a consensus you just think everyone who wants to work towards a solution is being disruptive. I'm done talking to you, do not respond or contact me in any way as I asked you before to stay off my talk page and you ignored that and contacted me again because you love drama and have to instigate and push and prod, stay away from me, stop following me around, dont call me names as you've done previously, and stop making things up. I am getting afraid for how you will continue to escalate this and afraid of you and taking the joy of editing away from me, read WP:harrassment. If you think I'm a bad editor check my contributions before you say something stupid like me not editing is a good thing, since you have a habit of insulting me anywaysCamelbinky (talk) 23:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

...and there was the 101st time. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

And how was that civil or helpful and not disruptive right there?! Im sorry, I'll just shut up now and accept that there is somewhere apparently the policy that "if you disagree with Camelbinky all you have to do is be uncivil and refuse to compromise and insult him and if he complains just attack him and just start saying that he has done things wrong and make up things about what he does, people will then not listen and will put their focus on Camelbinky and ignore what you did wrong". Editors know how to play these games and its not just against me they play those games, some I have seen come right out and say that's what they do. I didnt battleground, I didnt edit war, and I didnt do anything I'm accused of. But its ok, because this is just a big online high school.Camelbinky (talk) 00:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, I'm not the only admin around here who is "disruptive and rude." Look at how disruptive Seresin (talk · contribs) is here. WP:LA,LA,LA-I'MNOTLISTENING! Toddst1 (talk) 01:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

OMG! Seriously, how is it ok for him to do this?! How is that not harrassment?! I've asked to be left alone and all he does is try to embarress and throw out whatever he can. For the record I was vindicated on the whole problem with Seresin and he was told by multiple editors to stop and the dispute was resolved in my favor. Please tell Todd to leave me alone and stop talkinga bout me!Camelbinky (talk) 01:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

He's obviously trolling through the history of my talk page and its getting creepy, like I said I'm scared of how he's escalating this and I have no where to turn because no one is listening. I will make it very easy, I'll just retire. I have been open and honest in the past about emotional and psychological problems I have and if I allow this harrassment and embarressment to continue I will not be able to take care of myself, I'm freaking sitting here like a child crying and having a breakdown because I seriously feel a problem here and its not getting even looked at fairly. I cant stand this and this should be an embarressment to how Wikipedia works. You should all be ashamed of yourselfs for standing by. Whether you think my complaint is valid or not it deserves a fair hearing instead of me just being pummled and insulted and ridiculed and embarressed. Obviously its an issue I think is important. Todd is a bully and this is wrong.Camelbinky (talk) 01:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

If you bring accusations like this against an admin to ANI, you need to understand that we're going to look at your interactions with other admins - and guess what? a pattern jumped right out, as soon as I searched on "warning" in your talk page history.

On your other issue, you have no right to expect someone not to post on ANI in a thread where they are accused of wrongdoing.

I recommend you take some time off from editing. I hope I'm done here. Toddst1 (talk) 02:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Camelbinky, it might help you to avoid embarrassment if you used a spellchecker. I mean this in a purely constructive way, not as a means to embarrass you. That said, perhaps you should consider stepping back from this issue for a little while if you are experiencing such an emotional upset. There are strongly divided opinions here that will not be easily reconciled. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

DC's first two sentences seem uncalled for, and more than cancel out the excellent advice in the last two. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Camelbinky, I'm sorry to see you've had unhappiness here. I've looked into this and can tell you, Toddst1 has not been bullying you. This is an open editing project run mostly by volunteers, the contribution history of more or less every account is automatically logged and linked for all to see and anyone is welcome to look at an editor's contributions as a set. Although there are many fun and rewarding things that can happen when one edits here, now and then it can get nettlesome for any editor, almost all editors, for sundry reasons. If you take a break from this, even for a day or two, it's highly, highly likely you'll find things are not so bad as they seem to you now. I can give you a tip, many experienced editors have learned the hard way that when one becomes stirred up (emotional) about something here, whether or not one has edited within policy, by far the most helpful thing to do, is stop editing until one's feelings have settled down. These may seem like hollow words to you and that's ok too, but you may indeed find that breaking off on one's own for even a very short time can often do wonders here. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Gwen is giving you very good advice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:28, 28 July 2010 (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.

Keepcalmandcarryon and BLP / User:Freakshownerd

Freakshownerd has been occupied for the last two days with edit warring to overturn long-standing consensus versions of articles including Phillip E. Johnson, Peter Duesberg, Denialism and AIDS denialism whilst making accusations of vandalism, slander, orchestrated plots to disrupt Wikipedia, lying and distortion. A well-written summary of the user's recent behaviour may be found on Jimbo's talk page. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• This was originally two sections, merged by me. Fences&Windows 23:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

In the latest example of his abuse of editing privleges he just added to the Philip E. Johnson article that (Johnson) "has also lamented the presence of Muslims on US university campuses, ascribing to Muslims a chilling effect on free speech."

The actual statement from the source [39] (in response to a question about 9/11) is: "Now we're seeing how the country is almost cringing in fear of these Muslim terrorists from the Middle East. I see professors afraid to discuss the subject because they're afraid of what the Muslim students will do. They're afraid it won't keep the peace on campus. I never thought our country would descend to this level."

His abuse of citations in another aritcle was also noted by an admin on the wp:3rr board. And he continues to distort content to include lies and misrepresentations of the provided sources, as well as lying about me and my editing history. Please note there is no legal threat from me and I do not intend to go forward with any legal action. The meaning of th word slander is clear, and if someone else wants to pursue editors like Keepcalmandcarryon who use Wikipedia as a vehicle to propagandize by attacking biographical subjects with lies and distortions, then that's their business. I just want the BLP policies to be upheld and his malicious editing to be stopped. Freakshownerd (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

He's also distorting the chronology of Peter Duesberg's career and misusing citations there to disparage that noted scientist (some of whose views are certainly controversial). Freakshownerd (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

See response on Jimbo's page. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I have challenged Freakshownerd (as have others) to provide evidence of instances in which I've misused citations. To the best of my knowledge, my editing has relied on reliable, verifiable sources. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

That quote in the Johnson article is an abuse of the source. The source does not say that "Johnson has also lamented the presence of Muslims on US university campuses, ascribing to Muslims a chilling effect on free speech." (here's the text in the article for others:[40]). That is your creative interpretation of what he said. Please remove it. Also, cherry-picking "juicy quotes" is not how we write BLPs. Please use reliable secondary sources. Fences&Windows 23:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Freakshownerd, this looks like WP:FORUMSHOPPING as you've already opened a thread here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Philip E. Johnson. Fences&Windows 23:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice try, except I'm not the one who filed at ANI. My response is intended only to highlight the disgusting damage and distortion being carried out by this abusive editor and to respond to his character assasinations of biographical subjects as well as his lies and disortions about me. I hope his behavior will be stopped. I've taken the BLP issues to the BLP/N board and brought ithem to Jimbo's attention. We'll see what happens. Obviously, saying professors are scared to discuss Islamic terrorism in the wake of 9/11 for fear of the reaction from Muslim students is not the same as lamenting the presence of Muslim students or blaming them for incursions on freedom of speech. That's made up of whole cloth. Allowing his distorted interpretations and personal biases into articles can't be allowed to continue. This is just the latest example of the damaging and dangerous editing being carried out by this fellow. These are real people he's slandering. Freakshownerd (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"Nice try"? I wasn't "trying" anything, I was commenting on this being raised at multiple forums. I didn't notice that he had posted first, which was not helped by you starting a new section. Fences&Windows 23:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

As I'm under attack, I'm a bit defensive. However, even if I had raised this very serious BLP violation at multiple forums I don't think I should be criticized for it. Slanderous statements that distort what's in sources could have a very material affect on the man's career not to mention his safety. It's been very frustrating to deal with this kind of subtle disparagement across numerous articles and frankly it shouldn't be this hard to get this kind of abuse stopped in a timely manner. Freakshownerd (talk) 23:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't comment on the specific instances brought by Freakshownerd, but I can say that I have seen KCACO engage in questionable application of sources, here is a BLP one which comes to mind: On our Russell Blaylock article ( visiting professor in the biology department at Belhaven College), insisting on including 'teaches from a Christian worldview' even though the source indicates that it pertains to their liberal arts curriculum once, twice and yet again, apparently due to KCACO taking exception the BLP subjects involvement in the Aspartame controversy. Unomi (talk) 23:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't look like a BLP violation to me. Belhaven College does teach from a Christian worldview, and it's not limited to the humanities. For example: "The Bachelor degree in Biology is a fully accredited degree, with a Christian curriculum based upon the biblical worldview." MastCell ^Talk 23:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

That is certainly a better source for such a statement than the one presented at the time, which was a section from their website stating: At the center of Belhaven’s liberal arts emphasis is the innovative Worldview Curriculum, which presents history, philosophy, literature, and art as one set of interconnected disciplines. Unomi (talk) 23:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Except that the article isn't about Bellhaven, it's about a professor. And as was noted on the talk page that content was being added to try to minimize his credentials. Please stop aiding BLP violations against biographical subjects that hold controversial scientific opinions Mastcell. That kind of behavior is utterly unacceptable. Freakshownerd (talk) 23:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not it's relevant enough to include is a matter for editors to discuss on the talk page. I would assume that cogent arguments could be made either way. It is not a BLP violation. That was my point. MastCell ^Talk 04:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a note on the Johnson source. I agree that it does not properly support the text it has been used to support. However, Johnson does seem to be suggesting that a high proportion of Muslim students in US higher education are terrorists, which may well be noteworthy (although I have no idea who Johnson is in the first place or what this is all about). --FormerIP (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not attached at the hip to the current language, and as I read it, I don't even really like it too much (especially the "lament", which is ridiculous). I do some very shitty writing on occasion. However, in my opinion, I summarised Johnson's objections fairly reasonably: Johnson said that the presence of Muslim students on college campuses, and their purportedly/perceived violent tendencies, had professors scared to talk about certain subjects, and that this state of affairs was, in his opinion, evidence that what he considers to be the Christian nation of the USA had descended to an unacceptable level. There are certainly many other ways to summarise the quote...or it could simply be quoted. In any case, it's an issue for the talk page, not AN/I.

I'm more than willing to discuss matters like these on the talk pages, as I have. What's not acceptable to me is to be called a liar, a slanderer, a grotesque distorter of reality, a POV pusher and more, by an editor who reverts six times in a day on one page, five times on another, yet receives no warnings and no blocks. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I have now changed the summary of Johnson's quote. Please move the discussion of how to move forward to the article talk page. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

A day later and the misquotations and distortions remain in the article (although modified slighlty by Kaapcalmandcarryon). He's also now taken to removing talk page comments posted by other editors [41]. What will it take to stop him from slandering article subjects by misrepresenting and distorting their views and statements? Should he be allowed to continue vandalising articles in this way as well as obstructing and harassing the work of good faith editors? Freakshownerd (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Improperly licensed images

This user (User:Nivrem110694) continues to revert images that I have lowered the resolution due to improper licensing. I have lowered the resolution of the images days ago as the license tells that the image are "low resolution" when they are clearly in "high definition". As I keep lowering the resolution, he continues to revert it and at the same time, continues to upload improperly sourced images. Please someone do something about this, the longer this guy stays, the more images will be in need to be lowered the resolution, there'll be more work to be done. Thank you. Here are some samples of the images: File:DizIzIt.JPG, File:DanzShowdown.jpg, File:LangitSaPilingMo.JPG. By the way, the user also seem to have a sockpuppet, User:Mervin 110694 - a clear anagram of the username.--TwelveOz (talk) 13:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for you attention to these copyright concerns. :) That's a problem, yes, but we need to try talking to him. He may not understand what's going on. Also, please don't forget to notify people you bring up here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Having spoken to him and taken care of some of the images, I see now that his other account is indef-blocked. WP:EVADE would seem to trump current concerns. I will block him and speak to him about seeking an unblock at his primary account. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --TwelveOz (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

68.0.184.52

Hello. I've been reverting vandalism by IP 68.0.184.52 who seems to have been vandalizing articles but putting one word edit summaries such as "History" while vandalizing the history section. I only bring this here because this does not seem like a typical vandal who is experimenting or playing around. I was wondering if this has happened before and more importantly if this is a pattern of someone specific or known to the community? Thank you Tommy! [message] 17:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Every one of this users edits have been to remove references and/or links from various articles and they've been doing this on and off since the beginning of the month. It certainly appears there's intent here. HalfShadow 17:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I would think that the proper place to report this (after sufficient notice to the IP) would be the vandal r page, after the instances of vandalism. If vandalism continue, soon enough the IP will find himself blocked.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Already blocked but I am still curious if this has happened before. Tommy! [message]

Persistent ban evasion attempts

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk · contribs) is permanently banned. He has returned to edit multiple times since then under various IP addresses.

Recently, Linuxmdb (talk · contribs) created the page MDB (Linux) (which was speedily deleted). For those who don't know, MDB is the "Merkey Debugger" as can be seen on LKML and other spots on the web. Other edits by Linuxmdb focused on Merkey's patents.

AmaTsisqa (talk · contribs) had a similar interest in Merkey's accomplishments. A sockpuppet investigation showed that the two accounts were editting from the same IP address 71.219.59.226 (talk · contribs), and the two accounts plus the IP were blocked.

Linuxmdb identified himself as one "Gaylynn Mitchell" [42].

AmaTsisqa claimed to be "Frau Geartner," a 64-year-old German woman [43], though the sockpuppet investigation (which included a checkuser) suggests otherwise.

Other IP sockpuppets have appeared since then. These can be identified either by the IP angrily claiming to be "Gaylynn Mitchell" or the WP:DUCK test based on the subjects the IP chooses to edit.

• 71.219.49.171 (talk · contribs)
• 71.213.116.225 (talk · contribs)
• 71.219.51.124 (talk · contribs)
• 71.213.117.104 (talk · contribs)

71.213.117.104 has been persistent in attempting to get unblocked, trotting out the same old "I'm not Jeff, call my cell phone and I'll prove it." As another IP noted on the talk page, there is no listing for "Gaylynn Mitchell" anywhere in the state of Utah.

Multiple promises to obey all WP rules and policies ring hollow. As a banned user, WP:BAN still applies, and he's not obeying that one already by IPsocking.

There is also the connection between "Gaylynn Mitchell" and Jeff Merkey. If we don't accept all of the edits by "Gaylynn Mitchell" which promoted Merkey's accomplishments as evidence of sockpuppetry under WP:DUCK, then it shows that "Gaylynn Mitchell" cannot be objective and abide by WP:COI and should therefore remain blocked, especially in light of "As soon as the block expires I am going to write about JEFF MERKEY".

Given that this persistent ban evasion will not stop, a high-level contact to the network operator is in order. WP policies specifically hold this out as a possible remedy to long-term abuse. Long Time Lurker (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Jeff Merkey is, indeed, a long-time problem. However, he's only half of a problem that includes individuals following him here to further an offsite grudge. The above account ought to be carefully scrutinized in that regard. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with Gavia. Stop your kvetching or else that recommendation you just gave will be the noose you hang yourself with. I think at this point it's fair to say Merkey's detractors are also de facto banned for their continued on-wiki harassment of the guy. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Carl Johnson)} 18:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it worthwhile to examine the IPs listed above by the SPA on their face value? Or do we just ignore the SPA without acting on the possible JVM socks? (I am asking because I genuinely do not know). Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If he would abide by WP:BAN, then he wouldn't be here for anyone to "follow him here." He is banned, and we're trying to point out evasion attempts so he can be stopped. If Willy On Wheels (talk · contribs) comes back with another sock puppet, will you ban the users who point it out?

What does it say on WP:BAN? Banned users are not welcome. How can you harass someone who is not welcome, persona non grata? If you break into my house, will you call the 911 and report an "assault with a deadly weapon" when I pick up my baseball bat to chase you out? Long Time Lurker (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, banned users are not welcome. Neither is feeding the trolls, which is what Merkey detractors have been doing on the blocked ip talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

How about we all make a deal? When obvious sock puppets of Jeff Merkey are reported at ANI, the admins take it seriously and act according to the rules of wikipedia. In return, you'll get rid of most of the text from people who report this ban evasion. Deal? Observant1234 (talk) 01:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Also don't threaten to block the reporting edittor. I've seen how admins have treated other edittors who reported these obvious sock puppets. Thats just wrong. Block the socks when they are reported and the disruption will be substantially reduced.

And by the way, 71.219.49.171 (talk · contribs) is another IP sock. Look at the edit to User:Linuxmdb in that IP's edit history. Long Time Lurker (talk) 04:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Where have I seen this accusation before? Does anybody (besides Merkey) believe that "Gaylynn Mitchell" (and not Merkey) is using those IP addresses? Long Time Lurker (talk) 02:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh that's funny. I thought that edit on my page was just for me... I have a picture of a cockatiel there :)

Dawnseeker2000 19:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Please block Cumanche for violating WP:OWN and for WP:NOT on the Genizaro article

Resolved

 – Article protected. Please use WP:Dispute resolution for the outstanding issues. EdJohnston (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Cumanche is exhibiting signs of WP:OWN. He has reverted my changes many times and refuses to compromise despite my efforts to do so with him. Also, by his own admission, he's using the Genizaro article as a form of promotion even though I pointed out to him WP:NOT. I've warned him that his behavior is in violation of Wikipedia's policy but he persists in his behavior. Please block him.

• My first attempt at compromise:[44]
• My first warning: [45]
• Cumanche's one and only response to me where he refuses to compromise and unjustly accuses me of vandalism; Note how, in his final sentence, he insists he's using the article as a form of promotion for his cultural group: [46]
• My response to Cumanche's comment:[47]
• My final attempt at compromise: [48]

Most of these comments are spread out over my talk page, Cumanche's talk page and the Genizaro talk page. I therefore copied these entries to the Genizaro article talk page to make it easier to follow.

Cumanche's reverts and changes demonstrating his unwillingness to compromise

[49]

[50]

[51]

[52]

[53]

Lechonero (talk) 16:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I've fully protected Genízaro for one month. Both parties are working in good faith but the dispute has been running for nearly a year. WP:Dispute resolution gives you some possible steps to take to resolve the disagreement. The simplest is to request a WP:Third opinion. If a compromise is reached, ask at WP:RFPP for protection to be lifted. Ask for help if you are not familiar with these procedures. EdJohnston (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Confused

Resolved

 – moved to WP:WQA S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what to do when confronted with a situation like the one displayed in these diffs. I had posted a personal web page quoting an official document, which answered a question from another editor. But I'd already noted there weren't article-worthy sources, and conceded the other editor's point.

Off2riorob didn't note I'd conceded the point, and said my "citations" I was using to support my "POV" weren't worthy of a talk page [54]

I responded that they were not RS, as I'd said [55]

And he again got after me for posting them in the first place [56]

I checked his edit history to see if he were just a noob, and since he's a regular I explained [57]

But he got even more officious and nasty [58]

I asked him to be civil [59]

And he said he would be civil if I did as he said [60]

I dropped the issue and let him have the last word. I realize I was wrong in what I had originally done on the article we were discussing (I revert a lot of noob stuff, and a redlink user had removed a section I originally thought was well sourced). But I'm wondering if this kind meanness just tolerated on Wikipedia or is there some recourse? I don't think it's healthy for any community to just let this kind of negativity happen, and I'm wondering what I should do about it in the future. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 16:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think he gave you an ultimatum with his last edit there, but it seems you did say that you were not introducing the links at sources: "Apparently it would take more research than I'm willing to do to get RS on this, because [61] and [62] want money. If you read a bit about it, the case is completely obvious but you are right that we should wait on the technicality, or sources [63]" so perhaps Off2riorob took things the wrong way - but if this is a WP:WQA matter perhaps you would get more informed assistance there. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Which you have already done. Leave it with WQA I would. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I thought that would be the right forum, but Wikipedia seems to have slowed down so much in the last couple years that I didn't get a response. I did post there first. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 18:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

User seems to be forum shopping this twaddle here after getting no interest at wikkitte, this is a pretty straight forward adult discussion, as I said then I agree with now, this user inserted disputed content with an edit summary of, looks good to me and again his addition had to be removed, and then he is there on the BLPN posting all sorts of not wikipedia reliable citations to support his claims, excuse me for having to be the one to point that out to him. Off2riorob (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Continued here BE——Critical_{__Talk} 18:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Best place for it, people there have more skill with matters of the Wiki-heart. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Another SPA at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randall Bell this time throwing personal attacks

Resolved

 – Not an AN/I issue.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

ANother SPA with a personal attack, Keep very important person the weaponbb7 should be blocked for suggesting it be deleted then Restored the Favorite version of the artilce with fluff here Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I see no personal attack there. Calling for a block is not a personal attack, it's calling for a block. --Chris (talk) 02:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Please advise if this counts as vandalism

User:Bulgary16 and an anonymous user have been removing text from Polycarp that expresses views among critical scholarship that conflict with traditional church teaching and traditions. I've been trying to revert these and I may have violated 3RR in the process if this does not count as vandalism. Please advise. Thanks.

The edits in question start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polycarp&diff=375945349&oldid=375814919

Martijn Meijering (talk) 23:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb, to count as vandalism, an edit should be disruptive and it must have been made in bad faith. From what I can see, I'd say that it's just a content dispute and not vandalism; so I'd suggest you to start discussing with the other editor on the article's talk page but that's only my opinion. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 23:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Salvio. I've tried to start a discussion, and we'll see if I get a reply. My objection is to unmotivated deletion of material and especially references. Martijn Meijering (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, first I'd see how they respond to your message (sort of WP:BRD); if they show no interest in talking, I think you revert them (and, if they start again, go through the various levels of {{uw-delete1}}). Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 23:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Mmeijeri, as per WP:3RR, "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." Hope this helps. — GabeMc (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

User: Zsfgseg

Resolved

 – IP blocked for block evasion. --Chris (talk) 01:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I wont vandalize anymore. 71.249.71.183 (talk) 01:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Another SPA at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randall Bell this time throwing personal attacks

Resolved

 – Not an AN/I issue.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

ANother SPA with a personal attack, Keep very important person the weaponbb7 should be blocked for suggesting it be deleted then Restored the Favorite version of the artilce with fluff here Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I see no personal attack there. Calling for a block is not a personal attack, it's calling for a block. --Chris (talk) 02:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Linda Crippes

Resolved

 – Copyvio text has been removed. LK (talk) 05:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The article has been tagged as a copyvio of www.elizabeth-elliott.com/ by an IP. However, I can't find anything on that site that looks remotely similar to our text and a quick Google search of a large text portion only comes up with the Wiki article in full prose. So I wondered if I should remove the tag but thought I'd leave it to the admins as per the notice on the template. De728631 (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the section that was copied from the official bio. It is a Flash page, so text searching would fail to find it. Click on "Biography" then "Read more" to find it. Fences&Windows 20:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ahh that's where it was. Had been looking. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Also note that they report it at the copyright problems page, so admins would already have been aware of it. Fences&Windows 20:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Please advise if this counts as vandalism

User:Bulgary16 and an anonymous user have been removing text from Polycarp that expresses views among critical scholarship that conflict with traditional church teaching and traditions. I've been trying to revert these and I may have violated 3RR in the process if this does not count as vandalism. Please advise. Thanks.

The edits in question start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polycarp&diff=375945349&oldid=375814919

Martijn Meijering (talk) 23:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb, to count as vandalism, an edit should be disruptive and it must have been made in bad faith. From what I can see, I'd say that it's just a content dispute and not vandalism; so I'd suggest you to start discussing with the other editor on the article's talk page but that's only my opinion. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 23:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Salvio. I've tried to start a discussion, and we'll see if I get a reply. My objection is to unmotivated deletion of material and especially references. Martijn Meijering (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, first I'd see how they respond to your message (sort of WP:BRD); if they show no interest in talking, I think you revert them (and, if they start again, go through the various levels of {{uw-delete1}}). Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 23:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Mmeijeri, as per WP:3RR, "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." Hope this helps. — GabeMc (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

User: Zsfgseg

Resolved

 – IP blocked for block evasion. --Chris (talk) 01:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I wont vandalize anymore. 71.249.71.183 (talk) 01:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

RevDel

Resolved

 – Revdel applied. --Chris (talk) 03:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This edit should be Revision Deleted. NawlinWiki got all the rest of the edits but missed that one. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 03:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Evasion of block by User:Grinpin

If what Grinpin (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log) wrote on his user page is not false, he is the same person as the IP user 89.11З.208.1З (talk · contribs · WHOIS) who has been blocked indefinitely. This account would apply to WP:BLOCK#Evasion_of_blocks. --Akira Kouchiyama 06:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

'Grinpin' apparently has a habit of copying other editors Userpages. They were warned about it by user:MuZemike (03:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)) The current userpage has only been there since "Revision as of 15:56, 28 July 2010" diff -- 220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 08:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell should be de-sysoped

Resolved

 – Nothing to see here... carry on. Tommy! [message] 06:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

"Issue" appears to be resolved: what Tommy 2010 says. Collapsing due to too many sub-headings. I'd recommend a new thread for addressing any outstanding admin abuse issues. TFOWR 08:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell is not Osama bin Laden or Hitler. Those people require more serious treatment. HJ is an administrator that should be made a regular user again and not have administrative privileges. After a few months of editing (he's stopped meaningful editing), he can re-apply. Sample of bad moves He blocked a user (Cielonyc) then did not let another administrator consider the unblock request because he denied it himself. He destroyed any chance of transparency by stopping the appeal of his own actions. I am not the only once to notice it. Someone else told HJ not to do it. Rather than reverse himself, he insisted on his way. At administrator should not be so stubborn. He voted to delete an article then deleted a user's page which was intended to work on the article and sort through which facts were notable. He used false reasoning as the user page was NOT a recreation after an AFD and was for article improvement of the main article. Diff not available since the page is deleted (it was User:MVOO ) By doing so, he has more than voted in an AFD but wrongly used his administrative powers to push his opinion. Wrongly and abusely used rollback for an edit war according to Ryan Postlethwaite. [64]. Yet he denies rollback to an editor who has made constructive edits like this [65] and [66] He tried to get this article, William C. Pack, speedily deleted, which is improper. He doesn't edit much. He could benefit from being a regular editor for a few months. There are close to 2,000 administrators. Only the best of Wikipedia users should qualify. HJ needs some more experience and should be allowed to reapply for administrative tools in a few months. He's only been an editor for a year so fast tracking him to be an administrator isn't necessary. MVOO (talk) 22:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC) So here we have someone that is angry because an admin deleted his own space. I am not an admin but here are some answer. Cielonyc (talk · contribs) was NOT re-blocked, he could use again the {{unblock}} template, and he denied the "autoblocked" not two unblock request. "Wrongly and abusely" -> and he is not the only admin who abuse of this tool. Why do not create your own sandbox instead? William C. Pack was created in November, he is an admin since afew months, and it was a perfect candidate TbhotchTalk C. 22:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC) These are some pretty thin grounds for forcibly desysopping someone. The unblock decline is the only one popping up there that really seem a matter for recent concern - and in any case, you aren't going to get anyone desysopped with an ANI thread, start a WP:RFC/U if you think you have a case for it. ~ mazca talk 22:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Aside from the fact that you haven't even tried to talk things through with him on his talk page and you're digging up some very old things, I agree with Mazca: there are no grounds to warrant a desysopping here, even though he may have made a mistake in denying that (single) unblock request... However, you may try a request for comment. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 23:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC) MVOO simply doesn't understand the concept of dropping the stick. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC) We should do what is right. Otherwise, we should have dropped the stick and let Essjay go. I learned of Wikipedia because Essjay was in the news. MVOO (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) TBhotch: Do not attack me. I am not angry. I am just saying that he needs more experience to be an administrator. TBhotch: You say . Here it is. The person saying this is an experienced admin [67] TBhotch: You say sandbox? HJ could have moved my user page to my sandbox but did not. He or someone else may do it now. Thank you to the person that does it. Mazca: RFC/U is not required. People are blocked all the time without a RFC. To others: Desysop is NOT punishment. It can be but not in this case. In this case, it is to minimize disruption. HJ is not the most disruptive person, but needs more experience. MVOO (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Salvio: "no grounds" is wikilawyering. The best way is for him to give up the tools and reapply in January. Of course, you could move that page to my sandbox and help resolve one of HJ's several errors in judgment. MVOO (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC) (EC) This seems like some seriously sour grapes after the last thread where you made blatantly false accusations against HJ Mitchell, and were basically told that the only one acting inappropriately was[68]. Before you posted this thread, I see you then went to an AfD he started to !vote "weak keep" with very poor reasoning[69], and your ANI notice on his page leaves much to be desired.[70] Personally, I'm thinking you need some block time until you can stop acting so disruptively, stop forum shopping,[71][72][73] and learn a bit of honesty in your "summaries" and complaints. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 23:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Forum shopping? I have thought about this for several days and did not complain then I brought it up in only one forum, ANI. As far as threatening me with a block, I will make it simple for you in 3-5 minutes. MVOO (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Look, as far as the unblock request goes, it was sort of a no-brainer: it was clear that the username was against our policy and I think any admins would have rejected it. The only mistake Hj Mitchell made was not to let someone else do the actual rejecting. As far as the article deletion thing goes, could you please be more specific? And, finally, the speedy nomination and the abuse of rollback happened months ago, even before HJ Mitchell was sysopped... Moreover, I don't expect admins to be infallible. They're humans just like me and you and, so, they're entitled to some mistakes. I would support a desysopping only if you could show me that HJ Mitchell willingly abused his tools; however, since I can see no such thing, I told you that, in my opinion, there are no grounds to warrant a desysop. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 23:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Example of police corruption, nepotism, and Cabal People are just defending him just like corrupt cops defend each other. Here is a wise solution: 1. We try to contact Cielonyc and explain our error and have another objective admin decide on the unblock request. 2. An admin either recreate my user page or even e-mail me the contents so I can properly evaluate the info. I have not tried to recreate the deleted article but attempts to hide it only proves censorship while helpful e-mailing or user page recreation shows cooperation. 3. He studies rollback and not use it until he understands it and he stops giving it or denying rollback to others until he studies it. 4. He tries to edit more and be less of a busy body. He should also stay away from William C. Peck as far as trying to delete it. If these 4 simple things happen, then the case for desysop is much, much less. He doesn't have to admit guilt and 1 and 2 can be done by another admin. MVOO (talk) 23:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Well, as Mitchell is likely offline at this hour, how about we wait until he is online before we lynch him, hmm? —DoRD (talk) 23:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)MVOO, drop it. In two separate ANI threads you have vociferously put your point of view across and found virtually no agreement. You can call corrupt cabal all you like, but the obvious next step is to block you for disruptive editing and repeated failure to get the point. This is very obviously sour grapes based on your disagreement over a deleted article, and you aren't even being subtle. ~ mazca talk 23:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Several people voted "delete". I have nothing against them. HJ, on the other hand, votes delete and goes on a rampage to destroy. Cabalism is denying that HJ has a problem. As I said, not as bad a problem as Hitler and something that can be resolved by not doing admin stuff for a few months and just plain editing. A lack of cabalism would be if people try to resolve the problem, which I've outlined in 4 very, very simple steps. You just don't get it. MVOO (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC) How many times do you have to be told to just drop the stick and step away from the dead horse? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC) OK, all cabal members should drop the stick. I have also requested to be blocked by LessHeardvanU. I agree to be blocked by him because I trust his judgment. I fully resist being blocked by anyone else. If he is sleeping, I will stop editing and wait for him to awake. Others should do the same. MVOO (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Your behaviour here, MVOO, is not the way to behave. Editing quietly, respectfully and collegiately will serve you better. 217.44.188.61 (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)1. There was no serious error. Yes HJ should have let another admin handle the first unblock request but the outcome would have been the exact same (I have no problem whatsoever with him handling the second request as it was an incorrect request). 2. Your page (Dick Cheney's health IIRC) was deleted per community consensus (which we already had a seperate ANI thread on). 3. Wrong? Yes. Abusive? Uh, no. He made a mistake (just like all of us tend to do) and apologized when it was brought to his attention. 4. His editing is fine. We don't give admins the tools to not use them. The fact that he is using them (and responsibly as far as I can see) only serves to reinforce my opinion that he is doing a fine job. Mauler90 talk 23:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC) HJ Mitchell removed the Neologism template and Notability template from the article Sack tapping then when I called it disruptive and reverted it, he turned up on my talk page with a level 5 warning template for personal attacks. (Huey45 (talk) 08:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)) A corrupt admin confesses... I had no idea that the standards for remaining an admin were so high. With that in mind I wish to make the following confession/offers: I had a look at Cielonyc's unblock request a day or two ago, and did nothing (gasp!) although I agreed with HJ Mitchell's decline. If you wish I could go back and formally decline the unblock request? You recreated a deleted article on your userpage. I'm not inclined to restore it before discussing it with the admin who deleted it (heck, given the tone of your "request" I'm not inclined to do even that, but hey! in the spirit of cooperation...) but if you wish I'll discuss it with HJ and give consideration to restoring the article to a sandbox in your userspace. Perhaps this offer might be taken into consideration when the community considers whether or not to de-sysop me? I don't think I've misused rollback, but I've made plenty of mistakes of varying degrees of seriousness. I expect I will continue to make mistakes with the mop. Why, only today I made my first edit to ITN. It was a disaster. It would have been far worse but a more experienced admin was willing to help me, and fixed up my mistakes. My edit count was always poor, and has declined markedly since my RfA. I throw myself at the mercy of the court. TFOWR 23:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC) The courts find you guilty of stuffing beans up your nose. Congratulations! Mauler90 talk 00:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Time for a timeout I'd block MVOO (talk · contribs) for WP:DE, WP:POINT and WP:NPA myself but I'm logging off in a couple of minutes, and doing so right after a block is poor form. Suggest MV00 consider: That when everyone tells him to write an RFC or drop it, he stops feuding and complies That the comparison to Hitler or OBL are totally off-base and out of line That he, no more than any other editor, gets to chose who deals with him in an administrative capacity That he spends some time re-familiarizing himself with WP:BATTLE, and undertakes to begin an immediate volunteer but total interaction ban with HJ before one gets formally imposed on him. MLauba (Talk) 23:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) A cabal answer would be to attack the reporter and defend the admin. TFOWR made some suggestions to resolve it but most are taking the same route that a cabal member would take. You just don't get it. MVOO (talk) 23:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) I would fully support an interactive ban with HJ if one is imposed on him. I also NEVER compared HJ to Hitler. I said he was NOT like Hitler. I also do not choose LHvU to "deal" with me. This is a separate issue where I request a self-block from him. Actually, blocking me is wrong but I want it from him. MVOO (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC) By the very action of saying "HJ Mitchell is not Osama bin Laden or Hitler" you are in fact comparing him to them (there's a word for this, can't remember it though). Why not say "HJ Mitchell is not a bad user, just a bad admin", that gets your point across without drawing highly offensive comparisions. Mauler90 talk 00:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Apophasis? Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 00:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC) I think thats the one I was looking for! Mauler90 talk 00:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC) TFOWR is fine. The problem with mildly abusive admin (we're not talking about Hitler admins) is that they deny there is a problem. TFOWR's #4 is a true confession. #2 is not true. I did not recreate the deleted article. What I did was copy it BEFORE the AFD was complete so that I could work on it. Please do not wrongly accuse me. HJ should have ignored the unblock request since he did the original block. Failure to see the impropriety casts very serious doubt on his ability to be an objective administrator. TFOWR, would you like to help me with moving the contents to my sandbox. After all, when LessHeard wakes up, I will be blocked for 3 days to a month so you need not worry about me. MVOO (talk) 23:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC) For the love of God, MVOO, drop it. Coming onto AN/I, spouting off declarations of bad faith with vague evidence to back it up, demanding an administrator whom, to most everyone, is doing passably with his tools, and raising Cain whenever you're called out on the things you're doing wrong is flat-out disruptive. Stop trying to expose a nonexistent Illuminati, drop the issue (as it's been soundly shouted down for good reason) and get back to editing, please. —Jeremy (v^_^v Carl Johnson) 23:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC) MVOO, drop it, seriously. It was amusing to start with, but, being the evil administrator I am, I find it hard to assume good faith any more. How many hours did you spend digging through my talk page archives to find my cock-ups? I could find you some more if you wanted, just to prove how evil I am. As for your userpage, I'll be happy to email you the contents as long as you don;t post them on-wiki without going through the proper channels. I can even userfy the whole article for you so you can look at merging it into Dick Cheney, but you could have just asked me nicely! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Another subsection to exaggerate how important my comment is I like turtles. -- tariqabjotu 23:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)  Disagree - are you WP:RECALLable? Tortoise for the win! TFOWR 23:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC) ' Agree Random bold text here Mauler90 talk 00:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC) I can't !vote without knowing what kind of turtle you are referring to. The animal or the chocolate with the yummy, yummy caramel inside? Resolute 02:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC) The whole Hitler thing pissed me off-- HJ is an EXCELLENT admin and you come here -- first line-- "He's no Osama bin Laden" -- Are you kidding me? You should be blocked for NPA. Absolutely ridiculous to even THINK of making such a bold comparison. Ugh Tommy! [message] 00:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Subsection Quinary: Sushi is yummy. Has this horse been beaten enough? I'm always late to these things... HalfShadow 00:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC) I don't know, MVOO is apparently begged three admins to block him/her now, but only if they will "agree" to his terms.[74][75][76] I think someone should accomodate, sans the silly terms. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 00:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Dammit, I've just missed the three-minute window of opportunity to block. TFOWR 00:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC) I think someone should block for 71 hours, since his avowed minimum was 72. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC) And don't let Jimbo on his talk page... ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 01:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC) I am not intending to block MVOO according to specified terms or other. Neither MVOO or HJ should be blocked (or desysopped). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC) What is this nonsense. Self requested block? We shouldn't pander to their request. Are there any positive contributions? S.G.(GH) ping! 06:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC) So far, I'd say no, not really. Bulk of their edits have been railing against HJ, forum shopping, and theatrics. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 06:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC) OMGUGUYS i love sushi! Tommy! [message] (ec) Since the conduct of the complaining editor remains under scrutiny, I've removed the unsigned "resolved" tag. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Turtles? Sushi? Turtle Sushi? Also, WP:OWB#37. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Anon user:84.126.10.233 should be permanently blocked

