Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

---

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

204.17.60.130

This user's edits have all been undone.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alrich44 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Two edits over two days with months of gaps even if nothing is correct makes blocking seem futile. Next time, perhaps try WP:AIV but I guess that person may not return for a while. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks (and probable trolling) on Talk:Historicity of Jesus

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

---

(For reference, the first paragraph below mostly discusses article content as a necessary background to what I see as inappropriate user behaviour. Please do not misunderstand me as asking for content input on the article talk page. Please also do not take me as asking for sanctions against Mmeijieri; the latter user is also being disruptive, but has not made any personal attacks against me or -- it appears -- other users.)

Fearofreprisal (talk · contribs) has been completely devoted to this one page for the last month: he doesn't seem to have any solid ideas for improving the page, but has been posting inane arguments that seem to be promoting the fringe theory that Jesus never existed. It's extremely hard to tell. He and Mmeijeri (talk · contribs) in particular seem to be obsessed with arguments like "New Testament scholars are not historians" and "lots of legitimate historians have criticized the attempts of Christian apologists to construct 'historical Jesus' models that are in fact theological in nature". They place an arbitrary distinction between "New Testament scholars" and "historians", where even though a lot of the former are not historians per se they have rejected out-of-hand the claim by a highly-reputable historian that virtually all historians agree with New Testament scholars on this point. Can anyone look at this edit and not think Fearofreprisal is violating WP:POINT? Taking quotations from legitimate historians out of context, in order to imply that they adhere to a fringe theory discussed in the article, is extremely inappropriate, and at least one is on record as being bothered by being misquoted in this way. Once said historian wrote a 300-page book discrediting the fringe theory, and since then most of his quotes have been removed. Quotes about the historical reliability of from other scholars who have not openly complained about being misquoted are still in the article on the subject of whether or not Jesus existed. It's extremely difficult to discuss these points with Fearofreprisal in particular, since he seems to be more interested in getting a rise out of his "opponents" than in building an encyclopedia article.

But then he took it over the top by starting a new thread about me on the article talk page.[2]

I think the majority of users involved in the historicity article (and related discussions) over the last month would agree with me that FoP has been disruptive. I frankly don't care if he is allowed to continue to edit the article in the short term. But I'd like to see some reprisal for deliberately trying to intimidate me by insinuating bad faith on my part for a username change that took place two years ago...

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: Off-topic discussion of article content begins here.

I agree that FoR is being needlessly combative, but the article does suffer from major POV issues and Hijiri himself has been very unconstructive in resolving them. He has also been overly eager to run off to various noticeboards at the slightest provocation / disagreement. I might add that I'm annoyed that my good-faith attempts to address major and long-standing POV issues that have been pointed out by many, many Wikipedians in the past are now being brought up by Hijiri as worthy of sanctions. I have received several thank-you's for my contributions to the debate and I think those who read my contributions will see that I've always been constructive and willing to to accommodate the concerns of others.

I don't know why he brings up the fact that researchers who criticise the methodological soundness and lack of objectivity of Historical Jesus research do generally agree Jesus exists. That's certainly true, and if that needs to be made even more explicit than it is right now then I'm all for it, but it's not the point of bringing up the criticism. I even explicitly added the statement that historians do not take the competing Christ Myth Theory seriously.

The point of the criticism section is that the opinion of HJ scholars should not be presented in Wikipedia voice and that biblical scholars should not be misrepresented as historians. I don't understand why Hijiri thinks the distinction is artificial. At first sight it seems obvious they are two different though possibly related disciplines. Biblical scholarship as a whole certainly isn't a subdiscipline of history, it has equally strong or stronger links with semitic studies, theology, archaeology and perhaps other fields. But sometimes things that seem obviously true turn out to be subtly false, so it's possible that the more specific subfield of HJ research is seen as a subfield of history too by historians. In that case we'd need a reliable source to tell us that. I have not seen such a source, and in fact we do have many sources (cited in the article) who explicitly deny it, including prominent biblical scholars involved with HJ research and a (modern) historian who has published a biography of Jesus.

I do think the criticism section is needlessly lengthy and duplicative with what is said in the HJ article, and I have said so before on the article Talk page. However, we've already had discussions about whether we need to have a separate Historicity of Jesus page at all, in addition to the HJ and CMT pages. At one point a lot of material was moved to these other two pages. That discussion can continue after or even in parallel with the POV issue, which does seem more pressing.

IMO the solution is what we always do when dealing with POV issues, namely to state the various opinions from a neutral point of view, taking care to give each view its due attention, not more and not less. In the interaction between scholarly proponents of the competing views various accusations have been made back and forth about possible religious or antireligious bias, lack of historical methodological soundness of methods, lack of scholarly credentials in general, lack of knowledge of Aramaic and possibly others. Accordingly, the article tries to mention any relevant background (credentials, religious / antireligious affiliation) whenever a scholar is first named to help the reader identify possible sources of bias / lack of scholarly quality. In addition I think it would be helpful if we added a paragraph that explains the distinction between theology and religious studies, since it appears to be a common source of confusion.

In closing, I urge Hijiri to be more constructive, and if he isn't, I hope his frequent unjustified appeals to various noticeboards will WP:BOOMERANG on him. It would be well-deserved. Martijn Meijering (talk) 06:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion ends here.

I think we should reconsider seeking arbitration mediation, since all these unproductive trips to the administrators noticeboard don't help. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

My lack of involvement for a while (aside from spending a few weeks sorting my books) has a great deal to do with FearOfReprisal, who has honestly just worn me down. As I've (more or less) said before:

• Fearofreprisal claimed that sources by Christians and even ex-Christians are inherently incapable of competently handling the historicity of Jesus, under the assumption that they automatically assume Jesus had to exist and cannot think otherwise (nevermind Tom Harpur and Docetism denying a physical Jesus, and C.S. "Mere Goddamn Christianity" Lewis was capable of separating the Jesuses of history and faith). If he had just said "Christians," it would only be potential bigotry on his part. But, he threw in ex-Christians, those who affirm the plausibility of a historical Jesus in particular. He doesn't mind people citing them when they deny the possibility of a historical Jesus (at no point demonstrating any problem with a user who misrepresented sources and cited a dozen irrelevant sources to argue that Jesus couldn't have existed), but he does when ex-Christians go against the Christ myth theory. After a time, he turned to OR arguments against RSs and vague arguments regarding the scope of the article that coincidentally eliminate the sort of material he's targeted before. -- He has a clear agenda for giving at least equal weight.
• He created a thread accusing me of an agenda, on the article talk page instead of my talk page, providing no evidence. He then edit warred to keep the thread on the page. When told that he needed evidence for his accusations, he euphemistically rephrased the accusations. When told that he should have brought any concerns over my interactions with editors up on my talk page instead of the article's talk page, he claimed the out-of-place thread wasn't an accusation of problematic behavior. When context was given for the words he took out of context, he continued to insist that I was operating with an agenda, provided diffs to the words he took out of context (as if I had denied saying those things). At no point did he provide even a reference to a conversation where I fabricated quotes. When I demonstrated how one would present evidence of an agenda (had I not been stuck on my phone in a hotel room, I would've even provided diffs instead of referencing material anyone can still see on the talk page), he continued to say that I had an agenda and showed offense at me supposedly trying to bring his religious beliefs into it (even though I never mentioned his religious beliefs, and even though it was totally fine for him to accuse me of a religious agenda without evidence). The only user to support his complaints at Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus/Archive_33#Ian.thomson was a user who also made similar unevidenced claims, and was blocked for likewise failing to assume good faith and attacking editors.

As I've indicated on the article talk page and in past discussions, I'm for including a variety of sources, even due weight to the Christ Myth Theory. Between that, me pointing out that a recently added source claims that a historical Jesus is ultimately unknowable, and my prior track record, accusing me of an agenda, especially without evidence, is inexcusable.

Since I had moved on to other things, I did not see his misquotations, but it only confirms for me that FearofReprisal should not be editing articles relating to the historicity of Jesus. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Fearofreprisal has a history of accusing others of bad faith and/or incivility on article talk pages without any shred of evidence. I do not think that's a habit we should tolerate. Huon (talk) 01:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Echoing User:Ian.thomson and User:Huon's comments (though this is a page I informally watch but don't edit). Some remedy/warning stronger than the last visit to ANI is required. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Echoing User:Ian.thomson, User:Huon, and In ictu oculi's comments. For myself, FoR has also implied that I have no business on the article talk page because I had not edited it before. In what way is that comment appropriate? No collaboration, nor interest in resolving issues; much interest in disputation. Talk page disruption even more than article page - it is a drain on the community. I could say more, but am almost entirely away from Internet service for a time and cannot respond fully now. Evensteven (talk) 12:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: Off-topic discussion of article content begins here.

• I'm not a big fan of Fear of Reprisal, but I'm hard put to see him as being the instigator of the problems with this article. The discussions are dominated by people that won't concede the obvious point that Christians and Muslims possess an inherent bias towards seeing evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. This gets consistently and insistently misrepresented as having said that Christians are completely incapable making judgements. When one side won't concede a point as obviously true as that one and persistently misrepresents the points others are making, problems ensue.—Kww(talk) 02:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Please quit bringing up that strawman argument (that fails to acknowledge the clear examples of Christians separating the historical and religious Jesuses I keep bringing up) in his defense and either discuss his conduct or stay out of this. FearofReprisal has also thrown in ex-Christians who see reason to accept a historical Jesus as plausible as likewise being religiously biased, and has misquoted authors on those grounds. That is not attempting to remove theologically-motivated sources, that is making bigoted assumptions about anyone who holds a position that is common regardless of religion.

His actions were not merely to remove theological resources (which would be fine), he has demonstrably sought to dismiss any source that isn't part of the Christ myth theory as being religiously biased, or twisted it to say the opposite of what it says. He has made bad-faith accusations against any editor who points out his problems.

If a Christian came onto the talk page, argued that atheists (especially former Christians) are biased against any evidence for the existence of Jesus, tried to remove or distort secular reliable sources that didn't present the Sunday school version of Jesus on the grounds that they were biased against Christianity, made bad-faith attacks on editors who tried to stop this, and then tried to justify their actions as merely trying to balance out inherent biases -- If all this happened, you'd support them being topic banned as would I. Now, what's the difference here? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The majority of people arguing on that page have reacted to any discussion from me, from Hilo48, from Fear of Reprisal, from anyone that argues that Christians and Muslims have to be treated as biased sources about the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth as if we were bigots. It's not a strawman argument at all, and all your "clear examples of Christians separating the historical and religious Jesuses" does is illustrate the very point I am making: saying that someone is biased is not the same thing as saying that they are completely incapable of rational judgement. It's quite normal to be simultaneously biased and rational. To deny the bias of people that consider someone to be divine is to argue against logic and human nature.—Kww(talk) 02:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

You affirm that people can be both biased and rational, and yet you do not grant that to Christians and Muslims on this issue. And please, point out (on the article's talk page, because this thread is about FearofReprisal's behavior) where the article uses theological sources (which is where the religious bias would indeed come in). You go on about how we need to acknowledge biases in Christians and Muslims, and yet you're helping someone who is misquoting sources and making bad-faith accusations just because it goes along with your POV. This is not a thread about content, it is about FearofReprisal's behavior. If you want to discuss content, go to Talk:Historicity of Jesus. If you want to post here, post about FearofReprisal's behavior.

Back to the behavioral issue at hand, what you are saying regarding Christians and Muslims being biased is not FearofReprisal's argument, which is why I called it a strawman. FearofReprisal's argument extended to the assumption that ex-Christians must also be religiously biased, but he only holds to that when they side with the historical Jesus theory and does a 180 if ex-Christians can be cited (or misquoted, which you have yet to address) to go against the historical Jesus. That is biased editing, and it is nothing but hypocrisy for you to defend it. If you wanted to stay out of this, I wouldn't blame you.

Even if you are absolutely right on content (which this thread is not about), that does not in any way defend FearofReprisal's behavior. This isn't an issue of religion, FearofReprisal has been POV-pushed, and you have defended his incivility because you agree with that POV, and tried to draw attention away from it by making irrelevant blanket statements. I have little reason to assume you're going to understand that, but I would very much like to be proven wrong on that point.

Also, please, point out how the hypothetical I provided of a Christian arguing that atheists are biased is not the mirror image of this situation. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

It's easy to point out why your last point is wrong: atheists have no particular bias for or against the existence of anyone, only their divinity. As for the rest, I view FoR's misbehaviour as the flailing of a drowning man. If his opponents would listen to reason (which you have demonstrated that you will not, by persistently accusing me of failing to grant Christians and Muslims the power of reason, when I have only maintained that they are biased), he would likely be more reasonable himself. It's a cesspool of an article and a cesspool of a talkpage. I'd be just as happy to delete and salt the entire area, because I don't believe the participants will yield to rational argument.—Kww(talk) 03:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

And I have brought up plenty of evidence demonstrate that Christians are likewise capable of separating divinity and physical existence. You keep ignoring that, or else fail to get that that capacity is the same as allowing one's rationality to control one's bias. The situations are no different: an individual whose bias controls their rationality makes blanket claims that the worldview they believe to be their opposite number are incapable of letting their rationality control their bias and only capable of letting their bias control their rationality, before proceeding to disrupt the site by acting on such assumptions. The only difference is that what's happening now is a POV you agree with.

So do you do you approve of FearofReprisal's misquoting sources then? Do you approve of FearofReprisal's lying about what others say if you personally think the opposing side is being irrational? Do you really think that it's FearofReprisal who's being rational here? Ian.thomson (talk) 04:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Your constant misrepresentation of my statements and refusal to accept basic logic means that I have no reason to favour you in a dispute. You misrepresent me, and in the same breath ask me to be upset because someone else is, in your view, misrepresenting someone. That's the problem here: you are implicitly asking people to favour your position and discipline FoR when any review of your position and reasoning shows that the other editors have thrown up a brick wall. When everyone refuses to acknowledge any kind of middle ground, there's no hope.—Kww(talk) 04:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have repeatedly said that the article should give due weight to all views, and even started a subpage just to gather and sort sources (before I gave up dealing with FoR), even going so far as to include polemic sources such as Prometheus books just to make sure that all views are covered. That's middle ground. Most of the other editors have also been trying to discuss how to give due weight to all views, or at least only academia's views, but get sidetracked by dealing with FoR trying to eliminate members of academia that he disagrees with by misusing your argument of supposed religious bias.

Your refusal to acknowledge that consensus is against you, FoR, and Hilo is a problem for the article. But notice that ANI threads aren't being made about you or Hilo, they're regularly being made about FoR's misbehavior. If it was you and Hilo, there could well progress, but with you defending someone who outright lies about sources, how can there be? Once again, do you condone FoR's misquoting? If you have to refuse to answer that because of me, you're acting out of spite instead of logic or even good faith. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Ian.thomson, I suspect that if you simply edited the article to segregate the views of Christian and Muslim sources, explicitly label them as biased, and then found sources that weren't Christian or Muslim to balance the article, the behavioural problems would disappear. The problems won't go away until that is done: we can slap FoR silly, and someone else will take his place. I note that despite the controversy about the overuse of Christian sources your listing doesn't address the religion of the authors, even going so far as to label works by Craig A. Evans as "clearly academic" without noting the inherent bias.—Kww(talk) 15:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

As has been explained over and over, which you don't seem to be listening too, FoR has pushed for treating ex-Christians if they don't agree with his views. He has indicated that that would not get rid of behavioral problems. Quit ignoring his behavioral problems to support your POV. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I was going to post on Kww's talk page, since his comment merits a response but seems to be mostly about article content, but since Ian.thomson has already replied here I might as well throw in my two cents here. Yes, User:Kww, Christians are biased when it comes to reconstructions of the historical Jesus. Most reputable historians who also happen to be Christians can keep their biases in check, however, when they are engaging in historical research. These factors only apply to historical Jesus research (i.e., who Jesus was, what he said, what he did, whether historians can prove miracles, etc.). When it comes to whether or not a man named Jesus of Nazareth existed, Christians may also be considered "biased". However, it is worth noting that the vast majority (99.9999%) of trained historians of other theological persuasions (atheist, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Shintoist...) agree with the Christian historians that at the very least the guy did exist. This means that the bias of Christians toward the historicity question (note I'm speaking exclusively about the historicity of Jesus, not of his sayings miracles, skin colour, marital status or sexuality) is essentially negligible, and we shouldn't bring it up in the article per WP:UNDUE. However, it has been noted (in Ehrman 2012's epilogue, for instance) that the mythicist apologists overwhelmingly have their own theological bias against the historicity of Jesus, in that they grew up in Christian environs and have a specific distrust of Christianity, and believe that arguing against the historicity of Jesus will serve to discredit Christianity and solve the evils they feel Christianity has wrought. Ehrman understands and sympathizes with them on most points other than the historicity of Jesus (as do I, I should add). But at the end of the day we have one historical claim (that Jesus existed) that is accepted by virtually every scholar of every theological persuasion, and an opposing historical claim (that Jesus never existed) that is essentially only accepted by a vocal minority of adherents of one theological persuasion (atheism), the majority of whom are also vocal in their specific opposition to 21st century Anglo-American Christianity. Books defending the historicity of Jesus come from Christian publishers, yes, but also from Oxford University Press; books attacking the historicity of Jesus come almost exclusively from American Atheist Press and other publishers with their theological views made clear in the name. I don't think we should use article space to speculate about theological biases on the part of either side, but if we do one we have to do the other. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Your "99.999%" figure is interesting. First, it includes Muslims, who revere Jesus of Nazareth to the same extent that Christians do: orthodox Muslim theology is that Jesus was never crucified, but remains physically alive at the side of Allah. Second, I've asked multiple times for someone to provide examples of Buddhist and atheist historians that have stated that evidence supports the historic existence of Jesus, and no one has provided one. If you wish to have any credibility in your argument, Hijiri 88, please provide a short list of atheist, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, and Shintoist historians that agree that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that Jesus of Nazareth existed. If it's 99.999% of all such historians, it should be trivially easy to provide such a list. Then, we can add the list to the article and all the controversy will go away.—Kww(talk) 05:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Ehrman is an atheist historian. He is also a reliable source on the views of the historical community (歴史学界), and he says virtually historians in Asia accept the historicity of Jesus. Christians make up only a tiny minority of the historical community in Asia, and Muslims only a slightly larger minority. Therefore, for virtually all historians in Asia to accept something, more than a few Muslims and Hindus would need to accept it as well. You're demanding that we categorize qualified historians based on their theological persuasion is an insult to said historians' academic integrity, and could easily land in trouble with WP:BLP. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

One example from one particular group does not 99.999% of a large group of things make. You've argued with me by making things up, and then asked us to be upset because someone accused you of making things up.—Kww(talk) 14:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion ends here.

Kww, please discuss article content on the article talk page. You are as usual wrong on the substance, but this is not the place to discuss that. Hijiri 88 (聖 やや) 05:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Note that the above comment was twice removed, without explanation, by User:Kww and User:Reyk. If this thread gets archived with no result as a consequence of Kww's deliberate attempt to hinder outside input with WP:TLDR off-topic rants about article-content, a new thread will be opened in its place. And whether or not Kww's attempt to get this thread archived with no outside input succeeds, both users will be made to answer for repeated unexplained removal of other users' comments. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Your hatting of this section was inappropriate, and your claim that my revert was "unexplained" is false. I stated in the edit summary that you don't get to dictate what can and cannot be discussed on ANI. Hatting a section because an article is being discussed is not a good reason. Of course you are free to restore your comments, without the misbehaviour, and I see that you have. Reyk _YO! 06:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I did not say your reversion of my hat. I said your removal of my response to Kww was removed without explanation. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

As I said- you are free to restore any comments you made, minus the misbehaviour, and I see that you have. Reyk _YO! 07:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@User:Reyk: Collapsing off-topic asides that belong on the article talk page, in order to make the thread more readable, is not misbehaviour. It is in fact pretty standard procedure. The only thing unique about this is that the off-topic content was not an accidental, good-faith aside (if it was, Kww would have acknowledged his mistake and let it go), but a deliberate attempt to take advantage of WP:TLDR in order to limit outside input. The claim that my hatting off his content discussion with User:Ian.thomson was an attempt on my part to "remove" or "hide" legit user conduct discussion because I'm afraid of a WP:BOOMERANG against myself resulting from such discussion is an almost-laughable cover-story. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Back to the matter at hand

FoR has, as demonstrated above, attacked editors and misquoted sources. He has done this repeatedly. Article content is NOT the issue here, it is tendentious editing, plain and simple. Some editors may support this tendentious editing because it goes with their views, but such actions are in bad-faith and they need to quit defending such actions. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not think the problem is with FoR, but rather with the topic itself. Neither side has been without fault. I would suggest mediation. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen any bad-faith defenses of FoR. I've witnessed a serious WP:KETTLE problem in the discussion above, though.—Kww(talk) 22:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

@User:Ret.Prof: Maybe so, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any instance of me doing something that merited a thread on the article talk page about how I have used sockpuppets to get away with making personal attacks against people (I have not) and ultimately changed my username to get away with making personal attacks against people (I have not). Whether FoR is right on the substance (he is not) is frankly irrelevant here, except for the fact that the side of this dispute that is wrong has had to increasingly resort to personal attacks, misquoting of sources, violations of WP:POINT, etc.

@User:Kww: All of the defenses of FoR have hinged on "he is right on the substance" (he is not) or "Hijiri88 is a cry-baby" (I put up with his crap for I think three weeks before posting here).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

On the chance that anyone actually cares about building an encyclopedia, I'll point out that, despite contributing lots of POV and OR to the talk page, User:Hijiri88, User:Ian.thomson, and User:Huon have each contributed nothing to the Historicity of Jesus article. Zip.

I was wrong to link Hijiri88's use of sockpuppets and user name change with incivility. They could be totally unrelated things. (It's worth noting that he still seems to be using IP socks, though, again, it wouldn't be fair to impute any motive to it.) Fearofreprisal (talk) 02:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Umm... every time I post logged out from my phone I specify that it's me. And I don't need to WP:EDITWAR. I have presented solid proposals to improve the article (removing out-of-context quotations that imply John P. Meier, a Catholic priest is skeptical about the historical existence of Jesus, and rejects historical Jesus research. What constructive edits have you made to the article? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Note that I attempted a few times to hat off the TLDR off-topic discussions in the above section, and was repeatedly reverted by Kww and accused by them of "removing" comments. (This while Kww was somewhat hypocritically deleting one of my comments.) This is an obvious attempt on the part of someone who realizes outside input will be invariably against them to prevent outside input by forcing anyone who wants to contribute to wade through thousands of words of off-topic content dispute material. Kww will be made to answer for this repeated disruption once the FoP issue has been resolved. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Ahem. Do you guys have some kind of Wiki-death wish? Surely you must realize the end result of escalating a dispute at ANI like this. Let's see some evidence of how progress in building the encyclopedia has been impeded in the form of diffs summarized by concise statements. Ignocrates (talk) 14:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@User:Ignocrates: How so? In the past, whenever I have come into conflict with a POV-pusher who was abusing/misquoting sources and aggressively making personal attacks against me and others, I tried initially discussing on the article talk pages and their user talk page, and when that didn't work eventually it came to ANI (or SPI, or some other such venue) and the community dealt with them effectively. Both Ian.thomson and I presented concise statements with diffs as evidence. Kww then came along and posted a string of TLDR comments about article content. Please actually examine who has posted what, and who has tried to do what to resolve the issue, before blanket-smearing all parties in a dispute like that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

"Blanket-smearing"? Please see WP:BLUDGEON. I don't see persuasive evidence of progress being impeded on improving the article. Do yourself a favor and return to constructive editing. ANI isn't the place to dry your tears and give out hugs. Ignocrates (talk) 14:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Can the article be written in the same way without reliance on biased sources? Of course, Christians are biased about whether Jesus existed. I think it is equally obvious that Wikipedia doesn't prohibit biased sources--but, the article shouldn't unduly represent their view. Howunusual (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@User:Howunusual: If all sources written by anyone who either is now or was at one time a Christian, then probably no. It's worth noting that virtually everyone who denies historicity is an atheist apologist who comes from a Christian background. In fact, per Ehrman 2012's epilogue this represents an obvious conflict of interest. It seems to me that Fearofreprisal, Kww, and the others are arguing that we should mention these biases for every scholar mentioned in the article. Ian.thomson, myself and the others appear to be arguing against this, and in my case at least it's because most of the so-called mythicists are not reliable sources, and trying to "balance" the article by presenting all the (thousands?) of reliable sources on the other side as "biased" will give readers the wrong impression. It's not Wikipedia's place to be deciding which sources are biased, when reliable sources do not make this claim. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I meant sources whose Christianity is part of their professional background. Howunusual (talk) 13:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: This is wiki madness! Iggy, Ignocrates and I do not agree on much these days but he is absolutely right in the end result of an escalating dispute at ANI like this. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Please sign your posts Ret.Prof, and stop calling me Iggy. It's inappropriate. Btw, since we will be facing off in arbitration in about a week, it would be best if you refrained from commenting on my comments, unless its really pertinent. Ignocrates (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I think your notice to me HERE is very, very wrong. In future limit such comments to our talk pages! - Ret.Prof (talk)

@Hijiri 88: Sorry about the above disruption. I thought you were being a bit harsh with him.