Resolved

 – IPs are very very rarely indef blocked. Tommy! [message] 08:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Several editors and admins have warned this user over the past few months about violating various WP policies including the one I just posted about this edit. Also, a tag indicates this user may be a sockpuppet of user:Cosialscastells. Please block him/her permanently. This is obviously a disruptive editor. Lechonero (talk) 00:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless they are static IPs, we can't permablock an IP address (simply because somebody else will get it eventually). Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

We have plenty of IPs with much longer histories, some of which aren't even dynamic IPS that get swapped a lot, which we know because the edits all are pretty much the same for years. Even those IPs get blocks. I don't think I'd ever support indefing an IP--I would support a long block though. For an IP like this, with no block history, I'd say it needs to be based on the SPI. Other than that, a few days or maybe a week is appropriate if it's especialy ongoing, but this is not an extraordinary case. Shadowjams (talk) 07:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This may be a common IP (public hotspot) or perhaps a dynamically assigned one. This is a pretty standard issue. Shadowjams (talk) 07:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Nono64

Could you please check the contributions of this user; he has already been blocked from French WP in 2008, and I am under the impression that he is just trying to create as many pages as possible in the shortest amount of time; whether his contributions are actually useful, well I will leave you to be the judge of that. Francesco Malipiero (talk) 01:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been looking through Nono64's edit history, and see only a minor problem. Many editors are blocked for one reason or another, but go on to be positive contributors to the project later. His account on the French wikipedia is currently in good standing. He has also contributed many useful stubs to wikipedia and made numerous positive contributions to other already existing articles. However, he does appear to not understand what is appropriate for disambiguation pages and has created issues in this area on multiple occassions which have required a great deal of undoing for other editors. Likewise with the moving of articles. His intentions, however, have been in the right place, and he certainly is not working with malicous designs. Part of the problem may be a language/culture barier. Unfortunately, it does not seem like he is learning from these encounters and is likely to continue to create problems on DAB pages. Not really sure what a good solution is.4meter4 (talk) 03:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I've just scanned quickly through his last 100 contributions. The ones I looked at seemed fine. He's been doing good gnomish work. LK (talk) 04:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You're supposed to notify people when discussing them on ANI: I have done so. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

user:mbz1 colluding with user:broccoli

Allegations from another user of repeated collusion between mbz1 and broccoli on a different article occurred on July 7 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=372275171#Collusion_between_Broccoli_and_Mbz1

Mbz1 continues to collude with Broccoli in this other article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Art_student_scam#Editors_supporting_the_proposal

Broccoli suddenly shows up to vote without any previous comments on the talk page only two hours after mbz1, saying that he agrees with mbz1. The other link is of an accusation that another user made on July 7th that Mbz1 was repeatedly colluding with brocolli. These two links combined are very strong evidence that Mbz1 is colluding with broccoli.

He votes “Agree with Mbz1 as well.” His only other comment related to "art student scam" occurred on the articlesfordeletion page of this wikipedia article in March which was also a vote and read “Strong delete per nominator and Mbz1.” Preciseaccuracy (talk) 10:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1 (talk · contribs · count) is currently blocked due to a revert war. In the unlikely event that someone wants to take the above seriously, people could consider lifting the blocks on her and Binksternet (talk · contribs · count) with whom she was in a revert war at Art student scam so that MBz1 can defend herself without the blocks being treated disproportionately.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Read what Brocolli said three weeks ago, in the very link you provided:

Yes, I am fond of Mbz1 contributions that I am watching on both Commons and Wikipedia. If I see she wrote an article or nominated an image for FPC, I review it, and, if I feel like supporting it, I do. As a matter of fact I am translating Sol Hachuel in Hebrew for Hebrew Wikipedia right now. In case you do not know how to call my behavior, you may call it collaboration.

Precisely. Agreeing with Mbz1 is not a crime. Do you have any complaint here other than the fact that Brocolli agrees with Mbz1 often? -- tariqabjotu 10:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to add to the confusion this concerns ברוקולי (talk · contribs · count) who signs his/her posts Broccoli, the way his/her userid is pronounced. Broccoli (talk · contribs · count) is another account entirely.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

User:ברוקולי must change signature. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, some might argue he shouldn't change it because most people on en.wiki can't type in Hebrew. However, I think there should be a clearer reference to his actual username (e.g. ברוקולי (Broccoli)). -- tariqabjotu 11:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Broccoli voted without reasoning or giving any evidence that he had looked at the sources. Why would someone vote on an article they haven't discussed at all on the talk page. Maybe just to support their friend. The real question is does broccoli support mbz1 "often" or "always." With a band of supporters following him, how would it be possible to stop mbz1's continuous reverts. Another user Noon, who has never even edited the article "Art Student Scam" also has helped Mbz1 revert war.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 10:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, we kind of assume good faith here, and you've provided no evidence that there was anything disruptive about this. Again, Brocoli is entitled to agree with Mbz1 often, or even always. You'll probably find that there are a lot of times that happens in the Israel-Palestine minefield. There are times when it's disruptive -- e.g. people clearly tag-team edit-warring -- but it rarely is in the case of someone just making a single comment, as here. Consensus is not a vote, so you are welcome to ignore !votes that don't provide reasoning. Either way, you have no basis for the serious charge of "colluding" and no reason to even come to ANI, as there is no need for admin intervention. -- tariqabjotu 11:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The user is ברוקול"י" is the user that is being accused of colluding with mbz1.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 11:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

User Mbz1 also teamed up with user Huey45 to revert my edits and Huey 45 was acting in "bad faith"

Huey45 said… “I called it "the fake Israeli thing" because all of the previous sources (yes, you're not the first person to mention this) suggested that the salesmen weren't even Israeli, let alone art students.”

In fact, all of these sources unequivocally stated that they were Israelis, and mention the art students.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 11:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The wikipedia article "art student scam" has strangely morphed from an article about suspected Israeli spying that reliable sources support to an article about a tourist trap in china described with links to blogs. It appears that other users are trying to whitewash any mention of Israel from the article. Its kind of difficult to assume good faith on the part of some of the editors in this case.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 11:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so how do I get a relevant source that I submitted to the reliable sources board and has been determined to be very reliable on the reliable sources board included in the wikipedia article if other users for political reasons don't want the source attached to the article?Preciseaccuracy (talk) 11:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it is time for Preciseaccuracy to no longer edit this article. He continues to mudsling:

• [77] (Addition of the "User Huey45 acting in 'bad faith'" section)
• [78] (Insinuates that Jujitsu guy is up to no good when the !vote isn;t going his way)
• [79] (Addition of the "user:mbz1 colluding with user:broccoli:") section)
• [80] (takes aim at me even though I have been assisting in getting his information in until just recently)

Canvasing/forum shopping like behavior about this "collusion"

• [81]
• [82]

Cptnono (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Cptnono claims he wants "to add information". Yet Cptnono literally just said about the suspected alleged Israeli espionage section that he "Recommend[s] reducing the section to a line or two." From this, I said that it appears that Cptnono wants to whitewash the article of references to Israel for political purposes. The article was originally about suspected Israeli "art student" spying on the u.s. and is strangely morphing into an article about a Chinese tourist trap.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 20:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I am concerned that a group of editors are attempting to remove reliable sources from the article simply because the sources potentially paint Israel in a poor light. Many sources exist that cover this, and attempting to brush it under the carpet is not what Wikipedia should be doing. There is POV pushing occurring here, and attempting to label as "off-topic" the coverage of the alleged spy ring that supposedly used the art student scam as a cover is a good example of it. Fences&Windows 21:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It's also interesting how Cptnono left out both his swear containing comment out of link 145 along with my follow-up response.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 21:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that swearing was not forbidden but before you commented here I did strike one of them out since it should have been worded less harshly. But stop deflecting. You are making a mess and need to stop attacking other editors when things are not going your way.

And in regards to Fences and Windows: I proposed a split. I tried to add in info on both. I am not whitewashing anything. It didn't work out and the scope of the article is altering to something that does not have consensus. But that is a content dispute. Preciseaccuracy needs to stop accusing other editors of bad behavior just because they disagree.Cptnono (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Once again, you "Recommend[ed] reducing the section to a line or two." I'm sorry if it seems like you pretended to give in a little so that you could later recommend the deletion of almost the entire section about suspected Israeli "art student" spying.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 23:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No there were no shenanigans on my part. I simply realized that a concise balanced section was not good enough for some editors and have decided that I support axing the section until the scope is figured out. So stop assuming there are games and don't play them yourself. You are attacking other editors, filibustering, and canvasing.Cptnono (talk) 08:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Preciseaccuracy, want do you want accomplished by opening this "incident"?  Davtra  ^(talk) 23:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Preciseaccuracy reported me here twice in recent weeks for supposedly colluding with User:Mbz1 in relation to this article. I never did. (Huey45 (talk) 08:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC))

The thing is that User:Preciseaccuracy likes to write the conspiracy theories, but her contributions are much less harmful for Wikipedia, when she writes them on administrative noticeboards versus Wikipedia articles, so let's her have it here.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

And still going. This one was much tamer but c'mon.

And here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Gobbleswoggler

Resolved

 – Gobble has acknowledged the problem and agreed to enter the WP:ADOPT program. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I hate to complain about another editor, particularly one who I'm sure means well, but User:Gobbleswoggler seems to be embarked on an over-enthusiastic CSD/PROD spree, tagging articles with all sorts of inappropriate tags, and taking no notice whatsoever of the large amount of feedback that's building up at User Talk:Gobbleswoggler. If this carries on, it's going to bite an awful lot of newbies. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Notified user about this post - remember informing users when you post about them here is mandatory. Exxolon (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I'm just about too, sorry - I got briefly dragged away before I did it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, you've already done it, thanks (and sorry again for my delay). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Completely agree that the tags are problematic, but not sure this is the right venue yet. I engaged Gobbleswoggler apparently simultaneously to this thread being created...let's see if we get any communication before we get into a drama-fest.  Frank  |  talk  15:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Gobbleswoggler here.My scenario from this point forward is just tagging pages that are clearly not supposed to be here.And if i'm not sure about some I will leave to other editors.Gobbleswoggler (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks - it is important to only tag articles for CSD if they clearly meet the descriptions of the categories. And apologies for dragging you here, but as you were not responding to Talk page messages I didn't really know how else to get your attention. Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Experienced user insisting on info which is not in source

Hi, Taivo (talk · contribs) repeatedly adds info while sources does not contain that, removes "not in source" tags and does not accepts changes in accordance with sources which reverts to his own interpretation [83] [84] [85]. See also Talk:Ukrainian language#Ukrainian not a language - just a dialect of Russian discussion from May 6th. --windyhead (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Please attempt dispute resolution, such as seeking a third opinion, advice from Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages, or the content noticeboard. Fences&Windows 21:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I already raised the problem at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 12#Disputable info with orphaned quotations, no reaction --windyhead (talk) 07:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No he's not. As he has stated repeatedly, he has read the entire book. You appear to be the taking one or two sentences to which the reference applies as a quote, and arguing that the 'quote' doesn't contain the exact words. In fact, Taivo is summarising much larger chunks, and referencing them to the work he is summarising. What he's doing is fine. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Where you have this information from? And if we'll assume this is true, how to check that his summary is correct? --windyhead (talk) 07:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Borrow or purchase the books I've cited and read them. --Taivo (talk) 07:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this the only way? --windyhead (talk) 08:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If they are not available on google books, then yes. This is going to be a topic of scholarly discussion, with quality sourcing largely available only in books. Wikipedia supports the use of books as reliable sources. Sometimes this does mean you need access to a library - or to someone who has access to a library. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Interlibrary loan often helps if your library does not have these sources. If your entire library network does not have them, then you could try asking Tavio for assistance. They say that they are an "associate professor of Linguistics at a major U.S. university", so if you ask politely, they might willing to work with your library or even directly with you. NW (Talk) 14:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Can somebody please step in. First off I believe that "to read the book" is not the only way to perform verification process, another way is to ask the editor to provide confirming quotes, and if the insisting editor said the quotes are enough to verify, the verification can be performed on them. But okay, I checked sources and the info is not there, of which I informed the parties [86] [87] , but the editor continued reverts after that - unexplained revert [88] , revert removing "disputed factual accuracy" template [89] with misleading justification "needless tag" and "to lay off until you have actually read the sources" even while I have informed the editor that I do checked the sources. --windyhead (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Six hours ago you were at a loss at to how to check the sources without reading the books and now you have miraculously "checked" all the sources? I'm sorry, but I don't believe you. You are still asking for ways to verify the material without reading the books, but then you claim that you have checked all the sources? Which is true? One of your statements is false. As far as the "disputed" tag goes, you have been told by multiple editors (and have been reverted by two different editors) that it is your responsibility to read the sources if you question the accuracy of the statements. The partial quotes are, indeed, quite sufficient to verify the intent of the source and any linguist will see that immediately. The "disputed" tag is not for cases where you haven't bothered to read the sources, it is for cases where different sources are at variance with the text or the interpretation of different sources is in dispute. In this case, you have neither read the authoritative sources which I have provided, nor offered sources that have a different viewpoint. You are simply placing the tag there because you don't like the information, no matter how accurate. Indeed, the paragraph itself is NPOV since it takes no side in the matter. It simply says, 1) there are different viewpoints, 2) one viewpoint says they are one language, 3) the other viewpoint says they are different languages, 4) the matter cannot be decided on the issue of mutual intelligibility alone. What's POV about that? It covers all sides of the issue. Yes, can someone step in and shut this guy up? He is providing nothing useful to the issue, but only complaining that he doesn't like the result. --Taivo (talk) 22:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh, can someone summarize this thread for me? My brain locked at the point where windyhead asked if the only way he could verify Taivo's citations was to read the books themselves. Or did I misunderstand what windyhead wrote? TIA, -- llywrch (talk) 06:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Taivo added questionable info into the article and supported it with offline sources. I requested confirming quotes to verify. Taivo provided orphaned quotes and said they are enough to verify [90]. I performed the verification, informed of the results (not in source), and updated the article. Taivo reverted [91] [92] insisting that quotes and sources do back the article statements [93] . I then performed the verification of first disputable sentence on the sources itself, informed of the result and updated the article. Taivo reverted with no arguments [94] and removed "disputed factual data" tag on the grounds that "you have not read the sources" [95]. He also degraded to comments like "you to lay off" [96] , "shut this guy up" [97] and [98] --windyhead (talk) 13:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Or the alternative version. Taivo has added some information to the article, neutrally summarising some significant mainstream sources. Windyhead doesn't like the information that Taivo has added, because it doesn't suit his POV (I say this because Windyhead hasn't read Taivo's sources and has offered no other sources, so I'm guessing he's not an expert with the definitive answer) and he doesn't like that its in books because he hasn't got access to the books, so he's edit warring to remove the information and accusing Taivo of POV editing.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I already asked you about your sources of information about other's actions and intentions. Again, where you are getting your information about others ("neutrally summarising some significant mainstream sources", "Windyhead hasn't read Taivo's sources", "he hasn't got access to the books", and previously "Taivo is summarising much larger chunks") from? Also what are grounds for your edit warring accusations? --windyhead (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Ilywrch. Yes, my brain kind of spasmed, too, when Windyhead asked if the only way he could check my sources was to read the books. Elen of the Roads has summarized the issue clearly--I added scholarly information properly sourced and verifiable from reliable sources and written in a balanced and neutral way. Windyhead doesn't like the information because it conflicts with his worldview. So he started adding "disputed" tags, "POV" tags, etc. to the paragraph in question and began a rather pointless series of posts on the Talk Page without offering any alternative scholarly references. He repeatedly asked for extensive quotations from the sources I've referenced (even though the quotes in the article are quite sufficient to prove the point). He then began forum shopping here and here to get input from other users on my actions. He thinks that all information should be available on-line so that he doesn't have to read any actual books. He hasn't actually edit warred, but his repetitive posts and refusal to read the books are annoying. --Taivo (talk) 20:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Just so you know what we're talking about here, it's a paragraph that says, in summary: "The languages are mutually intelligible so the question can't be decided with linguistics alone. Most scholars say X. Some scholars say Y." It's the "mutually intelligible" part and the "Some scholars say Y" parts that conflict with Windyhead's worldview and that he finds objectionable, even though I have provided references (as well as sufficient quotes) for both statements from authoritative scholarly sources. --Taivo (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No, the text you added to the article was not what you present here. The text you added can be clearly seen from my diffs above. And it was actually you who reverted my "in terms of immediate mutual intelligibility" addition (which is what the source says) to just "dialects" [99] [100] (which is not in source) --windyhead (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You were continually making a mess of the paragraph in your attempts to remove the statement that some sources list Russian and Ukrainian as dialects of a single language. You could post just about any diff and claim that you were "right". Well, you weren't right and you worked very hard to not read the sources and to not understand what they said. The paragraph is now almost exactly the paragraph before you started your crusade. Faustian and I rearranged a couple sentences, that's all. Your "contribution" was nothing and resulted in nothing. The issue, as far as I'm concerned, is closed now. You'll surely post something self-serving after this, but I'm not going to look anymore. --Taivo (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Deleting of reference, belittleing small nations and national institutions

User Chipmunkdavis is deleting references from the article. The references that link to national bureau of statistics [101] [102]. Chipmunkdavis's remark as "Croatian POV spam" is on the ethnic basis, belittleing one nation. Ethnic insult. Bureau of statistics=spam????
Chipmunkdavis has been removing the references from the article [103] (this reference [104]).
That's not cooperative behaviour, that's disruptive. It's not the link to some childish freepage, it's a link to scientific magazine.
Since 16-23 July 2010 he engaged in edit war in the article Serbo-Croatian language.
Here's his edits Special:Contributions/Chipmunkdavis.
00:47, 23 July 2010 (diff | hist) Serbo-Croatian language ‎ (Undid revision 374929857 by Croq (talk) It is hard to believe. Very persistent though, knows what they're doing.) [105]
00:05, 23 July 2010 (diff | hist) Serbo-Croatian language ‎ (Undid revision 374926885 by Croq (talk) And remains so in most of its successor states.) [106]
00:01, 23 July 2010 (diff | hist) Serbo-Croatian language ‎ (Undid revision 374925904 by Croq (talk) Agree with direktor. Besides, Croqs lying, he did more than remove a sentence. And the sentence was NPOV.). [107]
Note: He deleted this quoted reference [108] from the text. Who's Chipmunkdavis to declare scientific magazines as NPOV?
This was WP:3RR in 47 minutes!
More of his recent edit wars (under "lots of text"):

lots of text

00:09, 19 July 2010 (diff | hist) Serbo-Croatian language ‎ (Undid revision 374199442 by Croq (talk) Reverting edit warring by Croq)
23:45, 18 July 2010 (diff | hist) Serbo-Croatian language ‎ (Undid revision 374198397 by Croq (talk))
23:23, 18 July 2010 (diff | hist) Serbo-Croatian language ‎ (Undid revision 374192842 by Croq (talk))
00:53, 18 July 2010 (diff | hist) Serbo-Croatian language ‎ (Undid revision 374042564 by Croq (talk) If that is a good source, its bad grammar anyway.)
00:28, 18 July 2010 (diff | hist) Serbo-Croatian language ‎ (Undid revision 374041605 by Croq (talk)No reason it should be mentioned in the lede, otherwise there'd be names everywhere. Please discuss at talkpage)
00:15, 18 July 2010 (diff | hist) Serbo-Croatian language ‎ (Undid revision 374039850 by Croq (talk) A passus is a Roman unit of measurement...)
00:05, 18 July 2010 (diff | hist) Serbo-Croatian language ‎ (Undid revision 374038759 by Croq (talk) That's fine, but unimportant in the lede. In the body it may be included. Lede=summary, not detail.)
23:50, 17 July 2010 (diff | hist) Serbo-Croatian language ‎
23:43, 17 July 2010 (diff | hist) Serbo-Croatian language ‎ (Sorry Croq, seems like a direct politicization of the issue at hand. Please bring edits up in the talk page)
23:05, 17 July 2010 (diff | hist) Serbo-Croatian language ‎ (Undid revision 374029083 by Croq (talk) Who doesn't consider it a south slavic language?)
At least 8 reverts in 25 hours.

The other side in this case, user Croq, has been blocked [109] (because he reinserted references in his 3RR). Croq made 3RR, but he was enriching en.wiki.
Chipmunkdavis violated 3RR rule, but he remained unsanctioned for removing the references[110]. Chipmunkdavis disrupted en.wiki.
And Croq was blocked by the admin Kwamikagami that was in the conflict of interest [111] [112]. Admin Kwamikagami has blocked the opponent on the article. That's misuse of tools.
Problem is basic: deleting of references, 3RR, engaging in revert war, misuse of tools. Kubura (talk) 04:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

27 July 2010 Chipmunkdavis continued edit warring and deleting references.
He also deleted {{NPOV}} tag, although there's a heated discussion on the talkpage about that and big disagreement between editors (talkpage sections named NPOV Stop POV pushing in this article NPOV Tag POV that should be removed.
17:56, 27 July 2010 (diff | hist) Serbo-Croatian language ‎ (Undid revision 375748874 by Croq (talk) I'm undoing to remove the census info. If you want to add NPOV, do it without adding others info.) [113]
17:44, 27 July 2010 (diff | hist) Serbo-Croatian language ‎ (Undid revision 375746919 by Croq (talk) Well-intentioned redundant edit at best, blatant POV at worst.) [114]
Users must have equal treatment. If Croq was blocked for readding first-hand source (National Bureau of Statistics), then Chipmunkdavis must be blocked also, and even more, since he removed those sources and because he belittled small countries [115] (see above "Croatian POV spam"). Kubura (talk) 02:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I in no way see how I am belittling a nation and adding an ethnic insult. I reverted the continuous additions (which broke the edit revert discuss cycle) because they were an attempt to push a Croatian POV, that is that Croatian is not a type of Serbo-Croatian. Such issues have been discussed many times in the talk page. Croq was blocked for one day because he kept trying to push his POV against a consensus and ignoring the discussion of the talk page. As stated by another user when they reverted the same edits which are getting me in trouble, "Having a Ref does not magically make it neutral."

I disagree that reverting the addition of the bolded text in the following sentence "In its by the Yugoslav language unitarianism never fully standardized form" I am preventing the 'enrichment' of the article.

This is what has been continuously added [116], where it adds what is best redundant information, and what appears to be an attempt to show that many Croatians do not speak Serbo-Croatian, especially since it gives different numbers for both Serbo-Croatian and Croato-Serbia, which are the same language.

Croq was not 'enriching' en.wiki but merely trying to push his POV through, repeatedly making the same edits against consensus. He recently started using the talk page to discuss, a move I welcomed. I object that Kwamikagami abused his administrator powers, he was stopping an edit war that was being created by only one person against the consensus of everyone else on the talk page.

As for the NPOV tag, I refrained from ever removing it, and even told another user who deleted it that it be left there. The one time I did remove it was when it was added with some other edits that again were breaking the edit revert discuss cycle.

Notice Croq is Croatian, and that Kubara is probably Croatian, given he claims he speaks it on his userpage. The other users trying to push the point also claim to speak Croatian (the Hr language userbox).

Additionally, isn't the problem supposed to be discussed on my talk page before it is moved here? All I got was a one line warning and no response from that person when I replied.

Respectfully, the other side was trying to create an edit war, repeatedly adding the same information after it had been reverted. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh what rot! :) Chipmunkdavis was not acting inappropriately in any way. Deleting references? The sources were quite plainly incorrectly cited, and the insertion of the text they supposedly "supported" was opposed by the community - so an attempt was made by them to push the edits via incessant uncompromising edit-war. Then the guy opposing "brute force methods" of POV editing gets reported for alleged "edit-warring". This is exactly the sort of stuff I deal with on virtually a daily basis.

As for the alleged "belittleing small nations", those accusations should probably not even be dignified with a response. I'm a Croat myself and nothing Chipmunkdavis did or said was insulting in any way vis-à-vis Croatia and/or its institutions. This is quite simply and obviously a nonsense attempt to bully Chipmunkdavis into withdrawing from the discussion. Don't fall for it Chip, its standard-issue Balkans wikiwarfare. :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No bias at all. Chipmunkdavis is not the one that can say that National Bureaus of Statistics are "POV spam". He's not the source we refer to.
Croatian census 2001 [117] shows 4,961 person declared their language as "Serbian-Croatian", while 2,054 declared their language as "Croatian-Serbian", obviously making difference. Chipmunkdavis say "it's one language". These persons don't think so.
Serbian census 2002 (old links [118] [119]) [120] shows no declared speakers of "Serbian-Croatian" nor "Croatian-Serbian". So, two war adversaries (if you want it: "Balkan" adversaries!), Croatia and Serbia are in accord here.
Chipmunkdavis' action is vandalism (removing of reference) and censorship (WP:CENSOR), sinced he removed the info that proved his attitude wrong. "Redundant information" is not the excuse for censorship.
Chipmunkdavis violated rule WP:3RR. If other side was blocked, he must also be blocked.
Chipmunkdavis said for the Croatian National Bureau of Statistics that it's "Croatian POV spam" [121] [122]. And if that was Israeli National Bureau of Statistics? Would he then use words like "Israeli" or "Jewish" instead of "Croatian" in the edit summary [123]? Do you see now how rude he was? Kubura (talk) 03:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

So what exactly is the difference between "Croatian", "Serbo-Croatian" & "Croato-Serbian"? If I remember correctly, the major differences are more political than lexical or grammatical; omitting the significance of this fact would violate NPOV, whether intentionally or inadvertently. The problem here is that while the Croatian government agency is undoubtedly interpreting the census returns accurately, more or less, the individuals filling out the reports are providing the problematic information. I believe the best solution in using this official source would be to say something along the lines of "while 4.265.081 citizens of Croatia are reported to speak Croatian, 7,015 report that they speak either Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian" & leave it to the reader to suss out the significance of these different labels. But back to the original disagreement, I believe neither party is providing a durable solution to this issue, & the only way to do would be to submit this to a binding mediation. -- llywrch (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

In modern Croatian, AFAIK, the term SC is only used for the defunct Yugoslav language standard. In fact, you can argue that there never was such a standard, that it was a 'bi-standard' (Serbian + Croatian) papered over with the term 'SC', a political fiction. Thus we hear the claim that SC does not exist and never has existed, and also that by using the term SC we're pushing Yugoslav ideology over Croatian nationalism. This is where Croq is coming from. BTW, Croq has been quite cooperative recently, so I have hopes that this can all be resolved civilly. (The two of us seem to agree completely on what I just said; the problem is that he doesn't yet seem to see my next point, which is how most English speakers see it.)

In English, the term SC has long been used for the language of the Croats, Serbs, Bosniaks, and Montenegrins, independent of, and even prior to, any connection with Yugoslavia. It's been used that way at least as far back as the 1870s. Post-Yugoslavia it has become somewhat deprecated, at least in some circles, AFAIK principally because of Croat objections; nonetheless, there is no good alternate term. The only viable alternative is "Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian/Montenegrin", which is rather awkward. "Central South Slavic diasystem" is occasionally seen, but has other problems. Anyway, the most common name in English is probably still SC.

Anyway, objections to the name should be handled by suggesting a better name with a RfM. Claims that the language is "controversial" or "disputed" are really problems with the name, not the language, and we devote a good section of text to naming and language politics; likewise, census figures of 'X speakers of SC' are numbers of Serbs & Croats who identify their language as SC, not speakers of a distinct language.

There are, of course, distinct Croatian and Serbian (and Bosnian) language standards, and so they are different languages by that criterion. This is similar to ESL students choosing to study British or American English. We cover that, and have distinct Croatian language, Bosnian language, and Serbian language articles. However, dialectologically, in terms of mutual intelligibility, they are a single language (a single dialect, even), and this is where the term SC comes in in English. Another objection to the term has been that Croatian and Serbian include different dialects even if their standards are the same dialect; while true, the term SC covers all BCSM dialects. — kwami (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

User:119.155.2.167 posted personal information on Wikileaks

Personal information and cell phone numbers. I've warned the user but given the fact that it's an IP and that the edit was inherently vandalistic I'm unsure about the outcome. Reporting here so that the user can be reprimanded by a sysop and potentially blocked if noncompliant. Sheesh, and I was just getting to bed. elektrikSHOOS 08:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I should clarify: it wasn't my info, but it was somebody's, and this is not acceptable. elektrikSHOOS 08:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Go to bed. ;-)

I've WP:REVDELed the edit, as it contained "non-public identifying or personal information" (a cell-phone number, beside a name). I'll keep an eye on the IP.

TFOWR 08:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Stuff like that requires Oversight, not RevDel. That has more serious real-world ramifications than anything 4chan can do. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Carl Johnson)} 20:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The IP traces back to Karachi, Pakistan. My "That-Ain't-Good-o-Meter" is acting up. I think a block might be in order, just to go on the safe side. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure, WHOIS suggests that it's a shared IP. Perhaps a soft block? elektrikSHOOS 09:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Suppressed now, per non-public, personal information - Alison ^❤ 10:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on the IP, but I suspect they've made their post and moved on. Meantime, I have semi-protected Wikileaks - the past three IP edits were all reverted, Wikileaks is topical right now, and the most recent IP edit suggests that Wikileaks' current topicality may be resulting in confusion between our article and Wikileaks itself. PC1 might be more appropriate here, but I leave that to other admins to consider (no objection if anyone changes/lifts protection). TFOWR 09:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

JHUGHES8989

Resolved

JHUGHES8989 (talk · contribs) has evaded a two week block for abusing multiple accounts, using 81.109.201.108 (talk · contribs). MRSC (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked ip, extended block on user, left note, ate tasty chicken and rice for dinner. With peach iced tea. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Drive by tagging from User:Bigvernie

In the past two days, Bigvernie (talk · contribs) has made more than a hundred edits, nearly all of which have been about notability. Some he's just tagged as non-notable; others have been PROD'd. Some have been fairly frivolous, as the articles are clearly notable. I wouldn't have brought this up, but notes to his talk page have been regularly removed. I don't know if he's intentionally being defiant or what, but this seems to be increasingly disruptive. Oh, and in full disclosure, I notified the user about this thread, but he removed it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)`

I also note that you have attempted to discuss it with the user (as have others apparently) but the user has removed those notices also. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

He added a prod to Wang Jinghong, a slip of an article but mine own, a kind editor removed it saying "a fairly obvious de-PROD" - I don't know why he PROD'd it. He's clearly an experienced editor. I guess I should add my comments on his talk page, if he won't discuss his actions, then he'll have to stop until he does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 20:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, first I'd suggest to remove their ability to use Twinkle; then, I think an admin should give them a final warning that they're being disruptive; in my opinion, failure to take heed should, finally, result in a block. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 20:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I've closed ACE Cougar as a snow Keep (yeah, trout me for having an article prod'd and doing this). I've also told the editor I expect him to start communicating on his talk page and here, if he continues without discussion, block him. RL calls. Dougweller (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've revoked this editor's Twinkle privileges. Courcelles (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I've just declined his PROD of Zone of immunity because it essentially argued that there were more definitions than were represented in the article, which is of course a perfect reason to expand an article but a lousy reason to delete it. I was going to mention it on his talk page but when I checked the history it didn't seem like it would be worth the bother. This project works by consensus, users who refuse to discuss matters with other users need to be shown the door. Hopefully Vernie will get that message and it won't come to that. I agree that his ability to use Twinkle should be revoked in order to send the appropriate message about this type of editing and slow the disruption being caused by it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hm, seems I didn't close Ace Cougar after all, some sort of clash, Bigvernie withdrew his nomination saying "Withdraw nomination - I didn't know that "the author" owned this article or that other editors needed to wait for him/her before raising what I believe are valid concerns about this article. Although I do not share the perspective of those above, I can see that the wagons have effectively circled this article. ". Not good., but he's responding on this talk page, I've reminded him that he was told about this discussion. G'night. Dougweller (talk) 21:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

He PROD'd ACE Cougar. I removed it, as it was clearly notable, and the author is away (you are meant to notify the author when PRODing, but as it clearly states on their user pages they have no access to the internet until August 10, it seems common courtesy to to wait until they're back.) Not pleased with this, Bigvernie then decided to AfD it. It is very suspicious, as these action are being repeated on various articles. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 21:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I just realized there was a thread on here about him. I was just pondering if he is the same person as User:Andy14and16 who was doing similar drive by tagging and was blocked as a sock puppet [here]. I have no proof other than the behavior seemed similar to me and that he had targeted some hip hop and hockey articles which are the same sorts the other user did. -DJSasso (talk) 22:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I have the feeling that this could be User:Dalejenkins since he liked to mass-AFD things. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• It was certainly disruptive at Theological hermeneutics (AfD discussion). It completely derailed the discussion that had been occurring on the article's talk page. Uncle G (talk) 01:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand how adding refimprovement and notability tags can be regarded as disruptive? I am just trying to point towards the improvement of these articles. And when a prod tag is placed, can it not be just removed by another user if they think it needs discussion before deletion? And is not the proper place to discuss the proposed deletion of an article at an AFD? I am reading and checking the articles before I place a tag, and most of the time I do nothing at all. When i am accused of being a "drive by" i think that means i am being accused of not paying attention to what I do, but that is not true. And anyway, the vast majority of articles that I read I do nothing to. I am tagging maybe 2% of the articles I have read. I am not very sure about editing the articles myself. I thought i would be helpful by adding a tag when I saw it was required. I just don't understand what all the fuss is about. If I made a mistake, sorry, But none of my edits are to vandalize or disrupt. If I make a msitake, just correct it. What is the bigger issue here? Bigvernie (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The bigger issue appears to be that your relative inexperience is causing you to prod and AfD articles that are not good candidates for deletion. As a result, you're artificially creating a large workload for other editors to undo your prods, comment on and close your AfD's, and otherwise clean up the messes you're leaving behind. Please familiarize yourself better with WP:DEL#REASON, WP:CSD, and all of the other relevant guidelines (like WP:N and WP:GNG) before mass-nominating any more articles for deletion. SnottyWong ^gab 23:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

"Drive-by tagging" also means, to put it crudely, putting tags on articles without investing even the tiniest smidgen of energy toward improving it. Gerardo Yepiz is a case in point: claiming it's not notable simply means you couldn't be bothered to actually do anything. I don't believe for a moment that you (as you claim) "checked" the article. Prodding things for no good reason is disruptive, of course, and means that other editors have to invest time and energy where you could have easily done something about it yourself. And those statements you made at the AfD discussion for ACE Cougar, that's just complete bogus--circling the wagons? Pff. But the biggest issue here, as far as I'm concerned, is the complete lack of communication and the consistent removal of questions and commentary from your talk page. I don't like editors who are incommunicado when it is obvious that their edits are questioned by others. Drmies (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

@BigVernie: Less pointing at problems and more fixing of problems, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Breitbart

Resolved

Thank you! Bearian (talk) 23:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This stub article is a freaking mess. Edit wars, BLP violations, unsourced comments, you name it, it's here. It is a very visible article about a subject who has been in the news all week. I have tried to fix it, to no avail. It needs semi-protection, it needs serious fixing, it needs to be presentable. Please, dear fellow sysops, do something!!! Bearian (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• I've exercised some of my tools. I've blocked a BLP vandalism-only account and am scrutinizing some others. I've decided not to exercise my tools to semi-protect the article.

  There are a fair number of established accounts vandalising it (example edit from someone who has been here since 2006), and in contrast vandalism is being reverted by editors without accounts. (Example edit). Semi-protection in this case seems to be counter-productive, as it would prevent people who are trying to help from helping whilst not stopping some of the people who are not here to help. Blocks of the people who are here to damage and nothing else are far more in order, and I am taking a serious look at histories such as Special:Contributions/Pitonpro right now. You already have several experienced editors, such as Tony Sidaway and Hoary already paying attention to the article, notice. Also, the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, where you'll notice that some of the helpful regulars are not administrators, is down the hall. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Looking further through the edit history, especially at the edits during the period in which the article was semi-protected before, it is apparent that semi-protection didn't stop battles over content at all. But it did stop editors without accounts from removing editorializations and correcting spelling errors. So I've exercised my tools again. It seems that what is best here is to allow editors without accounts and long-standing editors that are not administrators to continue to edit in good faith without restriction as current events continue, but to enable pending changes that hold back visibility of any changes to the point when a reviewer or administrator accepts them. And there are at least two editors with reviewer/administrator privileges actively editing the article. So I've enabled pending changes, set to expire in 1 month, which seems a reasonable period for the dust to settle here. Uncle G (talk) 21:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Jon Wefald

User:Spacini is attempting (multiple times, in fact) to reinsert very controversial, and quite poorly-cited, information into this biography. This violates the biography policies, I'm sure (I can't find the link right now), and he won't stop. He even claims I'm "whitewashing" it. Lithistman (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

As a reviewer, I was concerned that an entire section of the article was being blanked without discussion. The first blanking by User:Lithistman was made on 25 June 2010 with the note: "there may be a place for the results of this investigation. this isn't it." I restored the blanked portion on 25 June 2010 with the note: "revert blanking; as the case is still ongoing, it is important that this information be retained in the article". User:Lithistman once again blanked the section on 29 June 2010 with the note: "please note, this is NOT "blanking." This is a biography, and the case is taking up way over half of the article, giving it too much weight. do NOT readd it." Additionally, the user left this message on my talk page: "The material you readded to Jon Wefald is both poorly cited (at least one of the "references" was to a dead link), and gives WAY too much play to the case (over half his bio after you readded it). Please do not readd that material to his biography. It belongs more in either the K-State main article or the K-State sports article. But it should not be replaced into the Wefald article. Please don't readd it again. Lithistman (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)" I restored the blanked section one more time with the note: "revert; someone is attempting to whitewash a critical issue that occurred during the Wefald administration-- the case is ongoing and he is still employed at K-State; suggest rewrite". I was in the process of suggesting on my talk page that the section be rewritten to bring it up to date and replace dead URLs when User:Lithistman left this message for me: "I am now taking this to the next level. You will stop readding poorly-cited, tangentiall-related information to Jon Wefald or I will report you for these actions. Most likely you will be blocked if you continue. Lithistman (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)". This is the response I was working on: "Feel free to re-write the section, but do not blank it again; that will be reported as vandalism. If the references are dead links, then find current sources. The depositions provided by former AD Bob Krause and former coach Ron Prince were recently made available online by the Topeka Capital Journal. Perhaps those should be cited as well. Although the Audit section of the Wefald article is currently half of the content, that only demonstrates that the article has very little content. Blanking this section has the egregious appearance of whitewashing for the sake of someone's reputation. Additionally, I agree that the audit content should be added to the main K-State article and the K-State athletics article. Good suggestions! Spacini (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)" Rather than continue the revert war that ensued, I was going to ask for an administrator review the situation and open a discussion on the article's talk page. But User:Lithistman has been rather uncivil and reported this disagreement over content. I strongly suspect that User:Lithistman has a personal connection to the Jon Wefald article, hence my use of the term "whitewash". In retrospect, I regret using that term, but the content that was deleted from the article does give the impression that pertinent information was being deliberately deleted. I look forward to working out this disagreement amicably and will gladly respond to any questions or comments about my review of the aforementioned edits. Spacini (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This is about this content? In that case, I congratulate Lithistman for his work to remove content which violates WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. This issue is not really appropriate for ANI at this point though. You might try asking for a third opinion or raising the matter at WP:BLPN. NW (Talk) 20:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• It is not a disagreement over content, it's a biography issue. It can not be readded without violating policy. Lithistman (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree. Still a matter for BLPN. NW (Talk) 21:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, Lithistman, please try the WP:BLPN board. The folks there specialize in this stuff. --Tom (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Would it not be more appropriate to include it in the University artilce? Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• That was my point as well. As for the above recommendations regarding BLPN board, I appreciate them, and will take such issues there in the future. Thanks, Lithistman (talk) 04:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Brianwazere

Resolved

 – Left stern warning for user. If a similar situation arises, please report again. --Chris (talk) 06:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

User seems to be a nuisance. Just created a page Tony Pritchard and said that he was a gay actor. User also has a history of using personal attacks against others. Just wanted to see if anyone else had noticed it. User has been blocked previously twice according to his user page. May want to keep an eye on this one. Me personally I think he needs a longer block period to get the point across. 161.165.196.84 (talk) 03:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Unicos rename

Resolved

 – Moved by Uncle G. --Chris (talk) 06:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Per discussion here: Talk:Unicos, can someone renamed the article to "UNICOS"? --MarsRover (talk) 03:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Reporting User:LAUGH90

I am reporting the above user for continuous vandalism of Madonna albums discography. The user is continuously deflating the sales of the album Confessions on a dance floor from 12 million to 8.5 million, citing a back dated source. Even after reversal by myself and other users, and requesting him/her to explain this edit, or discuss in talk page, all has gone to deaf ears. I have thus come to ask for administrative intervention in this case, so that an ultimatum is reached. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

119.93.197.34

119.93.197.34 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Has violated 3RR. This IP continuously edits Filipino Premier League with the same thing over and over when those edits have nothing to do with the article. They have done it just recently and I haven't bothered reverting it yet. These two IP's; 124.105.37.144 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) & 124.105.37.198 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) have done the same, must be the same person. Banana Fingers (talk) 10:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I see where you were pointed to this page by User:Shadowjams. However, in looking at the talk pages for all three IPs, I see exactly two messages from you regarding the edits in question. One is a demand, and the second is little more than a blocking threat. How is a user supposed to understand how things work around here without being shown? Sure, we can just block all three IPs, but...would that really solve anything? I'm not saying the edits are good (or bad), but I don't see any attempt to help the situation. Also, you don't seem to have notified the IPs of this discussion (which I've done).  Frank  |  talk  11:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright. That's my bad then. I guess I got a bit a frustrated and didn't even bother saying anything to that IP. However, it seems like notifying that person of anything doesn't to do anything anyway. They have made another edit to that article and they haven't shown up here or even replied on their own talk page. Banana Fingers (talk) 10:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but look at it this way: The person in question may not really know the expectations of the community, and with our current policy that largely really does allow anyone to edit almost anything around here, they can't be expected to jump in automatically knowing what is right. Sure, some amount of common sense is hoped for, but...that doesn't mean it exists in sufficient quantities to make place 100% sane. Having said all that, the reality is this: if you want an IP address blocked, it must be flagrantly vandalizing (3RR counts) and there must usually be warnings to the user to stop the behavior. That's not always the case, but it's a good rule of thumb. Furthermore, given that you're accusing three different IPs of abuse of an article here, a more appropriate step might be WP:RFPP, although I'd probably decline over there too as this really looks like a minor annoyance. Finally, it's not clear to me that only vandalizing is going on here; look at these two most recent edits to Filipino Premier League. You may not think they are perfect edits, but they do seem to be good faith edits to the page.  Frank  |  talk  19:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Surely this is more than just a "minor annoyance"? A fourth IP has now edited the page with the same thing of "league aftermatch". Those diffs you showed are just good faith edits to his own edits of adding that new section. That entire section of "league aftermath" has nothing to do with that article. They also don't respond to their talk page and they haven't even dropped by here either. Banana Fingers (talk) 11:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see any attempt to engage with any of these IPs on the matter. Are you suggesting that somebody watchlist Filipino Premier League and revert and block any IP who adds something about its aftermath?  Frank  |  talk  12:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

user:Tarage edit warring and vandalism

Resolved

 – Ancient Astronaut blocked by GeorgeWilliamHerbert for being a disruptive item of hosiery.FOOTBALLPLAYERTHATSHALLNOTBENAMED applies. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The user Tarage seems to have watchlisted the September 11 Attacks discussion, as every time a user leaves a comment which contests this user's opinion he promptly deletes it without leaving a proper reason. The article in question is actually very biased and maintained by what seems to be only a few including Tarage himself. The POV of the article is contested, but users are refusing to add the NPOV tag to the article, which is plagued by weasle words and biased rhetoric. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ancient Astronaut (talk • contribs) 19:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM might be the justification. The content I saw him remove in the edit which is summarised under something like "I'm not letting you soap box" was a justified removal of wild-card theorising which was treating the page like a fringe forum. I don't they entertain the "Wikipedia censorship conspiracy" line very long over there. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Quite. That talk page is not there for people to sound off on. Fences&Windows 20:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It's usually the regular users who begin to use personal attacks, and delete constructive comments. The page is biased and nobody wants to fix the POV problem.

Tarage in particular deletes comments which are hardly soapboxing like he claims. It seems like users are forbidden from calling that article biased, and any similar comments are promptly deleted despite the content. In no way was I trying to make that page a forum (though I may have by accident), but these users are clearly in violation of WP:OWN and the page itself violates WP:NPOV. The point of that topic was to get the authors of the article to use less biased rhetoric.

That discussion was on topic - an attempt to point out NPOV violations. At no point was that page treated like a forum except by users who felt a need to add insults and off-topic comments. Much of that content actually had to be restored. I was going to clean up that subject but if I do so certain users might just delete the rest. ISAIAH 13:5 ANCIENT ASTRONAUTS !! 20:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ancient Astronaut (talk • contribs)

"I can't understand why people so enthusiastically defend the government of the United States as she descends into fascist control.... up to 50% of US citizens do not believe the official, mainstream story behind 9/11... In time, you will all come to see what really happened on 9/11. The truth can't be kept hidden forever. The number of people who doubt the official story grows every day, so this isn't a topic which will just disappear as you hope" - sorry, that's the postulating of a WP:FRINGE theory. Wikipedia is not the place to propose new theories, and if you think "that people in caves are [not] able to breach US security and undermine NORAD" then you are quite mistaken. Algeria brought down France, didn't it (sorry, couldn't resist stirring). But on a serious note, the user was correct to remove the comments. If you want to discuss alternative theories, do it elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a place in induce POV in the name of 'neutrality'. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Nor is the removal of such soapboxing vandalism or edit-warring. Acroterion _(talk) 20:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is biased towards the 9/11 Commission and NIST reports though. The term "conspiracy theorist" is insulting. That should really be changed to reflect a more neutral tone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ancient Astronaut (talk • contribs) 21:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Please take this to the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Fences&Windows 00:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality does not mean accepting of every single viewpoint, it means neutrally reflecting the majority consensus. There is an article for 'alternative' theories somewhere though, I thought. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 06:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

And please start signing your posts. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 06:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Glad to see he was indef-blocked. Thanks guys. --Tarage (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Pmanderson

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.

---

This users continued incivility is getting beyond the joke. He has since the last ANI here said the following.

• [124] Accuses me of making false claims and ignorance.
• [125] Infers i require remedial education.
• [126] Says i am a semi-literate ignoramus, but at least i may be the nicest one.

These are clear breach`s of wp:npa and WP:TPNO

He is also in the habit of misrepresenting my comments [127] another clear breach of WP:TPNO which says, Do not misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context

I would like this user to be reminded that such incivility has no place on WP mark nutley (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark Nutley is attempting to impose a fringe view on a subject about which he knows little. His objection is fundamentally to having his own words, which include the claims that Greeks had no democracys [his spelling, since repeated, he also uses democracy's] and that the United States had no elections before 1789 quoted back at him. My "misrepresentation" has consisted of so quoting him.

He also has a tendency to remove sourced edits, because he (with no source) disagrees with them; this habit of WP:BLANKING really should be addressed:

• 21:17 14 July,
• 21:19,
• 21:21,
• 21:36

At this point the page was protected. He then put it up for deletion, and continued to revert.

• 09:28 17 July
• 12;27
• 12:29
• 12:30
• 21:11

His remedy is simple. If he strikes the nonsense he puts forth, I will cease to quote it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it ok to hat hab the off topic stuff above? This is not about content, this is about a users constant uncivil behaviour mark nutley (talk) 17:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If repeated WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT behavior regarding content eventually led an editor to to responses that are not exactly WP:CIVIL, the content discussion would seem to be related. Active Banana (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually no, those PA`s were made well after the diff`s provided above. mark nutley (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• A few words in defense. Pmanderson is irascible, blunt, and hardheaded. So were many of the best professors I had in college and grad school. I've observed his work for a year or two now, because our areas of interest often overlap. We've had arguments. I don't always agree with him. Eventually, however, I always see the intellectual basis for what he's saying, and sometimes I'm willing to concede that he was right and I was wrong. His arguments have had a positive, bracing, and clarifying effect any time I've encountered him, especially against those attempting ownership of an article. I've never seen him push a POV or argue for any apparent reason other than a truly impressive devotion to disinterested scholarship. Is he sarcastic? Is he unnecessarily harsh or contemptuous? Yes. He's also sometimes uproariously funny, and an editor of great intellectual breadth and depth, as indicated by the number of topics to which he can make informed contributions. Nor does he go around deleting content out of sheer zealotry; the fact that he spends so much time on talk pages indicates that he's engaging in dialogue. To me, this is crucial; I'm more worried about editors whose main goal seems to be blocking the contributions of others while adding little content themselves. Lighten up! People who place a premium on intellectual activity aren't always endowed with equal patience for the social hypocrisies aka good manners. But WP:CIV is not a club with which to beat the most spirited among us into submission. I would hate to see WP turn into a place where the Dolores Umbridges of the world can flourish and the Temperance Brennans are hounded out. I find it horrifying that people want to form a tribunal to judge editors not on the basis of the overall value of their contributions to WP articles, but on whether they adopt a meek and deferential tone on talk pages. That turns WP into some kind of gentlemen's club administered by a Star Chamber. I fail to see how the quality of the encyclopedia can be improved by this. What the community is going to do with PMA is a chilling phrase (from the Wikiquette alert that preceded this action), because it won't be the community doing anything. Most of the community will be going about their business unaware this is even taking place; it will be a few people ganging up on one independent-minded editor whose prickly manner is not calculated to win friends and allies. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Cynwolfe, i know what you are saying, but it does not matter. Just because he makes decent contributions doe not give him leave to call people vandal`s, liars, ignorant, or any of the other insults he chucks at people. This is a behavioural issue and it needs to be sorted mark nutley (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Cynwolfe, I'm happy Pmanderson made you realize you needed to know the subject better. However, he has lately neither made anyone feel like that, nor has he been blunt. He has been incorrect and persistently insulting. His main arguments are now personal attacks and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Agree with Cynwolfe's comment. I've had a look at the article in question, which brought a dispute to AN/I earlier, and aside from wondering why we have such an article, thought it takes quite a lot of intellectual and scholarly effort to improve the article. PMAnderson is blunt, but the few times I've been the subject of his bluntness I didn't feel insulted, but rather that I needed to read more and work to understand the topic better. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Then maybe he didn't actually insult you, but maybe he just was blunt? However, he has the last months not been blunt, he has been insulting. There is a difference. Take a look at his insults now, and tell me if he just is "being blunt". --OpenFuture (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• “prickly manner” is zero excuse for habitually engaging in incivility and personal attacks, Cynwolfe. I doesn’t matter if PMA has an I.Q. of 165 and herald angels guide his fingers on his keyboard; behavior like PMA’s is toxic to a collaborative writing environment. Moreover, his behavior is chronic; it’s clear he fancies Wikipedia to be a big game to play and has zero intentions of conforming to conduct-expected. Greg L (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Cynwolfe, How long was it before your "best professors" accused others of lying?  HWV258.  09:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Greg L

• Comment Things are entirely out of hand with Pmanderson. He has a long history of incivility and personal attacks. Something really needs to be done about it. Note that there was an ANI against him here 14 days ago with User:OpenFuture and here 8 days ago with User: mark nutley. All of it was over just this sort of thing. Neither resulted in action against him. Now Pmanderson is engaging in outrageous personal attacks on yet another editor again. Greg L (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

'yet another' editor? This is the same Mark Nutley from 8 days ago, bring this back. Dougweller (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Doug no, these are further new PA`s from Pmanderson, i`m not bringing it back at all. Greg has made an error above though in think i was another editor mark nutley (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Ahh! Indeed. I corrected my mistake. I saw someone else’s signature and thought we were dealing with a different editor who is a “semi-literate ignoramus” who “requires remedial education”; I see it’s the same one. A thousand pardons. Greg L (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• P.S. Quoting Cynwolfe: Pmanderson is irascible, blunt, and hardheaded. Agreed. He is “irascible” (definition: “become angry”); “blunt” (being straight to the point); “hardheaded” (stubborn). And none of that excuses “uncivil and engages in personal attacks”, such as calling someone a “semi-literate ignoramus.” It doesn’t matter what the edit dispute is about, editors one week after another are the recipients of abuse by PMA—and those are just the ones who know enough about Wikipedia to come here to complain. PMA is toxic to this project, which is a collaborative writing environment. Greg L (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• I do not see any of Pmanderson's edits as warranting action at this noticeboard. TFD (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• And just who are you? Might you please illuminate us here as to your relationship—if any—with the involved parties here so we can fathom this logic of yours? And what is your knowledge of Wikipedia’s policies on WP:NPA? And why don’t you redact your 2¢ from my comment area and make your own so there is more room for other editors to be dumbfounded by your post. I do gather that you must not be an editor PMA considers to be a '“semi-literate ignoramus” who “requires remedial education”; do I have that much right?? Greg L (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oh, the irony. Dougweller (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Lacking Dougweller's confidence that the irony is self-evident, I'd like to point out as politely as possible that a comment opening And just who are you? would not serve as my model for civil exchange. This is why I dislike charges of incivility: how do you determine the threshold? You can't. It's too subjective. It isn't at all like edit warring, or lack of verifiability, or any of that. It's whether my feelings got hurt. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• You are wholly entitled to your opinion. And you were the one defending PMA for being “blunt”??? Most curious. Curious indeed. Perhaps, when you are done with what strikes me as posturing, we can get back to PMA. Or, if you embrace the philosophy that “the best defense is a strong offense” as much as I think you do, you are always at liberty to file an ANI over my “And just who are you?” You are certainly free to gloss over calling other editors “semi-literate ignoramus” who “require remedial education” and focus instead on my “And just who are you?” As I also wrote, I asked TFD to “illuminate us here as to [his] relationship—if any—with the involved parties here so we can fathom this logic” of his; that is not too much to ask. I note that he or she had yet to respond. Interesting. Greg L (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

  P.S. Quoting you: how do you determine the threshold [for incivility]? Why, by looking at the abuse and personal attacks heaped by PMA, and employing WP:COMMONSENSE. I don’t know about you, but I find “semi-literate ignoramus” who “requires remedial education” to be—you know—over the edge. Maybe I’m just too darn sensitive. Greg L (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Indeed. Those few who want to know much more about GregL's habits of civility and contributions to a harmonious working environment (and a little bit more about mine) should see the evidence for the date-delinking case. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Well, I can certainly see that you embrace the philosophy of “the best defense is a strong offense.” You are perfectly free to see if I am in the habit of calling other editors '“semi-literate ignoramus” who “requires remedial education”. Me thinks it a futile effort. This ANI is about you. If you want to start an ANI on me for chronic incivility, please, be my guest. Hopefully that will lighten up on the clutter here where you and your friends launch an attack on those who have the hubris to believe you actions have been profoundly uncivil. Greg L (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Greg L's chronic incivility has already been an Arbcom case (see the link). Would ANI do more?
  • But perhaps ANI will act; the pattern of demanding civility sanctions to win a content dispute is not unknown here. Not that I really need to underline the incivility of an editor who has already descended to boldface -er- ramblings. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• You may try to bait me by saying my posts are “ramblings,” but it won’t work; I am simply quoting what you wrote. Now, are you going to 1) apologize to User:mark nutley for the personal attacks you’ve been heaping upon him and 2) pledge to the administrators here that you will change your conduct from hereon(?), or are you going to act like you don’t need to change? Greg L (talk) 19:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• To answer the question, TFD is an editor who has a different view than me of Mass killings under Communist regimes, and is therefore spending a lot of time trying to discuss my edits instead of doing constructive things, like answering concrete questions about what kind of changes he wants to do. He supports Pmanderson in this, because he opposes me, nothing else. It's pure personal vendetta. See for example the RFC, where he absurdly claims that his WQA against me shows that I say things that "far exceed anything that Pmanderson has written", a statement that is patently absurd. This type of nonsense can't be allowed to continue. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This just shows how pointless it is to try to impose false civility. Greg L, you accused me above of misdirecting the tribunal's attention with my "posturing." That's an insult. How I respond to it, however, is my problem and should not impinge on your right to say what you mean. Again, "incivility" is subjective. I'm not trying to excuse PMA's verbal behavior on talk pages, because frankly, I consider it often self-defeating. But he's a gadfly. Arguing against him always sharpens my thinking, which in turn improves the clarity of the article at hand. Attempts to squelch him just because he has a harsh wit are contrary to my notions of free speech and don't benefit the creation of better content. The use of WP:CIV as a weapon is a bad trend, and that's why I spent time here on the subject. I've said what I have to say about the specifics of PMA's case. These kinds of accusations against otherwise productive editors almost always take on the character of a witch hunt. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If he is correct (which he is not), well read (which he is), intelligent (which he may be) is all irrelevant. It still does not excuse his personal attack, and Cynwolfe, I'm pretty sure you understand that if you just think about it a bit. It's also irrelevant if he is blunt. I'm blunt. I've never called anyone an ignoramus anyway. That's not being blunt, it's a personal attack.

We are never gonna get anywhere with loads of people making ridiculous excuses just because the agree with him on his POV. I've started an RFC: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Pmanderson. Pmanderson: Since you don't want me to notify you on your talk page, I notify you this way. You are hereby notified. If someone else feels like notifying him on his talk page, feel free. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It might be time here to look again at the three diffs proffered by Marknutley above, and judge whether his characterisations of them are fully justified:

• [128] Accuses me of making false claims and ignorance.
• [129] Infers i require remedial education.
• [130] Says i am a semi-literate ignoramus, but at least i may be the nicest one.