@User:Ret.Prof: How so? In the past, whenever I have come into conflict with a POV-pusher who was abusing/misquoting sources and aggressively making personal attacks against me and others, I tried initially discussing on the article talk pages and their user talk page, and when that didn't work eventually it came to ANI (or SPI, or some other such venue) and the community dealt with them effectively. Both Ian.thomson and I presented concise statements with diffs as evidence. Kww then came along and posted a string of TLDR comments about article content. Please actually examine who has posted what, and who has tried to do what to resolve the issue, before blanket-smearing all parties in a dispute like that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I've posted seven short paragraphs in seven distinct replies. I'm going to presume that your post is simply an extension of your strategy of making false statements. On the other hand, if one paragraph falls into your definition of TL;DR it might explain why having a substantive discussion with you has proven to be so difficult.—Kww(talk) 14:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and I didn't delete your distinct replies. I merely pointed out what Ian.thomson did as well, that they belong on the article talk page, and should not be posted here because of TLDR. As I predicted, your overrunning this thread with TLDR content disputes has caused two other user to come along and completely misinterpret the problem. I never should have pinged you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Issue still ongoing

For the record, this issue continues in the absence of any admin action. I recently came to the article, this is what the user under discussion directed at me [3]. 100% personal attack without even the intention to discuss anything related to the article.Jeppiz (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

This is true.. I have been watching and mildly contributing for a couple months on this page and its a bit frustrating to have input like this. I don't think this user is some bane of order or a gigantic problem, but a little talking-to wouldn't hurt. Its hard enough to make progress with people being civil, and its probably just a joke on his part, but it slows things down a bit to have to deal with it each time. Granted I don't see any of the main players here as being too innocent! :) Prasangika37 (talk) 19:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the bigger issue is whether this article should even exist. I noticed a thread was opened on the talk page to discuss the AfD option. As it stands, Wikipedia has three articles to cover two topics, with this one wedged in the middle position. At one point, I remember this article being a sort of Christian triumphalist alternative to the Christ Myth Theory. It is now more NPOV, but its reason for being is even less clear. Imo, this is one of the biggest reasons for the seemingly eternal squabbles on the article. Fix the underlying problem and all the rest of this noise will go away. Just a thought. Ignocrates (talk) 01:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

A Suggestion to Wrap This Up for Now

This is not the first or second time that there has been a thread at this noticeboard about Historicity of Jesus. Nor, unfortunately, does it appear to be the last time. The OP has complained about one particular editor, User:Fearofreprisal, who has been tendentious and difficult, but not the only disruptive editor. However, the OP has no particular proposal for what to do. He or she does not request a block, an indef, a topic-ban, an interaction ban, or a site ban, which are the only administrative actions that I am aware that the community can deal with here. By coming here to complain, without requesting sanctions, the OP is just venting and wasting time, as is the case with too many threads here. It appears to me that this article is one where a combination of content issues (should the article exist? what is its scope?) and conduct issues over a long period rise to the level where arbitration is likely to be necessary. My recommendation is, first, that this thread be closed with a warning to Fearofreprisal and a warning to the OP, and, second, that it be noted that any future disruption should be sent (along with the history of past disruption) to the Arbitration Committee. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Close this thread with warnings, and note that any future disruption will be sent to ArbCom. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that arbitration is the better option. This soap-boxing is a complete waste of ANI's time. The content issue needs to be addressed as well. Otherwise, the litany of complaints will just resume with the next group of combatants. Take it to AfD and let the community decide the scope there, or if it should exist at all. Ignocrates (talk) 02:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Wdford was bold and stripped the contentious article down to a short disambiguation article containing links to other articles. Several other editors concur that that is an improvement. User:Fearofreprisal reverted the bold edit. I restored the shortened article. Fearofreprisal hasn't suggested an alternative. We shall see. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

It looks great. And it makes so much more sense. If this gets reverted again, I would file for arbitration immediately. Thanks for all your hard work coming up with this creative solution and diffusing the dispute in the process. Ignocrates (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I have, in fact, responded, providing citations to reliable sources. diff here Fearofreprisal (talk) 07:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Topic-Ban of User:Fearofreprisal

I am striking my previous suggestion that this thread be closed with warnings. User:Wdford made a bold edit and shortened the contentious article to a disambiguation article with links to other articles. An RFC is in progress on whether to keep the shortened article or restore the full article. User:Fearofreprisal is the only editor who disagrees with the shortening of the article, and has called the shortened version "blanking" and "vandalism". User:Fearofreprisal has now filed a frivolous request for formal mediation on the issue of whether to revert the "blanking" of the article. Since mediation requires the voluntary participation of all named parties, and some of the parties are known to support the shortened version of the article, the only actual effect of the RFM is to continue to stir up controversy. (The requirement to assume good faith only goes so far and perhaps should be set aside now. Perhaps this editor is trolling.) I request a topic-ban on User:Fearofreprisal from historicity of Jesus and all of the articles referenced in the shortened version of the article in order to prevent this editor from continuing to stir up controversy. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support Robert McClenon (talk) 12:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support given the editor's recent history of tendentious and very unproductive commentary on the talk page. John Carter (talk) 16:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support given recent events, yes, absolutely. I would broaden this T-ban to include articles related to Historicity of Jesus broadly construed. Ignocrates (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I'd suggest reading Robert McClenon's last sentence carefully. He's suggesting banning me for making controversial statements. Fearofreprisal (talk) 04:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • No, that's not right. The suggestion is that some editors thrive on controversy with a resulting very low benefit-to-noise ratio. I haven't looked lately, but when I last checked that appeared to be the situation. Johnuniq (talk) 09:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Something is very, very wrong here! In the first place aren't Ignocrates and John Carter here in violation of "their bans". Secondly, it looks a though Fearofreprisal is being set up by a group of user accounts working together diff This needs to be looked into further! - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I filed a request for enforcement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request_concerning_John_Carter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howunusual (talk • contribs) 20:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Fyi, this AE request has been closed as a frivolous filing. Therefore, it should not affect the discussion here. Ignocrates (talk) 17:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how that supports the claim that FoR is being "set up by a group of user accounts working together." Ian.thomson (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose: I would recommend arbitration to get to the root of the matter. and possibly a sock puppet investigation. strike due to diff> I am also going to ask some trustworthy admins and crats to to look into this situation! - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Who are you suggesting are sockpuppets? Ian.thomson (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

If there is to be a sockpuppet investigation, it should look at connections with (deleted) and banned (deleted). Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Fwiw, (deleted) is not a banned user, and he is actively editing. Allegations of sockpuppetry should be made at SPI, not here, and it's tendentious to bring up someone's name as a likely sockpuppet without a shred of evidence. For such spurious claims, blocks are made. Ignocrates (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Very well, I've deleted the names in my own post, you may want to do the same thing in yours. A topic ban did appear to be in effect, judging by his talk page. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. I have asked an admin to take a look at the unsupported allegation of sockpuppetry as it applies to the editors working on the article, per WP:casting aspersions. Ignocrates (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support - About time. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment:Don't get me wrong. I am not making any specific allegations. What I am saying is there something is very, very wrong here! It needs to be fully investigated possibly by Arbitration or by other means! If arbitration goes against Fear, I will most certainly accept it. Turning an important article into a little more than stub was most unsettling! - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

If you're not making specific allegations, don't make allegations because it comes across as little more than fear-mongering to distract from issues at hand. My past experience with you makes it hard for me to believe you're that kind of user, but looking a bit now I see that you and Ignocrates have some sort of issues that I'm not going to get involved with (I don't care what they are, who started it, whatever), but I would ask that neither of you allow those issues to influence your decisions regarding the continued behavior of FoR; nor allow content issues to distract from the issue of FoR's behavior (as they have abut four times now!). Ian.thomson (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in that change but supported it. No content was removed from Wikipedia, and there was a broad consensus for it.Jeppiz (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for articles related to the historical Jesus. Fearofreprisal is here with a strong WP:POV and has showed time and time again that they will insist on the WP:TRUTH even if there is a strong consensus to the contrary. Nothing in the user's behavior or Wikipedia history support they are willing to engage constructively.Jeppiz (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Suggestion: All I am saying do not think the problem is only with FoR, but rather with the topic itself. Neither side has been without fault. I would suggest mediation as a first step. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

You've now made your opposition in four different comments, all of them saying pretty much the same thing, and this far you're the only one making taking that position. You're perfectly entitled to a divergent opinion, but perhaps you could refrain from repeating it over and over again?Jeppiz (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Robert McClenon, It will be easier for FoR if you list the names of the articles that will fall under the topic ban. Christ myth theory will be included? Bladesmulti (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I've never seen a list of articles in a topic ban. It's a ban from the topic, not from an article. In this case, where the topic is Jesus's historicity, it would likely mean every article in some way dealing Jesus, as it's possible to discuss Jesus's historicity on any such article.Jeppiz (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Jeppiz Thank you for writing. I am in Support of topic ban on Jesus's historicity, FoR has frequently made irrelevant discussions and he has been edit warring too. Now those who are talking about other users here, this topic ban will serve as an example. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. Would sooner support a topic-ban for the proposer of this attempt at censorship. Trying to ban someone for proposing dispute resolution is pretty strange. It's also pretty bizarre to argue that seeking dispute resolution is trolling because, well, there is a dispute. Yet that's what is what Robert McClenon does by arguing the "only actual effect of the RFM is to continue to stir up controversy". Howunusual (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the point of the proposer is how it was done; for example, allegations were made of vandalism and blanking an article. A veteran editor knows better; therefore, such claims are disruptive. There was nothing wrong with the proposal of formal mediation except the timing; an RfC is still underway, so that also seemed to be disruptive. A formal mediation is not "frivolous" per se, and may yet happen before this is done. The trolling allegation, I agree, is tough to prove, and not to be made lightly. It implies someone is motivated by malice. Ignocrates (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I have a hard time understanding the comment by Howunusual. Looking at the edit history of both users, it is clear that Robert McClenon has tried to be constructive while Fearofreprisal has been extremely disruptive. The accusation of "attempt at censorship" seems to be an unfounded personal attack with no substance whatsoever provided. Fearofreprisal is being suggested for a topic ban for their behaviour, evident from their edit history, and not for their opinions. Other users have had similar opinions but nobody have suggested they'd be topic banned as they are serious good faith users. I hope the closing admin find the time to give Howunusual a serious for their unfounded breach of WP:NPA against Robert McClenon.Jeppiz (talk) 22:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

A bit harsh! We are now attacking each other. Not a good sign. We all need to take a deep breath and start assuming good faith. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

@Howunusual:: earlier in this thread (and in a few archived discussions as well), there's evidence of FoR using the article talk page for unfounded personal attacks against multiple editors, misquoting sources, and generally refusing to seek a middle ground with editors who are interested in collaboration. To call this topic ban a blatant attempt at censorship is either completely ignorant of the situation or in bad-faith against some editor involved here. Notice that Kww and Hilo48 are not mentioned in the topic ban, despite having repeatedly helping him get out of topic bans by turning the issue into a discussion of content and presenting a more moderate face to FoR's arguments. Please learn more about the situation before making asinine accusations about Robert McClenon, who has been dealing with this with way the hell more patience than he should have. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Your credibility is momentous. You complain of personal attacks, and call people "asinine." That says it all. Howunusual (talk) 02:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting question, at least to me. Looking at What is considered to be a personal attack?, "asinine" wouldn't appear to approach personal attack—until you get to the bottom, where it says, "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." Since "asinine" would certainly be a disparagement if not an insult, it passes that definition. By that definition, an enormous segment of the Wikipedia population is in violation of WP:NPA multiple times a day, making the passage of dubious value. This is not the place for such a discussion, I know, but I'm not feeling inclined to start one in the proper place. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 03:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The title and subject of the entire thread is "Personal Attacks." If the policy on personal attacks is of "dubious value" then close the thread. Don't pick and choose. Howunusual (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@Howunusual:: I said your accusations were asinine. Where did I comment on you? You, however, made claims that Robert McClenon was proposing the topic-ban as censorship despite clear evidence to the contrary. That, and you twisting my words, utterly fail WP:AGF. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson:: Yes, OK. Your opinion is moronic. Please note, I haven't commented on you. Howunusual (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you have anything constructive to contribute through taking an honest look at the personal attacks, misquoting, and POV pushing by FoR and commenting on that behavior, or are you here merely to pick fights? Are you going to correct your accusations toward Robert McClenon, or are you here to make attacks to support editors who's POV-pushing you happen to agree with? If it's the former answers, you sure are doing a terrible job of it; if it's the latter, you don't belong here. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Nope, I have nothing to contribute "through taking an honest look at the personal attacks, misquoting, and POV pushing by FoR ." Rather, I have something to contribute by taking an honest look at such behavior by those complaining about it in others. Howunusual (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Except that your assessment of the situation ("censorship") completely lacks evidence and is countered by other evidence. That's not useful at all, that's either bad judgement or bad-faith. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

A fair distinction, which I missed. That part retracted with apologies. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 04:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support - it's hard by now to avoid the conclusion that that User:Fearofreprisal does not want any resolution - at least any that has a snowball's chance in hell of becoming the consensus. I have no idea whether the plan is to outlast the opposition and to turn the article into whatever Fearofreprisal desires when everybody else has given up in disgust, or whether he merely wants to cause drama for drama's sake, but he's switching between personal attacks (as I pointed out way above, and as since experienced by Jeppiz), wikilawyering (for example the "shortening is an end-run around deletion" line of reasoning), and supposedly good-faith requests for mediation - whatever it takes to prolong the dispute. It's high time to put a stop to this behavior. Huon (talk) 00:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I've resisted raising this issue, because I'd hoped that saner minds would prevail: the historicity of jesus is a secular history subject. But because the historicity of jesus article is about Jesus, it attracts the same very experienced editors who contribute to the other Jesus articles. To my understanding, they are almost all very dedicated Christians. But whether they are or are not, they've, collectively tried to inject theology into the article. For years.

I believe so many of them have turned on me because I've continually pushed for the article's scope to reflect its topic, and have pressed the need for verifiability (which is at odds with turning a history article into a Christian article.) Recently, a group of these editors has been trying to kill the article. The evidence is in plain view in the talk page.

It's time to bring this article to arbitration.

P.S. - most of the editors suggesting that I be banned are involved. Even those who are long term WP editors. Fearofreprisal (talk) 03:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I have contributed on Christ myth theory for 1 year, I don't think that a lot of discussion that you have made on these talk pages was actually wanted. What about the edit warring? There was a day when you had broken 3RevertRule, but you wouldn't recognize it any longer. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

More unevidenced accusations. Not getting your way? Just say that those who disagree with you must be doing so because they're Christians. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is clear they are trying to kill the article. Why? - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, most of the folks who are supporting the disambiguation version were originally for rewriting the article so that it covered all appropriate views, with the main disagreement being whether to go with a specific focus (and if so, what would be excluded as fringe) or to include a broad variety (even if it meant some polemics were cited and labelled accordingly). Were a few editors who insisted denigrating sources based on what they suspected of the author's religion never involved in the discussion, some other kind of middle ground might have been reached. Even then, the broad variety option would lead to a bunch of material that would need to be carted off into independent articles (which we already have); while the specific focus approach would lend itself to drafting versions on the major views to determine which was least fringe, which would again result in a number of independent articles that we already have.

The disambiguation version allows the article to remain stable while a version is created through collaborative effort (instead of reverting, or adding sources to "balance out" views individual editors have a problem with). Ian.thomson (talk) 04:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Ian. Your explanation was very helpful. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support. The evidence provided shows a topic ban is needed here. -- Calidum 04:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support Enough is enough. GoldenRing (talk) 05:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Following a massive influx of WP:SPAs/WP:SOCKs, several of which has vandalized the article, I've requested semi-protection. Much of this disruption could probably have been avoided if a topic-ban had been put a place shortly after this issue was brought to ANI, more than 10 days ago. I appreciate the need to discuss things, but delays quite often serve to aggravate problems, not solve them.Jeppiz (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Could we wrap this up

The consensus seems to be fairly strong in favour of a topic ban. I'd also like to point out that a number of WP:SPAs have now appeared to support Fearofreprisal[4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [[11]] who had a hard time getting any support before the appearance of the WP:SPAs.Jeppiz (talk) 12:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

It would be helpful to check for socks, it's hardly a coincidence that we suddenly see a massive influx of SPAs to boost Fearofreprisal.Jeppiz (talk) 13:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment As a long time mostly lurker on this noticeboard I couldn't help but notice this discussion. Frankly it reads like a Kangaroo Court. Unsurprisingly, it seems headed for the inevitable predetermined conclusion. You should be ashamed of yourselves. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

And do you have argument to add to the discussion or are you just making personal attacks to be disruptive and further inflame things? A large number of users have provided diffs for extensive disruptions.Jeppiz (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

More SPAs: Special:Contributions/98.167.155.109, Special:Contributions/JChurchtown. Clearly there's at least meatpuppets, apparently canvassing as well. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This post seems to suggest that there was canvassing on Reddit's r/atheism. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I've requested page protection at WP:RPP because the SPAs are getting disruptive, though obviously would not mind if an admin seeing this decided to protect the page before someone at RPP does. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Definite off-site canvassing

Thanks to User:Lots42 for pointing this out, but there is canvassing on Reddit by an account created not just 8 hours ago, portraying FoR as a lone hero (ignoring Kww and Hilo48), asking readers to "Please help, by visiting the article "talk page", and voicing your opinion". The talk page needs semi-protection ASAP. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement from Fearofreprisal

I've said very little here so far, But now I'm going to have my say. Even if it ends up getting me banned.

This ANI has gone on for 9 or 10 days. I can't even guess how many posts it's had. By my count, Ian.Thomson holds the record, at 21 posts, with Hijiri88 following up at 14. Jeppiz has only 10, but he got started late. Most of these, incidentally, were arguments with other editors.

Ignocrates made the most cogent post: Do you guys have some kind of Wiki-death wish? Surely you must realize the end result of escalating a dispute at ANI like this. Let's see some evidence of how progress in building the encyclopedia has been impeded in the form of diffs summarized by concise statements. Important point: He wasn't talking about me. And no one actually did make any such concise statements (or provide diffs that showed anything nearly as hostile as this ANI, for that matter.)

Does anyone wonder why there is such vitriol here? I pointed out my opinion here: [12].

This is an ideological dispute. On one side are a group of Christians who believe with absolute certainty that Jesus lived. On the other side is me – and I am agnostic on the subject. The funniest part of this is that if I were a raving atheist mythicist, they could deal a lot easier. Since WP values verifiability, let me provide the following quotation, from a reliable source.

[S]urely the rather fragile historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth should be tested to see what weight it can bear, or even to work out what kind of historical research might be appropriate. Such a normal exercise should hardly generate controversy in most fields of ancient history, but of course New Testament studies is not a normal case and the highly emotive and dismissive language of, say, Bart Ehrman’s response to Thompson’s The Mythic Past shows (if it needed to be shown), not that the matter is beyond dispute, but that the whole idea of raising this question needs to be attacked, ad hominem, as something outrageous. [13]

You might want to go back now, and take note of how many ad hominem attacks have been made against me in this ANI.

This doesn't, however, explain Robert McClenon's request that I be topic-banned.

Let me start with this: Robert is apparently not only a long-time wikipedian, he's also apparently very highly regarded. So, any argument I make that he's wrong is likely to be dismissed by most experienced users and sysops. But, I still need to make it.

Robert objected to me using the terms “blanking” and “vandalism.” WP:Vandalism defines “illegitimate blanking” as “Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason .” (Well, you could argue that anyone who removes a page's content has “a reason.”) In this case, Wdford all but admitted that his reason was to game the WP:Deletion Policy [14]. But, it doesn't really matter: I used the terms descriptively, not as aspersions. If Robert disagrees with me, that's fine – but it doesn't make me guilty of bad faith, nor does it make my (admittedly premature) attempt to discuss the matter through a Request for Mediation an attempt to “stir up controversy.” (How has mediation ever stirred up controversy?)

Robert claimed that I am the “only editor who disagrees with the shortening of the article.” I can't think of a better response to that than “so what?” Consensus in WP should ideally not be based upon number of votes, but upon policy-related points made by editors – and none of the editors supporting the shortening of the article even bothered to address policy.

Beyond that, his claim is no longer true. There is now substantial support for the “long article,” and opposition against the “short article,” from experienced (not “new” or “SPA”) editors, a number of whom have made strong policy arguments against the current version of the article.

The essence of Robert's argument is that I should be topic-banned to prevent me “from continuing to stir up controversy.” Just take a look at WP:List of controversial issues, and you'll see, in the religion section, this very article: Historicity of Jesus. Yes, it's already controversial.

Before Wdford blanked the article, to create the “fake disambiguation article,” and before Wdford researched deleting the article through AfD, there was one person who was largely responsible for most of the recent major edits to the article. Wdford.

I couldn't even make stuff like this up. But, it's not really his fault: all the editors who came over here from the other Jesus articles agreed with what he was doing. And WP:POV railroaded anyone who disagreed. (Let me see.. How many ANIs have I been involved in?) Except for me – and I was apparently just trying to stir up controversy.

So, as for Robert's argument: It's so specious you have to wonder why he made it.

At this point, I figure I've pissed off enough people here, that I'm sure to get topic-banned. WP:DGAF.

No matter. I'll be filing an arbitration case, But I'm won't be requesting sanctions against any other editors, and I won't even be appealing, if I'm banned (now let's see how well your WP:Boomerang works.)

I'll just be requesting discretionary sanctions for the article. Because that's the only thing that will stop a bunch of ideological bullies who misuse their reputations and knowledge of WP rules and guidelines to run roughshod over the anyone who doesn't share their POV.

Now I feel better, thank you.

P.S. - I changed my mind. Ian.Thomson, Hijiri88, Jeppiz, with 45 posts here between them, have proven they can't even be civil on ANI. They should definitely be blocked for awhile. And, why don't you interaction-ban them from me too.

P.P.S - As for Jeppiz claim that "we've seen a large influx of new SPAs as well as heavy IP vandalism of the article" - Most of those edits appear to be from experienced WP editors - not SPAs or IP vandals. It appears they rather strongly disagree with the fake "disambiguation article." And, as for Jeppiz claim that my username is an SPA: If you think I've violated policy, then find some diffs, and ask for an investigation. But consider this: if "Fearofreprisal" were to be an SPA, might it have been created to protect me from reprisals... from people like you and your friends?

Fearofreprisal (talk) 16:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm rather disgusted at the blatant personal attacks Fearofreprisal above, and I believe they show why Fearofreprisal should have been banned long ago. Some examples.

• Insinuating that every user who disagrees with FoR is a Christian is an ad hominem argument banned under WP:NPA. There may be Christians who take the same view, personally I take this view because I tend to trust academia. No matter, the accusation violates WP:NPA.
• Lying about the canvassed WP:SPAs is ingenious. We have the actual link where "atheists" are called to come to rescue FoR from "Christian" editors, [15] and we can see that a large number of these meatpuppets headed straight to the article as their first activity. [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22] It's true that there were also some who had not been active for a long time, some of them for years and used their old accounts, [23], [24], [25], [26], though that does not make them any less canvassed. It's hard to understand what FoR is getting at here when we have both the actual canvass and the edit history of the meatpuppets.
• Calling for Ian.Thomson, Hijiri88 and myself to be blocked is just WP:POINTy. Blocked for what? For discovering FoR's canvassing and bringing it to ANI? I can understand FoR is disappointed at being caught red-handed, but what offence have we done. Yet another disruptive suggestion.
• The implicit admission that FoR is a sock " if "Fearofreprisal" were to be an SPA, might it have been created to protect me from reprisals... from people like you and your friends?".

I won't go on. There have been few more disruptive users at Wikipedia than FoR for quite some while now. A look at the havoc they have wreaked both at Historicity of Jesus and ANI in their fight for the WP:TRUTH is revealing.Jeppiz (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

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

I just noticed thread had been closed. I need to point this out for the record. Despite User:Fearofreprisal's assumptio to the contrary, I am not a Christian, and both my parents are lapsed/liberal Catholics, bordering on atheism. My personal connection to the Catholic Church is limited to my having grown up in Dublin and attended "public school" there. If FOP wants to know more about my historical views of Christianity and the bible, he can examine my edits to our Saint Peter article, among others. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Abuse of Processes and Editors by DocumentError

I am not an expert on complaining - hopefully I have the right board. My experience at Wikipedia and the usefulness of various articles is being harmed by the actions of User:DocumentError In my opinion he continues to use Admin actions processes, personal attacks, false promises, and forum shopping to force his point of view about Iran, Hezbollah, and Syria and ISIL on various pages. Can something be done to stop this behavior? Links to some of his activity:

Simultaneous use of Admin forums and other tools to push an agenda

• Getting the 2014 military intervention against ISIS page locked to editing except by Admins for a week [27] for, he tells everyone later, other than the stated reason in the lock request. [[28]]. In other words the lock was initiated to further an editing agenda.
• Merger proposal [29]
• AfD on American-led intervention in Iraq [30]
• [[WP:ANI#Semi-Protection Evasion [Active Community Sanctions measures - Syrian Civil War]] on the same article, at the same time against User:Acetotyce Archived without action [31]
• Attempt to get a merge of the same article plus his new Iranian-led intervention in Iraq at Military History while also trying to delete the American-led article and get sanctions for the creator [32]
• Starting an article about Iran and suggesting starting another article about Syria to (it seems) prove the point he is trying to make with the other efforts as suggested here: [33]
• Tagging the same American-led intervention in Iraq article for Systemic Bias before hypocritically starting Iranian-led intervention in Iraq
• Move protection request - after reverting a single move - to stop anyone else from changing his page (OWN): [34]
• Creating an inappropriate disambiguation page to further is goals [35]

Attacking other editors

• Subtily attacking my username (many times) as pointed out here: [36]
• False accusations against a range of editors of "Canvassing editors, coordinating AfD votes via IRC, etc" [37]
• calling all the editors who disagree with him "a rapid influx of a tightly coordinated group of editors" [38]
• Hounding editors, including opinionating on stuff seemingly just because I comment on it - one example [39]
• Commenting on editor's "colorful block histories" and scouring their pages for any dirt he can dig up. Many examples - see various links to the actions started.
• Starting a sockpuppet investigation after various accusatory comments when a glance at the user's page shows extensive conversations between two users-unlikely someone would talk to their sock puppet. [40]
• Edit Warring report against User:Kudzu1 [41]
• Edit Warring report against User:Legacypac [42]
• Direct Request to which the Admin User:EdJohnston had some instructive comments and DocumentError continued to make attacks on other editors [43]

Anyway, I've learned that Wiki tools can be abused and that there sure are a lot of them. This took a bit of effort to assemble. I missed some other stuff that is disturbing. Watching this activity go on is too frustrating so going to let people with more power than little me deal with the situation. Legacypac (talk) 22:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Just one comment: Legacypac accuses DocumentError of abusing "admin actions". For the record, DocumentError is not an admin. --MelanieN (talk) 23:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• to clarify - I mean overusing/initiating too many Admin processes. I modified the word at the top to prevent confusion Legacypac (talk) 23:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

MelanieN, that is correct. To the absolute best of my knowledge I am not an admin. If I have recently been made an admin, bureaucrat, steward, or been elected to the board of directors, and failed to notice that, I apologize. DocumentError (talk) 23:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, this is really too long for me to address point-by-point. LegacyPAC has spent a lot of energy on this, it appears, and I appreciate his effort; my lack of a point-by-point response is not intended as a slight to the work he's invested here. I'll just tag three items, as that's about the time I have to invest in this right now:

-The first complaint of his is that I got "the 2014 military intervention against ISIS page locked to editing except by Admins." I have no power to lock pages from editing, Kudpung initiated the lock after reviewing the merits of my request. If the assertion is that Kudpung is my sockpuppet or meatpuppet, I suggest that be addressed in SPI and Kudpung be notified of the accusation.