Is it possible that what Pmanderson actually posts is neither entirely inaccurate nor completely uncalled-for in the original context? The rest is sound and fury.--Wetman (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know mark nutley, and haven't had much dealings with him. But I know that Pmandersons insults against me are 100% wrong and completely uncalled for. In fact, he called me a vandal before we had even had a single interaction. So it's highly unlikely that he is correct here. And insults are *always* uncalled for. So the answer to your questions is: No.--OpenFuture (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the other dedicated blanker on the same page. Yes, I consider blanking of sourced material to be vandalism; so do many people; there's even an essay about it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, your personal attacks are uncalled for, your descriptions of the events are untrue. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It is ironic that OpenFuture would consider Pmanderson's comments offensive, when he has made the following comments along with countless others.[131]

Well, I'm sorry to say, you are as usual utterly wrong. 03:04, 18 June 2010

Your constant attempts of inventing your own Wikipedia policies are getting a bit annoying, to be honest. 13:45, 18 June 2010

Is this complicated for you to understand? 10:23, 21 June 2010

Talking to you is like talking to a wall. 21:37, 24 June 2010

You are, to be blunt, lying to yourself to avoid admitting that you were wrong. 10:24, 3 July 2010

As usual, your "facts" are pure fantasy. 05:45, 4 July 2010

His explanation was, "I repeat: There is nothing for me to explain. It is obvious, even out of context, that most quotes above does not represent any abuse...." 03:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)" How, OpenFuture, is this any different from Pmanderson's comments? TFD (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If i may interject here, this is about Pmanderson`s conduct. If you feel another editor is being abusive start another thread about it. I am fed up of being insulted and would like something done mark nutley (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I am writing in response to OpenFuture's comments, and would like to know why he finds that these comments are offensive. TFD (talk) 22:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

TFD's list above again suggests that lack of civility is a subjective impression. I've seen the kindest, most humane WP editor I know get a bit snippy. Why is everyone so afraid of tough language? I've yet to see evidence that even PMA's most dyspeptic remarks have damaged the quality of an article. What is the goal here? Cynwolfe (talk) 22:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I quite understand Cynwolf's spirited defence of the subject of this ANI thread, and am delighted for him over the mental stimulus he says he has enjoyed. However, it seems that quite a few people here do not feel that way. Much as the subject is made out to be some sort of Professor Kingsfield, I would submit that he is not. Nobody voluntarily walked into his classroom, except perhaps Cynwolf, and certainly nobody agreed to submit to being abused by same in the manner described. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Obviously there is some subjectiveness to it. But to use the bluntness that you appreciate, Cynwolfe: If you claim that any of the above comments by me are worse than Pmandersons persistent attacks, of vandal, ignoramus, windbag, POV-pusher, revert-warrior, "blanker", liar, etc, then you are not honest. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I asserted that editors should be able to engage in vigorous debate and speak freely. This is not a privilege I would extend to some and not to others; I consider it fundamental and necessary to the production of good-quality content. You can say whatever you want to me. I would point out, however, that to say I am "not honest" is to call me a liar. So if it isn't OK for PMA to allege or imply that you knowingly spoke falsehoods, why is it OK for you to say that to me? That, I repeat, is why charges of WP:CIV are too subjective to be used to block an editor, and why I have trouble seeing this as an effort to cultivate a more civil and productive environment in which to discuss content and related issues. The civ guidelines are too susceptible to tactical use in squelching genuine debate. Unless my character and intentions are impugned again, I don't really have anything further to add: I support the right of ALL editors to speak freely toward the goal of producing the best possible articles, which requires a focus on content rather than an editor's tone or isolated phrases on a talk page. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I did not imply that you are a liar in any way, shape or form. I did say the following: If you claim that any of the above comments by me are worse than Pmandersons persistent attacks, of vandal, ignoramus, windbag, POV-pusher, revert-warrior, "blanker", liar, etc, then you are not honest. That would imply that you are a liar, if you claim that my comments (from TFD's WQA above) are worse than Pmandersons attacks. You have so far not done that. You have just implied (and you did so again now) that I somehow engage in the same type of personal attacks as Pmanderson. I do not think you would claim that if you actually read the comments I made, and also read the links in the RFC. It is completely obvious to everyone, and I'm convinced it will be so also to you, Cynwolfe, that Pmandersons attacks and my comments above are not comparable at all.

I support the right of ALL editors to speak freely toward the goal of producing the best possible articles, which requires a focus on content rather than an editor's tone or isolated phrases on a talk page. - So you are saying that Pmandersons persistent personal attacks is wrong then? Can you say that out loud? Or are you trying to imply that its' OK for Pmanderson to attack us, but NOT OK for us to bring that up? Isn't that then exactly the kind of privilege you said you would not extend to him? And are in fact his "bluntness" not exactly such a privilege? Others are not allowed to be "blunt", only Pmanderson is, apparently. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I can only repeat that I believe every editor should be able to engage in vigorous debate and to speak freely. OpenFuture, you or any editor may be as blunt with me as you like. And I'll answer your question honestly: I think PMA is verbally agile enough not to use deprecating nouns in the vocative or in the predicate of a second-person sentence. No name-calling! The "semi-illiterate ignoramus" is bad form even if in context it is an honest and even reasonable response to what was said, and even if it was framed conditionally, as you carefully made your implication that my word is unreliable dependent on a sentence constructed in the conditional. I think PMA should rein in his rhetoric. It does not follow that we should rip off his epaulets and burn him at the stake. This entire discussion shows the dangers of WP:CIV as a weapon to squelch opposing voices. Every time someone points out that you and mark nutley have also made remarks that could be considered uncivil, the answer is simply "but this is about PMA." No, it isn't. It's about whether we're serious about cultivating a productive environment for the free exchange of ideas about articles, or (forgive the shorthand pop ref) whether Dolores Umbridge will be the head mistress. This pouncing on words and comments out of context to expose Wiki-speech crimes is detestable. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

So you think that WP:CIV and WP:NPA should be revoked, and people should be able to make any personal attacks they want? Why did you then get upset and claimed I called you a liar? According to what you said now I should be able to call you anything, including way worse things than liar. "No name-calling!" you say. Well, Pmanderson personal attacks are just that: Name-calling. I'm sorry, but does seem to me that you think Pmanderson should be held to a different standard than everyone else should. And interestingly, you are not alone. There is a whole group of people here that apparently thinks Pmanderson is so great that he can do nothing wrong, and that his personal attacks should be applauded. I find that very curious. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Question

Would a retraction of the "semi-literate ignoramus" comments and a statement by User:Pmanderson to avoid such statements in the future be enough to cut all the Wikidrahmaz here and start with a blank slate? Active Banana (talk) 22:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate it yes, along with the accusations of sockpuppetry, being a liar, and a vandal. excluding the edit summarys of course as they can`t be changed. mark nutley (talk) 23:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• This is the third ANI in three weeks. PMA’s incivility is now quite well documented and is not in the least bit insignificant. Would you please, Active Banana, explain why you don’t think PMA is in need of an attitude transplant via a 30-day binary-induced wiki-coma? Just why is it that you seem content to label these violations as “Wikidrahmaz” (translation: drama queen: get over it), and simply have PMA revise a post so it reads…

You are a semi-literate ignoramus [exhale carbon dioxide, which is good for plants] and I… (more barely-passable bitch-slapping)

…and then you would like us to all (once again) walk away and pretend that PMA isn’t going to go back and dish out more of this to more editors. The guy is beginning to seem like greased Teflon and I would really like to know how he pulls this off so many times in a row. BTW, please spare me how you really meant he would delete the whole comment; that amounts to the same thing: outrageously flout our rules over and over and get away with it… again.

Incivility seems now to be something that gives PMA “this-is-a-big-game rush” and there are clear rules against it. Yet here we are. Again. The only way I think that PMA should possibly be allowed to get out of here without a good long block is to 1) apologize to User:mark nutley for the personal attacks he has been heaping upon him and 2) pledge to the administrators here that he will change his conduct from hereon and abide by all requirements of WP:NPA, which are exceedingly clear about the sort of stuff he has been pulling.

So do you, or do you not, support requiring that PMA make the two-part pledge I outlined here? Greg L (talk) 23:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If you look through Pmanderson block log, you see a pattern: 1. He violates Wikipedia policy. 2. He gets blocked. 3. He apologizes, promises to never do it again and gets unblocked. 4. Repeat at 1.

I do not see any promises from Pmanderson as useful. He also, at List of wars between democracies have agreed to only use sources that explicitly call conflicts wars between democracies, but he continues to use sources that do not anyway. Although his excuses and promises surely are well meant at the time, it's clear that they are not enough in itself. I would accept an apology and a promise, but *only* if it also comes with the condition that any further incivility from him will cause an immediate extended block. Pmanderson is not going to stop being incivil, nor is he going to stop revert-warring by his own volition. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for admin action

It would be nice if a responsible admin (or more) would act on this one. The foul is clearly and sufficiently flagrant, the evidence is well documented above, as is the persistent pattern of behavior the community is seeing from Pmanderson (here 14 days ago with User:OpenFuture and here 8 days ago with User: mark nutley.) Pmanderson’s block log suggests that one or two-day-long blocks aren’t proving effective. His propensity to attack those who tire of his behavior and try to avail themselves of a remedy here and at Wikiquettes demonstrates that he prefers to embrace a philosophy of “the best defense is a strong offense” rather than simply modify his behavior and try to conform to conduct-expected. His style is toxic to a collaborative writing environment. Greg L (talk) 02:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Greg L., since you yourself have been blocked 6 times, including for "harassing blocking admin",[132] I question your opinion. mark nutley has a viewpoint that most readers would view as "crank" or "crackpot". He continually brings up fringe writings which he believes should be given the same weight as articles published in peer-reviewed articles. He does not accept WP polices of WP:V and WP:NPOV. Certainly the types of people that WP needs to contribute are irritated by this type of editor. What geographer for example would like to spend his time arguing with someone who thought the Grand Canyon was only six thousand years old? When readers come here they do not want to know that some people think Barack Obama is not an American, that the New World Order controls the world, that floridated water is a Commie (phil nutley's lingo) plot, etc. mark nutley has shown a blatant disregard for WP policy and has wasted the time of many editors arguing for the inclusion of fringe views. TFD (talk) 04:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you please provide a diff were i have tried to promote a fringe source over a peer reviewed one? Or were i have argued for the inclusion of fringe views? Do it on my talk page, this is off topic enough already mark nutley (talk) 09:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I've read through this and don't think i know any of the principals or had any contact with them or the articles in question (it appears to be about the peace theory of democracy; some editors appear to be removing information from the website that would appear to indicate this grand theory is, uhm, overegged by its supporters). Having done so, I demand that an administrator immediately award Pmanderson the senior editor's badge (with oak leaf clusters, even) and have one of the bureacrats arrange a reception for the ceremony in a suitably grand hall. If something could be done about the constant wikipedia problem of capable, edumacated folks having to deal with overzealous editors with idiosyncratic points of view, that would be nice too (but i won't hold my breath).Bali ultimate (talk) 09:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No, that is not what happened at all. You'd do well in reading the RFC in question. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'm sorry - I get along reasonably well with Mark, considering out differences of opinion - but there is nothing in PMAnderson's comments that was not warranted. WP:SPADE applies. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks mate, it`s nice to know you think i`m a semi-literate ignoramus who requires remedial education, and is a liar a vandal and ignorant. Cheers mark nutley (talk) 11:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No one said you are. PMA said you may be, and a nice one at that! Also when he provided remedial education he never said that you required one. After reading on remedial education, I can conclude that 99 per cent of WP editors require one. I, as Dougweller above, also see some irony in the fact that anonymous teenagers have the ability to chastise old professors in Wikipedia (I am not implying that you are a teenager, just that it happened before). (Igny (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC))

That is first of all a ridiculous excuse. You would not accept it if I said "It may be that Igny is a moron" every time I commented something you said. The "may" is not an excuse for personal attacks. Secondly you are wrong. PMA's personal attacks are usually not preceded by any "may". Maybe look at the RFC and see the diffs before you say anything? --OpenFuture (talk) 14:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would not accept that, and yet you said that. I suggest you strike it out and apologize. (Igny (talk) 18:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC))

Yes, I would not accept that - But you claim that mark nutley should accept it from Pmanderson. Why is that? Should Pmanderson be judged by a different standard than me? How come I must follow I higher standard than him?

and yet you said that. - No I didn't. It was purely hypothetical, as you well know. I don't think you are a moron, I never said that you are, so there is nothing to apologize for. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• I still haven’t yet received a response from Pmanderson. Are you going to 1) apologize to User:mark nutley for the personal attacks you’ve been heaping upon him and 2) pledge to the administrators here that you promise to change your conduct from hereon and never resort to personal attacks on other editors? Please answer this question; that is not too much to ask. Greg L (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There have been enough facts collected — Time to act

• (*sigh*) Once again, PMA and his followers have managed to momentarily divert the direction from one of PMA’s outrageous incivility and personal attacks upon another editor (calling them things like “semi-literate” and “ignoramus”) and have gotten Mark Nutley, above, defending his edits during his edit wars with PMA. The rules on Wikipedia are clear: Editors are supposed to discuss their disagreements on talk pages and try to draw other editors into the discussion so a consensus can be developed. Then, the consensus view goes to print. During that discussion process, one editor is to not batter another editor into submission and intimidate them and drive them away by belittling them with public (or private) personal attacks such as declaring openly that the individual who has the hubris to disagree with PMA is “semi-literate” and an “ignoramus”. Now…

  Questions for those here:

1. Who here thinks PMA’s conduct towards Mark Nutley is in conformance with our requirements of WP:NPA?
2. Since truth is allowed to be spoken here, let’s ascertain a basic fact. Mr. Nutley, are you, in fact, semi-literate?
3. Are you, Mark, an “ignoramus”? I know you take umbrage to these labels; but is the allegation true?
4. TFD did a magnificent job (Bravo; PMA has clever followers) drawing an analogy to an editor alleging that the Grand Canyon is 6000 years old and this diverted Mark Nutley from the task here of deciding what is the proper path for the community to rein in this chronic behavior of PMA. So who here thinks that whether or not TFD and Pmanderson agree with Mark Nutley’s edits—even if they think Mark Nutley’s edits to be galactic-grade el toro poo‑poo—that this is somehow an excuse for PMA to engage in personal attacks like he did in an obvious effort to publicly flame and intimidate Mark to the point that he goes away? If someone thinks the nature of Mark’s edits excuses the personal attacks, please cite specific language from a specific policy (with links).

Please answer below. Thank you.

I request that a responsible admin step in here and do the right thing. PMA’s behavior is now well documented. He has been advised three times above that if he simply apologize to the editors and pledge to never do it again, we can be done with this. He has posted since then, but ignored the offer. He is not apologetic. He continues to engage in flagrant personal attacks on editors who have the hubris to disagree with him. If those editors continue to disagree with him, the PMA’s standard practice is to simply publicly ridicule them and question their I.Q. and education with names commonly heard during 5th-grade recess. Greg L (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Answer area for the above four questions

I recommend that Pmanderson continue to ignore you.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• That would be unfortunate for PMA if he heeded your counsel because a simple apology and a pledge to the administrators here to not engage in personal attacks again might avoid less desirable remedies the admins are at liberty to dish out. This conduct of PMA’s seems to be chronic and he shows no willingness to conform to conduct-expected. Greg L (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Admins aren't going to take any action here. You haven't figured this out yet? Drop the stick. You already have an RFC going. This thread aint going nowhere.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion and I defend your right to have it. Methinks, however, your highly confident prediction of what admins will do here won’t influence what they actually do. Haven’t you figured that out yet? And, no “I” don’t have an RfC going; two users (User:Marknutleys and User:OpenFutures) started that. I never knew either of them before this. As for “drop the stick” (*oh my*) are you referring to the part where I and others here active on the project endeavor to do something about chronic and flagrant violations of WP:NPA by Pmanderson? Greg L (talk) 18:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Bali: Requesting that Pmanderson ignore those whom with he disagrees is probably not going to help, as he needs to engage with the to discuss the article. He has a long list of topic bans since his earlier 3RR violations, so that would fix this particular problem, but he'll just move on to somewhere else, and get banned there too, etc, so that's hardly a solution either. You are right that admins apparently are ignoring both WQA and ANI, making them in effect useless. That's too bad, but little can be done when it comes to that. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Or are you, Bali, suggesting that if…

1. PMA is highly regarded for his edits, and
2. enjoys a cabal of long-term ‘insiders’ who all have their Ovaltine decoder rings, and
3. the individual who has been the subject of a clear personal attack has only been on Wikipedia for two years, and
4. doesn’t enjoy a bunch of fan-boys, and
5. made some edits that PMA considers to be imbecile-like ones, so
6. PMA declares that said editor, with whom he disagrees, is “semi-literate” and is an “imbecile” — you know… perfectly permissible straight talk ;-) —, then
7. The wikipedian community (club) will happily embrace a double standard where we allow established editors to persistently break WP:NPA rules because said editors know how to toe the line between tendentious editing and blatant disruption. In other words, we do bite the newcomers… you know… whenever we like-ta.

I have no problem with that… so long as we openly declare that this is the case and don’t pretend that Wikipedia in general—and WP:ANI in particular—is a place where the rules apply to all and admins don’t feel they have to cow-tow to cabals in order to stay *popular* and get promoted. Personally, I prefer to pretend this *is* the case. I prefer to think that people will be people, cabals will act like cabals, admins suffer from self-doubt and impostor syndrome at least as often as anyone else, and PMA will ultimately get yet another 48-hour block (or longer since he thinks it *sporting* to do as he does). By allowing his behavior to persist unabated, we only encourage PMA and people like him to amp-up his incivility. The community will spend even more time with wikidrama in the future here as a result.

PMA’s persistent and clear flouting of the rules has been amply documented. I have zero intention of letting a system behave like it is morally bankrupt and get away with it unless someone here admits that the enforcement of rules is not done even handedly and *popularity* guarantees Teflon-coated status. Either that, or someone explains how PMA’s conduct, which has been amply documented here, is in conformance with Wikipedia’s rules. Greg L (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There is not going to be any admin action. Not on the RFC either. The admin reaction was an aggressive and hostile answer that we hadn't shown that we had tried to resolve the issue, and that the RFC will be deleted soon. It does indeed seem that Pmanderson somehow are allowed to play by different rules than everybody else. This is fairly curious. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Summary of the original complaint

• "Mark nutley's claims are false. His ignorance of the subject, and of the English language, are plastered all over Talk:List of wars between democracies, xo I cannot say that he is deliberately lying;"

This is not a personal attack, simply a statement that MN is ignorant of the subject.

• "I see this is going to devolve into another remedial education course. Let me, therefore, be brief:"

Not a personal attack. PMA is saying he is giving a remedial lesson.

• "He may be the nicest semi-literate ignoramus on Wikipedia (although that seems doubtful), but that does not justify his actions."

... okay, "ignoramus" is rude, gotta grant you that.

So, aside from the third diff, there's a whole lot of nothing here. And opening an ANI for "ignoramus" strikes me as overkill. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Without having read more than the discussion here and the diffs provided, I agree with The Hand That Feeds You. The first two diffs do not show personal attacks. I consider myself a very intelligent person, but there are certainly subjects on which I am ignorant. While I might be a tad unhappy if someone points that out - especially if I disagreed with that assessment - that is by no means a personal attack. The third diff is over-the-top, but I'm unwilling to pass judgement without seeing the whole conversation, either. I see zero need for admin intervention here, especially now that you have opened a user RfC. Disclosure: I'm uninvolved in the current dispute, but PMA and I both work on the article Catholic Church. Karanacs (talk)

So, semi-literate is not a personal attack? Wow. Can you please give an example of what *is* a personal attack? And what about these diffs? Also not personal attacks?

1. [133]
2. [134]
3. [135]
4. [136]
5. [137]
6. [138]
7. [139]
8. [140]
9. [141]
10. [142]
11. [143]
12. [144]
13. [145]
14. [146]
15. [147]
16. [148]
17. [149]
18. [150]
19. [151]
20. [152]
21. [153]
22. [154]
23. [155]
24. [156]
25. [157]
26. [158]
27. [159]
28. [160]
29. [161]
30. [162]
31. [163]
32. [164]
33. [165]
34. [166]

(Sorry if there are any duplicates) --OpenFuture (talk) 21:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You do realise that most of what you are doing here is pointing up the defects in the original edits - which were made by you I believe - such as removing sourced material, removing sources, and making some very strange assertions about the Greeks. Really, dropping it would do you much more favours.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

1. I have not removed any sourced material. The sources does not support the claims. Which I diligently pointed out.

2. That still does not warrant personal attacks. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• I have to LOL at Igny's comment. The subject of this complaint has consistently been able to skirt the sort of condemnation which would have been afforded to mere mortals because he may be regarded by some as a learned Professor who 'stimulates thought'. Truth be told, the subject is clever enough to merely plant suggestions and make insinuations rather than overtly slander or threaten, so he never falls foul of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA, according to the definition his spirited hoard of defenders. It is the sort of rank hypocrisy that makes me seethe. What if I were to hypothetically or tangentially refer to the subject as 'Mandy'? Will he go to great lengths to prove that I am aware it's a nickname he hates, as he has done so in the past, and perhaps take me to Arbcom for being grossly uncivil? I suppose, noting from his silence here in the last 24+ hours, he wouldn't want to take the chance of reigniting this dying thread. ;-) Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin response

Carefully considering the background, specific comments, and discussion above...

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

• PMA - That was rude. Don't do that again.
• mark - That was unreasonable. Don't do that again.
• Greg L - That was unreasonable. Don't do that again.

Thank you. I recommend closure of the thread in reasonable order. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• I shouldn’t do what again? And why would you recommend that PMA be given merely a warning for this? Greg L (talk) 01:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The guy's got a fish and he'c clearly unstable. Just smile and back away. --FormerIP (talk) 02:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Back away, yes, but Mr Anderson needs to be issued with a warning. There is too long a history of upsetting other editors not to take such minimal action. Tony (talk) 04:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Pmanderson has already been whacked with a fish and told not to do that again, in June: [167]. It just made things worse. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Since I got a (perfectly polite) comment on my talkpage, thought I should clarify that the above comment was just a bit random. I'm not actually accusing anyone of being unstable and it was not a reference to PMA. I haven't event read the contents of the thread and, whatever the rights and wrongs of this complaint I have nothing against that editor. --FormerIP (talk) 10:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I am unsure as to why i got trouted :) Personally i am fairly certain i was not rude to PM and did not deserve what has been to said to me, but if trouts all round is all on offer can i at least have mine grilled :) mark nutley (talk) 11:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Just like most everyone else here, our admins are volunteers. There is a distinct possibility that George was not as thorough as he thought he was when he wrote Carefully considering the background, specific comments, and discussion above. He may have just skimmed and saw PMA and mark and Greg L going “Waaa!” at each other, his eyes glazed over, and he wrote what he did. That’s what I would probably do when faced with the prospect of poring over a petabyte of rants.

  It helps to summarize things when threads get too long. So… (*sound of cracking knuckles*) I’ll give it a try:

  Mark nutley did some edits Pmanderson thought were stupid. Mark dug in his heels. PMA, who has a long and distinguished history of name calling (i.e. violating WP:NPA) (*sigh*) and was the subject of an ANI over this two weeks ago and again a week ago, declared that mark is a “semi-literate ignoramus” who “requires remedial education”. Mark took hubris to this. I (Greg L) wasn’t involved in the edit waring but jumped in here on this ANI after it was started so I could opine that I think PMA is in need of a digitally-supervised wiki-break.

  There. The above green-div is less than 100 words and is much more digestible for those volunteer admins who have a life outside of Wikipedia. Let’s see if this might result in a sanction against PMA that doesn’t amount to “For shame - for shame - for shame” again. Greg L (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Labeling edits as 'vandalism' when they are not deliberate attempt[s] to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia is inappropriate, as is calling an editor a 'semi-literate ignoramus'. Surely we can disagree with eachother on matters of content without resorting to such behaviour? I do note that there is an RFC on this matter currently open: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pmanderson, perhaps this thread should be wrapped up with a pointer over there. –xeno^talk 15:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Labeling edits as 'vandalism' and referring to other editors as 'liars' in edit summaries is not appropriate. While I probably wouldn't refer to someone as a semi-literate ignoramus, I'm not sure it qualifies as an out and out violation of NPA. I guess the RFC is the right place for all this, so I'll just mark this thread as resolved. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I do agree that PMA was rude, and said so in the trouting. Xeno's observation is valid. The trout was to put it in context - I did in fact go check the referenced back context, and IMHO the initial rudeness was real, but not worth a long long LONG ANI thread about, and certainly not worth the amount of conflict that the three primary assailants ended up dishing out (though PMA largely behaved himself here; his primary offense was earlier/elsewhere).

The scope of the offense was minor compared to the reaction here. If the reaction here is bad enough it becomes a new problem in and of itself. The Trout was an attempt to indicate this, without stomping on anyone too badly. ANI posts and threads should be proportionate to provocations; this wasn't, and that was bad.

Incivility is particularly corrosive in some ways because it encourages people to feel victimized and respond rudely themselves thinking that they're trying to get appropriate help from authorities. There's little that someone outside can easily do to turn that feeling off once the initial incivility has happened - if someone's reaction generates the righteous indignation then it's on.

But that doesn't mean that admins can and should overreact to the original provocation, just because someone got righteously indignant at the rudeness. We have to be the independent uninvolved reviewers. In some cases that means cutting righteously indignant people who were in fact insulted by some rude action off, because the righteous indignance is becoming disruptive.

The overreaction isn't PMA's fault, but he did start all of it.

The overreaction reached the point that cutting it off was appropriate, but not to the point of formal warnings or sanctions.

I'll take it up with PMA on the RFC or his talk page later. It is important for people to realize that incivility leads to things like this, and that avoiding it in the first place is the only way to avoid things like this happening. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

-

• I agree with Xeno, OpenFuture, and OhConfucius here. Editors of long-standing are of course valued. But they should be especially on guard, inasmuch as they know the rules, as to what behavior is inappropriate. Attempts to pooh-pooh such behavior in the past seem not to have been sufficiently effective. Efforts by some here to turn Nelson's eye to the matter are perhaps unlikely to be helpful in addressing the behavior. --Epeefleche (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Noting Georgewilliamherbert’s comment: …long long LONG ANI thread about, and certainly not worth the amount of conflict. This thread grew long for one, single reason: because the admins looking on here chose to sit back and do next to nothing about it for far too long. The community elects admins to their posts for a reason: enforce our rules. And an exceedingly important element of that is to properly discharge their duties and reign-in abusive editors. Then there is that little issue whereby ANI threads that have been inactive for 24+ hours automatically get archived. That does three things:

1. it creates an incentive for admins to create a de-facto pocket veto by sitting back and doing nothing in hopes that the dispute evaporates away, and
2. it incentivizes the offended party(ies) to keep posting simply to prevent that archiving, and
3. it incentivizes the accused to just hang low and not deal up front with the matter and his behavior in hopes the fire in the complainant’s hair will self-extinquish.

The end result are long threads—just like this. I don’t think that should come as a surprise to anyone here. And then, once faced with the shear magnitude of what was allowed to accumulate here on this thread (no sane person would want to pore through it all), we get worthless nonsense like Georgewilliamherbert’s 00:38 post, above and an obligatory CYA post for pulling such a boner. The system doesn’t work very well, IMHO. *Little birdies* have told me why. But I didn’t need to hear from these birdies to figure that much out on my own. Greg L (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Please do not mistake my actions here for disinterest or casually ignoring what you had to say.

I told you specifically on my talk page when you asked, that you became part of the problem. I repeated that here. That's not OK.

You decided to join in and butt heads with PMA here. Technically, all 3 of you primarily involved could be sanctioned for disruption. The Trout is intended as a warning-short-of-beating-you-up. It's a "you did something wrong, please quit it and work on perspective".

You have a right to call our attention to something. But you don't get to set the terms of what admins decide about the situation. If admins decide it's not actionable or not worth responding to, that's it. You sitting here beyond that demanding action is not OK. You didn't exactly do that, but you're admitting to having been thinking along those lines, and that's not OK. We tell people to knock it off and in some cases block them for doing that more actively or overtly.

Following up with personally attacking me for telling you this the first couple of times is not helping your cause, either.

There are good ways and bad ways to engage on ANI. More verbosity and more vehemence are bad ways, not good ones. I hope that you will receive the message and avoid pushing buttons next time something comes along which is worthy of reporting here.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

George, mark this as resolved and lets be done with it mark nutley (talk) 23:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not resolved. We can mark it as resolved once the RfC gets certified. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It is certified now (2 users). I have commented in an outside view there, reinforcing the importance of people not being rude to each other on-wiki and the consequences thereof (as demonstrated in this case).

Are there any objections to closing this now? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Please just let me say one thing to Greg L first. @Greg: Oh, no, indeed, this thread didn't grow unconscionably long "because the admins looking on here chose to sit back and do next to nothing about it for far too long." It grew long because of your interminable repetitiousness. (And somewhat because of OpenFuture's.) Must you be so prolix? Must everything be said so many fucking times? Must you post 20 times in the one thread? Do people have to be bored out of their skins? Would you like me to count the number of times you quote "semi-literate ignoramus" and "remedial education"? Do you think people have unlimited time to spend reading same-oh same-oh by you? Unlimited bandwidth with which to load this page? Show a little consideration. You're abusing ANI and abusing our patience. By the way, the irony of actually offering us a four-line summary of your views[168] (but not until the end is in sight) is painful. Bishonen | talk 00:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC).

• First, the facts. There are 9475 words, above. If you strip out my comments, there are 6550.

  As to *why* the thread grew long, I think you are confusing cause & effect. The thread grew long—and I certainly contributed to that, and others responded to my comments (it takes two to tango)—because admins, rather than merely state that the complaint doesn’t seem actionable, instead thought it somehow a wise idea to just remain moot; that is hardly helpful. It should come as no surprise that not jumping in to settle it one way or another with a helpful comment will just result in prolonged bickering.

  As for my repeating PMA’s comment, a standard tactic of those who have been accused of misconduct is to try to justify their actions by getting off-topic about how the complainant was doing bad edits. My strategy was to steer the discussion back on track by stating that complaints about incivility are not properly excused by such extraneous arguments. Steering it back to the main point resulted in my repeating the point; yes, as you say “interminable repetitiousness.” You might also note that the “How to use this page” header at top doesn’t mention that an editor shouldn’t try to prevent others from taking things off-point. The header does say that the thread will automatically be archived if inactive for 24 hours—hardly an adviso that would tend to shorten threads.

  If you want to “publicly” discuss this here, I suppose I would be willing to respond here; it was only by accident that I checked in this evening because I hadn’t deleted a URL shortcut to this thread and clicked on this one rather than a different one. You might want to offer such comments on my talk page. If you desire to engage in an open discussion or debate here as to how ANI’s processes or guidance in the header, above, might be improved, that is fine too but really belongs on Talk:ANI. Frankly, I think this has been flogged too much already. I certainly won’t be exceeding my share of posts next time around—that’s for sure. We might visit this issue of long threads again sometime in the future when another thread grows long and no admin saw fit to step in to merely pen “There’s nothing actionable here and this will go nowhere.” Greg L (talk) 04:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• P.S. Quoting you, Bishonen: Must everything be said so many fucking times? I genuinely like your style, Bishonen; plain-speak for grownups. You might enjoy my essay, "Fuck” is not necessarily uncivil. Greg L (talk) 05:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Although I do agree with Greg L's description in as much as I believe repetition is a response to admin inaction, and not the other way around, I don't think neither me not Marknutley has posted things to keep the discussion from going stale. If admins really, as Bishonen implies, thinks that this issue is mine and Marknutleys fault, why doesn't these WQA's and ANI's get closed promptly, telling us that? When TFD made his WQA against me is was closed quite promptly. And when I brought TFD's ad hominems up I was quickly told to not bother, because ad hominems are ignored, because there are enough personal attacks to deal with. So if there really is no issue here, why aren't we just told? If Pmanderson really has special rules, and he really is allowed to do personal attacks as he likes, then just close this and tell us and have it over with. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:44, 30 July 2010 (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:85.197.19.228

The above IP addressing is inserting conspiracy theory material into several articles, most recently at Peter Power and 7 July 2005 London_bombings. I've asked them per WP:BRD to use the talk page, and left a welcome page and then a warning on their talk page. However this looks like an IP on a mission, more a disruptive editor than a 3rr. Would someone take a look? --Snowded ^TALK 19:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Addition - while I was writing this the IP did make a comment on one talk page here. If anything it increases my concern. --Snowded ^TALK 19:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

In no way did I support any conspiracy theory. To revert my edits with this (unsubstantiated!) allegation as rationale is violation of a fundamental Wikimedia principle NPOV. Would someone take a neutral look? 85.197.19.228 (talk) 14:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with them. Hope that helps. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned this one is resolved. A warning was placed on the IP's site here] by an admin and the edit warring stopped. Per WP:BRD if anyone wants to make a case for inclusion of the material fine, but the talk page is the place. As to conspiracy theory, well this is the only published material. The matter was not taken up by any mainstream media. --Snowded ^TALK 15:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Eugeneacurry requests unblock

Consensus clear, let it be.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Not sure what to do, what with that official looking box saying "don't edit this", but the original block was a travesty of justice. It was done by an involved admin. I personally don't think Eugene brings anything good to the WP table, but that block was totally wrong. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC) I now remember how this whole thing went down. Eugene shouldn't have made that page about Slim's real life identity. That's a given, and maybe Eugene deserved some sort of block for that. But, the admin who blocked him was like "I haven't dealt with him in six months, so I'm not involved". Difs were provided that in my mind meant that admin could never be uninvolved with Eugene. But, the whole thing was done quickly, and Eugene put a "retired" sign on his userpage, and it went away. So, Eugene may deserve some kind of block, but it should be meted out by a totally uninvolved admin, and he should receive credit for his time served so far. No opinion on that, but we should not let involved admins block their enemies. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Support unblock per Iridescent and Pergrine Fisher. T. Canens conclusion is wrong. Suggest trial unblock of 1 week. RIPGC (talk) 03:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Tim Song's conclusion is wrong Support Tim Song/T. Canens has wrongly declared the consensus as "strongly". —Preceding unsigned comment added by RIPGC (talk • contribs) Bullshit Don't know what you're smoking, but please don't bogart it. Consensus was abundantly clear. N.B.: Sign your posts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC) I suspect the above is RIPGC, since the reasons are virtually identical. —Jeremy (v^_^v Carl Johnson) 07:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Oppose People who make pointy bogus articles about other editors whould never be unblocked! How can anyone even consider this? Kindzmarauli (talk) 07:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC) I'd like to hear some uninvolved comments on whether the blocking admin was truly uninvolved. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Community seems to support that he should remain blocked, so I guess you could say it's really the community that has blocked him and the admin in question just happened to pull the trigger. Kindzmarauli (talk) 07:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Oppose: Tim Song's conclusion appears spot on: much too soon, I see no indication that he understands just why his behaviour was so unacceptable, Not just no, but hell no. Stalkers and harassers must be shown the door, Too soon, Far too soon....His actions are, point blank, unjustifiable, creates an article to attack someone, out of spite and malice? Don't we have enough of that crap going on anyway? So, hell no!, I am a fan of second chances, but the fact that he's still trying to carry on the editing dispute, even while he appeals the block, makes me feel all yucky, definitely not now and not soon, either, Absolutely not....The project is better off without him and he is probably better off without it, asking for someone to help him edit while he's blocked just seems to indicate an unwillingness to work within WP ways. Describing the community's reaction to the unblock proposal as anything other than strong opposition would have been quite wrong, and I commend Tim Song for their closing statement, with which I strongly concur. TFOWR 08:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Oppose unblock While this could have been left open longer than under two days consensus was achieved. Besides in addition to what has been pointed out Eugene flat out called another editor a liar [170], was comparing the Christ Myth theory to Holocaust denial Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive609#Slanderous_Accusations_of_Anti-Semitism, User:^^James^^ pointed out that Eugene had filed five ANIs in just two months [171] indicating a possible WP:GAMING issues, never mind his endless harping on the phrase "Christ Myth Theory" when even administrator User:Akhilleus pointed to WP:NOT#DICDEF (Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Archive_35#WP:POV_issues_and_WP:OWN_problems), and had been pushing for a chart in the Christ Myth Theory that was totally OR.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Oppose unblock I was the original blocking admin, acting after Eugenecurry had blanked the ANI report made by SV, and after consideration of the comments. I was uninvolved with the editor, as far as I am aware, until this instance. My block was overturned, without reference to me, on the basis of a "technical mistake" in blanking the content, and it was only after further evidence that Eugenecurry was incapable of complying with WP policies in respect of an editor they were in conflict with that an indefinite block was reimposed; therefore the original block was made by an uninvolved admin, on the basis of serious violations of WP policy and practice. That said, I also believe that 1 month is not a sufficient deterrence against gaming the project in following a content dispute - and especially one that involves seeking to out another editor. I am getting rather reluctant in allowing access to the encyclopedia for people who appear incapable of "getting it" that the project and its community have priority over personal opinions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Strong Oppose unblock - his talk page speaks for itself. Agenda driven, and essentially unapologetic...Modernist (talk) 13:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Oppose. His screed on his talkpage is rather unbecoming and shows that he still hasn't internalized why the community has no faith in him at the moment. Syrthiss (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Oppose – Hell no, we are not unblocking this user. We do not need him on our project. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 18:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC) We've already had an unblock discussion, and I think the consensus is clear that the consensus is clear. Let's move on, and leave Mr. Curry be. Skomorokh 16:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