-I am not user:Willy on Wheels, and I believe it's customary to offer diffs of "edits to another wiki where he admitted it" [sic] instead of just shotgunning these accusations out. Here is the editor interaction report of "Willy on Wheels" and myself: [44]. Also, I am more than happy to submit to a checkuser. (Edit - it appears this accusation has now been deleted since I posted this: [45]. Sorry for confusion.)

-The two 1RR edit warring reports that resulted in "no action" - cited as evidence of my ill behavior - both resulted in "no action" by EdJohnston after I had withdrawn the reports with the intent of de-escalating the situation, which I explained in each instance and as the links LegacyPAC has provided indicate. If the complaint is that I should see all 1RR reports through to the absolute bitter end, I'll take that under advisement, though I don't believe that's a very community-building way approach to WP.

If there is something else that someone feels is particularly noteworthy, please let me know and I'll be happy to address it. Ultimately I have a feeling this has something to do with a request for article move protection I recently made, here: [46]. Thanks. DocumentError (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The IRR withdrawals were reinstated, and the withdrawal only occurred after evidence was posted that DocumentError was beyond the 1RR himself, so essentially a skin saving move to "deescalate". In the post above he again misuses my username (which I noted in the first post as inappropriate) implying association with an American organization started long after I started using my username. This is further evidence of misconduct. Legacypac (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

To your first point, no, I don't believe that's quite correct. To your second point, I sincerely apologize I misspelled your username and I ask the community to go lightly on my grammar "misconduct." (?) As you know, a lot of editors have misspelled your username, Beeblebrox has even commented to you on the likelihood of this occurring during your WP career. DocumentError (talk) 23:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Precisely they commented on my user page, which is where you got the idea to intentionally and consistently mistype my name as a form of harassment. Legacypac (talk) 23:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, got it! DocumentError (talk) 00:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

DocumentError has been persistent in this behaviour and it must be addressed. He reported multiple editors to the 3RR noticeboard in defence of his position over an article he too Edit Warred on 2014 American-led intervention in Iraq, brought me to ANi earlier for the same dispute, most diffs to support my claims are linked there. Clearly making jokes on my username diff and starting an SPi on me and another new editor. I have stated above, I have had enough with it and I feel like I am not welcome here at all with the way I'm being pulled around here, I create an article, it gets CSD'ed, merge tagged, AF'd and then ANi and an SPi. I came here to work on articles and help wiki expand but it appears that's not the case anymore. On secondhand brining claims of editors block logs and rubbing it in their faces may be viewed as personal attacks. --Acetotyce (talk) 00:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

If by "multiple" you mean "2" - then I am guilty as charged, as per my conversation with LP, above. Also, I think Acetotyce forgot to link to the diffs on the SPI I initiated regarding him and "another new editor" (the "another new editor" is using an alt account formerly registered to Acetotyce). I'm certain this was an inadvertent oversight by Acetotyce; the diff is here: [47]. DocumentError (talk) 00:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Not an oversight attempt, the template is on my talk page, and your template accusing me of Canvassing when I was notifying involved editors in the ANI request you started earlier. --Acetotyce (talk) 00:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

And the SPi is linked in the opening list already. I read somewhere editors are not supposed to dig up old blocks and sanctions on other editors, not sure what that is called, but that is another big behavior problem here. User:RGloucester also suggested sanctions in one of the forums, maybe they will comment here. Legacypac (talk) 00:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Unless something has changed, it's called "an editor's block log is public information." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

If I should not have mentioned the block histories of you, or Acetotyce, or whomever it was I erred by mentioning (sorry, I'm kind-of losing track here), then I, of course, apologize. DocumentError (talk) 00:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't have much to add to this other than that I hope DocumentError's behavior changes. I'm glad the dispute has died down now, but it was deeply unpleasant for a couple of days earlier this week. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It was, indeed, for all parties. As per my note above to Acetotyce, I apologize if I inadvertently mentioned your block history in public. I'm glad we're able to focus on content creation again. Thanks, Kudzu1! 03:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't "inadvertent" at all. I find it difficult to accept your apology when you decline to accept responsibility. You made a number of personal attacks on me, including but not limited to suggesting that I have some sort of a checkered past on Wikipedia by bringing up a block that was in effect for less than one hour more than three years ago multiple times. I think you're smart enough not to repeatedly insult and defame fellow editors "inadvertently". -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't feel you can accept my apology. Kind regards - DocumentError (talk) 03:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

And I'm sorry you didn't make an acceptable apology. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, got it! DocumentError (talk) 03:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Continued W:GAMING including these actions "'Walking back' a personal attack to make it seem less hostile than it was, rather than apologizing." and "Mischaracterizing other editors' actions in order to make them seem unreasonable, improper, or deserving of sanction." and "Stonewalling or filibustering – repeatedly pushing a viewpoint that the consensus of the community has clearly rejected, effectively preventing a policy-based resolution." This is evident in the multiple processes started to push until he gets his way by trying getting an article locked from editing or moving while trying to both delete and merge and sanction editors over the same article) Legacypac (talk) 04:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh my, that's a lot! Would you mind adding this to your main list above? I think it would be easier to keep track of all these if they were in one place. Thanks so much, Legacypac (feel free to delete this comment after you've moved it) - DocumentError (talk) 04:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Regarding the "unlikely someone would talk to their sock puppet" commentary by Legacypac above, I point out that it is not unlikely. It has been done often enough that a person talks to their WP:Sockpuppet to avoid or decrease suspicion that they are a WP:Sockpuppet. And speaking of WP:Sockpuppets, after DocumentError commented in this WP:ANI thread about me listing highly disruptive WP:Sockpuppets on my user page, I looked into his edit history and found it very likely that he has edited Wikipedia before editing as DocumentError; this is the first edit he made to Wikipedia as DocumentError, and the vast majority of truly new Wikipedia editors do not make an edit like that (I mean, correct citation formatting in addition to using a WP:Reliable source), unless that editor is a well-instructed WP:Student editor. His other early edits show the same type of inside knowledge of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. So take from that what you will. Flyer22 (talk) 06:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind comments about my correct use of proper citation, Flyer22. I have taken special effort to correctly format my references. While it's a little extra work, I think it's worthwhile, especially to help recover references that expire from link rot. And I'd already forgot about that thread regarding the list you were keeping on your userpage; while I'm sorry you didn't agree with my opinion regarding it, it was definitely an invigorating discussion we had with Elaqueate, Caden, Davey2010, Rutebega, John, Carrite. et. al.! How have you been doing? DocumentError (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban

Given how this has gone, can I respectfully request that DocumentError be sanctioned with a 1 year topic ban under the Syrian Civil War Active Community Sanctions. (I think this covers the conflict in Syria and Iraq, including ISIL.) Much of his behavior is essentially edit warring using processes instead of just reverts. If this is not the place to request that, please advise where that is. Thank-you for your kind attention to the matter. Legacypac (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

No, you got it - this is one of two correct places to request other editors be banned / blocked. (You can also make such a request to ArbCom, IIRC. Details for contacting them are available at WP:ARB.) DocumentError (talk) 00:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Per my statements above, that includes hounding me and doing every little attempt to remove the article I started. --Acetotyce (talk) 00:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I think your word choice in the first iteration of your comment better reflected the crux of the situation - [48] :) DocumentError (talk) 01:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Due to persistent use of processes to try and stop other editors who disagree with them from constructively editing along with portraying the others who disagree with them as members of a conspiracy. SantiLak (talk) 01:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - While I don't believe "using processes" is sanctionable, and I'm not sure use of 4 "processes" in the last 6 months meets the general definition of "persistent," (particularly considering that StanTheMan87 was unable to recently find relief at ANI after 14 "processes" were used against him in 30 days), who can argue with 3 "Support" votes hitting this discussion in less than 20 minutes? Did someone flash the bat signal, or what? (joking reference to off-wiki comms that was the topic of one of the "processes" - [49]) Nonetheless, I'm going with Oppose for now.DocumentError (talk) 01:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Typically one does not get to !vote on their own topic ban. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, It would have been really interesting if he had said support here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I did originally !vote "Abstain" out of a preponderance of caution ([50]), but then changed it to "Oppose" after reading Gaijin42's !vote. :) DocumentError (talk) 03:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry - my first time at this dance! Corrected. DocumentError (talk) 03:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

One most certainly MAY !vote in their topic ban. Heck, we've had editors !vote "Support" in their own the panda ₯’ 10:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Well in that case, I'm un-striking my strikethrough! :) Either way, if anyone feels it would help de-escalate the situation or assuage LP if I didn't !vote, LMK and I'll be happy to re-strike my strikethrough. DocumentError (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support – DocumentError has done nothing in this dispute but edit both disruptively and tendentiously. He has shown an inability to work together with editors in a controversial topic area. Given this inability, I believe there is nothing that can be done but topic ban him from that subject area until how he learns to edit cooperatively in other areas. The evidence has been provided, both in this AN/I and in the previous one. His behaviour has not alleviated in the time that's passed. RGloucester — ☎ 01:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Yikes! Looks like I may be joining you in topic ban land! [51] Save me a spot by the window! :) DocumentError (talk) 01:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I've never been "topic banned" from anything. I was blocked once for 24 hours in my nearly three years of being here (and if one looks into it, it was actually a very silly incident. I'm a silly person, though). That's a fairly decent record. Regardless, I don't think you're in a position to be evaluating the merits of other editors. Instead of that, why don't you respond to the concerns other editors have about your actions? RGloucester — ☎ 02:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

My mistake, you were blocked by Callanecc in June, not topic banned. Sorry for the error - it was just a little levity, not an accusation! DocumentError (talk) 02:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose While there may be some behavior that could use some correction, I do not see any activity in these proposals that cannot be handled by normal process. I see no problem in many of those diffs, in particular the "attacks" are not. to the point where I would almost consider WP:BOOMERANG especially since the post is characterized as an admin WP:INVOLVED issue which is completely not true. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: While I support the idea of some disciplinary action against DocumentError, I'm not sure a topic ban is the best way to address the issue. I agree he has edited tendentiously, but I've dealt with much worse in that area. The main issue I have had with him is his inability to play nice with other editors (the faux-cheerful, passive-aggressive tack he's been taking lately notwithstanding), up to the point of making false suggestions of sockpuppetry (I'm not referring to the spurious SPI, but rather these outbursts) and conspiracies against him (I refer to this particular unpleasantness, among other wild accusations of being attacked by a "tightly coordinated group of editors" and similar claims). I think this behavior is not really topic-specific; his battling has seemed less ideologically driven than motivated by anger over not getting his way. And instead of reacting by trying to work toward consensus, despite multiple good-faith entreaties, his reaction was to act like all of the editors who disagreed with him were conspiring against him. That battleground attitude led to what I would regard as the abuse of a number of administrative processes, a great number of personal attacks that mostly stemmed from a failure to assume good faith, and a lot of wasted time and heartburn on everyone's part. It could be the best way to resolve this is simply to let sleeping dogs lie, but I don't feel like DocumentError's battleground attitude has subsided -- hence the cloying, obsequious tone he has adopted here and elsewhere, while still taking potshots like falsely suggesting RGloucester above was topic-banned. I don't really have a recommendation other than that this antagonistic behavior should not simply be ignored. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Kudzu1. For the record, I have the same "faux-cheerful, cloying, obsequious" tone in all ANI threads in which I participate (this is the first in which I've been a party, but I frequent those of others), as I find a cheerful tact is best to de-escalate often heated engagements: see here, here, here, and basically everywhere else. I can try to be more of an ogre in the future. RAWR! :) DocumentError (talk) 03:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose The behavior in question looks like it can be handled via a dispute resolution. This should be a wake up call though to change how you interact with other editors or you might end up here again. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute. The fundamental problem is DocumentError's battleground behaviour and tendentious editing. RGloucester — ☎ 03:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

What would a topic ban be useful for then? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

As I noted, I only responded to the first 3 of LP's 19 complaints, so I can't address all of them, but his first complaint was that I nominated a page for protection against IP editors and an admin subsequently protected that page. While I understand your side in the Iraq War content dispute did not want the page protected, I have to, again, strenuously object to the the idea that an admin protecting a page constitutes "tendentious editing" by me, unless the contention is that I secretly control the admins here. DocumentError (talk) 03:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

AFAIK, the particular issue there was that you misrepresented the reason you stated for requesting that protection to advance an argument in the AfD on 2014 American-led intervention in Iraq. An honest mistake, I assume? -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe that was it - I guess? The protection was applied by an admin two days before the unrelated AfD was started. Out of a preponderance of caution, I have pinged Kudpung (locking admin) no less than 4 times to let him know of Legacypac's concerns (each time he raises them, in fact); I suspect if he felt I had bamboozled him he might have chimed in at some point to the various denouncements LP has made against me across the Wikisphere in ref to the page protection. But, so far the only editors expressing issue are the "side" opposite "my side" (hate those terms but a horse is a horse) in this content dispute. I certainly invite others to contact Kudpung, however. He's surely the only one who can let us know if I manipulated him to put page protection on. What are your thoughts, Kudzu? DocumentError (talk) 04:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Not what I said. You asked for page protection for one reason, and said on the AfD you requested it for another reason. I have no way of knowing your intentions when you originally asked for protection and am not inclined to accuse you of manipulating Kudpung, but you did note that you were the one who requested and obtained protection on the AfD and state that it was because of pro-U.S. POV-pushing, rather than the reason you stated, because of disruptive IP editors. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Correct. It was because of disruptive IP editors. The nature of the disruption was pro-U.S. POV-pushing. I'm not trying to be combative but saying I was being tendentious and need a 1-year ban for requesting page protection, when an admin decided that said protection was actually warranted and applied it, seems a tad spurious. You guys have made 17 (at my last count) separate complaints about my application for page protection on the article over the last 3 days, and yet 0 applications at RUP to have the protection removed. With all due respect, I think that kind-of speaks for itself ... DocumentError (talk) 05:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how unregistered editors repeatedly trying to add the United Kingdom to the article is "pro-U.S. POV-pushing". It seems like a stretch to me. I'm not saying you were wrong to RPP, but your stated reason to request doesn't square with your later characterization. That's all I'm saying. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The UK and USA are part of the historic bloc, so that's perfectly consistent. But now this is kind-of getting a tad bit silly; the request for protection was ruled as having merit by an uninvolved admin, and that should really be the end of the discussion. If you feel the admin ruled unfairly, the least disruptive thing to do is to file a RUP. The most disruptive thing you can possibly do is complain 17 times across 4 different Talk pages, nominate the editor for a 1-year ban, but never file any RUP. We're going to leave it there, Kudzu. Thanks! DocumentError (talk) 05:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Are we? No, we're not -- because I haven't brought it up 17 times anywhere. You misrepresented your reason for requesting RPP on the AfD. It's crystal clear that you did. Whether that merits any sort of sanctions or not is irrelevant -- it's one of a number of improper things you have said and done in the course of this dispute. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we are. You are more than welcome to individually continue with your accusations of some sinister code in my comments. But this is a quest you will have to continue on your own; we are done. DocumentError (talk) 05:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Use second opinions, RFCs and all other tools for WP:DR. We all find editors that are difficult to deal with (and I may be difficult to others as well), but that does not mean that we need to ban people because they don't get along. Grow up, make your skins thicker, and remember that Wikipedia does not need you. Stop editing for a week and come back refreshed and you'll be surprised when you get back on how well Wikipedia improved without your unique skills and contributions. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nothing actionable or deserving of a topic ban. If anyone wants to point me to the most "damning diff", I'll consider changing my mind. But from what I've seen so far, I can't agree to a topic ban. Viriditas (talk) 04:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose DE definitely needs to take a deep breath and maybe deserves a slap on the wrist. That said, I 1-year TB is excessive. Juno (talk) 08:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose From what I've gleaned from the discussions, there is no evidence a topic ban should be imposed simply because editors disagree. User:DocumentError followed proper procedures. He was met with opposition - that's how the system works. Isn't it ironic that some editors are warring over a war? Now that needs a head-shake. There is a big difference between being bold and being disruptive, and I see no evidence indicating DE was being disruptive. Atsme☯^Consult 21:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Counter-proposal

In the spirit of WP:BOOMERANG observed by Gaijin42 above, I would like to make a counter-proposal to the topic ban. My counter-proposal is that Legacypac be given a 1-year topic ban from Syria-related articles under Active Community Sanctions for disruptive editing. To make this concise, I will just cite 4 examples, but can provide additional ones, on request:

- On 4OCT2014 he unilaterally and without discussion blanked the page Siege of Kobane, Syria with the note "kill messed-up page." Kkj11210 had to revert his unilateral decision to remove all sourced content. [52]

- On 2OCT2014 he unilaterally moved the page Iranian-led intervention in Iraq (see: [53]) even though a discussion about that move (that, in fact, he initiated) was ongoing and no one had registered a !vote in support of such a move. (see: [[54]]). He left the parting shot "Iran leads no one." before taking this action (which was promptly undone). DocumentError (talk) 18:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

- Legacypac is already has previously been under a 1-year WP:BLPBAN by Salvio "for repeatedly violating WP:BLP despite being warned" (imposed just last week). [55] and his edit pattern has not improved.

- He has engaged in a pattern of extremely combative interaction with other editors, typically peppering his comments with things like "Perhaps Drmies should not be an Admin anymore. How do we arrange that? I'm disgusted" [56] or frequently lobbying other editors in content disputes with him be banned/blocked (his nom of me is just the latest), for which he's previously been advised, without effect, by Dennis Brown not to get his "panties in a bunch." [57]

All the best - DocumentError (talk) 18:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

All false statements - please see full response a litte lower. Legacypac (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I believe that the first two actions are disputable and raise a concern but the latter is just throwing more oxygen to the fire from past lessons. We can get along better and I believe WP:DR is the place to go for this issue rather than Ani. There are currently WP:1RR sanctions placed on Syrian Civil War articles which you have violated as well. I also raise that your behavior on Talk:2014 American-led intervention in Iraq and 2014 American-led intervention in Iraq is unacceptable. Then again we don't have to take it as far as a topic ban. --Acetotyce (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

As a very general rule, one provides diffs when throwing around those kind-of accusations, Acetotyce. Also, you've already registered your opinion about me in the above titled "Topic Ban." Can I ask you to please keep comments about me there for efficient accounting? Feel free to go ahead and delete this comment once you've moved it. Thanks! DocumentError (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I have struck down my comments regarding you. Apologies for that. --Acetotyce (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Support I think this a good counter-proposal to a topic ban for either user. SantiLak (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Let me add that DocumentError reverted my response to his false accusations against me. Unbelievable. Legacypac (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. You edited my comments to break them and insert your own commentary above my sig. Please see WP:TPNO if you need information as to why we don't generally do that. DocumentError (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

In response to the false accusations against me made above:

• 1. the page blanking was to deal with a duplicate page. the editor who reverted was not aware of the problem and is now working cooperatively with me to fix the problem. Nothing :to complain about.
  
• . Moving the page to a better title is not actionable. DocumentError reversed my move and immediately sought move protection to preserve his preferred title. Point againt :DocumentError's own behavior.
  
• . Pure false statement (since amended after I objected) about me being topic banned. I am not under any topic ban.
  
• . How many hours of searching through diffs did it take him to dig up a completely unrelated statement from 18 months ago? Careful what broad assertions you make about other :people without evidence. This kind of Unbelievable behavior and false accusations against anyone that does not like his behavior demands action.
  Legacypac :(talk) 19:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. Not that many hours, this is kinda your M.O. for how you treat other editors when it comes to this topic. Here are more recent examples, since you asked: accusing other editors of "bias toward Syria and Hezbollah" [[58]], saying "someone might sue you" [59], saying "What a pain in my ass. Gotta love Wikipedia. aybe I should just quit and leave the nastiness to others." [60], saying "I think I'll go something more productive with my time than watch this BS" [61], etc. Here's another example of your unilateral actions against consensus, apparently to shut-down discussion on topics you find objectionable: improper WP:SNOW close that had to be reverted - [[62]] You also have a tendency to phrase things in terms of "winners and losers." Most recently, among a host of examples, above you exclaim "Point Against DocumentError" and declaring "this demands action!" (an unusual phrase you've used 7 different times against different editors, when you've found yourself in content disputes). Ultimately, this comes down to the fact you've been a bit like a Whirling Dervish. I don't think this is a sanction as much as a short break to allow you an opportunity to just deflate a bit; you can pursue other subject interests in the interim. DocumentError (talk) 19:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

This is getting more than a little tiresome. The above is more examples of off topic, old (year+), and mischaracterized statements. Bringing up a failed SPI against me? The original Whirling Dervish comment had nothing to do with me, but was made about DocumentError by an Admin concerning some of his actions that resulted in this ANi. I'd appreciate being able to get back to editing Wikipedia and not have to deal with this BATTLEGROUND activity. Cheers, Legacypac (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure 3 days ago is "old," [[63]] but I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Kind regards - DocumentError (talk) 20:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I have a counter-counter-proposal: knock off the WP:BATTLE activity. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Please Close: We can close this now because according to this DocumentError this ANi "was rejected by the community as frivolous and disruptive" diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=628389773 Clearly darn near anything goes on Wikipedia, sorry I brought this behavior up. Legacypac (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, you really like WP:POINTy wordplay don't you? DocumentError (talk) 02:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

What do I do with this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2014_military_intervention_against_ISIL#well_this_ain.27t_gonna_work Legacypac (talk) 10:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Or this new ANi action? [64] Does "Possible Editor Stability Issue" have a specific meaning or it is just a big insult? Legacypac (talk) 14:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of the F-word

Bender235 appears to be on a mission: since it can be verified precisely what Jameis Winston yelled from on top of a table in the student union, those words must be included in his Wikipedia article. Oh! censorship! The phrase "yelled an obscenity" is apparently an ambiguous statement, according to Bender: we are"specific and neutral", which means, then, that we are not supposed to have editorial discretion and we print everything exactly as we find it. By the way, "obscene remark" etc. is all over the interwebs--it is just as verified and unambiguous as Bender's F-word.

A discussion at WP:BLPN did not deliver a solution, and it is my contention that we should, in the absence of a clear agreement, not print the actual obscenity and err on the side of caution. Also, really, those arguments about "ambiguity" and "value-free" are just a bunch of bullshit. For the life of me, I'll never understand why we need to print everything we can possibly verify. I'm no prude, but holy fucking moly, this is asinine. Also involved in this: in my corner Collect (now blocked for an unrelated matter), possibly Tryptofish, and Otterathome. In the other corner, next to Bender, Nomoskedasticity. Possibly in no corner at all, Calidum, who showed some judgment in this edit. So we have Bender and Nomoskedasticity edit-warring against four other editors, with nonsense arguments. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Drmies, are you sure you can't censor the words, like "f*** her right in the p****"? Non-ambiguous to those who are old enough to swear, and yet kids won't be exposed to words that pertain to sex and sexual organs. Good outcome for everyone. Maybe you should suggest that. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I doubt they'd let that stand (bleeping is a lot closer to censoring than paraphrasing, in my opinion), and I don't much care for the signage, though I appreciate the suggestion, Epicgenius. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I would say there is a different problem with the quote. Namely, that it can't be verified that he actually said those exact words. Some students tweeted that is what he said, but second hand quotes being attributed as a direct quote is a BLP no-no. I would also argue that the exact words are not needed has have Collect and Drmies. Arzel (talk) 03:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The Guardian gives those exact words. Your argument applies equally well to saying that he "yelled an obscenity" - this is also secondhand, unless any of the reporters were there when he said it. --NE2 08:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Fart her right in the pants? Remember that Wikipedia is read by people from all over the world with various levels of English comprehension. There's no excuse for being deliberately unclear. --NE2 06:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, if that's their interpretation, though I doubt that there's a single adult that won't click on the reflink if they wanted to see the uncensored text. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there are BLP concerns, as the quote is reported in reliable sources, and the "scrubbed" version is even in the NYTimes. But it is well within editorial discretion to summarize things without the direct quote. I suggest an RFC as there does not appear to be an ANI issue that needs immediate attention. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Since Winston got suspended for a game because of it, it would seem appropriate to quote him precisely. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Especially since stating that he was suspended because he simply "yelled an obscenity" makes the school look petty. It's important to give the exact obscenities in the context of the rape allegations. --NE2 08:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• I think this is the wrong board for this discussion. It strikes me as a straightforward content dispute. Even if there's a policy basis for including the actual words said, or otherwise precisely matching a particular source, there's nothing about it requiring administrative intervention. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not an isolated case, however, and there appear to be several editors who will insert "fuck" in every article, even though the major news agencies do not use the phrase. [65] "shouting an obscene comment" (New York Times), [66] "yelling sexually explicit language demeaning to women." (Deseret News), [67] (SI), including AP, etc. he "fuck" is found on such great sites as BuzzFeed, and "The Frisky." Where the weight for major sources does not use the explicit obscenity, Wikipedia should not be used to amplify the obscenity. Using the tabloid sites is against common sense here, and, as I noted, this has been a repeated issue on BLPs. Collect (talk) 12:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I get the sense, @Drmies:, that you're the one on a mission. To how many noticeboards and talk pages will you carry this incident? I can only repeat what I already stated numerous times (yet you seem to have not understood): "obscene" is a value-laden label. Different things are obscene to different people. Lawrence Summers' hypothesis, that there may be differences between men and women in the distribution of intelligence, may be a "sexist" statement to some, but not to others. We don't write "Summers was critized for a sexist statement". We write the statement, and let the reader decided. --bender235 (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

You got me, Bender. It's just that "obscene" can be reliably sourced to, in five seconds? half a dozen sources, so your calling it value-laden or ambiguous is thus silly: if reliable sources use it, it can be used. "Obscene" is value-laden, sure, but quoting ESPN or whatever in saying "he yelled an obscene statement" is simply quoting a reliable source--and that part you don't seem to have understood yet. If reliable sources claim that someone's statement was sexist (or obscene, or antisemitic, or whatever), we can reproduce that. In fact, that is what we are supposed to do (writing an encyclopedia, secondary sources, etc), and I came here because I sought a larger forum, hoping to run into more common sense. I think you have restored the phrase six times by now; surely that's edit warring, and the claims of "censorship" are simply misguided, not to mention unfair, and that's behavioral. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I am neutral in this, I only removed it because it was sourced to an unreliable site. User:Bender235 should be strongly warned for inserting negative content sourced to unreliable wiki type sites[68], and so should User:Nomoskedasticity for restoring those edits. A obvious violation of WP:BLP. I have no comment on whether the quote should be included, as I have not looked at the full picture of the incident.--Otterathome (talk) 18:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

JFYI: Know Your Meme was my source for that phrase being a meme. When you know a better source for things like that, give me a notice. Also, the phrase itself was mentioned by myriads of people on Twitter, and echoed in WP:RS like The Guardian. Case closed. --bender235 (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Anyone who asserts that I have been edit-warring should be required to provide diffs. Since this won't be possible -- or rather, since any diffs provided will show that I have not been edit-warring on this issue -- the editors who are asserting this should retract or be sanctioned. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Who is asserting this? Drmies (talk) 01:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
    • What? Why are you being obtuse and wasting people's time? "So we have Bender and Nomoskedasticity edit-warring…" in your very first post opening this section…. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Fuck, I totally missed that. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 04:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
• I'm here because Drmies pinged me. I agree with editors above who say that this isn't a conduct issue, but rather a content one where a content RfC would be a good idea. As for the edit-warring, if one looks at the page edit history between Sept. 21 and Oct. 3, there has been a slow edit war over removing and adding back the quote, but I do not think anyone is in violation of 3RR, nor do I really see a need for full protection. As I said at the article talk, I do find the vehemence of the editors who want the verbatim quote rather puzzling. As far as I can tell, there is reliable sourcing that the person said it, and that being the case, I don't think it violates BLP to report it. As a purely content issue, count me as preferring leaving the quote out. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

User:AndyTheGrump - threatening behaviour, ongoing refusal to assume good faith.

User:AndyTheGrump removed a number of adequately sourced entires in List of deprogrammers‎ [69] under the guise of violations of WP:BLP. I had previously re-enstated the names, however I had then gone ahead and added references as requested by other editors in order to comply with BLP.

User:AndyTheGrump removed these new additions (which had taken me a few hours to research, btw) - and couldn't adequately explain why, despite repeated requests. He has threatened me with banning[70] and has made several personal attacks against me, calling me a liar, and qualifying my mistaken addition of a duplicate source as intentional trickery. [71]

After calling for a RFC on the article in question[72] Andy decided to add a non-neutral comment within the filing, effectively poisoning the well against me in the eyes of any eventual neutral third party.

This user is disruptive, uncooperative, and refuses to see things objectively. Zambelo; talk 04:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

You changed the sub-title from notable deprogrammers to known deprogrammers, and unlike the initial list, none of your additions have articles. So Grumpy might well be concerned that you're creating a list that does not pass muster, one way or another. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't even noticed the title change, actually - I was focusing on trying to integrate and format the new references... Zambelo; talk 05:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

You need to first create articles for the individuals you're trying to add, and prove their notability. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Zambelo has already created several articles on this topic concerning individuals of questionable notability (judging by the currently-running AfD's) - I don't think that more of the same would be a good idea. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't disagree. I'm just saying he's doing things backwards. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I've created one or two and contributed to others. The issue I've had is that the article stubs have been nominated for deletion just weeks after creation. And as I've mentioned, there has been a concerted effort to delete anti-cult movement-related articles by certain editors. Some of these individuals may not be notable enough to merit an article (and some are, but let's not get into that), but are certainly notable enough to be included in a specific list on the topic, as they are referenced in secondary sources as deprogrammers/exit-counselors. Zambelo; talk 06:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Accusing other editors of nefarious motives is not the way to win support. If you create an article on any subject, it is subject to the "notability" question. Being "known" and being "notable" are not necessarily the same thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I was in the process of filing a report here [...]

(as I had informed Zambelo after a recent post at WP:BLPN) - my report follows:

As a previously-uninvolved person, I recently came across two related threads at WP:BLPN [73][74], concerning the actions of User:Zambelo, who has been adding, against a clear consensus, names of (presumably) living persons to a List of deprogrammers and Template:Opposition to NRMs. Given that the source being cited for incusion [75] merely names these individuals as being included in "Rolodex files" of the Cult Awareness Network. it seems self-evident that reliability is open to question, never mind establishing the level of notability required to merit inclusion in templates ands lists. Despite the issues with this source being made entirely clear at WP:BLPN, Zambelo chose yet again to add the names to the list [76] - citing the same questionable source twice under slightly different names where previously it had been given once. Since this was not only clearly a WP:BLP violation, but grossly misleading, I reverted it, and warned Zambelo that were the names added again without consensus, I would raise the matter here. Though Zambelo has not as yet done so, s/he has repeated the same stonewalling behaviour and refusal to address the legitimate concerns over sourcing that were raised at WP:BLPN, and has deleted my response to a RfC that s/he started at Talk:List_of_deprogrammers [77]. I note that this is not the first time Zambelo's behaviour over this issue has been raised here [78], and I further note that User talk:Zambelo contains much evidence of previous questions relating to edits concerning cults, new religious movements and the like. Frankly, it seems evident to me that Zambelo has far too much emotional involvement regarding this issue (why, I don't know - though it doesn't really matter under the circumstances), and given the sensitive nature of such topics, combined with a clear inability to listen to the advice of experienced contributors, I have to once again, propose, as was done in the previous ANI thread that Zambelo be topic-banned. I realise that there was little traction for this proposal in the previous thread, but it seems to me that his/her behaviour since suggests not only an unwillingness to learn, and to listen to advice, but also something which was not previously apparent - a willingness to engage in fundamentally dishonest behaviour, as evinced by the duplicate citation of a single source under slightly differing names. Given that we frequently place our trust in contributors when it comes to accurate reporting of sources (e.g. when material isn't verifiable online), such dishonesty must be considered significant in such circumstances, and that this, combined with a general battleground attitude, provides sufficient grounds to exclude this contributor from topics that need careful and circumspect editing, and adherence to the highest standards. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Reply: As I mentioned, I had added new references, a fact that Andy has completely disregarded. The discussion on the BLP noticeboard was in relation to the template, and I have adequately explained myself there as well as on the talk page for the Opposition to NRMs template talkpage.

As much as andy would like to obfuscate the issue, combining the discussion regarding the template with the discussion of the list, they are two separate issues, with separate ongoing discussions surrounding them. What we are discussing here is the reversal of the referenced content on List of Deprogrammers, and the then ongoing refusal to listen to reason. In contrast, I have always been part of the conversation regarding these issues: in fact it was to comply with the BLP questions[79] that I researched and then added new references supporting the inclusion of the names, a well-intentioned edit that Andy instantly reverted citing BLP violations [80] - and has refused to answer why.

The source may have been questionable, but it was under discussion, and was a reliable secondary source. There was never any BLP violations - let's just make that clear here - all entries were correctly sourced, despite the POV of other editors - and this was never discussed on the article pages in question, and there was no attempt at getting outside look through a RFC: it went straight to the BLP noticeboard. The source you cite here is a secondary source mentioning the rolodex, not the rolodex itself, btw.

Instead of removing entries that he had an issue with, Andy decided to revert the entire edit, which I had spent hours looking up. When asked why, he refused to answer, saying only that there was a "duplicate" source, without going into any more detail.

If there was an issue with a source, why not remove one of the duplicates, and remove the entry if it was in violation of BLP?

My "behaviour" has never been an issue. It is easy to verify that I have made nothing but constructive edits to articles relating to New Religious Movements, while there has been a sustained attempt to destroy them over the past week by several editors. The only emotional attachment I have with the articles is in relation the the amount of time I have spent on them, only to have them torn down by a small concerted group of editors over the past week or so.

I propose that Andy be topic banned, and banned from contacting me in future.

I'm happy to answer any questions in relation to specific edits. Zambelo; talk 05:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

"The source may have been questionable, but it was under discussion, and was a reliable secondary source. There was never any BLP violations - let's just make that clear here - all entries were correctly sourced, despite the POV of other editors" - that just about sums the issue up here. Zambelo has decided that a mere mention on a Rolodex file is enough evidence of notability to merit inclusion in a controversial list, and anyone arguing the contrary is doing so because of 'POV'. And I should be topic banned for this 'POV', should I? For arguing that the source shouldn't be used, after coming across the issue at WP:BLPN? And expressing an opinion concerning a topic I can't even recollect contributing to before? My comments regarding this issue have been confined solely to WP:BLP issues regarding notability, and to the suitability of sources - I've not expressed an opinion one way or the other concerning the topic, and quite possibly don't know enough about it to do so. Evidently though, the mere fact that my opinion (as a long-term contributor familiar with policy) differs from Zambelo's when it comes to the inclusion of these particular names based on questionable sources is grounds for a topic ban? Nope - and I have to suggest that this ridiculous proposal to ban me from a topic I have shown little evidence of being interested in will be seen for exactly what it is - further evidence of the battleground mentality of a contributor clearly incapable of neutral editing - a contributor with an axe to grind, and with little inclination to do anything but engage in the very POV-pushing that s/he accuses others of. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Your proposal to topic ban Andy will not fly. And I see nothing in this thread that warrants that Andy be topic-banned. And on a side note: When Andy states something about a WP:BLP issue, he is often, if not usually, correct. Flyer22 (talk) 06:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• I rescind my proposal for a ban - I'm sure Andy thought he was doing the right thing based on the limited information he could see on the BLP noticeboard. In this case however, he is wrong. Zambelo; talk 13:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• This looks like a content dispute in general, and specifically a violation of the way lists are supposed to be created, especially lists of living persons. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• I don't see that Andy has acted improperly here and there are certainly no grounds for a topic ban. I suggest that this discussion returns to the talk page of the article(s) in question where it belongs.  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I have made a report asking for Zambelo to be topic banned. Should we not at least discuss the matter? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Zambelo. (And I'm not even going to comment on the silly tit-for-tat proposal concerning Andy). In the past few weeks, several AfDs have been running in which Zambelo diplays a basic misunderstanding of what reliable sources are, what constitutes in-depth coverage and time and again fails to comply with AGF. As Andy says, their apparent emotional involvement with the topic is simply too much. --Randykitty (talk) 10:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Please Note that Randykitty isn't neutral in this, and has a COI in this matter, having, over the period of the past week or so proposed multiple articles for deletion that I had been working on. I would invite any editors here to look at his editing history over the past week.

As I've already mentioned, I have no emotional involvement in the content, but I dislike people wasting my time. Proposing multiple articles for deletion, and ganging up as a group of three to ensure they are deleted is both unethical and bypasses due process. Zambelo; talk 11:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh YES! Please follow Zambelo's advice and compare my edit history with theirs (last week, last year, any period you like). Meanwhile, Zambelo could read up on the difference between COI and involved. And as far as I am concerned, I only got involved (in the WP sense, as simply !voting in an AfD normally does not make one involved.) because of Zambelo's tendency to accuse everybody who disagrees with them of having a POV. --Randykitty (talk) 11:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Please also note this attempt to circumvent an ongoing AfD heading for deletion. --Randykitty (talk) 11:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't circumventing, that was me agreeing with Drmies proposition to merge the article, since the article was clearly going to be deleted, despite new references being added. "Circumventing", that's a bit rich coming from an editor who has been consistently bypassing deletion procedures. I've made a statement here sharing my concerns, along with those of other editos regarding COI and editors involved in Landmark editing, which lists the articles targeted relating to the Voyage au Pays des Nouveaux Gourous article, about a documentary critical of Landmark. I think it's rather plain what is going on here. Zambelo; talk 12:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, Zambelo, I've had it, this is one personal attack too many. Your "evidence" at the ArbCom request is that I !voted deleted where you thought that was wrong. You have been warned more times than I care to count to assume good faith. Please either provide evidence of me having a COI and circumventing deletion procedures or apologize. Barring that, I will call for you to be blocked. --Randykitty (talk) 12:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It isn't a personal attack, it's a remark on your editing history. I apologize if you feel it's a personal attack. My comment about you circumventing deletion procedures was a remark on your disinterest in discussing references, while actively seeking to delete multiple articles simultaneously, without giving me a chance to properly discuss the issue, the references, or the deletion proposal. I've brought this up numerous times in the AFDs[81]. Zambelo; talk 13:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Block requested. Perhaps an uninvolved admin could have a look at the above paragraph, just compounding the personal attack on me. I note that this is not the first time and that Zambelo has been warned to assume good faith multiple times. --Randykitty (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Suggest Block - support TBAN as absolute minimum. *Support topic ban for Zambelo. User violates BLP, repeatedly pushes the same poor sources, reacts antagonistically to any disagreement, and seems entirely too emotionally involved in the small area they have chosen to edit to contribute neutrally there. If some of "their" articles have been deleted, well, that speaks more to the nature of the POV "walled garden" they were tending than any "gang of three" they imagine exists. User seems only capable of viewing disagreement as signifying membership of an opposing cabal - they should consider that the reality is that this is not the case, and that other editors are merely trying to maintain a neutral, BLP compliant encyclopedia. Begoon ^talk 11:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

  Which sources are poor? How was this determined? There was never a discussion regarding the sources, the articles were simply listed for deletion, leaving me scrambling to try and save them, because there are in fact notable in the scope of New Religious Movements - which you would know if you looked at the sources I was providing. I have been a constructive editor to many New Religious Movement articles, not because of some supposed emotional attachment, but because I find the topic interesting. Maintaining a BLP compliant wikipedia is fine - and I have complied barring a few reversions in two articles, (which btw, I hold were adequately sourced, but which Randykitty et al. refused to discuss) - and even then after eventual discussion (which they chose to hold directly on the BLP noticeboard instead of the talk page) I accepted the consensus and went looking for more sources to comply with BLP issues raised - the references I found were from noted academics - religious scholars specialising in New Religious movements - so your assertion that I "push the same poor sourcesW is unfounded. All of what I say here is easily verifiable - I don't know what motives, if any, the three editors had to delete the articles without first attempting to discuss the issues or even look for sources, but I do know that out of 13 articles connected to the original Voyage au Pays des Nouveaux Gourous only 3 now remain after two weeks of deletions, by the same people who were pushing to delete the Voyage au Pays des Nouveaux Gourous article in the first place. Zambelo; talk 13:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The sourcing issues are well described by Andy above. There are many additional examples in the linked discussions and articles of inappropriate sourcing, often due to (AGF here) a misunderstanding of when primary sourcing is appropriate - clue: very limited circumstances. You start from the wrong place, Zambelo - you have something you wish to include, then try to work out how you can shoehorn it in, and fight like hell with anyone who disagrees. Then they are enemies. Is it a gang of 4 yet? Or 5? Don't forget Andy. That's not what we do here - we see what reliable sources have deemed worthy of mention, and include it, if and only if it is due, relevant, BLP compliant, and improves and serves a neutral article. You have the cart before the horse. I fixed your comment formats/indents again - please try to use proper indents etc. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 13:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The "gang" was in reference to the editors pushing for deletion, and bypassing due process. The articles were being deleted because of notability concerns, and so I attempted to demonstrate notability by integrating new references into the article - because this is how you show notability - through secondary sources. Don't be snide, please. Zambelo; talk 14:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

"Don't be snide please"? I've fixed up your comments here 5 times now - don't be lazy and inconsiderate please. You've made a personal attack on Randykitty. Don't attack folks please. You asked for a topic ban on Andy. Don't come here with ridiculous trumped up demands to try and head off a legitimate complaint please. Is that enough pleases yet? I could find more. Begoon ^talk 14:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• And please stop talking about deletions bypassing due process. Each and every deletion has been after a regular AfD that was open for at least 7 days. Nothing improper here. --Randykitty (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban on all articles related to religion. cults and psychological counseling, very broadly construed. First of all, the editor is way to emotionally invested ever to be able to edit in this topic area with sufficient detachment and objectiveness. Second, the editor has demonstrated a high level of battleground behavior and even sneaky trickery on several AfD's, and seems incapable of working cooperatively and civilly with editors with who he disagrees, of which there are several other seasoned editors besides Andy. His "gang" comments in this thread are particularly disturbing. Third, there is a major lack of competence as far as our policies and guidelines are concerned, especially WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP, and no apparently willingness to address that deficiency. Fourth, WP:NOTHERE and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS apply. And last of all, the editor has made quite a mess that needs to be cleaned up by multiple AfD's. Sorry, but I would also support an indefinite site ban. I've seen this type of editor before and the experience was harrowing. Let's nip this in the bud. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban of Zambelo on all articles related to religion, per Dominus Vobisdu. This sort of behaviour and this sort of editor is nothing new and I (clearly not alone) am tired of it. Encyclopedia, not soapbox. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Strong arguments have been made for a topic ban which I support, though I do not think Zambelo is the only one guilty of violations. We might need to put in places stronger policies for sensitive topics. Articles related to religion are always sensitive and people have a tendency to want to block those who do not share their own POV. Dominus Vobisdu suggest an indefinite topic ban based on violating several policies. I'd be inclined to think the same should apply to the user, who is happy to ignore ongoing discussions to push their own WP:POV, more interested in reverting than discussing, and with a blatant disregard for WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Just like they accuse Zambelo of nothing being here for the right reasons, Dominus Vobisdu is quite clearly WP:NOTHERE to contribute to religion in an WP:NPOV way. We'd need more users who are willing to discuss and find consensuses, less users who revert at sight without providing any topic-related arguments just because it suits their WP:POV. Policies that would limit blanket reverting without discussing, or discussing without providing factual arguments, may be helpful on many sensitive area.Jeppiz (talk) 15:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

So did you have a comment on this discussion about Zambelo, or a recommendation as to how to proceed? I'm not clear from what you say. Begoon ^talk 15:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, apparently I mistakenly deleted the first part of my comment before posting. I said that I fully support a topic ban for Zambelo based on the evidence provided here, but that I think the blame is not only on them. That was not the exact sentence, but the essence of what was deleted. I then proceeded to say how articles related to religion are always sensitive and that some who accuse Zambelo, particularly Dominus Vobisdu, appear to behave no different themselves.Jeppiz (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

No, don't be sorry. My fault entirely. I didn't see the part where you fully supported the topic ban, which I appreciate, and I erroneously focused on the part where you discussed the other !voter instead. Peace. Begoon ^talk 15:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I now re-edited my comment to make my position clearer.Jeppiz (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. That's much clearer now you added the first bit. I'm sorry for my confusion. If you have concerns about another editor, I'd generally recommend a separate process because there are, believe it or not, a few other folks as slow on the uptake as me, when rushed, who could get similarly confused. Cheers. Begoon ^talk 15:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Zambelo. This user has a very poor understanding of our sourcing requirements and is extremely belligerent. Zambelo has disrupted multiple AfDs with underhanded tactics to try to avoid an inevitable delete consensus on articles Zambelo thinks they WP:OWN. Any disagreement is met with ultra-defensive ranting and accusations of bad faith. This user is clearly not a net positive. Reyk _YO! 21:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment The entire article has now been blanked. Might as well finish it off and delete it. Looks like Andy got his way. What a shame, again. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

There are a lot more than this one article out there. Zambelo has made quite a large mess, with a bunch of articles winding their way through AfD at the moment and more on the way. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

How would you ever justify a topic ban here? The editors voting for my ban have a COI in this matter, and have previously been edit warring over several articles, attempting to push their POV. This is all verifiable. I have been a productive editor to the topic, in fact, if you consider the spate of recent article deletions, I am the only editor currently actively productively contributing to articles on the topic. I invite editors to look at the entire story, stemming from the edits to Voyage Au Pays des Nouveaux Gourous, which I attempted to save (unsuccessfully) from deletion which then caused a flurry of deletions on articles relating specifically to that article, and anti-cult articles in general. Editors responsible for the deletion of the Voyage Au Pays des Nouveaux Gourous article have been working in tandem to ensure the deletion of these articles, by flooding the voting system, thereby bypassing correct AFD procedure. There was never any discussion on the article pages on how they could be improved' nor did any of these editors make any attempt at searching for new material or references. My attempts at trying to save these articles on notable individuals from deletion by 1) Finding new references to support notability 2)Voting to keep them from being deleted may have come across as belligerent, but this is because I was actively attempting to save these articles from being improperly deleted without discussion. The only form of "discussion" came when I was reported (by one of editors making the deletions) to the BLP noticeboard - and unfairly portrayed as a disruptive editor, when all I had done was revert two articles a few times, because these editors disagreed with my inclusion of adequately sourced content. I leave it up to my peers, really. It's easy to join a witch-hunt, but I invite you to have a look at the entire story before banning me on the accusations of a few biased and annoyed editors. Either way, this will be my last post on Wikipedia for a good while, I expect the deletions to continue unabated and unchecked. Peace. Zambelo; talk 17:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I hope you enjoy your break. I'm rather hoping one of the first things you'll do on your return will be to apologise to "The editors voting for [your] ban" for your accusations of "COI", "edit-warring", "attempting to push their POV", collusion, bias and vote-stacking. I know, as one of them, I, at least would appreciate that, since the accusations are utterly baseless and I find them rather offensive. That's what we mean by personal attacks, by the way. Begoon ^talk 04:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support I've previously filed for a TBAN on this editor for the exact same reason. This will be the fourth time he's been shown to violate WP:BLP. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 19:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - Would someone care to wrap up this set of threads with some kind of a close? It would be a shame to let all this pretty prose get archived without some kind of closure. Tgeairn (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

There may be fundamental WP:BLP issues in our coverage of 'deprogramming'

Having looked into the underlying topic here - that of so-called 'deprogramming', I have to suggest that there are fundamental WP:BLP concerns raised. Specifically, the 'deprogramming' article states in the lede that "Deprogramming is an attempt to force a person to abandon allegiance to a religious, political, economic, or social group. Methods and practices may involve kidnapping and coercion. The person in question is taken against his/her will, which has led to controversies over freedom of religion, kidnapping and civil rights, as well as the violence which is sometimes involved, and deprogramming has been shown to result in PTSD". On this basis, the inclusion of any person in a 'list of deprogrammers' amounts to an accusation of criminal activity - clearly a breach of WP:BLP policy unless the individual has been convicted of such activities. Were it not for my prior involvement in this discussion, I'd be tempted to blank the 'list' immediately. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

And looking at the 'list of deprogrammers' article again, I note that the present version (with the questionably-sourced individuals discussed removed) provides only one citation for a criminal conviction - where it states that Galen Kelly was "Convicted of kidnapping Debra Dobkowski in May 1992". Our article on Kelly however states that the kidnapping conviction was overturned. Given that Zambelo had edited the Kelly article five times, I think we can safely assume that s/he had read it - and accordingly I think we need an explanation from Zambelo as to why the 'list' describes Kelly as a convicted kidnapper, given that s/he must have been aware that this statement was false. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The charges were for kidnapping, not deprogramming. Furthermore, deprogramming wasn't (and still isn't - illegal), the methodology has changed however. Kelley was convicted of kidnapping. The fact that his conviction was later overturned after he served time is irrelevant - he was still convicted of kidnapping. You are not following the references here, and are entering the realm of Original research. There is no connection between being a deprogrammer and being a convict. Zambelo; talk 04:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

That would certainly qualify as an "Oops!" In general, would you say that unless someone is convicted of something, they don't belong on the list? What if they claim to be deprogrammers, and neutral sources back up that claim, but they don't happen to have committed any crime? But what I'm really curious about is the editor's motivation or interest in creating and/or expanding the list. Is he in favor of deprogramming and is trying to promote deprogrammers? Or is he opposed to deprogramming and is trying to expose them? Either way, it seems shaky. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm neither - I'm interested in establishing a neutral article about deprogrammers, which were an integral part of the anti-cult movement and relate to my larger interests on New religious movements. The facts are that deprogrammers did exist, and during the time they were active (and to this day) are notable as either "cult experts", "counsellors", "deprogrammers" or all of the above. Deprogramming was a profession back in the day, not a conviction title. Zambelo; talk 04:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that having been asked why the list stated that Kelly had been convicted of kidnapping, but failed to note that the conviction had been overturned, Zambelo is claiming that s/he "knew nothing of the kind - the references said he was convicted". [82] This is despite having edited the Kelly article six times - an article that starts the penultimate paragraph with the prominent statement "Kelly's conviction was overturned in 1994 by the appeals court because of prosecutorial misconduct". I invite all those reading this thread to look at the Galen Kelly article, and ask themselves whether it appears remotely plausible that anyone reading the article could possibly miss this statement. I for one find it impossible to believe - and if it were to be true, I would have to suggest that it would demonstrate a lack of competence to be editing such sensitive material anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I just looked at Deprogramming. God, that's a mess. A statement in the lead "This was started in 19xx by name" with no citation. It just lurches on from one POV statement to the next, all the way through the article. The whole article screams POV piece. I considered making some edits, but WP:TNT keeps springing to mind. You kicked over an anthill, Andy. One that needed kicking over, I think. Begoon ^talk 14:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Zambelo has now clearly and unequivocally demonstrated that s/he is completely and utterly incapable of understanding elementary WP:BLP policy.

On being asked once more why the 'list' described Galen Kelly as a convicted kidnapper, when the Kelly article (which Zambelo had repeatedly edited, and must have read) made it entirely clear that Kelly's conviction for kidnapping had been overturned, Zambelo posted the following:

"Gallen Kelley was convicted, you understand. His conviction was overturned after he served time, but he was convicted of kidnapping." [83]

Given this unequivocal demonstration of either gross incompetence or a complete refusal to even make a pretence at complying with elementary WP:BLP policy, I have to suggest that the proposed topic ban discussed is insufficient, and that we should be instead discussing an indefinite block for Zambelo, on the grounds that he cannot under any circumstances be trusted to comply with Wikipedia policy. That anyone should think that it is remotely acceptable to assert in an article that Kelly (a living person) was convicted of a serious crime without also stating that the conviction was overturned is beyond belief - yet Zambelo is arguing exactly that. S/he is a menace to Wikipedia, and needs to be immediately and unceremoniously thrown off the project. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I already altered my vote above to support a block, before you posted this. That's just incredible, though - we can't tolerate a cavalier and biased approach like that towards the lives of real people. I fear we may have some substantial work ahead cleaning up the damage in this "walled garden" they have created, but it certainly can't continue. Begoon ^talk 15:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The circumstances of Galen Kelly's conviction and that conviction's subsequent overturning and the other events in that saga are much more complex than Zambelo's comment makes it seem. I can't tell if Zambelo is incompetent or if he's pushing an agenda, or both - but no matter what, he's got it wrong. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Look at the rest of the articles and contributions, Bugs. I promise you all will become clear. Begoon ^talk 16:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Sock?