User: Noloop - votestacking

Please file a user conduct RFC - Not appropriate for ANI. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:Noloop started another topic at the reliable sources noticeboard regarding the historical Jesus article. He posted the link at the talk page of atheism, which I believe is an attempt to votestack. [172] Atheism is just about unrelated to the historical Jesus. He also posted at an editor's talk page. [173] I notified the editor if votestacking, but he dismissed it as silliness. [174] Flash 06:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC) My experience with him has me concluding that he is on a jihad to introduce original research and deny reliable sources. He has stated that Christian scholars as well as theologians are not reliable sources and edits with that notion in mind. He even tried opening an ArbCom case in an effort to impose his bizarre objectives—see especially the section he calls "Desired outcomes:" Also, the section he calls "Conduct issues" contains hints of paranoia. The fact that he's been recently unblocked should also be considered in determining what to do about this behavior. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 08:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC) I have also had issues with nollop oin the past, prety much similar to this. Using OR interpritations of Wiki rules (such as consensus). An obsestion (or perhaps just mis-application) with (percived) Anglo bias.Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC) While I agree that the editor's behaviour raises concerns, it is also evidently in good faith and has helped enlightening issues about the sourcing of several articles, as the RS/N thread he opened shows. About the votestacking, well, it is not good behaviour but nothing obviously concerning. It is instead concerning that users like Flash try to use ANI to silence him and that users like Bill the Cat use straw man arguments in dealing with the issue, like "stated that Christian scholars as well as theologians are not reliable sources", which is not the point (the point is that they are potentially biased, a different issue). It would be also much less confusing if all of us (especially but not only Noloop) stop polluting every possible venue trying to forum shop and discuss the issue in a single place. --Cyclopiatalk 11:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Fully agree with Cyclopia. Noloop is not a very easy editor to work with, but is acting in good faith and honestly tries to provide good support for his claimsArnoutf (talk) 11:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Make no mistake, Noloop behaviour should change, or he will face another block soon, probably. But I am very worried by the stubborn contempt with which editors guarding the Jesus articles treat Noloop. He is, after all, asking for something extremly reasonable (non biased sources about a statement documented so far in the articles only by clearly biased sources) and instead of being provided these sources, he is attacked. No surprise he is becoming frustrated and obsessive. All this discussion would have been dead long time ago, if only non-biased sources were provided. --Cyclopiatalk 11:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC) I also woould point out that he is forever threataning top leave (and avoided a block a while back for that reason). Also how doi you define non-biased sources, any source on the subject will be biased (and if its so improtant why did nollop not do it) this represents typical tactic. Demand others provide sources whilst he just objects. I would be more convinced of his genuisness if he actualy showed he was doing more then obstructingSlatersteven (talk) 11:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Agree with the behavioural issues. On the specific point of sources, well, a lot of people in the Jesus articles claim to be scholars of the subject, so it is only fair that they should provide sources. --Cyclopiatalk 13:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC) I believe the article is sourced. If this were an isolated incident you might have a point, its not. I have had this issue with nollop before. Objecting to material and then never himself either doing any work to find sources (even when asked to do so to back up his claims) or suggesting compromise text. Its ‘I know this should be removed (or included) and I want it removed, and it’s down to you to prove me wrong’ attitude.Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Is it too much to ask for a bit of proper spelling? Please. My eyes hurt, and I'm not even a native English speaker. --Cyclopiatalk 13:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Cyclopia; what is getting to me is his moving of the goal posts. Originally it was only Christian bias that was argued (a possibility) but now we need secular peer reviewed sources.... *facepalm*. I'm coming to the conclusion that while yourself and even I are making an important point about using a cross section of sources Noloop is just here to push a POV (one that I think is to undermine religion, specifically Christianity). this is, IMO, a clear recent example. He seems to now suffer from WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - instead he just keeps suggesting we are biased too (in various ways)... I just don't think he is being constructive any more --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 12:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Which is another of Noloops regular tactics (such as on antiamericanism. He his objection is dealt with he just come up with a new objection. He seems to decide to object to a passage or page and will then dig on refuse any compromise and accept nothing but what he wants.12:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk) Errant: Maybe I am naive and assuming too much good faith, but needing secular peer reviewed sources seems a fair request -it is what we need for all factual claims in academic subjects, after all. That Noloop is pushing POV is not in question; but in doing that he is raising genuine issues. The edit he did to God has been reverted in being completely unsourced, but it is (to my knowledge) factually correct and it would be neat addition to that article lead, if better articulated. --Cyclopiatalk 13:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC) His edit to god might be factualy accurate, but it neetly sums up many of the objections above. The insertion of what is ijn effect a personal opinion that is unsourced. When all he had to do was source it 9he must have known it would be objected to.Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC) It would be also much less confusing if all of us (especially but not only Noloop) stop polluting every possible venue trying to forum shop and discuss the issue in a single place. Here, here.Griswaldo (talk) 12:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Ho-hum. I read the first few comments and skipped the rest. Not mentioned is that I also notified four Jesus-related Talk pages and a secular history discussion page. If it can be assumed that atheists hang out in at Atheist Talk, it can be presumed that Believers hang out at Jesus, Historical Jesus, Historicity of Jesus and Christ myth theory. So, I aimed for a shred of balance. Also, not mentioned is that nobody cares about canvassing. We saw that when Ari89 canvassed at Jesus, which promptly brought the numbers to Historical Jesus needed to tag-team edit war one paragraph of dissent out of existence. Actual editing is like voting, so that's a clear case of votestacking. Which brings me to the final point, how can there be votestacking when there is no voting? The discussion of reliable sources is a just that: a discussion. You are declaring Christian doctrine to be fact, and in support citing only Christian sources. You are declaring dissent from Christian doctrine to be a fringe theory and using that to exclude dissent, and in support citing only Christian sources. You are getting away with it because of cultural bias, and I'm censured and blocked because I'm challenging the most fervent bias in our culture. Noloop (talk) 14:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC) No, Noloop. You're being opposed for two things (as best I gather); bringing in undue information from a fringe theory (which, even as a diehard atheist, I'd view as fringe!) into related articles. And secondly for demanding non-Christian sources to qualify the statement that the existence of Jesus is a scholarly consensus. The first argument I'm not really involved with - but the latter is.... an odd problem. You've turned a fairly legitimate discussion about the lead into a wider denigration of Christian sources as unequivocally biased on the topic of a historical Jesus..... In the past I took an interest in Biblical history/Theology via and (atheist) girlfriend who studied the subject - the unavoidable thing is that there is a general consensus and, within the field, Jesus Myth is very much a fringe theory. There are huge issues with that article, most notably a definite Christian bent, but requiring secular sources for the lead sentence is untenable. At best we should be picking at the specific issues in the article and presenting counter-theories where they are available. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 15:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC) I agree that the Christ myth theory is fringe. However Noloop is completely correct in demanding non-biased sources to back it up. And yes, Christian sources are unequivocally biased on the topic of a historical Jesus: Christian scholars admit it very freely (see [175] : "For Christian theology to do otherwise would be in effect to allow itself to be determined by a possibility [that of Jesus non existing] , which, if it proved an actuality, would entail a revolution in the nature of Christian faith, if not its destruction. It would thus already be the abdication of what is most distinctly Christian in the Christian confession, so to speak, before the battle had begun or the enemy come into view. Were theology to provide for this possibility it would thereby call in question its Christian character." ). You can't ask a Christian to ever consider the hypothesis that Jesus didn't exist, because otherwise he/she wouldn't be Christian any more. For this reason the request of secular sources is only fair, and that we're dancing around the issue by attacking Noloop only, instead of providing such sources is only making the problem worse. Look in history/archeology journals, find secular scholars claiming consensus on the issue (which should be doable) and put the issue at rest, please. --Cyclopiatalk 15:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC) This is another typical (almost sterotypical) tactic of Noloop, to use general objections about a page in regards to specific passages.Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Topic Ban for User:Noloop Noloop should be topic-banned, or perhaps banned entirely. I do not agree that he is editing in good faith. He has a simple point of view: anyone who claims Jesus existed is a Christian. He refuses to respond to ANY evidence to the contrary. The demand for "secular" peer-reviewed journal evidence that historians believe it is likely Jesus existed is a red-herring, because any article that makes that claim is instantly dismissed as not being secular. At one noticeboard, Andrew c pointed out that an article that Noloop used as evience that those who claim Jesus existed are pushing a Christian point of view actually is arguing that an event described in the Gospels did not occur. How is that pushing a Christian point of view? There are two BIG problems in the example I provide above, and you see both problems in any discussion in which Noloop participates. First, Noloop does not do any research to back up his claims. He uses snippets from Google Scholar - this is simply not acceptable as research since our polies make it clear that one has to look at the context in which arguments are made in order to identify their point of view accurately. Since he uses snippets from Google cholar, he always misrepresents the views he presents. This is not editing in good faith. Second, when another editor takes the time to read the entire article and provides the needed context, Noloop simply ignores the other editor. Noloop never assumes good faith on the part of any editor who does not agree with him. This means that not only is he a lousy researcher, he is also incapable of collaborative editing, another fundamental element of our project. I have yet to see any discussion in which Noloop has participated in which these two problems ae not evident from the start. Ho-hum. Noloop has no interest in improving Wikipedia articles, he dmonstrates only a fanatical insistence on using talk pages to forward his own point of view. The history of Wikipedia is filled with editors just like Noloop who have been banned. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC) I took the liberty to make this a subsection and to put the parameters of a topic ban in my response. Please feel free to change my edits as needed.Griswaldo (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Support per above Slrubenstein | Talk 16:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Support topic banning Noloop from articles related to Christianity broadly construed.Griswaldo (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Oppose topic banning. While Noloop behaviour is not always constructive, it doesn't require a topic ban. Some kind of restriction may be OK, but this is beginning to become mere silencing-by-force of opposing views. It is really worrying. His request of a secular source is entirely correct, and the way Slrubenstein is representing the editor is in most points a straw man -it is not true that "any article that makes that claim is instantly dismissed as not being secular", it simply still hasn't been found an article actually being secular making the claim. --Cyclopiatalk 15:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Are you saying that you agree with Noloop that anyone who says Jesus likely existed is therefore a Christian? Or not secular? What do you even mean by "secular?" Slrubenstein | Talk 16:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC) No, and again yours is a loaded question. Noloop, AFAIK, never say that "anyone who says Jesus likely existed is therefore a Christian" (if I'm wrong, let me know). I agree with Noloop that all sources in the article on the issue are sources that come from scholars who are unquestionably of a Christian background (I remember one Jewish as a possible exception). I agree with Noloop that, at the very minimum, this attribution should be explicit in the article and that finding secular sources (i.e. sources published by people who do not have a public religious affiliation) would be much helpful in settling the question. --Cyclopiatalk 16:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC) I am sorry, but you are being bigoted. At WP, we do not ask editors if they are Christian or Muslim or Atheist. We judge them by their edits. Historians work the same way. The racial or religious background of a historian does not signifcy bias or point of view, we identify the point of view based on what the person writes. Many of the historians who say are of "Christian background" are using the same methods of modern historians, and make the same assumptions, and bring to historical documents the same doubts and concerns other modern historians do. Is this a Christian POV? Please be careful what you say. Anti-Semites called psychoanalysis a "jewish" science. You point out that one (at least one, we haven't asked people to drop their pants you know) source is Jewish - does that mean that historian is expressing a "Jewish" point of view? Please be very careful about what you are suggesting. As far as I can tell the only issue is this: Is the scholar making an argument to forward a Christian POV, that is to say, engaging in a debate with non-Christians? Is the scholar forwarding a particular point of view within Christianity, that is, engaging in debates with other Christian theologicans or scholarss? Does the scholar believe that the Bible is literally a reliable account of the past? Or is the scholar engaging in debates with other historians? Is the scholar using the same methods and assumptions as historians working in other places/other periods? These are the questions, and one can answer them based on the contents of the book and article, not the background of the author. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Since you are calling me "bigoted" and go as far as making comparisons with anti-semitism (you should really re-read WP:NPA), I think you won't be offended if I call you naive at best and willingly turning a blind eye at worst. The religious background does mean bias if the subject at stake is essentially intertwined to such background. Nobody questions the religious background of Christian authors is totally irrelevant on 99.9% of topics, but on the question of the existence of Jesus, well, Christian authors themselves explicitly acknowledge a bias: they simply cannot even consider the possibility that Jesus didn't exist, because even putting this in the real of possibilities (no matter how remote) would crumble their faith to nothing. Don't take my words for it; see what Christian scholars say about it (pp.143-144): "For Christian theology to do otherwise [consider the possibility of Jesus non existing] would be in effect to allow itself to be determined by a possibility, which, if it proved an actuality, would entail a revolution in the nature of Christian faith, if not its destruction. It would thus already be the abdication of what is most distinctly Christian in the Christian confession, so to speak, before the battle had begun or the enemy come into view. Were theology to provide for this possibility it would thereby call in question its Christian character." --Cyclopiatalk 16:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC) This source is explicitly talking about Christian theology. It is not referring to the books and articles we are using in the Jesus article to represnt a critical historical point of view. If you were to try to use this in a WP article it would be deleted for violating NOR and with good reason, you are making a poor inference. A claim about how Christian faith influences christian theology is not addressing how a priest who goes on to get a PhD in history, or to publish in history journals, articles that claim that passages of the Gospels did not actually occur, is stuck engaging Christian theologians, rather than the historians who reviews the article and who read the journal? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC) It was you who brought up the fact that one of the historians cited is Jewish. Why does that matter? You are saying that someone with a Christian background has a Christian bias, do you really think it is unfair for me to wonder whether you are saying that a Jewish historian has a Jewish bias? Okay, if I am wrong, what was your point? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Yes, I am saying that a Jewish historian has a Jewish bias when dealing with issues directly related to Jewish religion or history (by the way, I was presenting that as a positive exception to the monolith of Christian sources). Is this anti-Semitism in your book? If yes, you should really reconsider your notions. --Cyclopiatalk 16:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC) It sounds like you are being disingenuous, but maybe you misunderstand me. One of the major issues Jews worldwide, have had to contend with - and THE biggest isues European Jews have had to deal with for the last two thousand years, is their dissent from the Christian view that Jesus was the Jewish messiah. Jews who believe Jesus was the messiah are considered apostates and in effect excommunicated. A considerable portion of Jewish philosophy includes arguments against Jesus being the messiah. Does this bias a Jewish historian? If you think Christian historians are biased to argue that Jesus was real, why would you not claim that Jewish historians are biased to claim that he was not, or that the Gospels are largely false? If you think a Jewish historian can bracket these views and adhere to the professional standards of historians, then why couldn't a Christian historian? Slrubenstein | Talk 05:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC) You know, there are Christians who are evolutionary biologists. I am not talking about Creationists, or "Intellient Design" advocates, but real researchers in mainstream evolutionary biology. Yet they are church-going Christians. Would you label their articles. "Christian" science? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Christians (key part emphasized) believe in Christ or Jesus as their KEY core beleif of the religion. His existence, works and ultimately through him salvation, is the key tenets of Christianity. There is a BIG difference between a Christian believing in parts of evolution (they obviously don't believe in abiogenesis or for the most part a single common ancestor) and the non-existence of Jesus or Christ. Parts of evolution can be interwoven with parts of the Christianity's belief in creation, but you could not be a Christian without Christ. — raekyT 16:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Okay, if we can truly proceed in the spirit of dialogue, let me give you an analogy. Jews are brought up to believe that the Bible was revealed to Moses at Sinai, and is literally true. A Jew who is exposed to the theory of evolution has a choice: to reject the theory of evolution, or to reject Judaism entirely, or to find a way to reject the belief that the bible is accurate, and come up with a new way to be Jewish. A Jew who is exposed to Higher Criticism has a similar choice: reject higher Criticism (i.e. modern historiography) or to reject Judaism entirely, or to radically revise his/her understanding of Judaism. You seem to think that only the first two choices exist, and that there is no third choice. But in fact, the third choice exists and there are liberal Jews who accept what modern science and history tell them, and change their form of Judaism. My point was that the same has occured in Christianity. There are some people Noloop rejects, or says we need to mark as having a Christian background, but if you read their biographies you discover that after they learned modern historical methods, they abandoned Christianity altogether - their Christian background does not mean they hold to a Christian POV. And other historians Noloop identifies as having a Christian background have changed their views of Christianity, hold to a more liberal view in which Jesus was just a man but not one with God or resurrected. Is this apostasy? Some Christians think so! But others argue that Christianity must change to accomodate modern thinking. Noloop disregards any discussion of this latter phenomenon. But this last example does not illustrate historians who have a Christian bias. If you ant, you could say they are Christians who have been biased by modern history!! But Noloop rejects any discussion of this. Slrubenstein | Talk 05:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC) I don't really know what that has to do with what I said, I was responding to your evolution comment about Christians. Obviously theres Christians that take a more literal interpretation of the Bible in which they emphatically oppose evolution and others which try to incorporate current science in some ways with their beliefs. This has nothing to do with Judaism, I stated that to be a Christian you have to believe in Christ. I'm not talking about the people who are "Sunday Christians" or whatever the term is for people who pretend to be Christians or go through the paces to appear that way to friends/family, I'm talking about the real Christians, the ones that actually, 100%, with all their hearts, believe Jesus is their personal savior. If you self-identify as one of those, are one of those, then you are 100% without a doubt biased in any kind of research on the historical validity of Jesus being real or not. This can swing both ways, you like to bring up Jews, I'm not familiar with Judaism since I was raised Christian but you couldn't take books/papers written by a Orthodox Jew on the validity of a global flood as unbiased. Religious researchers and biased view points go hand-in-hand when your talking about proving or disproving key components of said religion. I think your just trying to confuse the issue and steer the topic away from the simple fact is a religious person is going to be biased about research of their religion. — raekyT 06:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC) You seem to think that if a person teaches at a seminary, or publishes in a journal on Biblical studies, they must therefore be advocating a Christian point of view. This reflects a misunderstanding both about history and about Christianity. There are many Christian seminaries that do not accept the Bible as a reliable historical account. They wish their students to learn ist cenury history of Roman occupied Palestine, but using the same methods and assumptions as one would use to study 19th century Italy or 17th century France. It surprises no professional historian, that these seminaries are a major source of employment. Does this influence the scholar? Well, if the seminary won't give that person a raise unless they have a good track record of publication in peer-reviewed journals, you bet it does!! You need to learn more about how academia works. Harvard, Cambridge and Oxford were originally Christian institutions, and are still heavily Christin. Does that mean that scholars working there are Christian influenced? Slrubenstein | Talk I don't understand what you mean. We're not talking of literal interpretation of the Bible, we are talking of a single, definite issue which is crucial to Christianity in itself. I know how academia works - since you cited it, I work at the University of Cambridge, thank you. And no, they are not "heavily Christian", I can guarantee. --Cyclopiatalk 16:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC) You miss the point of my analogy. Are you denying that Cambridge's first college was founded by the Bishop of Ely? Are you denying that the university was in effect accredited as a university through papal bulls by Gregory IX and Nicolas IV? Well, then this means that Cambridge is a Christian institution and we need to identify you as a Christian scholar. I am making an analogy - I am not claiming that Noloop has said this, but I am giving you an example of his reasoning. When someone says that the institution does not just teach Christian theology, and that many of its professors and students are not religious, Noloop simply repeats points equivalent to the Bishop of Ely and Pope Gregory IX. You cannot deny these facts, after all, cany you, Cyclopia? Well, you might argue they are not relevant to this specific case. You might bring up biographical information about the author in question, or about the contents of the article, or the journal in which it was publihsed. Noloop continues to insist that he represents a Christian POV because the University is Christian. This is an analogy, Cyclopia, but meant to give you an idea of what editors trying to reason with noloop have to contend with. Slrubenstein | Talk 05:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Finally, as others have pointed out, the Jesus article includes multiple points of view including Christian points of view. Of course in these instances we turn to avowed Christian scholars, but Noloop objects to this. What is wrong with using Christian scholars to express a non-critical historicla view? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Oppose. I agree with Cyclopia. There may be problems with Noloop's approach and I don't believe his take on things is entitely correct, but editors he is interacting with appear blind to the possibility that his concerns might be worth listening to and are failing to engage with him constructively, which is as much the root cause of the problem as anything else. --FormerIP (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Then I suggest either of you (Cyclopia or FormerIP) make another more constructive proposal. Mentorship? Editing restrictions on certain pages? What's going to end this? I get that you think a topic ban is too much but lets see better proposals. I'm happy to support or oppose those too. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC) What about 1RR restriction + requirement that edits are proposed on talk page before being deployed? --Cyclopiatalk 15:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC) I'd support a 1rr and a mentorship, if Noloop accepts. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 15:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC) I declare an interest, because I have tried to edit this article in the past and found it to have a WP:OWN problem. But it does have that problem, and I think any way of dealing with this incident should recognise that.--FormerIP (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Plus, if this isn't a proposal to canvass, I don't know what is: [176] --FormerIP (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC) But people are pointing out that he is most disruptive on talk pages, so I'm not sure that confining him more to the talk pages is really going to help much.Griswaldo (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC) @ FormerIP: How do you respond to the fact that there have been extensive and detailed responses to Noloop's claims, and that the Jesus Myth theory has ben discussed extensively on the Jesus talk page? Can you provide any evidence to support your claim that "editors he is interacting with appear blind to the possibility that his concerns might be worth listening to and are failing to engage with him constructively?" Are these not examples of very constructive engagement?[177] [178]? These are from another noticeboard but sum up weeks of discussion at the Jesus article.Slrubenstein | Talk 16:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Slrubenstein, are you really trying to sell this mix of straw man arguments and attacks as "very constructive engagement"? --Cyclopiatalk 16:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC) I don't understand how is Noloop disruptive in talk pages. Is he violating WP:CIVIL, WP:TALKO or what? All I see is an editor discussing on the article, which is what talk pages are for. He perhaps came vaguely close to canvassing, but not less than the editors that want to ban him. --Cyclopiatalk 16:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC) I do not agree. He is hightly confrontational, and combative. He never provide sources or seem open tpo compromise. He is clearly POV pushing muuch of the time. Having said that I am not sure that is the answer. I would like to give him another chance but really do not think he will take it (in the long term. I would support the 1RR restriction, but with the proviso that if his attitude and actions do not change he would be topic banned.Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC) @Cyclopia: Fair questions, but I would refer you to WP:DE. You seem to think there was a very short discussion and Noloop is being closed down. In fact, he has been making the same comment at the Jesus talk page for several weeks, and in fact there has ben a good deal of discussion. The problem is, talk pages are explicitly for discussion to improve the article, not for soapboxing - sopaboxing is an abuse of talk pages. Yet that is what Noloop is doing. Why do I think this? Because when he asks a question and someone answers it, he just keeps asking the question as if it was not answered. When someone asks him a question, he doesn't answer it. He just repeats himself. This is not discussion, it is not collaborative editing, it is disruption and soapoxing. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Possibly, and I don't condone it, but a topic ban is not a proportionate response to a bit of soapboxing. --FormerIP (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC) How would you feel about a topic ban for a fixed period, to give this person a chance to learn how to collaborate by working on other articles? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC) A Bit? he has been doing this (on just one subject) for what a week? Elsewhere he has been doing this same sort of thin for nearly a year.Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Oppose (again) pretty much per Cyclopia. I don't think Noloop's behaviour warrants a topic ban. I think all involved parties should look for a way to solve this content dispute without having the opposing faction topic banned. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 15:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Salvio there are many people who share similar views to Noloop and these people are not being discussed here repeatedly. Why? Because this isn't about content disagreements. It is about Noloop's behavior. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Oppose but it would be better if he would concentrate on writing biographies of theologians of Radical Criticism. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Support - People who come here with an agenda in mind and a plan to shape Wikipedia articles to support that agenda are not worth the time to enact piecemeal restrictions and give to hand-holding mentors. Kick to the curb, save us all some drama. Tarc (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC) I'm unsure that a topic ban is the way to go. There's a good chance that it would just move the same issues to the next subject area where Noloop finds the article unsatisfactory. Deal with it here. Either he can moderate his behavior when dealing with a contentious issue, or he cant.-Cube lurker (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC) what you seem to be saying is that he has a patern of behavure and if we do not block him (or convince him to change, and thats failed already) he will just be disruptive elseewhere?Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC) It's the impression I get from comparing this example with the notes in his block log. Not that be definately needs to be blocked, but that it would be best to have behavior brought into community norms nad not just moved.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Comment - Noloop notified Atheism:Talk regarding the RS/N discussion: Historical Jesus: 90% of sources are Christian theologians and/or Christian Presses. Feel free to contribute - This seems to have been his only edit to the Atheism talkpage and there was no ongoing discussion pertaining to the subject. Unomi (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Not sure that your point is.Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Question Why is it so important for Noloop not to be topic banned? If he is making any sensible contributions couldn't those be made by people who are capable of doing so in a manner that isn't disruptive?Griswaldo (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC) AGFSlatersteven (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Noted and changed my comment because of it.Griswaldo (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Suggest Temporary topic ban (length TBA) -- I have never been involved with the articles in question (haven't even read them) but I know from other areas I tried to contribute to how tedious it can be when someone apparently doesn't listen. On the other hand, topic banning someone for eternity can easily lead to grudges and will have the next person with similar views pick up where the banned editor left, and the cycle will just continue. Maybe a temporary ban will have Noloop observe for a while (or so one would hope...) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 16:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC) You haven't READ them? Thanks for the informed vote. Gee. Noloop (talk) 16:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC) a) This isn't a vote, it's discussion. b) This is not about the topic, it's about you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 16:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Well, you shoul read the articles if possible, because the behaviour of Noloop is inextricably related to the status of these articles sourcing. --Cyclopiatalk 16:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC) I might. I understood this snide as inferring that I am not allowed to comment here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 16:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC) So I have gone through some of the "dialogues" on the talk pages. Lemme revise my suggestion. Suggest Public Trouting and Noloop's being laughed at for 2 minutes. That should do. :) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Support Both a cooling of period (for all concearned) as well as (hopefully) acting as an engourgement for Noloop to re-examine his attitudes. At the saem time he will be able to come back and contribute with a new co-operative attitude.Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Slrubenstein is canvassing votes to ban me for canvassing votes. [179] Noloop (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Everywhere I go, now, I see canvassing to ban me for canvassing. [180] Noloop (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC) I don't think you quite get the point. The alleged canvassing is a minor issue compared to your overall conduct of being not very cooperative. If you indeed become topic-banned, don't walk away from it with the idea "I got banned for canvassing". If you do that, you will really not have understood. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 16:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC) I don't agree with the point, which is different from not getting it. Are you going to provide any evidence for your view, or just assert it? My activity in the last few days has been restricted entirely to expressing my concerns with sourcing on the reliable sources noticeboard, expressing my concern with the fringe theory designation on the fringe theory noticeboard, and expressing my concerns with various articles in their Talk pages. My only edit to any of the actual articles in question was was to add a POV template to the articles. So this looks very much like censorship of ideas. When Wikipedia articles state as fact anything like "Christianity is right," the sources should not be 90% Christian. When Wikipedia adopts the position that skepticism of a Christian belief is a fringe theory to be excluded from articles, the basis for that should not be 90% Christian theologians. Advocating that view is all I've done in the last three days, so that is what you are calling "not being very cooperative." Noloop (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC) This is my main concearn, I don't think Nollop does 'get it'.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC) This sub-thread is not about canvassing specifically, and I would not call his behavior that anyway. Those are the very venues you are disrupting presently with your nonsense. It's like notifying editors on an article talk page that there is a discussion at RS/N or NPOV/N. Completely legitimate and even helpful.Griswaldo (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Oppose The idea of banning Noloop is utterly ridiculous. He has not engaged in any rude, uncivil, or inappropriate behaviors, unlike his critics who have resorted to attacks like this one. Noloop has raised a legitimate concern. The issue is this: Does the faith in which one has been indoctrinated impact one's ability to objectively assess data that threatens the truth claims of that faith? It is a legitimate concern. Noloop has never said "anyone who claims Jesus existed is a Christian." This is a serious misrepresentation of his argument, and in fact is one of several straw man misrepresentations that his critics have used in their attempts to shut him down. There are a number of statements made in the Historicity of Jesus and Christ Myth Theory articles that say there is a mainstream scholarly consensus when in fact the sources cited are all sectarian. Noloop has been using the talk page appropriately to address the issue, but instead of responding on the issues, his critics have resorted to name-calling and other forms of abuse. Both of these articles have long-standing WP:OWN and WP:NPOV problems caused by editors who strongly push an evangelical Christian POV. The failure of Noloop's critics to address his concerns has caused him to continue to seek improvement of the Wikipedia articles by demanding better sourcing. His critics call his work "disruptive editing" and "soapboxing", but the failure is theirs, not his. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeaceLoveHarmony (talk • contribs) 17:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Absolutely oppose I read the RSN board the other day. Noloop has taken on a issue vigorously. His task may be impossible: to find sourced academic commentary about the historicity of Jesus that doesn't come from a Christian POV. I don't see any evidence of him behaving poorly, edit warring, name calling, or any other issues which would justify any kind of ban. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) I'm vaguely tempted to propose a topic ban for Slrubenstein, for harassment, name-calling, intolerance and censorship. He continually makes comments like: “I think we can now say he is not only a bigot, but a fanatical bigot. This is not name-calling.” [181] He's repeatedly canvassed people to vote here, in a thread that began as a complaint against canvassing [182] and elsewhere. He is attempting to ban me for nothing but expressing an idea, the idea that any statement of the general type “Christianity is right” should not be sourced primarily to Christians. He is attempting censorship. I haven’t even edited any of these articles in several days. I've done nothing but attempt to persuade. Noloop (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC) This is silly. We don't topic ban people just because we don't find all their edit constructive. You have to do something really bad to get banned, and I haven't seen Noloop do anything bad. He just talks about sources in good faith. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC) I don't think topic banning is the right way to go, but neither is it accurate to say he's done nothing wrong. Hence the multiple blocks for edit warring as well as the warning for the inappropriate God edit.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Agree with Peregrine Fisher, we no longer burn heretics (or topic ban them). Noloop challenges quality of Christian sources on Christianity - try replacing this with reliable sources by Scientologists on Scientlogy articles. If you want a place where Christianity will always be unexposed I would suggest changing to conservapedia. PS the God edit is back WITH sources by another editor, so the "warning" is probably an overreaction. Arnoutf (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Regarding the God edit, you are not correct Arnoutf. Noloop's edit was nonsensical and unsourced. The scientific method does not support belief in anything. Cyclopia's edit was, on the other hand, both correct and reliably sourced. The question of God's existence, as God is described by most theists anyway, is not falsifiable and hence outside of what can be determined through the scientific method. Given this fact anyone should also be able to see how POV Noloop's nonsensical edit was.Griswaldo (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC) flattered to see Griswaldo endorsing one of my edits! Well, actually the scientific methods supports belief in theory of relativity as a good approximation to spacetime description, for example. It supports belief in lots of things. One of the things it does not support is God, and in that Noloop edit was perfectly accurate. I just happened to make it more precise and sourced. Notice, by the way, that I used two believing theologians as sources. This is a parallel with what we're discussing here. Using atheist sources to support that science does not support God would easily be considered seriously biased. If however parties who would have all to gain from a scientific support of God explicitly deny this is possible, the sources build a much more solid case. Do you get the pattern? --Cyclopiatalk 20:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC) This is semantic, but I'm not sure you understood what I meant by that. The scientific method is a tool, and it doesn't "support" anything. The theory of relativity is supported by some of the known results of applying the scientific method to various phenomena. Historical methods of research, likewise, do not support the existence of Jesus or the non-existence of Jesus. The known results of various applications of historical methods may support one or the other. This is why Noloop's statement was nonsensical. The reason it is not NPOV, is because the scientific method is not a useful tool in determining the existence or non-existence of God, so making the one sided claim is not even neutral, ontop of being nonsensical.Griswaldo (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Oppose: The quest for non-Christian scholars that acknowledge the historicity of Jesus is a reasonable one, and the idea that Christian scholars can be objective on the topic is somewhat amusing. This strikes me as being one of the unfortunate situations where an editor has lapsed into bad behaviour because of an apparently unyielding wall of opposition to an objectively reasonable position. There's really not that much difference between this and the kind of difficulties we have with various pseudoscience articles.—Kww(talk) 18:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Oppose - Too drastic a "remedy" at this time. Other steps can be taken, and the concerted opposition to Noloop also shows signs of being as intemperate (at times) as Noloop is. Everyone needs to cool their jets and ratchet things back a bit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Oppose: I first encountered User:NoLoop when he was against one of my edits - I am not sure how I came to edit the Historical Jesus article, but it may have been because I picked up on his name coming up in one of the noticeboards I monitored, and it sparked my interest in seeing what was happening there. I actually agree with some of his proposed edits there, although I would question where he wants to locate these within the article, and the exact nature of the edits & sources he use. NoLoop did inform me of the notifications, and I am grateful, as I was involved in the discussions (including on his talk page) that gave rise to these. I see no impropriety in that. I am not sure why his edits should give rise to a call for a ban, although I think that edit-warring has been problematic in these articles, but he is only one party in that, and he has been punished for that. This seems more to do with people wanting somebody banned because they do not like him contradicting what they believe. I am not interested in what people believe, as I do not believe anything is true - and this encyclopedia is not interested in the truth either; it is interested in accuracy and reliability. Obviously sources that cleave to a set of dogmas will treat the subject as if it were true - whether that is acceptable, to the exclusion of sources that contradict this truth, I find problematic. Editors trying to apply a standard of editing that only permits a strictly scientifically rigorous approach to phenomena that is not capable of anything that would be accepted as falsification would be laughable, if it were not so pathetically sad. And I am a Christian (just). - MishMich - Talk - 19:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Comment Some of these comments are simply astonishing. There are many, many people who share some or all of Noloop's beliefs but are capable of discussing them in ways that are not tendentious -- not forum shopping all over the Wiki and constantly practicing WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. No one is suggesting to ban any of these people, or Noloop for that matter, for their beliefs. The idea that this is about banning him because people hold different beliefs is ridiculous. The idea that this is about "beliefs" is actually even more ridiculous. I'm agnostic and I couldn't care less if Jesus existed, but I happen to know that most historians do believe he existed. And yes I mean historians, not "theologians" or "Christian scholars". One's qualifications as a religious historian have nothing to do with religious affiliation, just as one's qualifications as a national historian have nothing to do with national affiliations, or one's qualifications as a political scientist have nothing do with with party affiliation. Take a deep breath and consider that last example. Would you claim that having a personal political affiliation as a voter and a citizen makes a political scientist biased? Should we add this information to the entry of every political scientist? Of course we shouldn't. Should we mention it if other scholars have made such an affiliation notable? Yes, in that case the political affiliation has been made meaningful by the reliable sources as opposed to Wikipedians (see WP:NOR). There is a huge difference between religious polemics and religious scholarship that few people commenting here recently seem to understand ... and yes Arnautf this is not a perfect world and everyone is biased ... Besides that fact that we are all biased to some degree, there is a huge difference between polemics and scholarship. Christian theologians should not be trusted as reliable sources on this question because they are not concerned with the accuracy of history for its own sake, but with the Christian faith and its internal logic. These writers, on this topic, should be considered polemicists. However Christian historians should absolutely be trusted as reliable sources because they are concerned with historical accuracy and not the internal logic of their faith. They are also held in check by the entire community of historians, as opposed to the their religious communities. Keeping their reputations require them to be respected as historians by other historians ... of all manner of religious affiliation and disaffiliation. We here at Wikipedia trust this community to keep itself in line, because all of our policies require that we trust the reliable sources that it creates to guide our writing. If there is some systemic bias in this community we can't do anything about it, nor should we -- see pretty much every policy we have. It pains me to see these arguments made over and over because they show 1) a complete lack of understanding of how the study of religion is conducted in the academy and 2) a complete lack of understanding of how we are meant to deal with such scholarship here vis-a-vis our various policies -- WP:V, WP:NPOV, etc.Griswaldo (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Would you claim that having a personal political affiliation as a voter and a citizen makes a political scientist biased? : Obviously. If a political scientist has an explicit and known political affiliation, it is self-explanatory that there is a bias. Bias that becomes important if the subject involved is at the core of the political affiliation. What would you think of sourcing the article on Communism with 90% Communist sources? Would you be happy having the article on Nazism relying completely on Nazist sources? Your blindess to this platitude is the really astonishing thing. However Christian historians should absolutely be trusted as reliable sources because they are concerned with historical accuracy and not the internal logic of their faith. - As a though experiment, imagine that there is substantial evidence that Jesus didn't exist (or substantial lack of evidence that he did). Now build a convincing case that a Christian historian would happily acknowledge that. You continue to think that scholars shut down their self when entering their departments and writing their papers. It is not so, in any discipline (and much more when concerning religion). I cited above a source of a Christian scholar who made clear that the even contemplating "Jesus does not exist" as in the realm of possibilities is totally incompatible with the Christian worldview. They are also held in check by the entire community of historians, as opposed to the their religious communities - That's what we're asking: this check. --Cyclopiatalk 20:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC) If you held the belief of a Christian afterlife and the key component of getting into that afterlife is the existence of Jesus (which it is for Christians) then how could you ever admit or believe that he didn't exist? To assume a writer from a Christian background would not be biased on the existence of their Savior and the key figure of their religion is utterly insane. — raekyT 20:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Your thought experiment is a great example of how conspiratorial thinking functions. Congratulations. Imagine if things weren't as we've been told they are, don't you think such and such people wouldn't want us to know!!! You're not asking for "this check". It has been provided over and over. Those of us who are not simply flying by this message board have seen the numerous quotes from scholars of all ilks calling this fringe cruft. What more do you need?Griswaldo (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC) So your saying you honestly think a Christian could be objective about the existence of Jesus? — raekyT 20:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Why are you constructing the argument backwards? If there is little doubt that someone existed, like lets say Abraham Lincoln it makes no sense to ask whether or not someone else who is emotionally invested in the legacy of that person could be objective about their existence. These people assume that the person existed, along with all the other people who are not so emotionally invested, and wondering about how their feelings effect their judgement about whether or not is true should never even be a question unless there is doubt about this truth in the first place.Griswaldo (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC) People don't tie their salvation of their soul and hopes of eternal afterlife on Abraham Lincoln, whereas if Jesus was proved to not be a real person, that would shatter the entire belief system of Christianity. To assume someone deeply committed to the idealism of Christianity to whole heartily belief in Jesus and his message would ever even remotely consider that he didn't exist is foolhardy. Your comment sums up your beliefs quite well, that Jesus was real so anyone who doubts that is fringe. Jesus lived nearly 2000 years ago, there is no direct evidence of his existence like there is of Abraham Lincoln who we have photographs of and other direct physical proof of his existence. To assume beyond a shadow of a doubt that the biblical man Jesus and the biblical accounts of his life are accurate without a doubt, is a stretch imho. — raekyT 21:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Talk about circular reasoning. "If there is little doubt that someone existed". This very assumption is what we're trying to prove. This is a summary of this gigabytes-long week of discussion: "Is there little doubt that Jesus existed?" "Yes." "How do we know that?" "Mostly from people that believe from faith that Jesus existed, and also happen to study about Jesus" "But they will be surely biased, won't they be?" "Oh no, this is a non-issue, because -remember?- there is little doubt that Jesus existed!" --Cyclopiatalk 21:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)I may have missed them. Probably there was some in the FAQ that another user (Bill the Cat?) compiled? If so, let's just add them to the articles, and all this is going to disappear. It's really that simple. --Cyclopiatalk 20:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Nazism and communism ... what a joke!!! You chose party affiliations that are completely outside of the mainstream political spectrum. You wonder why I don't want to have a conversation with you? Maybe you could for a second imagine that an American political scientist measuring public opinion of Barack Obama is a registered Democrat and try to reformulate your response. If you are unwilling to meet me squarely on the field of discussion and actually engage the arguments I set forth without grotesquely distorting them for your own purposes I do not, as I stated before, care to converse with you my friend. Feel free to try again. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC) You mean a political scientist who happens to be a democrat may have a different opinion on the quality of the Obama presidency compared to a political scientist being a republican? Yup, seems to be the case. (and indeed there is evidence of a poll about legalising Hashish at about the same moment in the same region, both representative, but the one sample by supporters of legalisation showed a 60% support while the opponents found a 70% opposition. So indeed polling is open to bias by its researchers.) PS glad to be back to Godwins law ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC) So you think that a registered Democrat would be incapable of looking at polling data, or interview data that they have collected in order to present a relatively unbiased view of the public perception of the president they helped to elect? And you think that this person can publish their biased results in mainstream peer-reviewed publications without a problem? So political scientists who are Democrats and those who are Republicans are inherently biased. there is no such thing as good scientific political analysis is there? Good to know. Same must be true for political anthropologists and sociologists who vote in elections. I wish you had told me about this lack of neutrality in scholarship sooner Arnautf, I would have changed my profession.Griswaldo (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Given your naive belief in the independence of researchers, perhaps you should really change your profession. I don't know how old are you, Griswaldo, but from your comments it seems that you're still a bit too young and idealistic to fully understand how these things work. --Cyclopiatalk 21:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Cyclopia I'm well aware of how things work, and I have articulated my beliefs about bias much more fully in the past, which you and Arnoutf are both aware of. I also happen to know that we can't build an encyclopedia on the notion that everyone is biased. Bias might be an inherent part of the human condition but it is also relative. Everyone is not as biased about everything they think about as everyone else is. If we are to construct a general reference work we need to do the best we can with what we have. This means trusting academic communities to lead the way (and indeed our policies reflect this see WP:V and WP:NPOV). One cannot construct a general reference work that is reliable if we go about trying to identify every imaginable bias that our sources may have. If we do so we destroy the authority of the knowledge we are presenting completely. X scholars says Y about the history of the Netherlands but ... he's Dutch ... so make of that what you will ... and so on. That's not the way you write an encyclopedia. Both you and Arnautf know this. Why do you keep on asking us to deviate from trusting this academic community? Do we need to start identifying the various affiliations and personal characteristics of all scholars in every entry? Maybe I have all of this wrong, maybe you guys worship at the Temple of Postmodernism. Maybe this is just an example of the relativism you wish to instill? Yeah? I doubt it. I think this particular example is one you care about personally, both of you. I don't think you want us to start qualifying information all of the encyclopedia based on the possible biases of the sources. I think you just want us to do it in this case. The problem is that you keep on making the general argument about bias every-time I say that we need to trust the relevant scholarly communities to sort this out for us, but in reality you don't want the general argument to shape what we do in the entire encyclopedia, just here. If either of you are an atheist, btw, don't I as an agnostic have a better position to consider this situation than you and your Christian sparring partners? Wouldn't your own arguments about bias presuppose this since I can't care less about whether God exists or whether Jesus existed? No? Well its time to consider the rhetoric you've been pushing more thoroughly then.Griswaldo (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC) I trust the relevant scientific community, not the individual scientists (as I repeatedly stated). Noloop here, however does implicitly more than question individual scientists, but argues that the theological community is not relevant for a historical/archaeological article. PS postmodernism is in my view a lazy way out of discussion in science. We should all be aware of our biases and deal (and compensate) with those ourselves, postmodernists tend to say "yet we are biased, that is part of being human, so we don't do anything to compensate for that". Arnoutf (talk) 21:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC) This is where I think there is a misunderstanding. I agree that theologians are not the community we should trust to answer this question if we're looking for as unbiased of a historical view as possible. BUT Noloop is not simply questioning theologians, he is questioning historians who affiliate with Christianity. Please bare in mind that some scholars are both academic theologians and historians, by the way. Regarding the place of theology in scholarship on this question, Cyclopia him/herself brought to the discussion several sources that stated emphatically that current scholarship on the historicity of Jesus is no longer influenced by theology. At the turn of the century, these sources pointed out, it was heavily influenced by theology, but no longer. So I think you're confused about Noloop's position. It is also relevant to poitn out that in several other discussions Noloop shows no ability to distinguish "theology" from the study of religion, at least not when the scholar has a religious affiliation. It is all "theology" to him. I hope that clarifies things a bit.Griswaldo (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC) "incapable of looking at polling data, or interview data". No they may not be incapable, but they are likely to interpret towards their own ideas (as are indeed supporters of superstring theories regarding physical data). Yes, these biased results are published, all the time. If there were no biases in publication the whole "rational actor" idea would have been dead and buried in all publications for at least 20 yrs by now, because the economist would have gladly taken up the findings of psychology. Interviewing is a particularly tough job to do in a neutral and unbiased way; and constructing a poll may introduce all kinds of biases (framing effect, order effects, learning effects, fatique effects) that easily influence the data. Interpretation of interviews is again an inherently subjective task which is very hard to do completely unbiased (ok intercoder reliabilities get some of that). And so far I have only been talking about biases that are introduced by the researcher unconsciously. I do not even mention the class of researchers who actually set out to find evidence for their pet-theory and develop their methods to ignore all else, i.e. those who consciously bias the results. Yes, science is a mess of biased people arguing against other biased people. The emerging consensus from all these biased views (and indeed publications) is usually an improvement. That is the beauty of the scientific method. Arnoutf (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC) What bearing has being in the "mainstream political spectrum" for the argument? Why is it a joke? Why is it a "grotesque distortion"? Here in Europe, communist parties still exist, and neo-Nazis parties as well (unfortunately), so it didn't strike me as a strange comparison. And I could have invented hypothetical parties as well, the argument does not change. Let's restate it this way: For every value of X, if you're a political scientist affiliated to party X, and you write about X, it is safe to assume you have a pro-X bias. No problem with your request, therefore: If we were to source something like "Barack Obama is considered unanimously a very capable president", I would not accept having only sources of known, registered Democrats for it. Are you happy now? --Cyclopiatalk 20:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Would you be happy if we added a few Dutch left wing sources ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Comment If you are going to demand punishment of a fellow editor, the least you could do is provide some concrete, objective, examples of the behaviors you think are violations. Noloop violated the 3RR rule a couple of times a week and a half ago, and was briefly blocked for it. Other than that, all he has done is advocate for his position on some talk pages. He has not insulted anyone or been uncivil; his critics have. There are quite a few editors who agree with the idea that the religion in which one has been indoctrinated can have an impact on one's ability to objectively assess data that challenges that religion's truth claims. Those of us who believe this are being insulted as "bigots". Noloop is just asking for some sourcing from secular sources to back up some of the more extreme NPOV statements on some of these Jesus articles. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Comment. Relevant comment by Betrand Russell, one of the best known philosophers of the 20th Century - excluded. Priceless. No POV there then... - MishMich - Talk - 22:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Definite oppose Noloop could do with slowing down sometimes, hence the 3RR - not acceptable. But there is a fundamental problem here. The only groups who study the historical Jesus are either coming from a "what was the person who founded Christianity really like" perspective, or a "was there even a historical Jesus" perspective. The first camp consider it axiomatic that there was this guy called Jesus, and scholars seeking to understand the historical Jesus therefore, while some do make an effort to examine the evidence that he existed, and a few even call attention to the fact that there is virtually no evidence that he did(he didn't rule any kingdom, conquer another nation or build any notable edifice for example, three things that Alexander the Great did that left plenty of evidence in the archaeological record. Thought I'd get that in before the next person mentions that his biography was written centuries after he died), all eventually conclude that the simplest/easiest solution is that not only did he exist, but the philosophical/spiritual content of the Gospels are largely based on things he actually said. Noloop is not even arguing that this logic is unsatisfactory, he is asking for evidence that a Chinese archaeologist or Hindu philosopher would advance the same arguments, and he is having problems because the only people who are accepted as reliable sources are the ones whose interest is 'what was the founder of Christianity really like". Anyone who starts from a "was there even a historical Jesus" position is automatically excluded as WP:FRINGE, because the other group do not entertain the possibility. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Oppose Feel like it is using a hammer to crack a nut I have to agree with the rational of Cyclopia above. Articles like this always seem to have it's "protectors" for want of a better word and certain questions on certain articles lead to editors being labeled as pushing a fringe or conspiracy theory. Mo ainm~Talk 22:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Definite Support: Noloop should be topic-banned. If Wikipedia is to work, we must get past bigotry and prejudice. Whether a person is a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jew or Atheist is not important. We judge them by their edits. We try to be fair and balanced following the references where they lead us. Noloop cannot do this therefore he is damaging Wikipedia - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Oppose This is absurd. It is not bigoted to ask that we do not adopt a Christian perspective but rather a secular perspective on Wikipedia. There should be some reversal of scrutiny here on Slrubenstein and the other editors who are refusing to comply with WP:NPOV in the articles. I have recently tried to give some neutral advice in the disputed article Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#Demonstrating_academic_consensus_and_Graham_Stanton.27s_assessment, but it needs more attention. II | (t - c) 00:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC) It took a moment to get past the word "absurd", but I pocketed the insult to try and hear what you were saying. Why can't Wikipedia reflect both Christian and secular perspectives? Is taking an inclusive approach so very wrong? - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Oppose topic ban, Support 3 month block Wikipedia is a liberal, secular website with some tolerance for minor deviation from this. Noloop deviates too much from the agenda. RIPGC (talk) 03:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Comment, Oh aren't you cute? C6541 (T↔C) 18:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Support per OP. C6541 (T↔C) 18:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Evidence of Disruption by User:Noloop Per User:PeaceLoveHarmony's request please use this section to present evidence (including diffs) of disruptions, with very concise explanations as needed. Please do not comment on this evidence here -- create a discussion section after this if needed for that. This is a very fair suggestion and will help sort out the behavioral issues from everything else.Griswaldo (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC) This is ANI and not WP:RFCU Off2riorob (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Point taken. So use this space as you will, but people should be encouraged to present this kind of information if they believe, as I do, that he's being disruptive. Every-time this is discussed the discussion just derails into what you see above, which is clearly off topic at AN/I. That's all I'm suggesting.Griswaldo (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Start an RfC. I believe this has been suggested before. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Wrong Forum Yet again. Will you all please take this to an RfC? Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Request arbitration. Noloop (talk) 01:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC) People who do not understand that accusations without diffs or other supporting evidence are personal attacks (see Wikipedia:GOODFAITH#Accusing_others_of_bad_faith) should be barred from ANI (I'm looking at Off2riorob above). There's a breathtaking lack of evidence of misconduct in this "proposal". I would open up a ban proposal on Slrubenstein, but I'm sure it would be called pointy (regardless of reality) and I would be overcome by complaints from people who refuse to accept that accusations require evidence. II | (t - c) 00:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC) @II - ban me on what grounds? The supporting evidence for a pattern of disruptive behavior is not a single edit dif, bu the entire section of the talk page at the Jesus article. If you do not consider the persistent pushing of a bigoted and misinformed POV on the talk page, the refusal to answer any question and the complete lack of interest in the views of othe editors, or their answers to his questions, is not an abuse of talk pages, well, what can I say? Talk pages are meant not for soapboxing but for discussion improvements to articles. Can you tell me how an editor who simply repeats the same demands week after week, even following considerable discussion among other editors (as he does not participate in any discussion, he ignores them and just repeats his demands) (and the evidence is talk:Jesus) is helping to improve the article? Slrubenstein | Talk 09:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC) You did not point to the talk page or make the same argument in your proposal to topic ban him. In fact there was/is no reference to Talk:Jesus in your proposal. In fact, there is only one topic as of now where Noloop is commenting (permalink), and an archive search brings up only Talk:Jesus/Archive_109 as another place of discussion (see search). Neither of these demonstrates any misconduct, and in the current section he actually appears to have some support. I do think some restraint from Noloop would be nice. What's even worse about your proposal is that you include very damaging unsupported accusations such as the argument that Noloop uses only Google Scholar snippets, without support. How would you like it if I just casually said you routinely misrepresent sources you do not read? II | (t - c) 17:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC) @II: I'm not understanding your comment regarding Off2riorob - I see nothing here to justify it whatsoever. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Off2riorob just basically panned the idea that we should be working with evidence here in our ANI proposals because this is ANI and not a RfC/User. That's what it looks like he said to me - is that a strawman? Anyway, it's a terrible conception of how things should be. The meme needs to be shut down before it spreads. Barring people who have this idea, regardless of whether their intentions are good, is a start. Obviously making grand accusations and bad faith assumptions without evidence in an attempt to WP:GAME people out the door is a worse offense and those people should be barred as well... II | (t - c) 04:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC) All he said was that this issue would be better dealt with at an RfC/U, which is better constructed (although stil far from ideal) to deal with complex issue of behaviorial problems which fall short of blockable activity (admin territory), rather then at AN/I, where admin-centric triage is performed. That seems far from incorrect, and your specific imputation of misbehavior on his part is totally unwarranted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Err, that is not what he said, and if he had said that I wouldn't have mentioned him. When someone made a spot for actual evidence/diffs, he denigrated that move as a matter of venue. It would have been reasonable for him to say "at this point it's pointless to bring evidence since the proposal is dead", but expressing the idea that ANI is not the place for evidence really ticked me off considering how lightly this place takes evidence. I'll admit it was short-tempered and I was maybe too harsh but I think my mention of him is still at least somewhat justified. II | (t - c) 17:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC) I would susgest we concentrate on Noloop and his activites, not his views. This is about him, not content. After all if I were to say that Hitler killed 11 million (fill in your own offensive and racist anti-semitic comment) I would be right, but also breaching the rules.Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC) From Godwins law we learn that this has gone on too long here. Arnoutf (talk) 13:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC) I thought that was comparisons with the Nazis, I was asking if some one worded a statemnt in a way that containt hightly offensive language would that be acceptable even if right? I did not compare any one to a nazi, nor thnier views. I just gave Nazi's as an example of the kind of language (I could have just as ealiy put Slavery was wrong becasue it kept N****'s in servitude. Argue about actions not content.Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Any comparisons to/analogy with Nazi topics will do, not the comparison of one of the editors (as that would be a personal attack). And yes we have been seeing Nazis, Holocaust and Hitler sprinkled throughout this discussion. Arnoutf (talk) 13:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC) So is it acceptable for some one to engage if poor actions whilst being right? does a persons 'correctness' (at best a matter of perspective) outwiegh bad Behaviour?Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Proposal to close this down now I propose this topic, as it was just a few days ago, be closed, archived, collapsed and all the complainants be directed to pursue Dispute Resolution, and either file an RfC or else take this to arbitration where it belongs. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Here here! It's not going anywhere. No actionable results can come from this. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 03:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Support - Shut it down. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Support - close and archive asap Arnoutf (talk) 08:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC) support Wrong venue. ANI cannot deal with this as has been amply demonstrated by the multiple listings of this complaint, which have all petered out in a similar way.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Support. This is not going anywhere; please, start an WP:RFC. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 11:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Comment This general issue was taken to arbitration by User:Noloop where it was rejected by all arbitrators. One of those arbitrators supported the unpopular topic ban proposal on this page above (just to point out that there is clearly not agreement between AN/I admins and arbitrators on how to deal with this). So is a RFC/U the only place for this then? I'm assuming that these tangential arguments about the historicity of Jesus would not be appropriate at the RFC/U, in which case I guess that really is the best venue to weed the behavioral issues out from this other nonsense.Griswaldo (talk) 13:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Oppose Much of the defnece (and some of the attack) is based on content not behaviour. I am not sure that is the right approach and would like that cleared up. So is it corrext to say that the value of someone views (oe edits) outweighs rules on good behaviour? Or are we saying the Noloops actions are acceptabel behaviour?Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Support However much content discussion there has been, there is still an overwhelming majority against a ban, so the subject is done with. --FormerIP (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Oppose the key is to focus on behavior, and an editor who never answers qustions and ignores answers to his own questions, and keeps pushing the same point of view even after weeks of discussion and a clear consensus among other editors, is abusing talk pages - this pattern of stridently insisting on the same demand after discussion is simple disruptive editing. I accept that there is no consensus for a ban, but that does not mean that we cannot discuss alternate approaches. Some people - I do not know whether they are actually administrators or no - have proposed alternate solutions and we should consider them here and now. Minimally, is there anyone (someone who is not committed to his POV, and someone who also cares about our NPOV policy) who would be willing to mentor him? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Is he agreeable to a mentor? Off2riorob (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Agree with closing discussion. It's clearly not going to achieve consensus and seems to be only increasing the temperature. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Support – Take this to WP:DR; too much drama here. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 18:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Paulord

I'm slightly concerned about this user's edits, which seem to consist entirely of adding information to articles garnered from www.pinkfloydfan.net, a Pink Floyd fan site. Maybe he's just innocently adding information he feels would be of use, or maybe he's "spreading the word" about his website. Thoughts? Parrot of Doom 10:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I think User talk:Paulord is the better place for this discussion, at least as a starting point.  Frank  |  talk  12:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and the WP:RS/N or the WP:COI/N. I don't see the need for this to be here. Fences&Windows 21:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat at Talk:Gabriel Cousens

Resolved

 – 3 socks blocked for 3RR after warnings to all 3; later all three plus User:OX in the BOX indef blocked as socks of User:Witnesspress.