Checking Zambelo's edit history, I note that beyond cult/'deprogramming' related issues, s/he has edited few other topics. Two that stand out are Sahaja Yoga and Bohemia (musician). Interestingly, User:Sfacets, a former contributor blocked back in 2008 having 'exhausted community patience' and a confirmed sockpuppeteer, [84][85] likewise took an interest in the cult/deprogramming issue - for example adding a huge slew of articles to Category:Anti-cult organizations and individuals in November 2007 - and likewise significantly edited the Sahaja Yoga and Bohemia (musician) articles [86]. Furthermore, a confirmed Sfacets sock, User:Couchbeing, had taken an interest in the 'deprogramming' article - and had edited the Galen Kelly one. While it is entirely possible for multiple people to take an interest in the cult/deprogramming topic (and be promoting a similar POV), and simultaneously to be interested in Sahaja Yoga (itself a cult-related topic, according to some opinions) just how likely would it be that both Zambelo and Sfacets would also be making significant edits an article on a Pakistani American rapper if they were unconnected? I have to suggest that sockpuppetry seems a much more plausible explanation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to agree, as per WP:DUCK.Jeppiz (talk) 17:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that does seem an unlikely series of coincidences. Zambelo has put a "vacation" template on his/her user page. I'm sure they'll address this, too, when they return. On the other hand, and at the risk of assuming bad faith, I guess we should also consider, given this, that Zambelo may not necessarily return as Zambelo. Begoon ^talk 11:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I propose that this website and user should be looked into under disruptive editing, self promotion and unverifiable websites sources

It is located here Tahoe Park, Sacramento

This user Sirrebral. They are not only being self promotional but are not including verifiable citations that can be viewed they are dead links which pop up a pay for site to view where their citations came from.. There is no way to know if these sources are verifiable. They have removed actual verifiable websites and citations of other users repeatedly as they said it do not fit in their subheadings..which it did.. but they removed it anyway.

I removed Sirrebral citations and writing due to it being self promotional and lack of viewable website citations for most of what was written. In order to see the citation would require a reader to pay an outside website to see if their reference applied to anything about what they wrote. They changed it back to the self promotional paragraph again under 1990's -Present which they are being very insistent upon keeping even though their website citations are not viewable. The reader has no way of know anything they are saying is true or is referring to the citation. Espada12 (talk) 10:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)Espada12

Please see the Talk:Tahoe Park, Sacramento, California page for background concerning this matter. Also, please consider that Espada12 was previously User:TahoePark preservation before an admin blocked the latter account and notified them that "promotional editing is not acceptable regardless of the username you choose". I think that the edit history of these two user accounts speaks volumes about the intent of the user to continue making contributions that are promotional in nature. I would hope that this person would concentrate on utilizing their website until such a time as they can provide corroborated evidence that their newly formed organization has produced real solutions to the problems that they seek to address. Thank you. -- Sirrebral (talk) 11:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Again this user is insinuating I am one in the same person they are wrong and I do not represent the organization. This is just their way to get back at me for making necessary corrections recently. They did this to other users too. I can't believe they followed my account to a new page I just created to launch a new attack and get the page deleted. However I did wish to post regarding a neighborhood association on their website. And they have attacked me. They do not want to have anything edited anything about TPNA which is the neighborhood association which is in the same neighborhood I believe they represent. They clearly do live in Sacramento. They cannot provide ANY valid citation proofs in the TPNA paragraph as they pop up weblinks that makes the reader have go to a pay website to prove what they are saying is true and not made up.

This is just a tactic of retaliation to not only remove a new article I recently posted about an association they don't like art but to not allow others to post anything or remove TPNA writings on the Tahoe Park website which are in violation and which again since I believe they represent TPNA is self promotion. I am requesting this user be banned for blatant attacks of retaliation, Disruptive editing and refusal to adhere to citation policies for valid links Thank you (UTC)Espada12 (talk) 21:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)Espada12

@Sirrebral: have you got anything in the way of evidence to support your claim that these are one and the same editor. Even if they are this isnt nessecarily an issue as they were advised in thier block notice they might want to start over. @Espada12: The edits do appear to be promotional (intentionally or otherwise) it might be worth discussing potential edits on the talk page to build consenus from other editors before inclusion as a voluntary measure. Reading not advertising might be beneficial to make sure youra ware what can/should over what can't/shouldn't be included. Amortias (T)(C) 21:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Amortias I believe the suspicion is based on the block date and first edit dates of the two editors and a bit more. User:TahoePark preservation was blocked by Alexf on October 3. User:Espada12 then made their first edit on Tahoe Park, Sacramento, California on October 3rd and their second edit was to Alexf's talk page almost immediately. [87]. I think this may not warrant an SPI or a user check. Because the block was over the user name not the content this seems innocent, obvious...but no real issue.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Amortias:, to answer your question, this is what I know:

• On 3 October 2014 at 14:52 (UTC), User:Alexf blocked the account User:TahoePark_preservation.
• Six hours later, at 20:43 (UTC) on 3 October 2014 at 20:43, a new account--User:Espada12--posted its first contribution.
• Both accounts' contributions were limited to the topics of Tahoe Park and the organization known as TPA.

I am not saying that these facts are indisputable evidence that the accounts are used by the same individual, but the timing seems pretty suspicious. The likelihood that a second individual would make similar contributions so soon after the first account's status change seems low...unless there is some level of collaboration--intentional or not--among individuals. -- Sirrebral (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Unexplained alteration of referenced data, and arbitrary inflation of figures

Agustin.leon21 (talk · contribs)

User has been:

• Inflating inventory numbers on Argentine Air Force with unreferenced figures: [88]

• Inflating already referenced figures, with no explanation: [89]

• Replacing correct data with erroneous one, again without explanation: [90]

I undid his changes and posted multilevel warnings in his user page, 5 times, but he simply reverts giving no explanation anywhere.

Windroff (talk) 00:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I regularly revert these changes under 'factual errors', which qualifies under WP:SNEAKY vandalism. You are exempt from 3RR under the fact that they are unexplained and unreferenced changes. But the moment he tries to justify it you're out of luck. WP:AIV is where to report excessive vandalism, which I think this would qualifies as it's passed the final warning. Tutelary (talk) 00:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I know the 3RR is not applicable to me in this case, but the examples given in the page for what qualifies as outright vandalism seemed not to quite fit. Windroff (talk) 01:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@Windroff: @Tutelary: I think a lot of Admins would say reverts of those edits aren't exempted from 3RR. Windross is right, 'sneaky vandalism' isn't an exception. Dougweller (talk) 12:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller, 'sneaky vandalism' is covered under WP:VAND under specifically sneaky vandalism. When the official policy page cites minor or plausible changes as an example, I will take it as exempt from 3RR, per WP:3RRNO's exception for vandalism. Vandalism that is harder to spot, or that otherwise circumvents detection, including adding plausible misinformation to articles (such as minor alteration of facts or additions of plausible-sounding hoaxes) This obviously meets the criteria. It's regularly done because people don't 'trust' Wikipedia will change the date back, or will delete the factual error and therefore Wikipedia is unreliable (which it is, we don't claim to be). Tutelary (talk) 12:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

You're right, but this is the confusion, I think: the distinction is intent. Above you said 'factual errors'. A factual error isn't vandalism in itself - it could be a mistake. A deliberate factual error can be vandalism. You need to be sure of intent. It's not always easy to be sure of that, and you need to err on the side of AGF, always. That's all. Begoon ^talk 12:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It cannot be a mistake anymore after the user has been explicitly warned 5 times that his made up numbers were altering referenced ones, was repeatedly asked to give a rationale for his changes (to which he refused), was informed that he had been reported to an administrator board, yet he kept on reverting other editors and ignoring their request to stop. Whatever the actual intent, good faith is not applicable as he has repeatedly shown total disregard for WP policies, including 3RR. Windroff (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Personally, there's no reason to be changing dates or the amount of people in a data set as that tends to stay the same unless new sources are represented. In this instance, even though he'd been given the final warning, there was no explanation even though one was requested a ton of times. We can't be cleaning up after an editor who refuses to explain him or herself, especially if they're being disruptive. They are being disruptive. And I'm not assuming bad faith, I'm assuming that they want to test Wikipedia for accuracy; and I revert them for it. The fact that they continue without explanation is what I qualify as sneaky vandalism. Now, like I said, if they try to explain their edits or use a source, even a bad one, my excuse of 'factual errors' is no longer accurate. I am no longer exempt from 3RR if they try to explain their edits. But if they don't, or don't present any new sources, I'm not going to continue trying to contact them when they've already had a bunch of chances to explain themselves. Tutelary (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was speaking generally, and agreeing with you. I'm sure you're correct in this case. I certainly didn't accuse you of assuming bad faith. You could perhaps be a little less touchy. Begoon ^talk 04:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The entry in WP:AIV has been deleted without comment, or any notification. Meanwhile the user reverted @Tutelary:, again and without explanation (in total he has reverted others 7 times in succession in that article alone). He has also inflated figures here. Windroff (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Multiple AFDs, minutes apart, obviously pointy...

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

---

MayVenn today started a string of AFDs, all listed on today's log. I think there are 11 in total, with some nominations starting (literally) a minute after the lodgement of a previous AFD for a different subject. WP:BEFORE has been completely discarded and the deletion "rationales" are as weak as you would expect including claims that articles should be deleted because they have no English sources (see WP:NOENG). This nomination reveals what is actually going on - the editor has taken issue with the nomination ("censorship") of another article and so has decided to retaliate with these. This is plainly just an attempt at disruption. Could an admin please close the nominations in question and block MayVenn. Thanks. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

IMO, (in addition to the info presented above) the nominations for the Japanese bios in particular seem at least a tad uncivil (they may also be bordering on NPA, but I'm not sufficiently familiar enough with that policy to feel comfortable using it except in the most obvious of circumstances). - Purplewowies (talk) 07:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure I can agree with the above perception of NPA but according to WP:NOTPOINTy:" commonly used shortcut to this page is WP:POINT. However, just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate that point. As a rule, editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree, for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their "point"". Someone might want to check all of the nominations but even one of the editors involved believes the nominator is likely right with Aimi Tomori. This is certainly not a blockable offense.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Hence why I said "may" and then added that I'm not really familiar/comfortable with using it except when it's obvious. (Unless that's the perception you disagree with. :P) I just felt it worth mentioning, because most of the Japanese bios had within the reasoning "their otaku probably made it because they're kawaii desu" which, if not uncivil, is a bad faith assumption. - Purplewowies (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• It's been pointed out that these have all been nominated because they are articles created by Innotata who started this nomination with which MayVenn strongly disagreed. They are entitled to their opinion there (as was I, for the record) but they doesn't entitle them to trawl another editor's creations and nominate them en masse to make a point. That there are one or two in the group (now 15 or so) that the author concedes might not meet our inclusion criteria doesn't make the harassment right. MayVenn is clearly WP:NOTHERE to contribute productively. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
• IMHO blockable. Interesting how he continued his mass nomination even after being reported here. The point is not that a couple of his nominations could be incidentally right, the point is that MayVenn started a dozen of AfDs just as a retaliation against another editor, with some ridicolous rationales such as "some random composer" or "some random model". Cavarrone 08:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• I noticed one AfD with poor reasoning and then I see this. If an editor with an account less than 24 hours old with only 34 edits creates 11 AfDs all for articles created by another single editor, then one need not be Hercule Poirot to conclude that something fishy (AKA retaliatory) is going on. Broken clocks are right twice a day, so maybe some of these articles should be deleted, but every one deserves serious scrutiny. But I need sleep. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

"It's been pointed out" "that these have all been nominated because they are articles created by Innotata who started this nomination with which MayVenn strongly disagreed." I don't see MayVenn's name there at all. That AfD was closed on September 24. All of MayVenn's edits have been within the past 24 hours. Softlavender (talk) 08:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@Softlavender:, the retaliation is crystal clear if you read the rationale in this AfD ... Cavarrone 08:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not crystal clear at all, unless one is saying that MayVenn is a sock of someone involved in the Danièle Watts article or AfD debate, in which case someone should file a SPI. Softlavender (talk) 08:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppertry is possible, retaliation against User:Innotata is obvious ("It was super hypocritical to say a Black actress with multiple famous rules (ie Watts) was not notable and try to censor her article while making an article on a Japanese actress with ONE role.") Not to mention his point that Pile has just one role is false. Cavarrone 09:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Point taken; MayVenn could very well be Danièle Watts herself. In any case, note to DGG and other admins: In addition to filing 12 AfDs within hours of registering their account, MayVenn is edit-warring and section-blanking on Racism in the United States. The user clearly needs at least a time out (block) to re-group, as well as a ban on AfDs, in my opinion. Thus far all they've done is be extremely disruptive. Softlavender (talk) 09:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• One has to ask why a brand new user immediately starts with nominating articles for deletion, creates 12 AfDs within hours of registering, and does not notify the articles' creator(s) about the AfDs. I think this is indeed blockable behavior, clearly disruptive, pointy, and WP:NOTHERE. Softlavender (talk) 08:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• I went through the nominations, examining each one individually on its merits. I closed some as snow, one as a keep because of expressed bad faith in the nomination itself without a bar to immediate renomination, one I'm not sure enough about I just !voted keep; one I simply cant tell; one seems headed for delete. The nom. seems to have caught at least one questionable article in the net, but this is not the way to do things. . I'd support a topic ban on deletion nominations for a week or so, to prevent further disruption. I think it would be premature to go further than that at this time. DGG ( talk ) 08:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure this is actual disruption but I could see a temp topic ban if you felt inclined and the community agrees. I can support that.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

This is what I think, the editor absolutely deserve a very close look, as do the nominations. however, the nominations themselves cannot be seen entirely as just retaliatory just for the nominations themselves. Check for all the usual signs, and if there is reason take action, but I do not support a block for this. Give me a break. We need to educate not destroy new editors. We need to assume good faith here. This isn't as obvious as some would have us believe even if the reasons for some of the noms may seem pointy or even based off a bad reaction. If they are a sock...then there is a direct action to be taken. If they are edit warring then there is a direct action to be taken, but all parties need to be looked at in these types of situations. We don't just get to take out our opponents because they are new, less experienced and we just don't like what they are doing. Engage the editor and then see how they react.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

By the way User:Stalwart111...any chance you might actually notify the user of this ANI complaint? It is kind of a requirement. Appears to have been done.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry Mark, I added it as an addendum to my previous thread on his talk page rather than starting a new one. I get where you're coming from but to me it was pretty clear cut and then after two warnings (from me and another editor) he continued to nominate articles on the same basis, with the same sort of rationales. Clear cut because the rationales themselves weren't policy based - just whatever he could think of as a thinly-veiled excuse for nominating a particular person's contributions for deletion because they disagreed with that person's AFD of a different article. By the way, I disagreed with it too and said so in the original discussion - but not once did I think that nominating the nominator's work for deletion was the appropriate response. I've seen editors blocked/reprimanded for nominating one or two articles in retaliation. But 10+? St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Misunderstanding due to the ninja edit conflict bug that afflicts ANI. See my comment inside this hatted section. In summary, if your, or another editor's, post is mysteriously deleted and doesn't show up in the history, it is good practice to assume that it is due to this mysterious bug. Blackmane (talk) 15:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Restoring my earlier comments that was deleted by Mark Miller: Final unambiguous warning issued. If they create one more I will block without further ado. If I'm not around, perhaps another admin can make the required preventative block to quickly put an end to this spree. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC) What the hell are you talking about Kudpung? I deleted nothing. I see no reason to take unilateral action.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC) Please point out the deletion you are speaking of [91] I see no deletion in the history. Please retract your statement.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC) Mark Miller: FYI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC) Again...I did not delete your post.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC) That sometimes happens by accident, when it should throw an edit conflict but for some reason it doesn't and just loses someone's edit - there's a software bug in there somewhere, for sure. Neatsfoot (talk) 11:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC) Absolutely. It's a perennial "issue". Has happened to me at least 3 times, and I've seen it happen to others - you don't always get the edit conflict window. I'll add a diff to one time it was discussed in a minute. Begoon talk 11:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC) Here, towards the end of this thread it is discussed, with links to when it happened. I've seen it on numerous other occasions, too: link. Begoon talk 11:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC) There was no edit conflict. My post was removed by Mark Miller when making his post. I've made the same error myself, but I always press my Preview button before saving, and then I always take an extra look at what I have posted before finally leaving the page. The problem with ANI is that it gets everyone jumpy, but if they are here simply to criticise admins, rather than do some investigation, then maybe they might not be inviting the most friendly, if nevertheless courteous, reactions. It's a weird issue that seems to only really hit ANI because of the high traffic and numbers of posts that happen on any given day. It's hit me a couple of times to my memory, once when I was posting something and I ended up getting ninja-ec'd by a close which I didn't notice and another time when I tried to reply to a heavily posted thread that ended up changing what I wanted to do into something that I didn't want to do ( the details escape me). It's generally good advice to assume that if there is a weird deletion of your post or your deletion of someone else's post that it's due to the ANI ninja edit conflict bug. Blackmane (talk) 15:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Back on topic: Anyone properly investigating this issue will note that MayVenn is almost certainly not a new user. The question y'all should be asking is: who is he really? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

You have no way of substantiating that accusation, as you were not watching the editor when he made that edit and you have absolutely no way of knowing exactly what happened. But I can tell you something that most definitely does happen occasionally - previewing looks fine, and then you save, and someone else's edit gets lost with *no indication whatsoever* that anything has gone amiss. The only way you can tell something has gone wrong is if you then recheck your edit after you have made it - preview *does not* show the fault. Neatsfoot (talk) 12:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Preview wouldn't help in those circumstances, honestly. It's a bug, and it's known. The only way to avoid it (well, actually, be aware of it, and able to fix it), is to religiously check your diffs after editing. It's fairly rare, but it does happen. Especially when the page is large, it seems.

Anyway, as you say, we should stay on topic. Begoon ^talk 11:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The same thing happened to me with Jimbo Wales once. A one second difference and my post even showed up on my side after I hit save and then it was gone. Made me think I had done something wrong but he assured me, as others did, that it was just a simple glitch in the system that occurs sometimes. I did not remove anything, I have no reason to. Anyway, staying on topic, I have suggested to the editor that they refrain from making any further nominations for one to two weeks as a voluntary topic ban and requested that they make a small statement to that effect here.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Looking at MayVenn's edit history, I agree with Kudpung that this user is very likely a sock. Never seen new editors registering their account and, in a few minutes, starting a dozen AfDs without making any error in the procedure. The editor is clearly an experienced one. And as pointed above the only other significant edit by this user was an attempt to remove a large chunk of sourced text in Racism in the United States, replacing it with the sentence "None of this has actually changed the fact that white supremacy is everywhere in America.": [92]. IMHO warnings will not have any effect, as the editor is very likely already back to his/her official account and we'll never see MayVenn editing again. A SPI would be enlighting, however I don't see any reason for not blocking this account per WP:NOTHERE. Cavarrone 12:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

  For what it's worth CheckUser doesn't suggest any other accounts, but in this case it wouldn't have been too hard to use a different IP range. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

  The Daniele Watts AfD I started sure got a lot of people riled up, and strayed into accusations of bad faith, likely BLP violations that still are visible, and off-topic discussions of the police and racism, despite my efforts to keep it on topic. I wouldn't be too surprised if people caught onto it off-wiki. I see that just before MayVenn registered their account, an unregistered editor posted this. Maybe they're an old unregistered editor, also considering that they caught on to the similar account Bristolbottom? Only the Aimi Tomori AfD (which I personally think is the only one they got right) has had editors actually calling for deletion, so can all the other outstanding AfDs be closed without prejudice to relisting? —innotata 17:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Move to close - as suspected, this seems to have been a throw-away account used to start these nominations and edit-war in a couple of other places. There have been no edits since the last AFD was started on 5 October. Attempts to teach/reason with a throw-away account would be futile. Some of the AFDs have been dealt with - this can probably be closed by an admin able to deal with the rest. Whether the account is blocked now is probably moot. St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#John Barrowman (BLPSOURCES vs CONTEXTMATTERS)

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

---

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#John Barrowman (BLPSOURCES vs CONTEXTMATTERS)? Please see the closure request by a discussion participant at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#John Barrowman (BLPSOURCES vs CONTEXTMATTERS) (permanent link).

I am posting this closure request here since this noticeboard is more highly trafficked than WP:ANRFC and because the discussion has important BLP implications. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that seems more than ready for a formal admin closing.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. I assume an appeal will be filed at AN shortly... Number 57 21:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

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

IAC again - sock of blocked user, mass content deletion, possible NLT

• Claus at Name Defend DE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor appears to be an explicit sock of blocked user Name Defend IPA, who claimed to be Claus Bruentrup of "Name Defend" as ably documented by Voceditenore in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive265#Review of admin actions (India Against Corruption). Claus at Name Defend DE has repeatedly[93][94][95] removed sourced material from India Against Corruption (and also a vast amount from Concerns and controversies at the 2014 Winter Olympics[96]). His statement[97] "To the Network Administrator. Take notice that I am acting for the affected person/s. This content must be disabled immediately." with the edit comment "Notice of action to be taken" appears to breach WP:NLT. NebY (talk) 12:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

NebY, see section below. Claus at Name Defend DE now blocked by Euryalus for "Making legal threats: and probable block evasion as sock of User:Name Defend IPA". Voceditenore (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, rather good to see a simultaneous (and more legible) report with so much overlap! Good to see the block and follow-up too. NebY (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

India Against Corruption again- possible legal threat by editor who states policies don't apply to him

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

---

See Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 September 28 - is this a legal threat by User:Claus at Name Defend DE? His userpage states

• This is user page of Claus @ Name Defend.
• I am a declared paid editor to inform editors of factually incorrect content, copyright violations, trademarks violations, impersonations, other breaches of law and breaches of WMF "Terms of Use" etc. which have legal consequences, and which breaches and consequences the average editor may be unaware of.
• I do not consider myself bound by self written community policies. I am editing under WMF "Terms of Use" and "privacy policy"

He is editwarring at India Against Corruption (just gave him a 3RR warning) and on his talk page explains his edit by saying "However, my edit is a constructive edit to uphold a core policy of the Wikimedia Foundation's "Terms of Use" - to prevent impersonation of the named organisation. The controversial deleted text was inserted by another paid editor "Sitush", against whom the affected organisation has very recently filed a criminal complaint in India, including for impersonating a History graduate from Peters House / Cambridge University so as to mislead the Wikipedia community and pose as an authority." Dougweller (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Doug, see the section immediately above this. Note that Name Defend IPA was blocked indefinitely by Salvio giuliano as a checkuser block [98]. This is clearly the same person, and in fact, the socks are probably all the same person. Voceditenore (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Claus at Name Defend DE now blocked by Euryalus for "Making legal threats: and probable block evasion as sock of User:Name Defend IPA". If yet more proof is needed that this is the same sock as all the rest, note that the copyvio tag on Anil Trivedi was actually placed by the blocked sockpuppet Duffycharles with a very inappropriate edit summary [99]. Within minutes of Duffycharles being blocked for sockpuppetry and legal threats, User:Claus at Name Defend DE registered an account [100]. Today he addded to the report at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 September 28 - Voceditenore (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I suggest a checkuser look for sleepers. Voceditenore (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The section above was added while I was editing this one, so I missed it. Good work. Dougweller (talk) 14:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• I wonder if the article should be subject to full protection as the socks/meats seem to regularly make the requisite edits to get around semi. DeCausa (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

That is tempting, given the collateral damage they're prepared to inflict to get around semi-protection. (It is striking that someone claiming to oppose corruption would expunge an account of human rights campaigning.[101]) It doesn't seem that India Against Corruption is active any longer, assaults on Wikipedia by people claiming to act in its name aside, so while there might be details to fill in about its history, there may be no notable developments to add. NebY (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree, but it will only partially help. If this faction (who claim to represent the Hindustan Republican Association) cannot get at that article, they will continue disrupting multiple related articles, including biographies of those they perceive as their enemies. They will also keep pursuing time-wasting quasi-legal issues in retaliation. They have now made 2 unsuccessful attempts to have India Against Corruption removed from Google's search results on spurious claims of copyright violation when their spurious claims here didn't work out for them. They also claim to have filed a sexual harassment case with the WMF on behalf of one of their sockpuppets, etc. etc. Interestingly, the latest copyright infringement they reported (at Anil Trivedi) actually was an infringement, although not of their material, despite the bogus claims made at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 September 28 that they were "acting for the affected person/s". This is long-term abuse dating back to 2008. Voceditenore (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

This "faction" does not represent the Hindustan Republican Association.

Do you have any reliable source for your outrageously false claim on Anil Trivedi that he was in any way associated with India Against Corruption as continues to be stated in that article ?? This is exactly the kind of IMPERSONATION of the IAC organisation which the "outed" ADMIN "Sitush" was paid to promote on Wikipedia. (PS: Read the news report in the Times of India - Lucknow edition about paid senior editors of Wikipedia) which pisses the IAC off.

BTW: Claus has emailed Admin:Euryalus, our identities are disclosed and verifiable. NAME DEFEND is going to expose how corrupted paid Wikipedia Admins have systematically fabricated "checkuser" results to show that 27 NAME DEFEND editors systematically operating from many countries on very widely located ISPs and using different computers and networks are showing as a single editor (@IAC sock-farm), whereas the 983+ still active Wikipedia accounts being used since 2005 with over 4,00,000+ edits (incl. 38,000+ on 2014) are not being detected by Checkuser. Toby at Name Defend DE (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Per your above statement can you provide reliable sources to prove that Sitush was paid to edit Wikipedia. Amortias (T)(C) 19:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Given that the babblings above can't even get elementary facts right - Sitush isn't an admin - I can see no reason why we should be remotely interested in anything the latest sockpuppet could say. They have been plastering this noticeboard with pseudo-legal threats and similar bollocks for years, while presenting precisely zero evidence of any wrongdoing. Why should they do anything differently this time? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Given the above, might it be reasonable to consider a blanket siteban on Name Defend, by whatever name? That statement comes off as an organizational mission statement to continually violate WP:NLT and pretty much blatantly states that the whole group is not here to write an encyclopedia. rdfox 76 (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Well i think we can definelty lose this one, it seems uncommon for a new user to be able or willing to lodge an ANI and edit a request for arbitration [102] so soon form the start up. They appear to be tagging any page that can find that might be beneficial even if theyre not doing it correctly.Pretty much sums up not here.Amortias (T)(C) 19:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

On a side note appears theyve been reported to WP:AIV and blocked fromt here prehaps a good sign to close this off as it doesnt seem to serve any purpose now. Amortias (T)(C) 19:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

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

India Against Corruption again – further discussion

• Considering the personal attacks and allegation being made on their talk page, shouldn't talk page and email access be removed? Neatsfoot (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • DMCA India Against Corruption logo is relevant. Dougweller (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I wonder if a DMCA takedown notice is valid if it's filed under a pseudonym or if there's some requirement that the filer provides some proof of identity? NebY (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Irrespective of whether the DMCA takedown notice was valid, the image was appropriately removed from Commons as it was clearly a previously published non-free logo. It appeared in March 2011 on indiaagainstcorruption.org, the official website of the India Against Corruption organization (the one the WP article is about—not the one "Name Defend" claims to be "defending"). See Wayback Machine capture. Voceditenore (talk) 13:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Do the Name Defend accounts operate from a limited set of IP addresses? If so what would be the collateral damage in blocking that range? Blackmane (talk) 22:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see this before. Maybe you want to unclose it, User:Black Kite, since so many comments have accrued now? Not that I'm bothered. Anyway, Duffycharles is not a sock but a puppeteer, editing since 2008, with HRA1924 and Lindashiers| their socks, as confirmed by checkuser Ponyo. (Man, we sure have a lot of so-called "fabricated checkuser results" in this area. A whole CU conspiracy, obviously.) From Duffycharles's odd edit history, with long gaps, I'm sure there were more socks during "his" inactive periods. Unfortunately, I have a bad feeling about the IP range, from what Ponyo told me. But might it be reasonable to tag all of the above as socks of Duffycharles per WP:DUCK? If it's even worth the bureaucratic trouble to try to keep what Black Kite accurately calls this mob tidily registered. In any case, I for one am certainly ready to block new quackers on sight, if people will tell me about them. Bishonen | talk 22:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC).

Bishonen, I think this all needs to be documented on a page at WP:Long-term abuse to keep track of this lot and to help identify future socks. At the moment, the information and connections are spread all over the place. For example, there is an even older account than Duffycharles. See User:Landirenzo, registered in 2007 and checkuser blocked as a sock of HRA1924 in April 2014 by Tiptoety (along with 2 others). Plus there are Dkgpatel (blocked for legal threats but clearly a sock) and Rti india and AcorruptionfreeIndia (both with the same modus operandi as all the others and both with checkuser blocks but no apparent documentation as to whom they were socks of). "Claus Bruentrup" and "Name Defend" are simply the group's latest wheeze for pursuing HRA1924's agenda. The "company" website, Name Defend, Institut feur Geistiges Eigentum, was hastily assembled on 13 September 2014 (complete with copypasted German sentences and images of handcuffs and the Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom (!). It is registered to Sarbajit Roy [103], the convenor of the group now calling itself "India against Corruption" and who are pursuing their various attempts at legal action here and at Google. Voceditenore (talk) 08:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if Long-term abuse is the best place, Voceditenore; it's being considered for deletion, for one thing, and nobody looks there, for another. Perhaps an SPI? Its archiving system works pretty well. I agree that there should be an overview somewhere, and SPI is surely the place people are likely to look. Considering the mentioned checkuser blocks that don't indicate a sockmaster, perhaps we should ask someone with checkuser permissions to lay out this mess, in some place. (There may already be an SPI that could be fattened up.) It's not an attractive job… hmm. I already pinged Ponyo. Pinging Tiptoety, DeltaQuad, and Elockid, who made the checkuserblocks mentioned above: does one of you guys perhaps feel like providing an overview? Yes, I know, it's amazing the lengths I'll go to to delegate messy work to someone else. Bishonen | talk 17:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Oh boy that was a long time ago. The only thing the CU log indicates AcorruptionfreeIndia is that it was in response to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gadurr/Archive or Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ginsuloft/Archive. Those were the two cases I was investigating at the time of the block. Other than that, I have no recollection of the block and nor does my email. If I can help further, please let me know. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bishonen. Reading this thread brings back bad memories. I'm sorry but I'm going to have to recuse myself from any further involvement following numerous legal threats, attempts at outing, and insistent emails from this group. Best, Tiptoety ^talk 17:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It rather looks as if Long-term abuse might survive, maybe even with a snow close, and is still in use. If there was an IAC entry there, could links to it be placed in archived SPIs? NebY (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Ongoing Vandalism to Kevin Westgarth page

Since October 2, 2014, Qwerty1233221 has been persistently messing up the Kevin Westgarth page by changing his statistics to incorrect ones and otherwise messing it up. Today there were further edits of this nature from IP Template:108.53.111.85. Examples are here, here, here, here, here, and here. Can you please do something about this? Given the frequency and number of these edits, it's not a 'good faith' situation. GLG GLG (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I blocked them as a vandalism-only account. In future, it's best to revert, warn, and report to WP:AIV if the vandalism continues. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. sorry i didn't know the other page existed. GLG GLG (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

71.171.126.164

A user at this IP address seems to be changing NFL-related pages to change scores, winners of games, and other statistics.

For example, his edits to the "2014 Seattle Seahawks season" page [104] changed the Seahawks from a 2-1 record (W 36-16, L 21-30, W 26-20 OT) to a 0-3 record (L 21-31, L 0-49, L 14-49). All the above games have "NFL.com recap" links which have the correct score, and they all showed the correct scores and winners before this user's edits.

Other team pages and NFL record pages have similar edits. I do not see how this could be accidental. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.161.246 (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have added a vandalism warning to the user's (IP address) talk page. This IP address continues to make destructive changes in the face of efforts to revert them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.161.246 (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

72.194.125.162 appears to be making legal threats

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

---

72.194.125.162 appears to be making legal threats.[105]-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

False. Please specify the "threat" to which you refer.72.194.125.162 (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It's right there at the end of their post, just before their signature. You bring up "the law of defamation" as if it's relevant, try to connect what we're doing to it, and attempt to use "liability for damages" as a chilling effect. That is the sort of dishonest bullying that WP:NOLEGALTHREATS is intended to curb. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Given that the IP:

• is here to right great wrongs (every contribution has had the goal of removing well-sourced criticism of the school),
• demand to be shown where something is a policy whenever an experienced editor explains something ([106]),
• refuses to acknowledge when others point out policies that conflict with their understanding of things (such as WP:NOTCENSORED),
• ignores whenever their arguments are countered,
• reacts in a personal manner to those who disagree with them (assuming that a previously uninvolved editor who came in to help is the one with a conflict of interest, which is coal calling ivory black),
• edit warred to remove the Whois template from their talk page, threatening to report the editors who restored it as if it was vandalism,

...I'm thinking a block is in order even if the IP retracts the threat. They're not here to cooperatively build an encyclopedia, they have an axe to grind. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Hardly, I stopped editing upon request before you blocked the article. The article does not comply with the Wikipedia policy for high schools or living persons. 72.194.125.162 (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, you failed to actually discuss any point, this time using a red herring. You have been making edits to talk pages since, all of which have been part of your agenda to censor the article, which have shown a lack of interest in cooperation outside of that agenda. If I was wrong about this, you could easily cite previous edits you made where you ventured out into some sort of middle ground, had a sincere and previous interest in any other topic, or listened to more experienced editors without it taking four or five of them repeating something for you to get it. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

He half-heartedly stated that he won't take legal action, but he does not know "what the affected students or their lawyers may do," trying to keep the chilling effect of a legal threat. WP:Gaming the system, plain and simple. It's not really any different than walking into a store and saying "Nice store you've got, it'd be a shame if something happened to it." Ian.thomson (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

And you're saying I have to guarantee this article doesn't gore someone's ox? No, I can't do that. All I can do is tell you I am not personally involved and don't know the players, but I can read the papers and know they don't like people accusing them of wrongdoing. 72.194.125.162 (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that 72.194.125.162 made a legal threat.

Regarding his/her claim that he/she "stopped editing upon request before you blocked the article", the article history showed that he/she did three reverts over an 18 minute period and then stopped - this suggests a knowledge of the three-revert rule.

Anyone considering blocking 72.194.125.162, should be aware that he/she also used 70.197.70.151 on 3 October.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting how hard these editors are fighting to silence me rather than respond to my points. Toddy never seemed to understand that saying a school has "serious social problems" is an attack on the school. One editor who is not participating in this witch hunt agreed with me "[T]his kind of weight in the lead is disproportionate." 21:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)72.194.125.162 (talk)

It's not interesting, you only pay attention to what pleases you and see anyone who disagrees as an opponent to beat rather than someone to find a middle ground with. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps not to you two but another editor wrote, "I think the inclusion of these controversies right at the start of the article is not encyclopedic." It's not just about me.72.194.125.162 (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

In sum, there was no legal threat but it is not surprising this was misunderstood. The editor who started this noticeboard incident,and the editor who is its main protagonist, apparently think you can say a school has "serious social problems" and list numerous unproven allegations against it in the lead paragraph without attacking the school.[107]. I wouldn't call that a cooperative effort to build an encycopedia.72.194.125.162 (talk) 23:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

"Under the law of defamation repetition and even hyperlinking is sufficient to incur liability for damages." That qualifies as a violation of the No Legal Threats rule. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Read the context. This was a discussion about repeating attacks, not republishing defamation - the analysis just happens to be the same. In any event, the absence of a legal threat was made explicit upon inquiry. 72.194.125.162 (talk) 23:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

You did violate the "No legal threats" rule. Other than that, you have a clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and are using a battle ground tactic. Despite being told to stop my numerous of users, your still trying to game the system. That does not work here at all, especially when everyone can see what you have written. AcidSnow (talk) 00:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Legal threat?

[108] This is not a legal threat of action on the part of Atsme. This is the hypothetical legal threat of action by the party of the article. It's laid on pretty thick to. Should this be reviewed under the legal threat policy?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Not a legal threat but deffinetly sounds like its supposed to have a chilling effect the whole if you dont think it could happen again definelty seems like its aimed at doing just that. Amortias (T)(C) 21:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like a legal threat at all to me. DocumentError (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

nope, Atsme was just informing you about the importance of BLP. took me a while to figure out what you are fighting over but it is Investigative Project on Terrorism and it appears to be a continuation of a past ANI. these are hard situations, and i am sorry you are in such a dispute, but this specific complaint has no merit in my eyes and reflects poorly on you. Jytdog (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Of course it wasn't a threat. This is what I get for agreeing to Serialjoe's suggestion to "seek out medcom for assistance." This ANI is nothing more than a continuation of Joe's relentless hounding and fulfillment of his publicly stated goal for me: My intent and purpose for you? I have none other than to stop your POV pushing agenda to accomplish your previously stated goal of whitewashing wikipedia of all mention of Islamophobia." [109]. The BLP issue was actually raised again by ARB committee member User:Newyorkbrad during Joe's recent ARB request in another of his relentless attempts to get me topic banned: The issues addressed may include whether including the prominent "Islamophobia" template on this article raises a BLP issue. [110] Serialjoe refuses to acknowledge the problems exist. Other editors and noticeboard reviewers have also drawn attention to the BLP and NOR issues plaguing IPT. [111] [112] Atsme☯^Consult 01:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Atsme diplomatically, perhaps too diplomatically, raises a valid point. This is most clearly not a WP:LEGAL issue. Under WP:BOOMERANG it would be merited to question the impetus for bringing it up here. It is not reasonable to just go around throwing things against the wall to see if anything sticks, in respect to other editors, and it appears - based on a history of interaction - this is what may be occurring with Atsme on the receiving end. This treatment forces other editors to divest from encyclopedia-building and engage in permanent defense and fort-building. This is something that needs to be addressed before this is closed. DocumentError (talk) 02:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Above you'll notice my first sentence. This is not a legal threat of action on the part of Atsme. Then you'll notice my last sentence. Should this be reviewed under the legal threat policy? Interestingly enough I asked this question in ANI.Someone mistakenly posted this at the top of the page This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors. The reason I pose this question is that Atsme will do anything possible to end an argument. Canvassing is one example. I'll also point at that you will see above that I haven't asked for a ban. The reason for this is wp:legal suggests that a ban in these cases is to prevent disruption associated with litigation. At the conclusion of the legal threat brings the conclusion of the ban. Since there is no legal threat (again as pointed out above by me the original poster) there is no reason to ban. However while there is no reason to ban, is there reason to review it under the legal threat policy? Trying to promote fear of litigation to win a dispute could offer the same chilling effect as actually threat of litigation. At a point if this tactic becomes persistent then there is a cause to ban.

I'd also add that any promotion of a ban I've made has been that of a topic ban of Islamophobia and related articles. A topic of which Atsme has shown unquestionable bias in regards to. This is the first ANI I've opened on the subject. This is the 4th one in total. This about the conduct. I guess while quoting Newyorkbrad, Atsme missed where Brad said "MAY INCLUDE" and where ARBCOM offered no position on whether it was and further suggested the matter be taken over to BLPN. Did they move wp:BLPN? Is that why Atsme hasn't taken it there? There is currently a consensus to keep said template. Something crazy and unexpected could happen here. Atsme could take the advice of Arbcom and take it to BLPN and get a consensus that it is a BLP violation and that it should be removed. That would rather diplomatic. It certainly would be rare move in this tiresome dispute.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand. Also, who wrote this? There's no signature. DocumentError (talk) 03:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for updating your comment with a sig. I have just left a note to you, in response to your latest post on Atsme's talk page here. DocumentError (talk) 04:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it is a legal threat or not, any statement that is threatening enough to chill discussion should not be tolerated. Atsme should be warned accordingly. It may be worth opening an RFC, for future reference, what the community thinks should be done to people who repeatedly attempt to chill discussion whether it be through roundabout means or indirect legal comments. (Note: My last sentence is in no way a reflection of this ANI, but something that may be worth thinking about for the future.) Blackmane (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I just have a thick skin but I don't find anything at all chilling about what Atsme said. It seemed like a frank response to a very aggressive style of interaction to which he's been subject. For the record, I'm not involved in editing any of these articles, but am closely observing as a disinterested party. DocumentError (talk) 22:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Depends on the editor, I personally wouldn't think much of it either, but there is obviously some concern about Atsme's phrasing. WP:DOLT and all that. Blackmane (talk) 21:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Skeezix1000

I'm not sure if this is the right venue, but I would like to report User:Skeezix1000 for harassment, abuse of admin privileges, as well as conflict of interest. Since starting on wikipedia I have been harassed by User:Skeezix1000 and his friend User:Hwy43. I have falsely been accused of being a sock puppet of someone that lives +500km away. These editors have also accused IPs from Edmonton (+3000km away) and IP50 is from Prince George (+4000km away). I am from Ottawa, Ontario, and even though the person I'm allegedly sock puppeting is from Kitchener as proven by his numerous sock puppet IPs on [113] these users continue to harass me. I'd like for them to stop this behaviour immediately, apologize, remove the threatening messages/sock puppet tags from all our talk pages. I think Skeezix1000 should also have his admin privileges revoked for his behaviour. 99.224.114.253 (talk) 23:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Skeezix is not an admin as far as I can see. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 00:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

My apologies. I believe he is only an administrator on Wikipedia commons. I just want the harassment to stop from him and his friends and to be left alone. 99.224.114.253 (talk) 02:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't do any editing on wikipedia commons. He just happens to be an admin there. The harassment happens here on regular wikipedia. 99.224.114.253 (talk) 02:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I know sorry about that I misread your comment. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

There are no examples of harrassment. Skeezix1000 Hwy43 (re)opened a sockpuppet investigation to see if this IP is UrbanNerd (talk · contribs) once again skirting his indef ban. The investigation is surely only a formatlity, though, given how easily one can determine just from a simple comparison of edit histories (including those for all the other IPs this person has used) that the IP is UrbanNerd. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm neither an admin, nor have I "harassed" this sockpuppet IP of User:UrbanNerd. I wasn't even the one who reopened the sockpuppet investigation. As Miesianiacal points out, this IP's behaviour is classic UrbanNerd. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

My mistake; I see now it was Hwy43 who called for another checkuser. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

99.224.114.253 (talk · contribs) is now blocked. Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Cow cleaner 5000 ban proposal

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

---

Enough is enough, this user is intent on trolling Wikipedia and has already made numerous sock accounts: [114] I propose that this person be banned by the Wikipedia community as clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. This diff [115] shows that he is starting to attempt to get to other user's accounts. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support, obvious longterm vandalism including trying to blank this section. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• From the time this was first added 4 more sock accounts have been confirmed as used by Cow as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Overt support: Obviously disruptive, probably takes joy in the fact that we are even having this proposal. This is behavior that will not stop, and having a ban proposal is just a procedural step to stop it. I full heartedly support it. Tutelary (talk) 02:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
• Full support Enough is enough with this one. They are one of the most insidious WP:GAMErs I've seen in at least a few years, especially with the Shonen Jump article, and we should use all the filters and tools we have to contain them from damaging the encyclopedia further. Nate • (chatter) 03:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support - He wasn't site banned already? Ian.thomson (talk) 03:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support, it's clear that this person will not assist us in fulfilling our mission and is wasting their time here. If they can't realise this and move on themselves, then we as the community should be happy to assist them on their way. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC).
• Support - It not only wastes our time but in the end it wastes there time!, Enough's enough. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support Clearly not there to contribute in a productive manner. Though this "ban" is more a formality as he is already being blocked on sight. —Farix (t | c) 21:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Support Recalcitrant sockers should be banned. Blackmane (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Could use another set of eyes at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto

There's quite a bit of back-and-forth that should probably be reined in, but I'd like to have someone uninvolved handle it. Thanks, Lesser Cartographies (talk) 01:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC Shopping

A RfC created specifically due to a conflict over whether to include Syrian forces in the article 2014 military intervention against ISIS - but framed to finalize debate on inclusion of all non-USA forces - was opened here. The RfC is currently active and trending 50/50 split between support and oppose. One of the opponents of including the Syrian Arab Army in this article has initiated a new RfC on the same subject, differentiated only by its wording. I attempted to GF shutter this RfC, politely noting to him one was already open [116]. He reverted my close [117] with the explanation "That RfC addresses all non-us allied forces being included. This is only on Syria" a splitting of hairs that rejects the entire premise for the first RfC (wikilawyering on the nuances of the wording) and is seemingly designed for no purpose than to take another stab at getting Syria P(OV)ushed out of this article. Requested Action: Uninvolved admin close this RfC just so the original one can continue to a conclusion and avoid the necessity of re-gathering everyone who !voted in the first one to !vote again in the second (third, fourth, etc.). DocumentError (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Note - as a courtesy I have attempted to notify all editors who !voted in the first RfC about this situation. DocumentError (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not RfC shopping, I am trying to get some comment's on specifically the Syrian forces inclusion. The previous RfC which they are referencing was for "Should the article titled "2014 military intervention against ISIS" contain information about all nations and nation-equivalent actors involved in 2014 military actions against ISIS or should it only include nations whose military forces are operating under U.S. command, or have been declared allies of the U.S. regime?" It was not for specifically the Syrian inclusion which itself is an important issue. It was whether any non-us allied forces should be included. That group of non-us forces did technically include Syria but it also included Iran and others. This is specifically on the Syrian regime inclusion which again is a separate issue than Iran who are intervening. I just wanted to get some commentary on Syria specifically. I am not trying to game the system. - SantiLak (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The fact you registered a !vote in the first RfC that said specifically "The Syrian regime forces should not be included in the article." indicates you are absolutely aware of the premise behind the first RfC, which was started specifically due to controversy over the inclusion of Syria. DocumentError (talk) 21:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I was opposing the inclusion of the Syrian regime forces in the article there but specified syria to make sure that it was clear that I did not oppose other actors such as Iran from being included. It was started over Syria but the RfC covered all of the countries not under US command as was specified in the question. I see you have removed the canvassing accusations and I appreciate that as I was in no way canvassing, just informing members of original RfC who were not informed of ANI. - SantiLak (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we can make one big RFC so that we can settle this matter instead of making five RFCs at once. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

What he said. :) DocumentError (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

After all the different duplicate processes DocumentError started that lead to this ANi, and now this one on top, I can't believe he has the kahonnas to start this complaint. Pot calling the kettle black stuff. Legacypac (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The only reason I made the RfC was that I wanted to solely address the Syria issue instead of having a broad scope RfC so the question behind it includes all non-us allied countries, to just include Syria. I just want to get comments on specifically Syria, I'm not trying to game the system. - SantiLak (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Trying to use an ANI you yourself started and that was rejected by the community as frivolous and disruptive, as some kind-of scarlet letter, is probably not something you want to make a habit of doing. Just a friendly tip. DocumentError (talk) 21:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I think DocumentError needs to stop throwing around false accusations and other garbage he can't support with Diffs. Please provide the evidence "was rejected by the community as frivolous and disruptive" or retract this statement. I know DocumentError can make good contributions, but the BATTLE mentality needs to stop as it hurts everyone. Cheers Legacypac (talk) 22:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

This is OT, but since you asked: you asked to get me topic banned, eight ten editors weighed-in on it and only 2 !voted "Support" - you and your pal SantiLak. If you have anything further you want to drudge up on this, go back to your ANI and deal with it there. Don't junk up this one with your nonsense. It's been less than one month since you finished your last 1-year topic ban and it seems you're back to your same bad behavior. Stop it (or take it back to the thread in which this was being discussed - not here). DocumentError (talk) 22:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, I changed my support to dispute resolution after listening to the arguments as you can see in the counter-proposal section. SantiLak (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't start this ANI, and I don't know how creating an RfC is a scarlet letter. Are you referring to myself or another user because I don't see how creating the RfC was in bad faith anyway and I don't intend to create any ANI's in the near future. - SantiLak (talk) 21:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you're confused. I was addressing a different editor. DocumentError (talk) 21:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, please note the "new" RfC is not worded neutrally. Syrian forces are already included in the article;the way SantiLak has chosen to word his "new" RfC means that a lack of consensus for "Support" will see them removed (it should have been worded so that "support" !votes are in support of reversion of the status quo, not for maintaining the status quo). This is RfC 101 and seems to be a further indicator of WP:GAMING. DocumentError (talk) 21:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how it is not worded neutrally "Should the article include information on Syrian regime forces military actions against ISIS or not? This is different from the RfC earlier which addressed whether only US allied forces should be included". I don't see any POV in there. There was no actual consensus to include Syria in the article, the broadly worded RfC vote came up tied and since it addressed all non-us allied partners, I thought a more specific one addressing only Syria would be important. I formatted the Oppose and Support in a way similar to the previous RfC. I don't think that users will be confused at all even if the Syrian forces are already included in the article. The way the question is written if you write Oppose then you are obviously opposing Syria being included and if you write Support then you are obviously supporting Syria's inclusion. It is not gaming at all. - SantiLak (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

My read is that the previous RfC started and now defended by DocumentError actually was started on the same topic as another RfC by someone else. Legacypac (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

"Support" !votes should always be "support" for changing the status quo, "oppose" against changing the status quo. Otherwise, a change to the status quo can occur sans consensus. This is RfC 101. Either you didn't understand that when you started it, or you phrased it this way intentionally. I'm GF assuming the former. DocumentError (talk) 22:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I added onto the RfC explaining what Support and Oppose specifically entail. Next time I will do it the other way but for now it seems clear what means what. SantiLak (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

You're not understanding. It's not a question of editor confusion - it's a question of loading the vote. You can't have a RfC in which a lack of consensus results in a change to the status quo. That's what you've got right now with current wording. (You also can't have duplicate RfCs, but that's being addressed above). DocumentError (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand what you mean and I will change the way it is formatted right now. I assure you I am not attempting to load the vote. Again I really don't think it is a duplicate RfC, it is addressing one specific country instead of the more broadly worded RfC from before. - SantiLak (talk) 22:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

WARNING/Attn Admins: Cut the abusive behavior and false accusation throwing DocumentError. You are not the police and your accuracy is seriously lacking. It is not constructive. Legacypac (talk) 22:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh Lord. DocumentError (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, SL, for doing that. That resolves that issue completely and to my satisfaction. I maintain my request for an admin to shutter the RfC as duplicate gaming but withdraw the entire second paragraph of comments as you've adequately and proactively addressed them. Best - DocumentError (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I have also changed the language to just "Syrian government forces" in order to make it as neutral as possible. - SantiLak (talk) 00:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

note - thread moved from "main" to "incident" - accidentally placed on wrong board

Attempted outing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Edward Snowden Affair: Exposing the Politics and Media Behind the NSA Scandal (2nd nomination)

I'm reporting it here because I'm the target of this attempted and needless to say laughably wrong outing. However, the editor has also named other people (presumably non-editors) and made other vague threats in his comment. The editor in question is:

Brain1605 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

For background, see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Maldoror2. Voceditenore (talk) 06:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked per WP:OUTING and the edit rev-deleted by Bgwhite. Euryalus (talk) 07:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both! Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

There's an intermediate revision that needs deleting too. Neatsfoot (talk) 08:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, done. Euryalus (talk) 10:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Unfriendly attitude of User:Borsoka and User:Fakirbakir

Hello! I am writing this report because I want to seek assistance in my relationship with the editors mentioned in the title. The statement The earliest Romanian chronicles wrote of the migration of the Romanians' ancestors in the reign of one "King Vladislaus' inserted by them in the article Origin of the Romanians isn't apparently existing in the provided source, namely Vékony, Gábor (2000). Dacians, Romans, Romanians. The word Vladislaus isn't even present in the book.

I added the Failed Verification template and asked on the talk page for the exact quotes from the source that they refer to, but they remove the template and refuse to answer to my request. What should I do? Eurocentral (talk) 08:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I am always happy to help in relationship matters between editors, especially those involved in topics like eastern European history, for which I'm quite unlikely to ever have a dog in the fight or even much interest. I'm going to be offline for most of the next 24 hours, however, if you don't get a satisfactory response from anyone else before then - and assuming the issues in question don't rise to the level of necessary admin involvement - please contact me on my talk page and I will be happy to insert myself into the articles in question as an active interlocutor. DocumentError (talk) 08:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Eurocentral, you are well aware the fact that Vékony used the word "László" (which is the Hungarian variant of "Vladislaus"), but I preferred the latter form because a Romanian historian (Victor Spinei) in his book which is also cited in the article used the "Vladislaus" form. We should be consequent when using names in the same article. Borsoka (talk) 11:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a simple content dispute. Actually, I even provided a link for Eurocentral. Instead of senseless accusations he should read Vekony's book.Fakirbakir (talk) 12:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Or, if he does not want to read the whole book, he should read the pages which are referred to in the relevant footnote. Borsoka (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Fakirbakir, I suspect that Eurocentral is not here to build an encyclopedia. He does not stop edit warring, even after an RfC had in the meantime been initiated, and all other editors were willing to seek a consensual lead ([118], [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127]). He inserts words in well referenced sentences, although those words are not based on the cited reliable source ([128], [129]), and instead of fixing the problem, he deletes the proper inline template messages ([130]). Actually, I lost patience with him after spending years with fixing his edits which are not based on reliable sources or are based on books written in the early 20th century or in the 19th century (but are pretended to be published in the late 20th century or early 21th century). Fakirbakir, how do you think this problem could be solved? Borsoka (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, his actions are very similar to a banned user's behaviour ("Iaaasi"). Your evidence above may be enough to initiate a sockpuppet investigation. Fakirbakir (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

No, they are not identical. Iaaasi sometimes gets angry and uses disgustingly anti-Hungarian language, but he is otherwise correct. Borsoka (talk) 13:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I know Iaaasi can be correct. He has even asked for my support (on Wikimedia Commons) recently because he wants to return to Wikipedia. However I still maintain that his attitude resembles Eurocentral. I hope you are right on this. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I have initiated a sockpuppet investigation.Fakirbakir (talk) 15:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Good luck. I will not comment it, because I am biased against this guy. I am totally fed up with his uncivil behaviour although otherwise I am quite tolerant (or I hope I am quite tolerant). I must be getting older and older. Or it is only the bad wheather. :) Borsoka (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Iaaasi has just admitted that he gave instructions to Eurocentral. Fakirbakir (talk) 13:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

So, he is a tool of a banned user. Interesting. Now I understand why the same edits were sometimes made by Eurocentral and sometimes by an IP ([131], [132], [133]). Previously, I thought that Eurocentral failed to log in in order to avoid 3RR, but it is now obvious that he cooperated with Iaasi who could not log in. Actually, I am disappointed because I have so far thought that Iaasi is a correct editor even if he is blindly biased against Hungarians. He now seems to (ab)use Eurocentral in order to continue "His Struggle". I think this is inhuman because Eurocentral is a human being, not a tool. All the same, Eurocentral has without doubt acted against our community rules. He is not here to build an encyclopedia. What is to be done? Fakirbakir, should we take him in an ANI? Borsoka (talk) 14:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we should because now it is obvious that beside his disruptive editing and battleground mentality he/she is wikihounding with a banned user. Fakirbakir (talk) 16:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I left him a message on his User page (the guy styles himself as "dux magnus et potentia" on his Talk page). I suggest we should wait 24 hours. He might give us some explanation of his acts. Borsoka (talk) 17:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Mass deletion of language articles by Ryulong

See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Languages#Mass deletion of language articles by Ryulong

Yes. Yet another Ryulong (talk · contribs) thread. This time he mass-deleted language articles just by labeling them as a "fringe theory" in the commend fields:

• languages with ISO 639-3 codes (i.e., Ethnologue entries): Tokunoshima language[134], Okinoerabu language[135], Yoron language[136] and Northern Okinawan language[137], and
• their supergroups: Amami–Okinawan languages[138], Amami languages[139], Amami language[140], Okinawan languages[141] and Kunigami language[142],

where I contributed substantially using a dozen of published sources (some of which are available online). This is the most violent series of actions I have ever seen since I joined Wikipedia in 2003.