 Frank  |  talk  19:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears I have been the recipient of a legal threat. Please take whatever action is required. - MrOllie (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you file something at WP:SPI after someone deals with the threat. All of those new accounts are likely socks. AniMate 16:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's a legal threat; the claim of libel is against the author of the reference we are following. Certainly "banishment" is a threat but not a legal one. I'll address further over there.  Frank  |  talk  16:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. They're saying the secondary source is likely headed for a defamation lawsuit, not you as far as I can see. AniMate 16:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Bigsby, Mugsy, and Horns? Please. Any Checkusers around? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

(EC for like the 3rd time.) Anyway, I've already created an SPI case, which may be found here. Netalarm^talk 16:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

"Do you really want to ride that train" sounds like a legal threat to me, personally. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it is starting to look like a different train is about to arrive at the station, quite apart from any legal threats, perceived or real.  Frank  |  talk  17:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Alas, a word to the wise was not sufficient; the train has pulled into the station. 3-hour blocks for 3RR for User:Death and the Maiden, User:Seven Pointed Star, and User:Joe Galaxy.  Frank  |  talk  17:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Bigsby, Mugsy, and Horns sounds more like an oddly named law firm. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Not to me. While it smells like a sock, it reads like a weak attempt to hint at legal action, while actually implying that insisting on including a dicey source could lead to a ban[ishment]. Pursue the SPI, but the purported legal threat is too weak for action.--SPhilbrickT 17:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

New sock 63.227.80.175 has popped up and made the same edits. Netalarm^talk 19:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Disruption by User KD Tries Again

Resolved

 – Nothing more for admins to do here, if people are concerned about Cirt's editing they can talk to him or file an RfC/U if it comes to that. Fences&Windows 21:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion can take place at talk page of WP:V
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
KD Tries Again (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) At the article Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant -- KD Tries Again (talk · contribs) has repeatedly added information to the article page that fails the policy Wikipedia:Verifiability, despite comments on his talk page and at the article's talk page specifically informing him of this problem. Respectfully requesting another administrator to deal with the violations of Wikipedia:Verifiability by KD Tries Again (talk · contribs), and also to get the information removed from the article that was added by the user, that fails WP:V. Chronology 17:11, 30 July 2010 - KD Tries Again adds completely unsourced info to the article. 17:20, 30 July 2010 - KD Tries Again adds a link to the restaurant's website, which does not confirm the info added in the same edit, the website refers to a "Chef Chuck", and KD Tries Again adds a claim not backed up by that reference, By summer 2010, Charles Howlett was chef de cuisine... 17:33, 30 July 2010 - KD Tries Again adds the info a 3rd time, this time quoting the website about "Chef Chuck", while still failing WP:V regarding his claims about a "Charles Howlett". 17:43, 30 July 2010 - KD Tries Again removes the link to the restaurant's own website from a reference, instead pointing the link to the restaurant's Facebook page (not sure if this is acceptable). Will defer to review of a previously-uninvolved administrator. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Note that the information I added is pertinent to [AfD] where I had raised some queries about an article created by Cirt which he is defending from deletion (I actually did not vote delete). The lively discussion there explains the sequence of events I think: I made two corrections at 17.10 and 17.11 and added further information and a reference at 17.20 (revision history). At 17.13, two minutes after I had started work on the article, Cirt sent a message to my [Page] warning me against adding unsourced material to articles. I agree that the first source I provided was insufficiently clear, as it used a nickname rather than an individual's real name. However, the source was the webpage maintained by the restaurant under discussion, which clearly indicated that the existing information in the Wikipedia article was wrong. While Cirt has been starting this AN/I complaint and posting further warnings to my Talk Page, I went and found a good reference for the information. I am sorry it took me until 17.43.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again What we see here is a persistent pattern by KD Tries Again (talk · contribs) to violate WP:V at the article page. However, with regard to the most recent addition, if indeed social-networking-websites are deemed appropriate for use as references on Wikipedia, then nothing further need be done at this point in time. -- Cirt (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC) I do take exception to the description of my editing as disruptive and a "persistent pattern" (one edit to the body of the article, with consistent changes in the intro and info box). It took me two attempts and twenty minutes to find a reference which Cirt can't really complain about, and I have been civil throughout. In the light of the last comment, I would request an uninvolved administrator to consider whether Cirt has acted appropriately in posting here about an easily resolved content issue.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again The question is why KD Tries Again (talk · contribs) felt the need to first add completely unsourced info to the page, and then info that failed WP:V, and then info sourced only to a social-networking-website, instead of starting by finding an appropriate reference, and/or discussing on the article's talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Running to ANI at the first sign of a garden variety content dispute is rarely productive, and I see no call for it here. The charge of "disruption" has a ring of hyperbole. You are both experienced editors, more than familiar with our norms of verifiability and discussion. All parties might do well to relax, research, converse and then agree on how to structure the information in question. Skomorokh 18:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Agreed, and on that note, posted a question at the talk page for WP:V. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Started discussion regarding use of Facebook and other social-networking-websites as WP:SELFPUB, at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Question_about_SELFPUB. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it appropriate for the Administrator who started a discussion here and asked for independent review to then close the discussion, perhaps not liking the response, and shop the topic off to another forum?KD Tries Again (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

The post to WP:V's talk page is not about KD Tries Again (talk · contribs), it is specifically about use of Facebook as a source (or not) under WP:SELFPUB. -- Cirt (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree - it's a separate topic, which is why I think the accusations about me made here needn't have been removed (I know they still appear in the history).KD Tries Again (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Discussion is ongoing between the two parties at the talk page of WP:V, though it would be better to get some comments from previously-uninvolved contributors. -- Cirt (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment There appears to be another pattern of behavior of note here too with the filing of this AN/I. User:Cirt appears a bit trigger happy about bringing content disputes at the afore mentioned article to AN/I. Just days ago he filed this report - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive628#Disruption_by_User_Njsustain. Slow down there Cirt. How important is this page to you? Filing AN/I reports left and right, Canvassing people to help you at the RS/N (see User talk:Cirt). I think its time to take a step back and consider a slower more well thought out plan of action here.Griswaldo (talk) 19:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Griswaldo, I wanted to ask you the same very question: how important is this page to you? You have made 20+ posts in the AfD (and not short ones either), plus at Cirt's talk page, here at AN/I and at a few other pages. What's up with your preoccupation with this article and this AfD? Do you really have something new to say at the AfD that you haven't said ten times over already? It seems to me that it is high time for you to look up WP:DISENGAGE. There are a thousand other things that need doing here on Wikipedia, that do not involve the dramafest that this AfD has become. In particular, you might actually try creating a couple of new articles... Nsk92 (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Noted. I hope you have similar advice for others as well, but I'll take your advice gladly.Griswaldo (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Though if you want an explanation I became preoccupied with this AfD because of the larger issue it represents involving our notability policies and restaurants. There was an ongoing discussion prior to the AfD (the AfD that I did not start nor intend to start) at the talk page of WP:CORP. This discussion was initiated by me after I happened upon the AN/I thread. I guess I got too wrapped up in the AfD because it seemed like the outcome of the AfD would be rather important in terms of this broader situation. If you look at my edit history I've been spending time going through the restaurant by state category state by state as well. But you're right. It's time to disengage. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• It is an unfortunate habit of Cirt's to leave official-sounding warnings on user talk pages and run to ANI with cries of disruption and calls for severe sanctions whenever s/he finds herself involved in a content dispute with another editor. I commented on this habit just an hour ago, without having seen this latest instalment.
• As for the underlying question, self-published sources published by the article subject are explicitly allowed by policy, subject to the restrictions at WP:BLPSPS and WP:SELFPUB. This even applies to twitter posts, and it certainly includes company websites and facebook pages (if they have one). To drag another editor to ANI over citing an SPS published by the article subject is preposterous.
• Cirt's complaint a few days ago about Njsustain was equally ludicrous. Cirt had written an article on a probably non-notable restaurant which in Jimbo's and many other editors' opinion reads like an advertisement. Njsustain's "crime" was to have pointed that out. --JN466 20:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I've marked this as resolved (again), as I don't see any need for admin tools to be wielded. Fences&Windows 21:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism by User:Karthi1522, edit warring and personal attacks made by User:Karthi1522 and User:Kannadakumara

Relevant page histories

1. Puneet Rajkumar
2. Rajkumar
3. Ravi Belagere

Relevant user talk page diffs

1. First attack on User talk:Karti1551
2. Response to the above with vulgar language
3. Second attack after warning on User talk:Karti1551

User:Kannadakumara claims that the text in diff #3 also contains obscenities in Kannada language at my talk page. I have removed the text of the third diff, but left the first and the second personal attck and warned both parties.--Forty two^{Thanks for all the fish!} 18:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

User:86.44.85.89 vows to continue edit warring

86.44.85.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been blocked for a month for continual edit warring and personal attacks, and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. They've bowed on their Talk page to come back when the block is over and pick up where they left off. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