Of course, labeling them as a "fringe theory" in the commend fields alone does not justify mass deletion. Otherwise one can revert any change s/he does not like. So his comment is synonymous with "I HATE YOUR EDIT!!!"

Ryulong is a regular at this incident noticeboard and is very familiar with 3RR and other conflict related stuff. But he has a fundamental misunderstanding on what Wikipedia is. Given the fact that he is an experienced user, there appears no hope that he would amend his behavior. I think the only feasible solution is to keep him out of Wikipedia. Any suggestions (especially on procedural details)? --Nanshu (talk) 12:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• WP:RFC/U (that said, don't use such pejorative rhetoric there, or you won't get far) the panda ɛˢˡ” 12:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

  I raised the edits in question on the Japanese WikiProject's page and another editor agreed that these divisions were not accepted by the linguistic community at large. The primary article on this language family only suggests that there are six when Nanshu created articles on five undiscussed languages. Nanshu has been particularly mad at me whenever I disagree with his edits, and this is frankly nothing new. He did not have to come here to this board first when he could have responded to the discussion at WT:JAPAN about his very issue. I see no such attempt. I will be restoring the articles to the versions prior to Nanshu's vast and u discussed changes, again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

  Nanshu has also been warned in the past over his unnecessary attacks against me whenever I dispute his expertise on these topics. While I cannot easily access these threads in the notice board archives right this second,mother can be found. In fact, he was blocked earlier this year for disregarding the warnings he was given for his comments about me. He has called me a disaster at the langauges WikiProject already.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

  The previous thread is here which includes a warning from Atama, which resulted in a block in May of this year. Nanshu's comments at WT:LANG include claiming "Ryulong sees Wikipedia quite differently from us", has the gem that I am suffering from "Knowledgelessness (or simply ignorance)", "Unteachability and unwillingness to cooperate", claiming I am owning these pages, and referring to me as a "disaster". Atama specifically warned Nanshu that he was not to talk down to me as if he was a teacher and I was his failing student, and this is exactly what Nanshu has done, yet again. He may be a self proclaimed expert in these dying languages, but he cannot work with others.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

  I think the real problem is Nanshu's dramaticism. The whole "this is the most violent series of actions I have ever seen" thing, and his acting like some sort of victim of abuse should be evidence of that. He insults Ryulong's competence at WT:LANG multiple times, which he has been blocked for in the past. He has made no attempt at discussion whatsoever, only his complaints here and at WP Languages. He can't deal with criticism and refuses to coöperate with anyone who opposes his views. I will also say that this AN/I post would be about me, or anyone for that matter, had I/someone else had reverted his edits. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 16:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

  Also see this. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 16:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment: The various languages for which User:Nanshu created articles (Toku-No-Shima, Yoron, Oki-No-Erabu) are listed as such, i.e. listed as languages, in the International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, published by Oxford University Press – definitely not a fringe publisher. The IEOL also points out that these languages have no mutual intelligibility with Kunigami, to which Ryulong has redirected them, so I think Ryulong is on shaky ground here content-wise – at any rate this is not a matter that is clear-cut enough for an admin to ride roughshod over a contributor who has invested quite a bit of work to expand content in this area. Andreas JN466 05:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

All I know is that there are more sources that say there are only six languages in the chain, because traditionally each island claims to have its own language due to isolation and areas of mutual unintelligibility. There is very little coverage of the languages Nanshu made pages for anywhere online, and this is under more discussion at the langauges project. Nanshu simply has a history with me where he sees me as inferior to him in his knowledge on this subject and finds anything I do a danger.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

1. I believe the International Encyclopedia of Linguistics is quite authoritative. [143] (What content can be found online is really quite immaterial here.) 2. If you simply delete the content he creates, you should not be surprised that he sees you as a danger. Andreas JN466 05:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

all I am aware is that for the past several years we have only acknowledged the existence of 6 languages native to the ryukyu chain, and not the 4 new ones he made pages on that are considered dialects of two others and the content fork he made for the fifth because he disagrees with the name given to the language, which is even in the ISO standard. If there's very little documentation on these languages in general, that means they are not accepted as being separate languages as much as they are even referred to as dialects of each other. I also don't know why he has been repeatedly removing the kanji and kana names of these languages from the articles in question, why he has been insistent in his talking down to me, and his complete abhorrence to attempt to form a consensus, as I had started a discussion on this before he flew in a rage here and at the linguistics project. Nanshu is the problem. My stance in not agreeing that these splits, expansions, and the such based on an extremely small handful of paper sources that for all I know do not even discuss these as separate languages but rather dialects within the larger languages (as he has completely ignored one island's supposed separate language) but rather his personal research that he is posting to Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that "more sources" say there are only six languages. If some reliable sources say there are six, and other reliable sources say there are more, then we can and should produce duly weighted material covering both viewpoints, and make a note of the fact that reliable sources disagree. What we do not do is cover only the majority viewpoint and make wholesale deletions of the minority viewpoint. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The minority view point has only ever been presented by Nanshu in the last 72 hours.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Then he's in the wrong too, but that doesn't excuse your behaviour. You must stop removing reliably sourced content. If you feel it doesn't represent the majority point of view, either add reliably sourced text giving that point of view, or tag the article with {{NPOV}} or some other maintenance tag so that others are aware of the problem and will take steps to fix it. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The majority of reliable sources combine Amami (and its Northern & Southern split), Kikai (which Nanshu omitted), and Tokunoshima into one language (UNESCO) and Kunigami (what Nanshu redefined as "Northern Okinawa"), Okinoerabu, and Yoron into a second language (UNESCO, again). Nanshu produced these articles using minimal sourcing, reliable or not, to have an entire page full of the extensive IPA information. All of his articles rely on research performed by one individual years ago which defines all of these as dialects (because that's what the Japanese government considers them all) rather than unique languages. Much of the articles he produced were heavily unsourced, including the new classification systematics he came up with to categorize the several new articles he made to justify his rewrites and splits. All I did was restore status quo on something that was in effect a controversial decision. Just because it involves new articles does not make me any more wrong in my behavior than he has been acting.

And this is exactly how he has reacted to me adding information on other languages that he deems that I am a dunce in, such as the dispute over whether or not Hokkaido had a name in Ainu as seen here, the dispute over the use of ï at Kamuiyaki when I found sources that used "kamwiyaki" instead seen here, and a similar issue over the way to write the origin of the colloquial name of the New Ishigaki Airport as seen here. This is not, as Nanshu cries, an issue with me removing content. It is just Nanshu being unnecessarily combative whenever I challenge him and this needs to be stopped, again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, but look – you've simply gone and deleted his articles – articles on languages that are listed in the Oxford University Press International Encyclopedia of Linguistics. I think that's more combative than his crying foul. I'd become combative if I were in his position. Andreas JN466 13:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

What does it say about the languages in said encyclopedia? Let's have a look. There's barely anything about them, and they're all listed under Japanese rather than independent entries that provide any level of information about the language. Because the majority of sources say that the languages he had created pages for are synonymous with each other.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) I linked to the relevant page above. For all of them, it says, "Inherent intelligibility is generally impossible or very difficult with other Ryukyuan languages and Japanese." (Note the phrasing "other Ryukyuan languages and Japanese".) Even if these are considered dialects by some scholars or politicians, there is no problem with having sourced articles about them, where such disagreements about classification can be mentioned. Wikipedia has lots of articles about language dialects, and rightly so, as each dialect has its own characteristics that can be studied and described (see Alemannic German etc.); and if there are sources about these properties that satisfy RS, then I see no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't have articles about them. Andreas JN466 13:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Well I only just then saw that there's nothing in the book about them except the statement that there is "generally impossble" mutual intelligibility. This is frankly the only source that defines them as separate languages. Every other source Nanshu exclusively used in the articles describes these as dialects (all Japanese sources do this). I do not see this listing in that encyclopedia (effectively one publication's insistence that Kunigami, Okinoerabu, and Yoron are all separate from each other) as reason enough to combine several sources describing them as "dialects" to produce all of the articles on the languages that Nanshu decided to make after he was bold enough to perform a major expansion on the original articles and call me a disaster and continually talk down to me, an act he was blocked for in the past.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Notice that Ryulong employs the repeat-a-lie-100-times strategy here. He has never proved that I misrepresent a fringe theory as being mainstream. The meaning of "majority" in his mind is quite different from ours. He only relies on the UNESCO Atlas of the World's Languages in Danger. Just compare UNESCO, Ethnologue and Glottolog. You will see they present drastically different classifications. This inconsistency can be attributed to complicated isoglosses reviewed by Karimata (2000). Recent papers including Pellard (2009) and Lawrence (2011) demonstrate that this problem is unsettled. For a complete list of sources, see my post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages#Mass deletion of language articles by Ryulong. Ryulong knows nothing about the research history I outlined. And do not forget the most important question: how does this justify mass removal of content with reliable sources? --Nanshu (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

You're presenting something which as far as I can tell from the research I've done, and the consensus that has existed on this site for years, is that you are presenting information which is not accepted by the mainstream. There should be more available on these proposed pages in any language than can be found. Below, WP:BOLD is cited by Rdfox 76. So that means WP:BRD should be followed. You were bold in your creation. I reverted (undid the split, and made pages redirects), and there should then be a civil discussion instead of you using your usual tactics of acting like a high and imghty tenured professor and I'm some student who just doesn't get it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong, you say, This is frankly the only source that defines them as separate languages. That's simply demonstrably false. For example, in addition to the highly reputable International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, we have Tomoko Arakaki (28 June 2013). Evidentials in Ryukyuan: the Shuri Variety of Luchuan: A Typological and Theoretical Study of Grammatical Evidentiality. BRILL. p. 7. ISBN 978-90-04-25340-7. This says, The contemporary regional varieties of Luchuan can be divided into two large major groups: Northern Ryukyuan, the varieties spoken in the north, and Southern Ryukyuan, the varieties spoken in the south (Uemura 1992). The Northern group is subcategorised into eight kinds of languages, and the Southern group is further subcategorized into three. The Northern varieties consist of Kikai-jima, North Amami Oshima, South Amami Oshima, Tokunoshima, Okinoerabu, Yoron, North Okinawan, and South Okinawan. The Southern varieties are: Miyako, Yaeyana, and Yonaguni (Uemura 1992[2003]; Shimoji & Pellard 2010). P. Heinrich wrote a book chapter on "The Ryukyuan languages in the 21st century global society", published by the University of the Ryukyus. Etc. The sources do not bear you out. As for the wider issue, firstly Wikipedia should reflect any diversity of opinion on whether these are languages or dialects, and secondly, why should it be improper for Wikipedia to have a well-sourced article on each of them? Sources are available. Andreas JN466 17:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

All of this discussion should be happening at WT:JAPAN, where I first raised the issues of his edits, or WT:LANG where Nanshu also started a thread (that way I can pick apart the fact that he constructed IPA tables from sources that as far as I can tell do not use IPA to describe anything). The fact is that regardless of my own mistakes in not finding sources to support his edits, Nanshu has spent most of his edits in this content dispute personally attacking me. Perhaps I was wrong in reverting everything with the term "fringe theory" but Nanshu has spent as much time arguing that he is right and I am wrong as much as he has been calling my edits an act of violence (twice in this very thread), calling me a disaster and lacking knowledge amongst other attacks (in his thread at WT:LANG). Nanshu is being a drama queen about this all. Ever since he and I began having content disputes, he has failed to assume good faith in every instance. I have complained time and time again about his personal attacks towards me whenever we find ourselves editing the same article. I suffered from his attacks in 2010. It happened again in 2013, and I raised it for discussion when it happened again earlier this year. Nanshu has been warned in the past that he should not be talking to me as an inferior being or a child, and he was blocked for it but because he infrequently edits Wikipedia the block basically served no purpose. The only reason he is editing Wikipedia heavily now is because I dared to challenge his expertise. Why else is he constantly acting as if I killed his father and then shat on the grave?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

If you want Nanshu to dial down the rhetoric, I recommend you lead by example rather than exceeding him. All of this is quite unbecoming. Take a break; you can do better than this. Andreas JN466 17:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I have documented how Nanshu has done nothing but belittle me whenever I happen to get in his way over disagreements over dying Japanese languages. I do not deserve the abuse that he sends my way just because I disagree with his contributions.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Andreas, note that Ryulong is trying to obscure the point. This is not split/merge stuff. What he is doing is complete removal of content with reliable sources. I don't think there is a way to defend his misconduct. ---Nanshu (talk) 11:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

You split up two articles to make 5 new articles, one of which is just a content fork of one of the original articles, and I reverted that split. You don't go to ANI automatically to cry foul.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Might I make a suggestion at this point from an outside non-admin perspective? Wouldn't the simplest solution here, the one that would likely result in the least gnashing of teeth, and the one that would resolve the situation in complete compliance with WP guidelines and policies, be to temporarily restore the articles and then immediately send them to WP:AFD? Do that, and we can get an outside consensus on whether these qualify for separate articles, or should be merged back into the original ones. The delay would also provide some time to determine if there are additional sources supporting the separate articles; remember, there is no deadline, so waiting a couple of weeks for a final resolution won't hurt anyone.

Without digging deeply into the issue, as this is NOT an area I hold any expertise in beyond one semester of Japanese in college--the second aborted when I realized that my mid-30s was too late to try and learn kanji--my personal opinion would be that Nanshu seems to have made a decent case, based on a reliable source; I don't know if I'd necessarily keep them as separate language articles, but at a minimum, I would retain the information in a merge rather than just revert to status quo ante. Ryulong, I understand that there may be past history involved, but even so, "Be Bold" is one of our pillars, and editors should not be chastised for performing major expansions to provide due weight to a reliably sourced opposition view, even if it hasn't been covered on Wikipedia before--PARTICULARLY in that case, actually; new, reliably sourced material should be welcome for examination and editing for weighting purposes. Only items already discarded by consensus as fringe theories, unsourced and controversial material, and items sourced to unreliable sources should be rejected out of hand. (However, this entire paragraph is my personal belief, based on a mildly inclusionist view of policy and the pillars. Either way, I suspect that an AfD would resolve the issue with much less shouting than an ANI...) rdfox 76 (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Then there's going to be some policy war on what constitutes the notability of a language. And, again, it's not a reliably sourced opposition view. He used Japanese language research papers defining these as "dialects" and their minimal listings in Ethnologue and that Oxford encyclopedia to justify completely renaming the Kunigami language as the "Northern Okinawan language" and produce pages on the other partially intelligible dialects, new pageso n his own personal means toc lassify allo f thepage s he made, and consistently removing any Japanese language text providing the names of the languages from the article without justifying why. I'm all for a discussion, which is why I started one at WT:JAPAN, but Nanshu went over my head to call for me to be banned because he's dramaticizing everything.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. I feel that by just blanking pages, Ryulong circumvents the normal deletion procedure, where we need a consensus to delete rather than to add. But I also want to ensure in the ANI that mass removal of content with reliable sources would not happen again. If this kind of violence is tolerated, Wikipedia has no future. --Nanshu (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Would you stop saying my edits to turn a bunch of pages into redirects is "violence"? This is ridiculous. This is my problem with Nanshu. He is playing the victim over content which isn't actually gone.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Clearly, Nanshu is objecting to the fact that you've reverted over 40 edits by him over the past three days across a range of articles. That's bound to piss someone off. I've seen milder actions described as wikistalking, bullying and harassment on this page.

In my view, this situation calls for wider input. The suggestion by rdfox 76 above is a good one. I propose we give Nanshu the time to bring the articles to the sourcing standard he would aspire to, and when he's done, let the community assess notability in a well-prepared AfD which right from the beginning presents all the sources used, and any other sources available that may impact notability (one that Nanshu seems to have missed is Noguchi's "Dialect acquisition and code-switching on Yoron Island", published in Descriptive and Applied Linguistics). Andreas JN466 17:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Rdfox 76's proposal is fine. But Nanshu's behavior is not. He can object to the actions I've done without insulting my intelligence by acting as if he is a professor and I am a student he's given a failing grade.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Wider input? Ryulong gets what Ryulong wants, if not by hook than by crook. Look at the history of Ultraman, a Japanese TV show that was widely syndicated in the US. The article had a picture of the hero fighting a monster, demonstrating what Ultraman looked like. Ryulong constantly edit warred to have a screenshot of Ultraman replaced by Japanese text from the opening credits, essentially the same as replacing a picture of Superman with the wrod "Superman!" When a long-term compromise was reached using both the image and the opening credit card (still in Japanese, although this is en.wikipedia) he basically vandalized the sceenshot, which was already a cropped, low res image, and made it of unacceptable quality.

At the same time he complained the picture was of low quality, and insisted on my talk page that I upload a screenshot from another episode more to his liking. He then removed the image, and edit warred to have it replaced with a hi-res image of Ultraman stolen from a commercial website that provided no attribution for its provenance. So now the article has meaningless opening credit shots as its main picture, and a hi-res image stolen from a commercial website offering no license for its use in the text. But Ryulong prefers the monster in that picture, so a stolen hi-res pic is fine. (In the meantime my original fair-use screenshot was deleted as an orphan.)

I have a real life, I don't have time to battle this shi..tuff. Users like Ryulong (who's been blocked how many times now?) make it impossible for adults to edit mainspace constructively. I suggest a

• Lengthy Ban by some admin familiar with all the cases against Ryulong on this board. Oh, and BTW, I am no expert, but I happen to have Cambridge's Languages of Japan and various books by Roy Andrew Miller that contradict Ryulong's bizarre assertion of "fringe theory" here. μηδείς (talk) 17:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Medeis is making a mountain out of a mole hill in the content dispute we had at Ultraman where he was constantly upset that the screenshot he took and uploaded to Wikipedia (File:Ultraman gyango ruffian from outerspace 19660925.JPG) was repeatedly taken out of the infobox by other editors in favor of the show's Japanese (and English) title cards, as is standard practice on every other article on television programs. This is documented on the article's talk page at Talk:Ultraman#Why Can't We Have a Title Card at the Top? where another editor made a statement about the article's usage of Medeis's screencap in the infobox rather than the title card. At no point during the dispute was the file he had uploaded ever removed from the article. It was merely moved to a lower position, as seen here. Not to mention that he blanket reverted much of the article to a point he preferred, which included throwing the English title card into the infobox's "title" section and claiming that Japanese text has no place on an article on a Japanese topic. I could also point out Medeis's constant accusations of sockpuppetry whenever someone reverted him, or claimed vandalism (other reverts and other claims unsupported by policy going back several years). And he is really taking my request for a higher quality, but still small sized image as an unnecessary slight. And then when a different editor uploaded a different image to replace the one Medeis uploaded, Medeis began this narrative on the alternative image (File:Ultraman and Zetton in Thankyou, Ultraman.png) that because the uploader found the image online and uploaded it as a fair use image, it somehow counts as "stealing" because the website the image comes from was as he claims a "commercial website" and thus it was not valid fair use (my message to him here). I assume he's making the same statement about the completely different image I found that is in use on the article (File:Ultraman Festival 2013.JPG) because it's a clear photo from a press junket that has been resized rather than the grainy screenshot of a 1960s television show. This is not a reason to ban me. This is a reason to scold Medeis for holding this stupid grudge all because I dared to defy him, much like I dared to defy Nanshu. And "vandalizing the screenshot" when I resized it to comply with the non-free content policy. Please, Medeis. Grow up.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

And I've admitted my mistake and wrongdoings in regards to reverting Nanshu. This does not need to become a dogpile of more people who I've somehow slighted by daring to edit the same articles as they do and having some knowledge of policy and the topic that contradicts their actions as Medeis has made it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Dogpile? He doesn't deny he downgraded the image or edit warred to have it deleted. Again we see Ryulong is a simple liar. He is the one who both insisted on my talk page that I upload some other image he preferred, and he is the one who downgraded the quality of the now deleted image (since the image was deleted after his edit warring, see an admin for its history). Nothing he says can be trusted, look at his block history, he should be banned for his endless disruption. μηδείς (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you talking about a topic ban or a site ban? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I made a simple request to you, Medeis, to perhaps produce an image of better quality that more clearly depicted Ultraman and a monster he has fought. Anyone reading your talk page can see that. And I did not "downgrade the quality" of anything. I resized the file (an exact copy of this image in its original resolution can be found here) per WP:IMAGERES: "If you believe an image is oversized, either re-upload a new version at the same file location, or tag the image file page with a {{Non-free reduce}} template, which will place it in a maintenance category to be reduced by volunteers...". And I did not "edit war to have it deleted". You were the one edit warring over 3 years time to make sure the file you uploaded was at the top of the article. When the second file was uploaded, I removed it, you restored your file when it was replaced by the other editor, I restored your version, decided the other was better, you began your false accusations of not complying with policy, I reverted, self-reverted, self-reverted again, and then split the difference by uploading a third unrelated file with proper sourcing and attribution that clearly shows the subject of the article. This does not mean I deserve a ban. It means you deserve a trout because for someone who's been on Wikipedia this long, you should know the policies better than you're showing you do in your poor attempt to get me banned.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

"WP:BULLDOZERING" of article / Possible Editor Stability Issue Issue with Editor Actions Effecting Stability of Page

The article 2014 military intervention against ISIS is already a contentious article, however, Legacypac, who has recently come off a 1-year topic ban on WP:BLP, has taken an extremely disruptive sense of ownership over it, making substantial, unilateral changes - including repeatedly moving the entire page (!) - while discussions are ongoing or after consensus has been achieved. The article requires careful editing, and a slow and methodical approach. But he keeps driving a bulldozer through it at 80kph and when people yell at him to slow down, rips his shirt off and starts waving around a live hand grenade. (I'm sorry for that colorful metaphor, however, that's the most appropriate way to describe what has recently occurred succinctly.) A very small sample (of many examples of page moves and snow closes he's imposed that had to be undone) -

- On 6OCT, with no warning, he moved the entire page to "2014 Military Intervention against ISIL" [144] even though a move discussion on that very topic had just opened two hours before and was tracking a majority of "oppose" !votes to said move.

- On 2OCT he unilaterally moved the page Iranian-led intervention in Iraq (see: [145]) even though a discussion about that move (that, in fact, he initiated) was ongoing and no one had registered a !vote in support of such a move. (see: [[146]]). He left the parting shot "Iran leads no one." before taking this action. Another editor had to undo it.

- On 5OCT, the same day a consensus discussion had closed regarding the order of nations in the Infobox, he - again unilaterally - changed the order of said nations to break consensus. His excuse, as always, was that it was "messed up" and he had to take immediate action, though he has been told it is not needed for him to assume "emergency powers" to make what he feels are "urgent" edits. The ordering/reordering of nations is a time consuming process and this behavior is supremely disruptive for those of us already putting hours into this article to see it trashed sans discussion in one fell swoop.

- On 4OCT he unilaterally and without discussion blanked the page Siege of Kobane, Syria with the note "kill messed-up page." Kkj11210 had to revert his unilateral decision to remove all sourced content. [147]

- He, again unilaterally, has started changing "ISIS" to "ISIL" throughout 2014 military intervention against ISIS. But he's done it in such a sloppy way that we now have both terms being used interchangeably throughout.

- He repeatedly tells people who question these edits to "AGF" and repeatedly files frivolous ANIs asking for people to be topic banned. I use the term "frivolous" objectively - I was among those he filed an ANI against and it tracked 10 editor comments; only he and one other editor !voting in support of said ban.