DFTT. Fences&Windows 20:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

User: Noloop - votestacking

Please file a user conduct RFC - Not appropriate for ANI. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:Noloop started another topic at the reliable sources noticeboard regarding the historical Jesus article. He posted the link at the talk page of atheism, which I believe is an attempt to votestack. [183] Atheism is just about unrelated to the historical Jesus. He also posted at an editor's talk page. [184] I notified the editor if votestacking, but he dismissed it as silliness. [185] Flash 06:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC) My experience with him has me concluding that he is on a jihad to introduce original research and deny reliable sources. He has stated that Christian scholars as well as theologians are not reliable sources and edits with that notion in mind. He even tried opening an ArbCom case in an effort to impose his bizarre objectives—see especially the section he calls "Desired outcomes:" Also, the section he calls "Conduct issues" contains hints of paranoia. The fact that he's been recently unblocked should also be considered in determining what to do about this behavior. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 08:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC) I have also had issues with nollop oin the past, prety much similar to this. Using OR interpritations of Wiki rules (such as consensus). An obsestion (or perhaps just mis-application) with (percived) Anglo bias.Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC) While I agree that the editor's behaviour raises concerns, it is also evidently in good faith and has helped enlightening issues about the sourcing of several articles, as the RS/N thread he opened shows. About the votestacking, well, it is not good behaviour but nothing obviously concerning. It is instead concerning that users like Flash try to use ANI to silence him and that users like Bill the Cat use straw man arguments in dealing with the issue, like "stated that Christian scholars as well as theologians are not reliable sources", which is not the point (the point is that they are potentially biased, a different issue). It would be also much less confusing if all of us (especially but not only Noloop) stop polluting every possible venue trying to forum shop and discuss the issue in a single place. --Cyclopiatalk 11:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Fully agree with Cyclopia. Noloop is not a very easy editor to work with, but is acting in good faith and honestly tries to provide good support for his claimsArnoutf (talk) 11:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Make no mistake, Noloop behaviour should change, or he will face another block soon, probably. But I am very worried by the stubborn contempt with which editors guarding the Jesus articles treat Noloop. He is, after all, asking for something extremly reasonable (non biased sources about a statement documented so far in the articles only by clearly biased sources) and instead of being provided these sources, he is attacked. No surprise he is becoming frustrated and obsessive. All this discussion would have been dead long time ago, if only non-biased sources were provided. --Cyclopiatalk 11:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC) I also woould point out that he is forever threataning top leave (and avoided a block a while back for that reason). Also how doi you define non-biased sources, any source on the subject will be biased (and if its so improtant why did nollop not do it) this represents typical tactic. Demand others provide sources whilst he just objects. I would be more convinced of his genuisness if he actualy showed he was doing more then obstructingSlatersteven (talk) 11:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Agree with the behavioural issues. On the specific point of sources, well, a lot of people in the Jesus articles claim to be scholars of the subject, so it is only fair that they should provide sources. --Cyclopiatalk 13:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC) I believe the article is sourced. If this were an isolated incident you might have a point, its not. I have had this issue with nollop before. Objecting to material and then never himself either doing any work to find sources (even when asked to do so to back up his claims) or suggesting compromise text. Its ‘I know this should be removed (or included) and I want it removed, and it’s down to you to prove me wrong’ attitude.Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Is it too much to ask for a bit of proper spelling? Please. My eyes hurt, and I'm not even a native English speaker. --Cyclopiatalk 13:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Cyclopia; what is getting to me is his moving of the goal posts. Originally it was only Christian bias that was argued (a possibility) but now we need secular peer reviewed sources.... *facepalm*. I'm coming to the conclusion that while yourself and even I are making an important point about using a cross section of sources Noloop is just here to push a POV (one that I think is to undermine religion, specifically Christianity). this is, IMO, a clear recent example. He seems to now suffer from WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - instead he just keeps suggesting we are biased too (in various ways)... I just don't think he is being constructive any more --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 12:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Which is another of Noloops regular tactics (such as on antiamericanism. He his objection is dealt with he just come up with a new objection. He seems to decide to object to a passage or page and will then dig on refuse any compromise and accept nothing but what he wants.12:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk) Errant: Maybe I am naive and assuming too much good faith, but needing secular peer reviewed sources seems a fair request -it is what we need for all factual claims in academic subjects, after all. That Noloop is pushing POV is not in question; but in doing that he is raising genuine issues. The edit he did to God has been reverted in being completely unsourced, but it is (to my knowledge) factually correct and it would be neat addition to that article lead, if better articulated. --Cyclopiatalk 13:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC) His edit to god might be factualy accurate, but it neetly sums up many of the objections above. The insertion of what is ijn effect a personal opinion that is unsourced. When all he had to do was source it 9he must have known it would be objected to.Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC) It would be also much less confusing if all of us (especially but not only Noloop) stop polluting every possible venue trying to forum shop and discuss the issue in a single place. Here, here.Griswaldo (talk) 12:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Ho-hum. I read the first few comments and skipped the rest. Not mentioned is that I also notified four Jesus-related Talk pages and a secular history discussion page. If it can be assumed that atheists hang out in at Atheist Talk, it can be presumed that Believers hang out at Jesus, Historical Jesus, Historicity of Jesus and Christ myth theory. So, I aimed for a shred of balance. Also, not mentioned is that nobody cares about canvassing. We saw that when Ari89 canvassed at Jesus, which promptly brought the numbers to Historical Jesus needed to tag-team edit war one paragraph of dissent out of existence. Actual editing is like voting, so that's a clear case of votestacking. Which brings me to the final point, how can there be votestacking when there is no voting? The discussion of reliable sources is a just that: a discussion. You are declaring Christian doctrine to be fact, and in support citing only Christian sources. You are declaring dissent from Christian doctrine to be a fringe theory and using that to exclude dissent, and in support citing only Christian sources. You are getting away with it because of cultural bias, and I'm censured and blocked because I'm challenging the most fervent bias in our culture. Noloop (talk) 14:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC) No, Noloop. You're being opposed for two things (as best I gather); bringing in undue information from a fringe theory (which, even as a diehard atheist, I'd view as fringe!) into related articles. And secondly for demanding non-Christian sources to qualify the statement that the existence of Jesus is a scholarly consensus. The first argument I'm not really involved with - but the latter is.... an odd problem. You've turned a fairly legitimate discussion about the lead into a wider denigration of Christian sources as unequivocally biased on the topic of a historical Jesus..... In the past I took an interest in Biblical history/Theology via and (atheist) girlfriend who studied the subject - the unavoidable thing is that there is a general consensus and, within the field, Jesus Myth is very much a fringe theory. There are huge issues with that article, most notably a definite Christian bent, but requiring secular sources for the lead sentence is untenable. At best we should be picking at the specific issues in the article and presenting counter-theories where they are available. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 15:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC) I agree that the Christ myth theory is fringe. However Noloop is completely correct in demanding non-biased sources to back it up. And yes, Christian sources are unequivocally biased on the topic of a historical Jesus: Christian scholars admit it very freely (see [186] : "For Christian theology to do otherwise would be in effect to allow itself to be determined by a possibility [that of Jesus non existing] , which, if it proved an actuality, would entail a revolution in the nature of Christian faith, if not its destruction. It would thus already be the abdication of what is most distinctly Christian in the Christian confession, so to speak, before the battle had begun or the enemy come into view. Were theology to provide for this possibility it would thereby call in question its Christian character." ). You can't ask a Christian to ever consider the hypothesis that Jesus didn't exist, because otherwise he/she wouldn't be Christian any more. For this reason the request of secular sources is only fair, and that we're dancing around the issue by attacking Noloop only, instead of providing such sources is only making the problem worse. Look in history/archeology journals, find secular scholars claiming consensus on the issue (which should be doable) and put the issue at rest, please. --Cyclopiatalk 15:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC) This is another typical (almost sterotypical) tactic of Noloop, to use general objections about a page in regards to specific passages.Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Topic Ban for User:Noloop Noloop should be topic-banned, or perhaps banned entirely. I do not agree that he is editing in good faith. He has a simple point of view: anyone who claims Jesus existed is a Christian. He refuses to respond to ANY evidence to the contrary. The demand for "secular" peer-reviewed journal evidence that historians believe it is likely Jesus existed is a red-herring, because any article that makes that claim is instantly dismissed as not being secular. At one noticeboard, Andrew c pointed out that an article that Noloop used as evience that those who claim Jesus existed are pushing a Christian point of view actually is arguing that an event described in the Gospels did not occur. How is that pushing a Christian point of view? There are two BIG problems in the example I provide above, and you see both problems in any discussion in which Noloop participates. First, Noloop does not do any research to back up his claims. He uses snippets from Google Scholar - this is simply not acceptable as research since our polies make it clear that one has to look at the context in which arguments are made in order to identify their point of view accurately. Since he uses snippets from Google cholar, he always misrepresents the views he presents. This is not editing in good faith. Second, when another editor takes the time to read the entire article and provides the needed context, Noloop simply ignores the other editor. Noloop never assumes good faith on the part of any editor who does not agree with him. This means that not only is he a lousy researcher, he is also incapable of collaborative editing, another fundamental element of our project. I have yet to see any discussion in which Noloop has participated in which these two problems ae not evident from the start. Ho-hum. Noloop has no interest in improving Wikipedia articles, he dmonstrates only a fanatical insistence on using talk pages to forward his own point of view. The history of Wikipedia is filled with editors just like Noloop who have been banned. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC) I took the liberty to make this a subsection and to put the parameters of a topic ban in my response. Please feel free to change my edits as needed.Griswaldo (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Support per above Slrubenstein | Talk 16:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Support topic banning Noloop from articles related to Christianity broadly construed.Griswaldo (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Oppose topic banning. While Noloop behaviour is not always constructive, it doesn't require a topic ban. Some kind of restriction may be OK, but this is beginning to become mere silencing-by-force of opposing views. It is really worrying. His request of a secular source is entirely correct, and the way Slrubenstein is representing the editor is in most points a straw man -it is not true that "any article that makes that claim is instantly dismissed as not being secular", it simply still hasn't been found an article actually being secular making the claim. --Cyclopiatalk 15:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Are you saying that you agree with Noloop that anyone who says Jesus likely existed is therefore a Christian? Or not secular? What do you even mean by "secular?" Slrubenstein | Talk 16:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC) No, and again yours is a loaded question. Noloop, AFAIK, never say that "anyone who says Jesus likely existed is therefore a Christian" (if I'm wrong, let me know). I agree with Noloop that all sources in the article on the issue are sources that come from scholars who are unquestionably of a Christian background (I remember one Jewish as a possible exception). I agree with Noloop that, at the very minimum, this attribution should be explicit in the article and that finding secular sources (i.e. sources published by people who do not have a public religious affiliation) would be much helpful in settling the question. --Cyclopiatalk 16:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC) I am sorry, but you are being bigoted. At WP, we do not ask editors if they are Christian or Muslim or Atheist. We judge them by their edits. Historians work the same way. The racial or religious background of a historian does not signifcy bias or point of view, we identify the point of view based on what the person writes. Many of the historians who say are of "Christian background" are using the same methods of modern historians, and make the same assumptions, and bring to historical documents the same doubts and concerns other modern historians do. Is this a Christian POV? Please be careful what you say. Anti-Semites called psychoanalysis a "jewish" science. You point out that one (at least one, we haven't asked people to drop their pants you know) source is Jewish - does that mean that historian is expressing a "Jewish" point of view? Please be very careful about what you are suggesting. As far as I can tell the only issue is this: Is the scholar making an argument to forward a Christian POV, that is to say, engaging in a debate with non-Christians? Is the scholar forwarding a particular point of view within Christianity, that is, engaging in debates with other Christian theologicans or scholarss? Does the scholar believe that the Bible is literally a reliable account of the past? Or is the scholar engaging in debates with other historians? Is the scholar using the same methods and assumptions as historians working in other places/other periods? These are the questions, and one can answer them based on the contents of the book and article, not the background of the author. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Since you are calling me "bigoted" and go as far as making comparisons with anti-semitism (you should really re-read WP:NPA), I think you won't be offended if I call you naive at best and willingly turning a blind eye at worst. The religious background does mean bias if the subject at stake is essentially intertwined to such background. Nobody questions the religious background of Christian authors is totally irrelevant on 99.9% of topics, but on the question of the existence of Jesus, well, Christian authors themselves explicitly acknowledge a bias: they simply cannot even consider the possibility that Jesus didn't exist, because even putting this in the real of possibilities (no matter how remote) would crumble their faith to nothing. Don't take my words for it; see what Christian scholars say about it (pp.143-144): "For Christian theology to do otherwise [consider the possibility of Jesus non existing] would be in effect to allow itself to be determined by a possibility, which, if it proved an actuality, would entail a revolution in the nature of Christian faith, if not its destruction. It would thus already be the abdication of what is most distinctly Christian in the Christian confession, so to speak, before the battle had begun or the enemy come into view. Were theology to provide for this possibility it would thereby call in question its Christian character." --Cyclopiatalk 16:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC) This source is explicitly talking about Christian theology. It is not referring to the books and articles we are using in the Jesus article to represnt a critical historical point of view. If you were to try to use this in a WP article it would be deleted for violating NOR and with good reason, you are making a poor inference. A claim about how Christian faith influences christian theology is not addressing how a priest who goes on to get a PhD in history, or to publish in history journals, articles that claim that passages of the Gospels did not actually occur, is stuck engaging Christian theologians, rather than the historians who reviews the article and who read the journal? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC) It was you who brought up the fact that one of the historians cited is Jewish. Why does that matter? You are saying that someone with a Christian background has a Christian bias, do you really think it is unfair for me to wonder whether you are saying that a Jewish historian has a Jewish bias? Okay, if I am wrong, what was your point? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Yes, I am saying that a Jewish historian has a Jewish bias when dealing with issues directly related to Jewish religion or history (by the way, I was presenting that as a positive exception to the monolith of Christian sources). Is this anti-Semitism in your book? If yes, you should really reconsider your notions. --Cyclopiatalk 16:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC) It sounds like you are being disingenuous, but maybe you misunderstand me. One of the major issues Jews worldwide, have had to contend with - and THE biggest isues European Jews have had to deal with for the last two thousand years, is their dissent from the Christian view that Jesus was the Jewish messiah. Jews who believe Jesus was the messiah are considered apostates and in effect excommunicated. A considerable portion of Jewish philosophy includes arguments against Jesus being the messiah. Does this bias a Jewish historian? If you think Christian historians are biased to argue that Jesus was real, why would you not claim that Jewish historians are biased to claim that he was not, or that the Gospels are largely false? If you think a Jewish historian can bracket these views and adhere to the professional standards of historians, then why couldn't a Christian historian? Slrubenstein | Talk 05:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC) You know, there are Christians who are evolutionary biologists. I am not talking about Creationists, or "Intellient Design" advocates, but real researchers in mainstream evolutionary biology. Yet they are church-going Christians. Would you label their articles. "Christian" science? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Christians (key part emphasized) believe in Christ or Jesus as their KEY core beleif of the religion. His existence, works and ultimately through him salvation, is the key tenets of Christianity. There is a BIG difference between a Christian believing in parts of evolution (they obviously don't believe in abiogenesis or for the most part a single common ancestor) and the non-existence of Jesus or Christ. Parts of evolution can be interwoven with parts of the Christianity's belief in creation, but you could not be a Christian without Christ. — raekyT 16:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Okay, if we can truly proceed in the spirit of dialogue, let me give you an analogy. Jews are brought up to believe that the Bible was revealed to Moses at Sinai, and is literally true. A Jew who is exposed to the theory of evolution has a choice: to reject the theory of evolution, or to reject Judaism entirely, or to find a way to reject the belief that the bible is accurate, and come up with a new way to be Jewish. A Jew who is exposed to Higher Criticism has a similar choice: reject higher Criticism (i.e. modern historiography) or to reject Judaism entirely, or to radically revise his/her understanding of Judaism. You seem to think that only the first two choices exist, and that there is no third choice. But in fact, the third choice exists and there are liberal Jews who accept what modern science and history tell them, and change their form of Judaism. My point was that the same has occured in Christianity. There are some people Noloop rejects, or says we need to mark as having a Christian background, but if you read their biographies you discover that after they learned modern historical methods, they abandoned Christianity altogether - their Christian background does not mean they hold to a Christian POV. And other historians Noloop identifies as having a Christian background have changed their views of Christianity, hold to a more liberal view in which Jesus was just a man but not one with God or resurrected. Is this apostasy? Some Christians think so! But others argue that Christianity must change to accomodate modern thinking. Noloop disregards any discussion of this latter phenomenon. But this last example does not illustrate historians who have a Christian bias. If you ant, you could say they are Christians who have been biased by modern history!! But Noloop rejects any discussion of this. Slrubenstein | Talk 05:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC) I don't really know what that has to do with what I said, I was responding to your evolution comment about Christians. Obviously theres Christians that take a more literal interpretation of the Bible in which they emphatically oppose evolution and others which try to incorporate current science in some ways with their beliefs. This has nothing to do with Judaism, I stated that to be a Christian you have to believe in Christ. I'm not talking about the people who are "Sunday Christians" or whatever the term is for people who pretend to be Christians or go through the paces to appear that way to friends/family, I'm talking about the real Christians, the ones that actually, 100%, with all their hearts, believe Jesus is their personal savior. If you self-identify as one of those, are one of those, then you are 100% without a doubt biased in any kind of research on the historical validity of Jesus being real or not. This can swing both ways, you like to bring up Jews, I'm not familiar with Judaism since I was raised Christian but you couldn't take books/papers written by a Orthodox Jew on the validity of a global flood as unbiased. Religious researchers and biased view points go hand-in-hand when your talking about proving or disproving key components of said religion. I think your just trying to confuse the issue and steer the topic away from the simple fact is a religious person is going to be biased about research of their religion. — raekyT 06:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC) You seem to think that if a person teaches at a seminary, or publishes in a journal on Biblical studies, they must therefore be advocating a Christian point of view. This reflects a misunderstanding both about history and about Christianity. There are many Christian seminaries that do not accept the Bible as a reliable historical account. They wish their students to learn ist cenury history of Roman occupied Palestine, but using the same methods and assumptions as one would use to study 19th century Italy or 17th century France. It surprises no professional historian, that these seminaries are a major source of employment. Does this influence the scholar? Well, if the seminary won't give that person a raise unless they have a good track record of publication in peer-reviewed journals, you bet it does!! You need to learn more about how academia works. Harvard, Cambridge and Oxford were originally Christian institutions, and are still heavily Christin. Does that mean that scholars working there are Christian influenced? Slrubenstein | Talk I don't understand what you mean. We're not talking of literal interpretation of the Bible, we are talking of a single, definite issue which is crucial to Christianity in itself. I know how academia works - since you cited it, I work at the University of Cambridge, thank you. And no, they are not "heavily Christian", I can guarantee. --Cyclopiatalk 16:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC) You miss the point of my analogy. Are you denying that Cambridge's first college was founded by the Bishop of Ely? Are you denying that the university was in effect accredited as a university through papal bulls by Gregory IX and Nicolas IV? Well, then this means that Cambridge is a Christian institution and we need to identify you as a Christian scholar. I am making an analogy - I am not claiming that Noloop has said this, but I am giving you an example of his reasoning. When someone says that the institution does not just teach Christian theology, and that many of its professors and students are not religious, Noloop simply repeats points equivalent to the Bishop of Ely and Pope Gregory IX. You cannot deny these facts, after all, cany you, Cyclopia? Well, you might argue they are not relevant to this specific case. You might bring up biographical information about the author in question, or about the contents of the article, or the journal in which it was publihsed. Noloop continues to insist that he represents a Christian POV because the University is Christian. This is an analogy, Cyclopia, but meant to give you an idea of what editors trying to reason with noloop have to contend with. Slrubenstein | Talk 05:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Finally, as others have pointed out, the Jesus article includes multiple points of view including Christian points of view. Of course in these instances we turn to avowed Christian scholars, but Noloop objects to this. What is wrong with using Christian scholars to express a non-critical historicla view? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Oppose. I agree with Cyclopia. There may be problems with Noloop's approach and I don't believe his take on things is entitely correct, but editors he is interacting with appear blind to the possibility that his concerns might be worth listening to and are failing to engage with him constructively, which is as much the root cause of the problem as anything else. --FormerIP (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Then I suggest either of you (Cyclopia or FormerIP) make another more constructive proposal. Mentorship? Editing restrictions on certain pages? What's going to end this? I get that you think a topic ban is too much but lets see better proposals. I'm happy to support or oppose those too. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC) What about 1RR restriction + requirement that edits are proposed on talk page before being deployed? --Cyclopiatalk 15:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC) I'd support a 1rr and a mentorship, if Noloop accepts. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 15:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC) I declare an interest, because I have tried to edit this article in the past and found it to have a WP:OWN problem. But it does have that problem, and I think any way of dealing with this incident should recognise that.--FormerIP (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Plus, if this isn't a proposal to canvass, I don't know what is: [187] --FormerIP (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC) But people are pointing out that he is most disruptive on talk pages, so I'm not sure that confining him more to the talk pages is really going to help much.Griswaldo (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC) @ FormerIP: How do you respond to the fact that there have been extensive and detailed responses to Noloop's claims, and that the Jesus Myth theory has ben discussed extensively on the Jesus talk page? Can you provide any evidence to support your claim that "editors he is interacting with appear blind to the possibility that his concerns might be worth listening to and are failing to engage with him constructively?" Are these not examples of very constructive engagement?[188] [189]? These are from another noticeboard but sum up weeks of discussion at the Jesus article.Slrubenstein | Talk 16:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Slrubenstein, are you really trying to sell this mix of straw man arguments and attacks as "very constructive engagement"? --Cyclopiatalk 16:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC) I don't understand how is Noloop disruptive in talk pages. Is he violating WP:CIVIL, WP:TALKO or what? All I see is an editor discussing on the article, which is what talk pages are for. He perhaps came vaguely close to canvassing, but not less than the editors that want to ban him. --Cyclopiatalk 16:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC) I do not agree. He is hightly confrontational, and combative. He never provide sources or seem open tpo compromise. He is clearly POV pushing muuch of the time. Having said that I am not sure that is the answer. I would like to give him another chance but really do not think he will take it (in the long term. I would support the 1RR restriction, but with the proviso that if his attitude and actions do not change he would be topic banned.Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC) @Cyclopia: Fair questions, but I would refer you to WP:DE. You seem to think there was a very short discussion and Noloop is being closed down. In fact, he has been making the same comment at the Jesus talk page for several weeks, and in fact there has ben a good deal of discussion. The problem is, talk pages are explicitly for discussion to improve the article, not for soapboxing - sopaboxing is an abuse of talk pages. Yet that is what Noloop is doing. Why do I think this? Because when he asks a question and someone answers it, he just keeps asking the question as if it was not answered. When someone asks him a question, he doesn't answer it. He just repeats himself. This is not discussion, it is not collaborative editing, it is disruption and soapoxing. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Possibly, and I don't condone it, but a topic ban is not a proportionate response to a bit of soapboxing. --FormerIP (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC) How would you feel about a topic ban for a fixed period, to give this person a chance to learn how to collaborate by working on other articles? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC) A Bit? he has been doing this (on just one subject) for what a week? Elsewhere he has been doing this same sort of thin for nearly a year.Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Oppose (again) pretty much per Cyclopia. I don't think Noloop's behaviour warrants a topic ban. I think all involved parties should look for a way to solve this content dispute without having the opposing faction topic banned. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 15:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Salvio there are many people who share similar views to Noloop and these people are not being discussed here repeatedly. Why? Because this isn't about content disagreements. It is about Noloop's behavior. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Oppose but it would be better if he would concentrate on writing biographies of theologians of Radical Criticism. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Support - People who come here with an agenda in mind and a plan to shape Wikipedia articles to support that agenda are not worth the time to enact piecemeal restrictions and give to hand-holding mentors. Kick to the curb, save us all some drama. Tarc (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC) I'm unsure that a topic ban is the way to go. There's a good chance that it would just move the same issues to the next subject area where Noloop finds the article unsatisfactory. Deal with it here. Either he can moderate his behavior when dealing with a contentious issue, or he cant.-Cube lurker (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC) what you seem to be saying is that he has a patern of behavure and if we do not block him (or convince him to change, and thats failed already) he will just be disruptive elseewhere?Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC) It's the impression I get from comparing this example with the notes in his block log. Not that be definately needs to be blocked, but that it would be best to have behavior brought into community norms nad not just moved.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Comment - Noloop notified Atheism:Talk regarding the RS/N discussion: Historical Jesus: 90% of sources are Christian theologians and/or Christian Presses. Feel free to contribute - This seems to have been his only edit to the Atheism talkpage and there was no ongoing discussion pertaining to the subject. Unomi (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Not sure that your point is.Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Question Why is it so important for Noloop not to be topic banned? If he is making any sensible contributions couldn't those be made by people who are capable of doing so in a manner that isn't disruptive?Griswaldo (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC) AGFSlatersteven (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Noted and changed my comment because of it.Griswaldo (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Suggest Temporary topic ban (length TBA) -- I have never been involved with the articles in question (haven't even read them) but I know from other areas I tried to contribute to how tedious it can be when someone apparently doesn't listen. On the other hand, topic banning someone for eternity can easily lead to grudges and will have the next person with similar views pick up where the banned editor left, and the cycle will just continue. Maybe a temporary ban will have Noloop observe for a while (or so one would hope...) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 16:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC) You haven't READ them? Thanks for the informed vote. Gee. Noloop (talk) 16:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC) a) This isn't a vote, it's discussion. b) This is not about the topic, it's about you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 16:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Well, you shoul read the articles if possible, because the behaviour of Noloop is inextricably related to the status of these articles sourcing. --Cyclopiatalk 16:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC) I might. I understood this snide as inferring that I am not allowed to comment here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 16:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC) So I have gone through some of the "dialogues" on the talk pages. Lemme revise my suggestion. Suggest Public Trouting and Noloop's being laughed at for 2 minutes. That should do. :) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Support Both a cooling of period (for all concearned) as well as (hopefully) acting as an engourgement for Noloop to re-examine his attitudes. At the saem time he will be able to come back and contribute with a new co-operative attitude.Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Slrubenstein is canvassing votes to ban me for canvassing votes. [190] Noloop (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Everywhere I go, now, I see canvassing to ban me for canvassing. [191] Noloop (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC) I don't think you quite get the point. The alleged canvassing is a minor issue compared to your overall conduct of being not very cooperative. If you indeed become topic-banned, don't walk away from it with the idea "I got banned for canvassing". If you do that, you will really not have understood. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 16:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC) I don't agree with the point, which is different from not getting it. Are you going to provide any evidence for your view, or just assert it? My activity in the last few days has been restricted entirely to expressing my concerns with sourcing on the reliable sources noticeboard, expressing my concern with the fringe theory designation on the fringe theory noticeboard, and expressing my concerns with various articles in their Talk pages. My only edit to any of the actual articles in question was was to add a POV template to the articles. So this looks very much like censorship of ideas. When Wikipedia articles state as fact anything like "Christianity is right," the sources should not be 90% Christian. When Wikipedia adopts the position that skepticism of a Christian belief is a fringe theory to be excluded from articles, the basis for that should not be 90% Christian theologians. Advocating that view is all I've done in the last three days, so that is what you are calling "not being very cooperative." Noloop (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC) This is my main concearn, I don't think Nollop does 'get it'.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC) This sub-thread is not about canvassing specifically, and I would not call his behavior that anyway. Those are the very venues you are disrupting presently with your nonsense. It's like notifying editors on an article talk page that there is a discussion at RS/N or NPOV/N. Completely legitimate and even helpful.Griswaldo (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Oppose The idea of banning Noloop is utterly ridiculous. He has not engaged in any rude, uncivil, or inappropriate behaviors, unlike his critics who have resorted to attacks like this one. Noloop has raised a legitimate concern. The issue is this: Does the faith in which one has been indoctrinated impact one's ability to objectively assess data that threatens the truth claims of that faith? It is a legitimate concern. Noloop has never said "anyone who claims Jesus existed is a Christian." This is a serious misrepresentation of his argument, and in fact is one of several straw man misrepresentations that his critics have used in their attempts to shut him down. There are a number of statements made in the Historicity of Jesus and Christ Myth Theory articles that say there is a mainstream scholarly consensus when in fact the sources cited are all sectarian. Noloop has been using the talk page appropriately to address the issue, but instead of responding on the issues, his critics have resorted to name-calling and other forms of abuse. Both of these articles have long-standing WP:OWN and WP:NPOV problems caused by editors who strongly push an evangelical Christian POV. The failure of Noloop's critics to address his concerns has caused him to continue to seek improvement of the Wikipedia articles by demanding better sourcing. His critics call his work "disruptive editing" and "soapboxing", but the failure is theirs, not his. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeaceLoveHarmony (talk • contribs) 17:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Absolutely oppose I read the RSN board the other day. Noloop has taken on a issue vigorously. His task may be impossible: to find sourced academic commentary about the historicity of Jesus that doesn't come from a Christian POV. I don't see any evidence of him behaving poorly, edit warring, name calling, or any other issues which would justify any kind of ban. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) I'm vaguely tempted to propose a topic ban for Slrubenstein, for harassment, name-calling, intolerance and censorship. He continually makes comments like: “I think we can now say he is not only a bigot, but a fanatical bigot. This is not name-calling.” [192] He's repeatedly canvassed people to vote here, in a thread that began as a complaint against canvassing [193] and elsewhere. He is attempting to ban me for nothing but expressing an idea, the idea that any statement of the general type “Christianity is right” should not be sourced primarily to Christians. He is attempting censorship. I haven’t even edited any of these articles in several days. I've done nothing but attempt to persuade. Noloop (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC) This is silly. We don't topic ban people just because we don't find all their edit constructive. You have to do something really bad to get banned, and I haven't seen Noloop do anything bad. He just talks about sources in good faith. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC) I don't think topic banning is the right way to go, but neither is it accurate to say he's done nothing wrong. Hence the multiple blocks for edit warring as well as the warning for the inappropriate God edit.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Agree with Peregrine Fisher, we no longer burn heretics (or topic ban them). Noloop challenges quality of Christian sources on Christianity - try replacing this with reliable sources by Scientologists on Scientlogy articles. If you want a place where Christianity will always be unexposed I would suggest changing to conservapedia. PS the God edit is back WITH sources by another editor, so the "warning" is probably an overreaction. Arnoutf (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Regarding the God edit, you are not correct Arnoutf. Noloop's edit was nonsensical and unsourced. The scientific method does not support belief in anything. Cyclopia's edit was, on the other hand, both correct and reliably sourced. The question of God's existence, as God is described by most theists anyway, is not falsifiable and hence outside of what can be determined through the scientific method. Given this fact anyone should also be able to see how POV Noloop's nonsensical edit was.Griswaldo (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC) flattered to see Griswaldo endorsing one of my edits! Well, actually the scientific methods supports belief in theory of relativity as a good approximation to spacetime description, for example. It supports belief in lots of things. One of the things it does not support is God, and in that Noloop edit was perfectly accurate. I just happened to make it more precise and sourced. Notice, by the way, that I used two believing theologians as sources. This is a parallel with what we're discussing here. Using atheist sources to support that science does not support God would easily be considered seriously biased. If however parties who would have all to gain from a scientific support of God explicitly deny this is possible, the sources build a much more solid case. Do you get the pattern? --Cyclopiatalk 20:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC) This is semantic, but I'm not sure you understood what I meant by that. The scientific method is a tool, and it doesn't "support" anything. The theory of relativity is supported by some of the known results of applying the scientific method to various phenomena. Historical methods of research, likewise, do not support the existence of Jesus or the non-existence of Jesus. The known results of various applications of historical methods may support one or the other. This is why Noloop's statement was nonsensical. The reason it is not NPOV, is because the scientific method is not a useful tool in determining the existence or non-existence of God, so making the one sided claim is not even neutral, ontop of being nonsensical.Griswaldo (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Oppose: The quest for non-Christian scholars that acknowledge the historicity of Jesus is a reasonable one, and the idea that Christian scholars can be objective on the topic is somewhat amusing. This strikes me as being one of the unfortunate situations where an editor has lapsed into bad behaviour because of an apparently unyielding wall of opposition to an objectively reasonable position. There's really not that much difference between this and the kind of difficulties we have with various pseudoscience articles.—Kww(talk) 18:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Oppose - Too drastic a "remedy" at this time. Other steps can be taken, and the concerted opposition to Noloop also shows signs of being as intemperate (at times) as Noloop is. Everyone needs to cool their jets and ratchet things back a bit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Oppose: I first encountered User:NoLoop when he was against one of my edits - I am not sure how I came to edit the Historical Jesus article, but it may have been because I picked up on his name coming up in one of the noticeboards I monitored, and it sparked my interest in seeing what was happening there. I actually agree with some of his proposed edits there, although I would question where he wants to locate these within the article, and the exact nature of the edits & sources he use. NoLoop did inform me of the notifications, and I am grateful, as I was involved in the discussions (including on his talk page) that gave rise to these. I see no impropriety in that. I am not sure why his edits should give rise to a call for a ban, although I think that edit-warring has been problematic in these articles, but he is only one party in that, and he has been punished for that. This seems more to do with people wanting somebody banned because they do not like him contradicting what they believe. I am not interested in what people believe, as I do not believe anything is true - and this encyclopedia is not interested in the truth either; it is interested in accuracy and reliability. Obviously sources that cleave to a set of dogmas will treat the subject as if it were true - whether that is acceptable, to the exclusion of sources that contradict this truth, I find problematic. Editors trying to apply a standard of editing that only permits a strictly scientifically rigorous approach to phenomena that is not capable of anything that would be accepted as falsification would be laughable, if it were not so pathetically sad. And I am a Christian (just). - MishMich - Talk - 19:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Comment Some of these comments are simply astonishing. There are many, many people who share some or all of Noloop's beliefs but are capable of discussing them in ways that are not tendentious -- not forum shopping all over the Wiki and constantly practicing WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. No one is suggesting to ban any of these people, or Noloop for that matter, for their beliefs. The idea that this is about banning him because people hold different beliefs is ridiculous. The idea that this is about "beliefs" is actually even more ridiculous. I'm agnostic and I couldn't care less if Jesus existed, but I happen to know that most historians do believe he existed. And yes I mean historians, not "theologians" or "Christian scholars". One's qualifications as a religious historian have nothing to do with religious affiliation, just as one's qualifications as a national historian have nothing to do with national affiliations, or one's qualifications as a political scientist have nothing do with with party affiliation. Take a deep breath and consider that last example. Would you claim that having a personal political affiliation as a voter and a citizen makes a political scientist biased? Should we add this information to the entry of every political scientist? Of course we shouldn't. Should we mention it if other scholars have made such an affiliation notable? Yes, in that case the political affiliation has been made meaningful by the reliable sources as opposed to Wikipedians (see WP:NOR). There is a huge difference between religious polemics and religious scholarship that few people commenting here recently seem to understand ... and yes Arnautf this is not a perfect world and everyone is biased ... Besides that fact that we are all biased to some degree, there is a huge difference between polemics and scholarship. Christian theologians should not be trusted as reliable sources on this question because they are not concerned with the accuracy of history for its own sake, but with the Christian faith and its internal logic. These writers, on this topic, should be considered polemicists. However Christian historians should absolutely be trusted as reliable sources because they are concerned with historical accuracy and not the internal logic of their faith. They are also held in check by the entire community of historians, as opposed to the their religious communities. Keeping their reputations require them to be respected as historians by other historians ... of all manner of religious affiliation and disaffiliation. We here at Wikipedia trust this community to keep itself in line, because all of our policies require that we trust the reliable sources that it creates to guide our writing. If there is some systemic bias in this community we can't do anything about it, nor should we -- see pretty much every policy we have. It pains me to see these arguments made over and over because they show 1) a complete lack of understanding of how the study of religion is conducted in the academy and 2) a complete lack of understanding of how we are meant to deal with such scholarship here vis-a-vis our various policies -- WP:V, WP:NPOV, etc.Griswaldo (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Would you claim that having a personal political affiliation as a voter and a citizen makes a political scientist biased? : Obviously. If a political scientist has an explicit and known political affiliation, it is self-explanatory that there is a bias. Bias that becomes important if the subject involved is at the core of the political affiliation. What would you think of sourcing the article on Communism with 90% Communist sources? Would you be happy having the article on Nazism relying completely on Nazist sources? Your blindess to this platitude is the really astonishing thing. However Christian historians should absolutely be trusted as reliable sources because they are concerned with historical accuracy and not the internal logic of their faith. - As a though experiment, imagine that there is substantial evidence that Jesus didn't exist (or substantial lack of evidence that he did). Now build a convincing case that a Christian historian would happily acknowledge that. You continue to think that scholars shut down their self when entering their departments and writing their papers. It is not so, in any discipline (and much more when concerning religion). I cited above a source of a Christian scholar who made clear that the even contemplating "Jesus does not exist" as in the realm of possibilities is totally incompatible with the Christian worldview. They are also held in check by the entire community of historians, as opposed to the their religious communities - That's what we're asking: this check. --Cyclopiatalk 20:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC) If you held the belief of a Christian afterlife and the key component of getting into that afterlife is the existence of Jesus (which it is for Christians) then how could you ever admit or believe that he didn't exist? To assume a writer from a Christian background would not be biased on the existence of their Savior and the key figure of their religion is utterly insane. — raekyT 20:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Your thought experiment is a great example of how conspiratorial thinking functions. Congratulations. Imagine if things weren't as we've been told they are, don't you think such and such people wouldn't want us to know!!! You're not asking for "this check". It has been provided over and over. Those of us who are not simply flying by this message board have seen the numerous quotes from scholars of all ilks calling this fringe cruft. What more do you need?Griswaldo (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC) So your saying you honestly think a Christian could be objective about the existence of Jesus? — raekyT 20:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Why are you constructing the argument backwards? If there is little doubt that someone existed, like lets say Abraham Lincoln it makes no sense to ask whether or not someone else who is emotionally invested in the legacy of that person could be objective about their existence. These people assume that the person existed, along with all the other people who are not so emotionally invested, and wondering about how their feelings effect their judgement about whether or not is true should never even be a question unless there is doubt about this truth in the first place.Griswaldo (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC) People don't tie their salvation of their soul and hopes of eternal afterlife on Abraham Lincoln, whereas if Jesus was proved to not be a real person, that would shatter the entire belief system of Christianity. To assume someone deeply committed to the idealism of Christianity to whole heartily belief in Jesus and his message would ever even remotely consider that he didn't exist is foolhardy. Your comment sums up your beliefs quite well, that Jesus was real so anyone who doubts that is fringe. Jesus lived nearly 2000 years ago, there is no direct evidence of his existence like there is of Abraham Lincoln who we have photographs of and other direct physical proof of his existence. To assume beyond a shadow of a doubt that the biblical man Jesus and the biblical accounts of his life are accurate without a doubt, is a stretch imho. — raekyT 21:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Talk about circular reasoning. "If there is little doubt that someone existed". This very assumption is what we're trying to prove. This is a summary of this gigabytes-long week of discussion: "Is there little doubt that Jesus existed?" "Yes." "How do we know that?" "Mostly from people that believe from faith that Jesus existed, and also happen to study about Jesus" "But they will be surely biased, won't they be?" "Oh no, this is a non-issue, because -remember?- there is little doubt that Jesus existed!" --Cyclopiatalk 21:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)I may have missed them. Probably there was some in the FAQ that another user (Bill the Cat?) compiled? If so, let's just add them to the articles, and all this is going to disappear. It's really that simple. --Cyclopiatalk 20:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Nazism and communism ... what a joke!!! You chose party affiliations that are completely outside of the mainstream political spectrum. You wonder why I don't want to have a conversation with you? Maybe you could for a second imagine that an American political scientist measuring public opinion of Barack Obama is a registered Democrat and try to reformulate your response. If you are unwilling to meet me squarely on the field of discussion and actually engage the arguments I set forth without grotesquely distorting them for your own purposes I do not, as I stated before, care to converse with you my friend. Feel free to try again. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC) You mean a political scientist who happens to be a democrat may have a different opinion on the quality of the Obama presidency compared to a political scientist being a republican? Yup, seems to be the case. (and indeed there is evidence of a poll about legalising Hashish at about the same moment in the same region, both representative, but the one sample by supporters of legalisation showed a 60% support while the opponents found a 70% opposition. So indeed polling is open to bias by its researchers.) PS glad to be back to Godwins law ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC) So you think that a registered Democrat would be incapable of looking at polling data, or interview data that they have collected in order to present a relatively unbiased view of the public perception of the president they helped to elect? And you think that this person can publish their biased results in mainstream peer-reviewed publications without a problem? So political scientists who are Democrats and those who are Republicans are inherently biased. there is no such thing as good scientific political analysis is there? Good to know. Same must be true for political anthropologists and sociologists who vote in elections. I wish you had told me about this lack of neutrality in scholarship sooner Arnautf, I would have changed my profession.Griswaldo (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Given your naive belief in the independence of researchers, perhaps you should really change your profession. I don't know how old are you, Griswaldo, but from your comments it seems that you're still a bit too young and idealistic to fully understand how these things work. --Cyclopiatalk 21:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Cyclopia I'm well aware of how things work, and I have articulated my beliefs about bias much more fully in the past, which you and Arnoutf are both aware of. I also happen to know that we can't build an encyclopedia on the notion that everyone is biased. Bias might be an inherent part of the human condition but it is also relative. Everyone is not as biased about everything they think about as everyone else is. If we are to construct a general reference work we need to do the best we can with what we have. This means trusting academic communities to lead the way (and indeed our policies reflect this see WP:V and WP:NPOV). One cannot construct a general reference work that is reliable if we go about trying to identify every imaginable bias that our sources may have. If we do so we destroy the authority of the knowledge we are presenting completely. X scholars says Y about the history of the Netherlands but ... he's Dutch ... so make of that what you will ... and so on. That's not the way you write an encyclopedia. Both you and Arnautf know this. Why do you keep on asking us to deviate from trusting this academic community? Do we need to start identifying the various affiliations and personal characteristics of all scholars in every entry? Maybe I have all of this wrong, maybe you guys worship at the Temple of Postmodernism. Maybe this is just an example of the relativism you wish to instill? Yeah? I doubt it. I think this particular example is one you care about personally, both of you. I don't think you want us to start qualifying information all of the encyclopedia based on the possible biases of the sources. I think you just want us to do it in this case. The problem is that you keep on making the general argument about bias every-time I say that we need to trust the relevant scholarly communities to sort this out for us, but in reality you don't want the general argument to shape what we do in the entire encyclopedia, just here. If either of you are an atheist, btw, don't I as an agnostic have a better position to consider this situation than you and your Christian sparring partners? Wouldn't your own arguments about bias presuppose this since I can't care less about whether God exists or whether Jesus existed? No? Well its time to consider the rhetoric you've been pushing more thoroughly then.Griswaldo (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC) I trust the relevant scientific community, not the individual scientists (as I repeatedly stated). Noloop here, however does implicitly more than question individual scientists, but argues that the theological community is not relevant for a historical/archaeological article. PS postmodernism is in my view a lazy way out of discussion in science. We should all be aware of our biases and deal (and compensate) with those ourselves, postmodernists tend to say "yet we are biased, that is part of being human, so we don't do anything to compensate for that". Arnoutf (talk) 21:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC) This is where I think there is a misunderstanding. I agree that theologians are not the community we should trust to answer this question if we're looking for as unbiased of a historical view as possible. BUT Noloop is not simply questioning theologians, he is questioning historians who affiliate with Christianity. Please bare in mind that some scholars are both academic theologians and historians, by the way. Regarding the place of theology in scholarship on this question, Cyclopia him/herself brought to the discussion several sources that stated emphatically that current scholarship on the historicity of Jesus is no longer influenced by theology. At the turn of the century, these sources pointed out, it was heavily influenced by theology, but no longer. So I think you're confused about Noloop's position. It is also relevant to poitn out that in several other discussions Noloop shows no ability to distinguish "theology" from the study of religion, at least not when the scholar has a religious affiliation. It is all "theology" to him. I hope that clarifies things a bit.Griswaldo (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC) "incapable of looking at polling data, or interview data". No they may not be incapable, but they are likely to interpret towards their own ideas (as are indeed supporters of superstring theories regarding physical data). Yes, these biased results are published, all the time. If there were no biases in publication the whole "rational actor" idea would have been dead and buried in all publications for at least 20 yrs by now, because the economist would have gladly taken up the findings of psychology. Interviewing is a particularly tough job to do in a neutral and unbiased way; and constructing a poll may introduce all kinds of biases (framing effect, order effects, learning effects, fatique effects) that easily influence the data. Interpretation of interviews is again an inherently subjective task which is very hard to do completely unbiased (ok intercoder reliabilities get some of that). And so far I have only been talking about biases that are introduced by the researcher unconsciously. I do not even mention the class of researchers who actually set out to find evidence for their pet-theory and develop their methods to ignore all else, i.e. those who consciously bias the results. Yes, science is a mess of biased people arguing against other biased people. The emerging consensus from all these biased views (and indeed publications) is usually an improvement. That is the beauty of the scientific method. Arnoutf (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC) What bearing has being in the "mainstream political spectrum" for the argument? Why is it a joke? Why is it a "grotesque distortion"? Here in Europe, communist parties still exist, and neo-Nazis parties as well (unfortunately), so it didn't strike me as a strange comparison. And I could have invented hypothetical parties as well, the argument does not change. Let's restate it this way: For every value of X, if you're a political scientist affiliated to party X, and you write about X, it is safe to assume you have a pro-X bias. No problem with your request, therefore: If we were to source something like "Barack Obama is considered unanimously a very capable president", I would not accept having only sources of known, registered Democrats for it. Are you happy now? --Cyclopiatalk 20:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Would you be happy if we added a few Dutch left wing sources ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Comment If you are going to demand punishment of a fellow editor, the least you could do is provide some concrete, objective, examples of the behaviors you think are violations. Noloop violated the 3RR rule a couple of times a week and a half ago, and was briefly blocked for it. Other than that, all he has done is advocate for his position on some talk pages. He has not insulted anyone or been uncivil; his critics have. There are quite a few editors who agree with the idea that the religion in which one has been indoctrinated can have an impact on one's ability to objectively assess data that challenges that religion's truth claims. Those of us who believe this are being insulted as "bigots". Noloop is just asking for some sourcing from secular sources to back up some of the more extreme NPOV statements on some of these Jesus articles. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Comment. Relevant comment by Betrand Russell, one of the best known philosophers of the 20th Century - excluded. Priceless. No POV there then... - MishMich - Talk - 22:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Definite oppose Noloop could do with slowing down sometimes, hence the 3RR - not acceptable. But there is a fundamental problem here. The only groups who study the historical Jesus are either coming from a "what was the person who founded Christianity really like" perspective, or a "was there even a historical Jesus" perspective. The first camp consider it axiomatic that there was this guy called Jesus, and scholars seeking to understand the historical Jesus therefore, while some do make an effort to examine the evidence that he existed, and a few even call attention to the fact that there is virtually no evidence that he did(he didn't rule any kingdom, conquer another nation or build any notable edifice for example, three things that Alexander the Great did that left plenty of evidence in the archaeological record. Thought I'd get that in before the next person mentions that his biography was written centuries after he died), all eventually conclude that the simplest/easiest solution is that not only did he exist, but the philosophical/spiritual content of the Gospels are largely based on things he actually said. Noloop is not even arguing that this logic is unsatisfactory, he is asking for evidence that a Chinese archaeologist or Hindu philosopher would advance the same arguments, and he is having problems because the only people who are accepted as reliable sources are the ones whose interest is 'what was the founder of Christianity really like". Anyone who starts from a "was there even a historical Jesus" position is automatically excluded as WP:FRINGE, because the other group do not entertain the possibility. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Oppose Feel like it is using a hammer to crack a nut I have to agree with the rational of Cyclopia above. Articles like this always seem to have it's "protectors" for want of a better word and certain questions on certain articles lead to editors being labeled as pushing a fringe or conspiracy theory. Mo ainm~Talk 22:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Definite Support: Noloop should be topic-banned. If Wikipedia is to work, we must get past bigotry and prejudice. Whether a person is a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jew or Atheist is not important. We judge them by their edits. We try to be fair and balanced following the references where they lead us. Noloop cannot do this therefore he is damaging Wikipedia - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Oppose This is absurd. It is not bigoted to ask that we do not adopt a Christian perspective but rather a secular perspective on Wikipedia. There should be some reversal of scrutiny here on Slrubenstein and the other editors who are refusing to comply with WP:NPOV in the articles. I have recently tried to give some neutral advice in the disputed article Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#Demonstrating_academic_consensus_and_Graham_Stanton.27s_assessment, but it needs more attention. II | (t - c) 00:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC) It took a moment to get past the word "absurd", but I pocketed the insult to try and hear what you were saying. Why can't Wikipedia reflect both Christian and secular perspectives? Is taking an inclusive approach so very wrong? - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Oppose topic ban, Support 3 month block Wikipedia is a liberal, secular website with some tolerance for minor deviation from this. Noloop deviates too much from the agenda. RIPGC (talk) 03:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Comment, Oh aren't you cute? C6541 (T↔C) 18:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Support per OP. C6541 (T↔C) 18:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Evidence of Disruption by User:Noloop Per User:PeaceLoveHarmony's request please use this section to present evidence (including diffs) of disruptions, with very concise explanations as needed. Please do not comment on this evidence here -- create a discussion section after this if needed for that. This is a very fair suggestion and will help sort out the behavioral issues from everything else.Griswaldo (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC) This is ANI and not WP:RFCU Off2riorob (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Point taken. So use this space as you will, but people should be encouraged to present this kind of information if they believe, as I do, that he's being disruptive. Every-time this is discussed the discussion just derails into what you see above, which is clearly off topic at AN/I. That's all I'm suggesting.Griswaldo (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Start an RfC. I believe this has been suggested before. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Wrong Forum Yet again. Will you all please take this to an RfC? Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Request arbitration. Noloop (talk) 01:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC) People who do not understand that accusations without diffs or other supporting evidence are personal attacks (see Wikipedia:GOODFAITH#Accusing_others_of_bad_faith) should be barred from ANI (I'm looking at Off2riorob above). There's a breathtaking lack of evidence of misconduct in this "proposal". I would open up a ban proposal on Slrubenstein, but I'm sure it would be called pointy (regardless of reality) and I would be overcome by complaints from people who refuse to accept that accusations require evidence. II | (t - c) 00:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC) @II - ban me on what grounds? The supporting evidence for a pattern of disruptive behavior is not a single edit dif, bu the entire section of the talk page at the Jesus article. If you do not consider the persistent pushing of a bigoted and misinformed POV on the talk page, the refusal to answer any question and the complete lack of interest in the views of othe editors, or their answers to his questions, is not an abuse of talk pages, well, what can I say? Talk pages are meant not for soapboxing but for discussion improvements to articles. Can you tell me how an editor who simply repeats the same demands week after week, even following considerable discussion among other editors (as he does not participate in any discussion, he ignores them and just repeats his demands) (and the evidence is talk:Jesus) is helping to improve the article? Slrubenstein | Talk 09:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC) You did not point to the talk page or make the same argument in your proposal to topic ban him. In fact there was/is no reference to Talk:Jesus in your proposal. In fact, there is only one topic as of now where Noloop is commenting (permalink), and an archive search brings up only Talk:Jesus/Archive_109 as another place of discussion (see search). Neither of these demonstrates any misconduct, and in the current section he actually appears to have some support. I do think some restraint from Noloop would be nice. What's even worse about your proposal is that you include very damaging unsupported accusations such as the argument that Noloop uses only Google Scholar snippets, without support. How would you like it if I just casually said you routinely misrepresent sources you do not read? II | (t - c) 17:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC) @II: I'm not understanding your comment regarding Off2riorob - I see nothing here to justify it whatsoever. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Off2riorob just basically panned the idea that we should be working with evidence here in our ANI proposals because this is ANI and not a RfC/User. That's what it looks like he said to me - is that a strawman? Anyway, it's a terrible conception of how things should be. The meme needs to be shut down before it spreads. Barring people who have this idea, regardless of whether their intentions are good, is a start. Obviously making grand accusations and bad faith assumptions without evidence in an attempt to WP:GAME people out the door is a worse offense and those people should be barred as well... II | (t - c) 04:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC) All he said was that this issue would be better dealt with at an RfC/U, which is better constructed (although stil far from ideal) to deal with complex issue of behaviorial problems which fall short of blockable activity (admin territory), rather then at AN/I, where admin-centric triage is performed. That seems far from incorrect, and your specific imputation of misbehavior on his part is totally unwarranted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Err, that is not what he said, and if he had said that I wouldn't have mentioned him. When someone made a spot for actual evidence/diffs, he denigrated that move as a matter of venue. It would have been reasonable for him to say "at this point it's pointless to bring evidence since the proposal is dead", but expressing the idea that ANI is not the place for evidence really ticked me off considering how lightly this place takes evidence. I'll admit it was short-tempered and I was maybe too harsh but I think my mention of him is still at least somewhat justified. II | (t - c) 17:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC) I would susgest we concentrate on Noloop and his activites, not his views. This is about him, not content. After all if I were to say that Hitler killed 11 million (fill in your own offensive and racist anti-semitic comment) I would be right, but also breaching the rules.Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC) From Godwins law we learn that this has gone on too long here. Arnoutf (talk) 13:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC) I thought that was comparisons with the Nazis, I was asking if some one worded a statemnt in a way that containt hightly offensive language would that be acceptable even if right? I did not compare any one to a nazi, nor thnier views. I just gave Nazi's as an example of the kind of language (I could have just as ealiy put Slavery was wrong becasue it kept N****'s in servitude. Argue about actions not content.Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Any comparisons to/analogy with Nazi topics will do, not the comparison of one of the editors (as that would be a personal attack). And yes we have been seeing Nazis, Holocaust and Hitler sprinkled throughout this discussion. Arnoutf (talk) 13:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC) So is it acceptable for some one to engage if poor actions whilst being right? does a persons 'correctness' (at best a matter of perspective) outwiegh bad Behaviour?Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Proposal to close this down now I propose this topic, as it was just a few days ago, be closed, archived, collapsed and all the complainants be directed to pursue Dispute Resolution, and either file an RfC or else take this to arbitration where it belongs. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Here here! It's not going anywhere. No actionable results can come from this. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 03:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Support - Shut it down. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Support - close and archive asap Arnoutf (talk) 08:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC) support Wrong venue. ANI cannot deal with this as has been amply demonstrated by the multiple listings of this complaint, which have all petered out in a similar way.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Support. This is not going anywhere; please, start an WP:RFC. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 11:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Comment This general issue was taken to arbitration by User:Noloop where it was rejected by all arbitrators. One of those arbitrators supported the unpopular topic ban proposal on this page above (just to point out that there is clearly not agreement between AN/I admins and arbitrators on how to deal with this). So is a RFC/U the only place for this then? I'm assuming that these tangential arguments about the historicity of Jesus would not be appropriate at the RFC/U, in which case I guess that really is the best venue to weed the behavioral issues out from this other nonsense.Griswaldo (talk) 13:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Oppose Much of the defnece (and some of the attack) is based on content not behaviour. I am not sure that is the right approach and would like that cleared up. So is it corrext to say that the value of someone views (oe edits) outweighs rules on good behaviour? Or are we saying the Noloops actions are acceptabel behaviour?Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Support However much content discussion there has been, there is still an overwhelming majority against a ban, so the subject is done with. --FormerIP (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Oppose the key is to focus on behavior, and an editor who never answers qustions and ignores answers to his own questions, and keeps pushing the same point of view even after weeks of discussion and a clear consensus among other editors, is abusing talk pages - this pattern of stridently insisting on the same demand after discussion is simple disruptive editing. I accept that there is no consensus for a ban, but that does not mean that we cannot discuss alternate approaches. Some people - I do not know whether they are actually administrators or no - have proposed alternate solutions and we should consider them here and now. Minimally, is there anyone (someone who is not committed to his POV, and someone who also cares about our NPOV policy) who would be willing to mentor him? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Is he agreeable to a mentor? Off2riorob (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Agree with closing discussion. It's clearly not going to achieve consensus and seems to be only increasing the temperature. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Support – Take this to WP:DR; too much drama here. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 18:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)