Request: There is a fine "partisan" balance in these articles and the "side" on which LP has aligned himself (who, with the exception of LP, are cooperative and interested in consensus building) will most certainly oppose any action against him as this would disrupt said balance. So, I'm not asking for any "sanctions." What we would appreciate much more than that is an uninvolved admin simply doing a drive-by on the article's talk page for the next couple days. I know it's a lot to ask but I think it's more productive than bans or blocks. DocumentError (talk) 13:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The continual attacks and the editors own hostility and obvious bias speak for themselves. I already responded to most of these accusations in an ANi against DocumentError and on the talk page points 33-39. None of them have any substance. For example, the consensus dealt very clearly with the American-led coalition, but now DocumentError expands it to mean all parties - seems like a straight up intentional misrepresentation about me. I doubt I'll want to add much else here. Legacypac (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Telling you to "chill out" is not "hostility" but I apologize if you took it that way. We've tried everything from begging to bargaining with you in an effort to get you to discuss before editing, particularly the major edits that you specialize in (such as renaming every instance of ISIS to ISIL [which has to be painstakingly, manually, undone] or repeatedly moving entire pages). If I resort to California surfer talk, please construe it as total and complete desperation, not hostility. DocumentError (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Didn't we just have a conversation a few days ago in which you repeatedly cited the essay WP:CALMDOWN? -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Leaping straight to the conclusion that Legacypac is "unstable" seems like a stretch. It looks like Legacypac has taken WP:BOLD to heart maybe more than is wise. These are contentious topics where nearly every article includes at least one heated discussion over how to present content. Legacypac should probably slow down and attempt to reach a written consensus before taking major actions like page moves and massive content reorgs. I don't see evidence of edit warrior behavior, but it's pretty easy to end up violating WP:1RR when you are making large edits without discussion, and it certainly can be disruptive. I will note that I agree with Legacypac's interpretation of the consensus on the alphabetical infobox ordering; it certainly wasn't my intent in voting yes for Assyrian militias to be listed above major players in the intervention, and I'm not sure how the consensus there could have been construed as such. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I finally realize DocError must have thought everyone agreed with his strictly alphabetical position, while I think no one else agreed to that. As per the RfC question i understood we talking about groups within the American group. I guess he was the one that put the bell in such a strange order, while I assumed he had just reordered just the American led group as the rest of the editors agreed. Wikipedia is supposed to be fun, not an opportunity to be insulted and maligned by a hound. I was starting to think that DocumentError was becoming quite reasonable dealing with the stupid Au vs Uk fight others engaged in but this AM I see i was mistaken. Note that the rest of his accusations here are baseless, just like the alphabetical issue. Spending so much time on this page I learned you can say pretty much anything without penalty including swearing but I will abstain. Dont want anyone else to think me unstable. As for my rework of the article the great thing about wikipedia is that anything can easily be changed so if any other editor has constructive criticism or edits bring it on. I did not revert anyone and i never even looked at who wrote what, just took a wholistic view of the article and related articles to best serve the reader. While I dont own the article I was feeling rrally good about all my hard work until someone said a bunch of stuff a lot harsher than 'calm down'. Legacypac (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This is what I'm talking about: "bring it on" is just not a constructive approach when dealing with a very delicate, emotional article. The edits you are making are so large that it is very difficult to undo them, though we have been patiently doing that anyway. Your refusal to discuss anything, instead simply yelling "Bring it on!" just isn't working anymore. DocumentError (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This seems like a serious misread of what Legacypac said: "if any other editor has constructive criticism or edits bring it on". Legacypac can correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me like he's merely noting that it's a collaborative environment and welcoming other editors to contribute or critique -- not daring them to challenge him or threatening to edit-war or anything like that. (That being said, his comments downthread are entirely less nuanced.) -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Got it. My interpretation may have been colored by his comments downthread and/or elsewhere. I apologize if I misread his intention with "bring it on." DocumentError (talk) 01:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, Kudzu1. That's not how I interpreted it when I closed it so we're both on the same page. However, I also don't think anyone thought we should relabel the sections to lump all non-U.S. actors into a single miscellaneous catchall category. That was never discussed and is a significant break from status quo. DocumentError (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Let me make something very clear. DocumentError keeps making up stories about me. Top of the section he accuses me of moving the page multiple times. Absolute bullshit. I moved it one time last night shortly after an uninvolved editor moved the page to something that would never get consensus. I only moved it back to the very closest available name.

• Long standing name: 2014 military intervention against ISIS
• new undiscussed name by another editor: Military intervention against the Islamic State
• the name I choose because I could not revert: 2014 military intervention against ISIL.

I would not have even made the move except to to get back to 32/33 characters of the long standing name so any future renames could be properly discussed. But why do I need to defend my actions? Can I simple pretend he does not exist? He seems to be here to wage war with various editors not build anything. Legacypac (talk) 18:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

But why do I need to defend my actions? You don't. No one has asked for your banning or blocking. I have asked for a daily admin drive-by for the next few days due to a pattern of very aberrant and unusual behavior you're exhibiting. If you don't plan on doing anything highly unconventional in that time you don't need to "defend" yourself. DocumentError (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@Legacypac: Can you wait for the RfC to finish before moving the article (or not)? – Epicgenius (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Forget the RfC, which should not've been opened. There is a long-standing RM discussion that has been ongoing on the talk page. Until that is closed, there should be no more discussion of the title outside of that discussion. Please consolidate. RGloucester — ☎ 01:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the two discussions should be consolidated. We have groups of editors !voting in two different sections on the same thing. DocumentError (talk) 09:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

To add fuel to the fire, Legacypac, moments ago, just unilaterally closed the discussion [148], declaring an older, seemingly abandoned, RfC on this topic to have "reached consensus" (after an IP editor injected a "support" !vote to seal it) and thereby essentially voiding the !votes of Epicgenius, Empire of War and others who commented on the most current RfC instead of the old one. He then declared our requests for him to stop and communicate prior to unilaterally barreling through the article to be "personal attacks" and unilaterally closed that discussion, as well. [149]. Legacypac, once again, you do not own this article - please just stop and communicate with the other editors before making page moves, major changes, and closing discussions. DocumentError (talk) 09:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

He was right to close the "RfC", as it wasn't really an RfC. The correct thing to do, DocumentError, is to direct those people to the requested move section, so that they can comment there. That way we'll have a nice consolidated discussion. I've added a notice to the bottom of the talk page as such. RGloucester — ☎ 13:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Separate Issue

Requested Admin Action: If DocumentError can't prove each of these 5 BS accusations here and now I want him banned. On second thought I want the Admins to take whatever action they think is appropriate - but I reserve the right to ignore the User completely and expect full immunity from any action he brings against me in the future. If he can prove these 5 points to the satisfaction of 3 different Admins Iand no he can't shop unlimited Admins until he gets 3) I'll take a 90 ban myself.
1. He falsely accuses me of including repeatedly moving the entire page (!) Show us the diffs to prove it. Yes yesterday I moved the article back (1 letter off) from a new title that DocumentError stated he does not like on talk. 2. He accuses me of going against consensus on the Belligerents order, but we have now established that he rearranged the Belligerents in a way that went against the consensus. Show us the diff for my revision and the consensus I breached. I'll submit what I did to any Admin to review. 3. He said (here and on talk) that "But he keeps driving a bulldozer through it at 80kph and when people yell at him to slow down, rips his shirt off and starts waving around a live hand grenade." That sounds like loony behavior - and now I see he is backpedaling with a false apology. Show us diffs that are anything like what he describes. 4. He claims I yelled "bring it on!". (I really don't remember saying anything like that) Please show us the diff where I told him anything like that. 5. He says there are many examples of snow closes and page moves that had to be undone. Other then two snow closes a long time ago that were undone on a technicality (I had never tried a snow close before, still learning, and the editor that undid agreed it was snow) can he provide even 1 diff of the "many" snow closes that had to be undone. We either have community standards here we follow or its a free for all slander and disruption fest. I'm curious to see which it is. I'll check back on this in a few days. (edited for clarity)Legacypac (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You are absolutely pushing your luck here - asking for a WP:BAN? Seriously, stop digging your own hole and get along the panda ₯’ 22:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Does this mean your response to Epicgenius question above Can you wait for the RfC to finish before moving the article (or not)? is no? Again, this is what we're discussing. You are politely asked to stop unconstructive editing and instead of slowing down to discuss our concerns you become extremely excited and agitated. I think the only diff you've asked for that I haven't already provided is "Bring it on" - here is is: [150]. The rest are above, just slow down, and read them if needed. No one is asking for your banning or blocking; please read with an open mind what the community is saying about your most recent disruptive edits here and kindly consider adjusting your behavior. Thank you. DocumentError (talk) 22:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Epicgenius I have no interest in moving the article. If someone with more power than me can move the article back to the long standing title I will not complain one bit. Look this is not fun. That is my point. I ask other editors to think how they would feel if they were treated the way I am being treated and had these things said about them. Are each of you stable? Legacypac (talk) 23:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh good grief. If there is any administrative action that can or should even be contemplated in this entire clusterfuck of a dispute, it's an WP:IBAN. There is no case for a topic ban, there is no case for an actual ban, and the only case for even a temporary block in either direction (which I still think would be draconian) is this persistent, relentless WP:BATTLE and WP:HOUND activity that may have originated with nominator, but is now clearly being mirrored by Legacypac. Can we be done with this -- or at least done with blowing this up all over admin noticeboards and article Talk pages? -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I have decided to simply ignore all communication or actions by the nominator. Life's too short to let such people ruin your day. Cheers, Legacypac (talk) 00:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC) 00:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

"Possible Editor Stability Issue". Uhm...if there is nothing more to do here....boomerang the OP for a blatant violation of NPA. Suggest a 3 day block. Seriously.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, to clarify, I don't mean "editor stability" as in "a crazy editor" I mean "stability" as in an editor's aberrant actions destabilizing the article; the aforementioned mid-discussion page moves, etc. Poor word choice on my part, thanks for bringing it to my attention, Mark Miller. DocumentError (talk) 00:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what we're discussing. The fact you've been ignoring all communication from every editor; not just myself but all of us. The page has become incredibly unstable because of the unilateral, major edits you are making including moving the title, and renaming ISIS to ISIL throughout, while acting in a highly unusual way toward editors who attempt to engage or invite you into discussion. DocumentError (talk) 00:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

DocumentError is correct, Legacypac did not have consensus to change the title of the page.--Empire of War (talk) 00:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

That is a content issue. Either strike out the accusation or be in violation of NPA. Seriously. This isn't brain surgery.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Than you (edit after the fact) to DocumentError for the change!.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I also want to thank DocumentError for removing this personal attack on Talk:2014 military intervention against ISIL: [151] I'm not sure the edit summary does it justice, but the de-escalation is nonetheless appreciated. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Kudzu1, you need to stop right now. You're following LP's M.O. of wolf-yelling about non-existent personal attacks when people communicate directly and bluntly about disruptive behavior. I edited my remark because it wasn't concise, not because it was a PA. If you have any further issues, bring them up on my Talk page. Don't derail this thread which is already too long. DocumentError (talk) 01:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Was your intention not to de-escalate when you removed the part of your comment where you issued Legacypac an ultimatum and warned he would be "riding into the sunset" if he didn't self-revert? I took it as an attempt to de-escalate, but your reaction is unexpected. Sorry if it was misconstrued. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Kudzu1, I've responded on your Talk page. DocumentError (talk) 01:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not defending Legacypac's move to the new title, which obviously should not have been done while the move request was underway, but in the interest of context, it should be noted that he was moving the page from a different title to which the page was moved, without discussion, while the debate was in progress. IIRC, he should have been able to move the page back, as I don't think 2014 military intervention against ISIS was salted by the single undiscussed move, but there may be technical issues there that I am unaware of. Either way, he should have requested administrative assistance if he was unable to fix the title himself, rather than making a contentious move. But that's a mistake -- not evidence of "instability", IMO. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The page is very unstable - he didn't just make the undiscussed move, he then went through and made 23 manual changes of "ISIS" to "ISIL." Again, all while a consensus discussion was going on trending in opposition to such a change and over the strenuous objections of half-a-dozen other editors. And it's not just this time or this one article. He did the same thing with Iranian-led intervention in Iraq and other places. Again, no on is asking for a ban or block. We are asking for an admin to join the discussion as he is non-communicative with his peer editors. DocumentError (talk) 01:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think changing one letter in an acronym that is already inconsistent in its usage throughout Wikipedia is "very unstable". I also don't see evidence of him being "non-communicative"; on the contrary, he has been posting frequently on the Talk page and has provided rationales for his editing. Should he have waited for the results of the discussion to shake out -- yes. And another editor would be within his or her right to revert the undiscussed ISIL/ISIS changes. But I think this has been blown out of proportion. It seems like this is being handled adequately by WP:BRD without the need for yet another AN/I report and this ridiculous back-and-forth sniping between the two of you. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, just to note: there was a discussion on this matter at the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant talk page, which favoured using "ISIL" for consistency. It would be absurd to have a separate usages at each of these articles. Perhaps he merely thought he was enacting consistency? If so, bravo. This mess is quite a mess, and it's about time it got mopped up. Either way, no one should be moving this page whilst a move discussion is ongoing on the talk page. It'd be nice if some administrators came in and began to moderate the large amounts of vitriol and nonsense edit warring on both sides. RGloucester — ☎ 01:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, RGloucester. DocumentError (talk) 01:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, slap my ass and call me Betsy, because it looks like all three of us agree on this. How about that for a sensible path forward? -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

"Betsy"! *Smack!* ;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 01:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

That's great we all agree. Not to be a buzzkill, but just to clarify what we are agreeing on, we agree that we would like to have an admin or two hang out on the page for awhile (as per my OP), is that correct? (Of course, that's easier said then done, since admins seem to an endangered species of late.) DocumentError (talk) 02:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to see how it goes without an admin if we all make a better effort to communicate, AGF, and not participate in this WP:BATTLE stuff on AN/I and other noticeboards. That goes for all of us who are involved here, without prejudice. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Got it. I think we don't all agree then. But that's okay. DocumentError (talk) 02:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not that I am against having an admin around to keep things on track if necessary; I am generally a proponent of active observation, at least, of contentious pages and issues by uninvolved admins. But I don't like the way that this AN/I report is presented, suggesting that the admin should specifically target one editor for scrutiny, and I don't think we are helpless to resolve our own disputes and issues without the involvement of an admin. Hopefully that at least brings us close to being on the same page. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I never asked for an admin to come by and scrutinize an editor. That's not what "drive-by" means. I presented the most current reason we needed an admin, and then requested one. Had I simply said "hey admin, come sit on this page!" they first question would have been "why should I?" If you want to get in the last word on this, go ahead, I think the case for observation has been made by RG, EG, EoW, and myself so I have no more input. The only thing I'll ask is you try not to offer an interpretation of what I said that gives it a sinister subtext. DocumentError (talk) 03:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Re page move. I did try to revert the uninvolved editors page move but could not. The last page move I tried to fix was blocked by the old page name occupying the space (and still is). I assure you there was no intent to override concensus on the trivial matter of ISIS vs ISIL in the page name. As for editors who make broad based personal attacks then edit them out after there have been responses to improve their image... that stinks of something of trying to make the other edit look like he is over reacting. Legacypac (talk) 05:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

124.180.144.121 seems to be a sockpuppet of banned User:Justa Punk

A quick glance at the edit history (Australian topics and professional wrestling), priorities (placing multiple templates on articles and then trying to get them deleted), phrasing when requesting AfD completions, and IP address (very close to 124.180.170.151, which was blocked earlier this year as a sockpuppet of Justa Punk) seems to show quite clearly that this is a sockpuppet of a banned used.

I have initiated a sock puppet investigation, but this took longer than the AfD itself during his most recent series of sockpuppets in April. Because he is not a member of the community, he should have no ability to initiate AfDs. I placed a speedy deletion template on it, as I was told to do last time, but he has removed it. I do not want to get into an edit war, so I am bringing it here in the hope of speeding up the process (at least with the AfD). GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• I completed the AfD for the IP after they requested it at WT:AFD. Since it is not obviously contentious, disruptive or pointy - from the discussion so far there is clearly doubt as to the subject's notability - I am happy to take responsibility for it (it would seem pointless to delete it and restart it). Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't what this user's problem is, but I can assure you he is wrong. When this first blew up, I thought he was a part of a group maintaining the Vern Hughes article (the COI issue is mentioned in the tag on the page) trying to discredit me to short circuit the AfD and maybe brought in by the "Keep" voter at the AfD. But now having looked at Justa Punk's history I'm now leaning towards a very paranoid reaction to a similar IP. I have no interest in professional wrestling and my only wrestling related edits were on behalf of a personal friend who just happens to work for WWE now (Buddy Murphy) and noticing a sorting issue while I was correcting his real name to Unknown as I can't source his real name and just giving it would be OR. As far as I could tell, Punk has no edits in the political sphere so my assertion towards paranoia by GaryColemanFan seems to be the best explanation for this. 124.180.144.121 (talk) 22:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Per Justa Punk's own comments in his SPI archive: "Wrong! Those IP's were not me. They were not socks. But they were MEAT PUPPETS! Yeah they were working for me and they'll continue to work for me (and do a few edits of their own - like the last ones did on the girls gridiron), until the proper notability lines are set for Aussie wrestling! You always were a dill, GCF! Signed !!Justa Punk!! 203.12.30.74 (talk) 04:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)" We can debate whether this IP is a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet, but the fact remains that it's ban evasion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Good heavens above! This comment can only be described as paranoid to an inexplicable level. To the point I would suggest that this user needs some time on the sidelines. When I looked at the suspected sock/meat puppets while looking into this, the majority of the edits for these IP's were aimed at what I assume is "Aussie wrestling". I've made three edits to WWE NXT (which I have previously explained) and the remainder have been political aside from dealing with this present issue. 124.180.144.121 (talk) 07:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Wiki-PR is at it again

I tagged Tsebo Outsourcing Group as a creation of banned user WP:Wiki-PR, and the next day they used a sockpuppet to remove the speedy delete tag. Looks like the article title needs to be salted. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

If ever there was a candidate for salting this is it. DocumentError (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Behold! There is another waiting in the wings, even as we speak. Voceditenore (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The slot in the article namespace has now been salted by Future Perfect at Sunrise, and I have blocked Graeme Sutherland (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) who is an obvious SPA per WP:DUCK. De728631 (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Outside canvassing incident

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

---

Hi all,

Not quite sure if this is the correct avenue (I haven't edited for quite some time), but I thought it might be important to mention an incident of outside canvassing -- see http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/2ifn42/wikipedia_editors_please_help_christian_editors/

Best, --Iamunknown 15:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Heavy disruption escalating after ANI inactivity

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

---

Due to an unfortunate lack of admin action, the situation at Historicity of Jesus is quickly spinning out of hand, with a very strong influx of WP:SPAs after off-site canvassing to come to Wikipedia to fight the Christians (sigh). In brief

• Ten days ago, Hijiri 88 alerted ANI to the highly disruptive behavior of Fearofreprisal (talk · contribs)[152].
• Since then, no admin action has been taken though eight users have expressed their support for the topic ban due to the demonstrated refusal of Fearofreprisal to follow the community's guidelines (frequent personal attacks, edit warring and disruption.
• Not content with having the consensus going against them, Fearofrerpisal launched an WP:RFC, as they have the right to do. When it became clear the RFC also went against them, there was canvassing at Reddit/r atheism to come to help Fearofreprisal [[[153] against the "Christian" editors.
• As a result, we've seen a large influx of new SPAs as well as heavy IP vandalism of the article.

I think all of this could have been avoided if action had been taken after Hijiri 88's initial report to ANI. Since then the situation has only escalated. If all the previous disruptions weren't enough, this aggressive off-Wiki canvassing shows very clearly that Fearofreprisal (also a WP:SPA is WP:NOTHERE to contribute, and the canvassing has made their own RfC meaningless. I usually think highly of ANI but in this case it has failed.Jeppiz (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Here was my first experience with Jeppiz (and his first involvement with the Historicity of Jesus article):[154] He reverted a group of 4 uncontroversial edits, then attacked me in my talk page, accusing me of edit warring. It took multiple messages back and forth before (7 hours later) he realized that he was totally in the wrong.

Now, he's attacking people on the talk page again, apparently trying to drive-away experienced editors who he thinks are "atheism recruits." ["https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHistoricity_of_Jesus&diff=628498494&oldid=628497681"] You can look at his other posts on ANI, or on Talk:Historicity of Jesus, and see the trend. But this WP:POV railroading should be enough to warrant a block, until the article traffic does down. Fearofreprisal (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Unneeded mass deletion of content in Glossary of rail transport terms

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

---

Glossary of rail transport terms contains many unreferenced claims (not introduced by me) and received a refimprove tag from User:Voidxor in may 2014, Diff which he misuses for or confuses with the citation needed tag.

Refimprove only asks for references and does not concern the subsequent WP:NOCITE and WP:BURDEN process which Voixhor intends.

When placing the refimprove tag, Voidxor didn't reveal his intentions and deletion criteria on the talk page.

Starting from September, many claims were removed from this page: Diff Diff. If a quick wiki or google search fails to provide references, and the editor involved can demonstrate that he made an assessment, I don't have a problem with this content removal. However, Voidxor admittingly removes all unreferenced content even when it's obvious that a wiki link or reference can be easily found and added to a particular section. In my opinion, if Voidxor really wants to improve this article, he should first attempt to find a source before taking any other measures.

After my objections, (partial) reverts and following discussion, the refimprove tag was finally removed and the article was bomded with over one hundred "citation needed" tags. Diff

Voidxor claims that he wants to improve the article and imposes a high standard, but effectively disregards WP:PRESERVE and leaves WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM to other editors with his mass-deletion policy.

Considerations:

• The refimprove tag only asks for additional references and does not imply deletion after a given period of time.
• After refimprove fails the WP:NOCITE and WP:BURDEN processes can be followed
• Adding a Citation needed tag doesn't justify content removal unless the concerned statements are about a living person or are obviously doubtful or false (WP:NOCITE and WP:USI). In at least 50% of the cases, the doubtful/false criterion for deletion isn't met.
• The WP:BURDEN process is challenging the contributor of a particular claim to provide a reference. Given the fact that most of the articles' content was created before 2010, involving numerous editors, response to individual citation needed tags is very unlikely to happen when more than hundred "citation needed" tags are placed simultaneously.
• WP:BURDEN encourages finding resources before placing a citation needed tag or remove content.
• WP:BURDEN: When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable. No such concerns have been stated by Voidxor
• Only after failing in performing the steps in WP:PRESERVE / WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM drastic actions like removal are justified.
• Voidxor wants to remove unsourced statements first and then adding citations later. I'm very afraid that content will be lost forever when this type of workflow is followed.
• It is contradicting to claim the intention of improving an article and delete content without performing actual research.
• To be transparent, Voidxor should move content intended to be deleted to the talk page and demonstrate that he wasn't able to find sources himself.

--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 20:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and there is nothing for admins to do here. If you can not work it out on the article talk page, you should consider dispute resolution. GB fan 20:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not agree with Aaron-Tripel's statement that one must search for references before placing a citation needed tag or before removing unreferenced statements. It is hard to prove a negative, that references do not exist. The burden is on those adding or restoring information, who are logically the ones who can readily provide a reference to the sources where they found the information. Unreferenced information in general can be removed if a citation needed template has been present for an extended period and no reliable source has been added. The policy on verifiability does not apply only to biographies of living persons. Edison (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Vaguely spammish behavior by two likely related editors

Thammondthuzio has been creating a slew of stub articles about lesser-known athletes, based largely on some questionable sources. (See Special:Contributions/Thammondthuzio for a complete list of the articles in question, as well as User talk:Thammondthuzio for a record of the discussions about this problem.) The underlying problem is that almost all of these athletes have profiles on the website thuzio.com (clearly associated with this editor), a service providing "unique experiences" with former and current athletes (play a round of golf with your favorite retired basketball player, have your favorite ex-water skier phone you for a 10-minute conversation, etc.) which leads to the impression that these Wikipedia articles are being created specifically for the purpose of giving these clients more "heft". I have specifically asked about this issue, but have received no response.

As of today (10/6/2014), TaylorWiki18 has begun in the same pattern: stub articles about minor athletes, most of whom are Thuzio clients. (Perhaps the fact that not all of the article creations are clients is intended to legitimize their edits, or perhaps the articles about non-clients just reflect clients they haven't yet signed.)

The articles themselves are not exceptionally promotional, but they are terribly sourced for the most part and the pattern is disturbing. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not just vaguely spammish. Perhaps this is more appropriate for WP:COIN as the COI is the reasoning behind the editing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Very well, then -- I'll take the matter to WP:COIN. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

User:BulgaRV

I request a block of BulgaRV (talk · contribs) immediately as a sockpuppet of MyWikiBiz, aka Gregory Kohs. He has confirmed this on Wikipediocracy. Also, File:RV park in Enevo Bulgaria.jpg may need deleting. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (lecture) @ 22:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked. I dont know why I didnt believe you at first, even though the name of the RV park was in English and Bulgaria is one of the least English-speaking countries in Europe. —Soap— 22:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Imzadi1979

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

---

The following took place involving me and User:Imzadi1979.

• Imzadi1979 made some edits to the Vehicle registration plates of Michigan article, which I myself had edited a few minutes beforehand.
• I didn't entirely agree with these edits (though I didn't completely disagree with them either), so I asked him why he made them - which I felt I was perfectly entitled to do.
• He duly explained why he made them.
• I still wasn't convinced, so I gave my views - which, again, I felt I was perfectly entitled to do. And I also felt, and indeed still feel, that I gave these views in a relatively friendly manner.
• For whatever reason, he took these views as me wanting to drive other Wikipedians away from the site, and enforce and encourage mediocre articles.
• I explained very carefully to him that I was not that sort of user - though I admitted to having some faults - and that the impression I might have been giving was not intended.
• His response was to send this explanation straight to his archive without saying a word.
• I told him - and, once again, I felt I was perfectly entitled to tell him - that I was actually quite hurt by this action of his.
• He sent this straight to his archive, too, without saying a word - and then he deleted it altogether.

As far as I'm concerned, his attitude was wrong.

Accusing a fellow prolific Wikipedian of being a selfish troublemaker, with no real evidence to support this accusation, and then pretty much swatting that Wikipedian away when he/she explains very carefully why he/she is not a selfish troublemaker?

All he had to do was read the explanation carefully, and then say sorry. And that would have been the end of the matter.

Instead, I feel compelled to make this report. And I have to say, it's a shame it's come to this. Bluebird207 (talk) 23:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@Bluebird207: You asked for an explanation, and I gave it to you. I followed up again. I never said you were a selfish troublemaker (those are your words, not mine), but I did say in the follow up that if your intent was to drive editors away from editing that article, you had succeeded. Why had you succeeded? The reason is that I no longer wanted anything to do with the article; you had driven me from editing it. I informed you that I was removing it from my watch list, and I asked you to leave my talk page alone after that. You did not heed my request and posted again. I archived the whole thread hoping you would take the hint that I wanted to be left alone. Instead, you resurrected your last reply. I removed that as well hoping that you'd take the hint again.

Let me be absolutely crystal clear: I am feeling badgered and harassed. This is the third contact I've had with you after I asked you to leave my talk page alone. There is nothing here for administrators to do, but there is something you can do. I have no interest in editing Vehicle registration plates of Michigan, at all. Please respect my desire for disengagement and leave me alone in the future. I will not be watchlisting this discussionImzadi 1979 → 00:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Bluebird207 you provided one diff that only demonstrates editing an article. What is this report stating and asking for? "As far as I'm concerned, his attitude was wrong". Uhm OK....but ones attitude is not a matter of right or wrong. What is it you believe requires admin intervention? The attitude? If so, could you demonstrate with further diffs? "Accusing a fellow prolific Wikipedian of being a selfish troublemaker" is a violation of NPA. Please show the diff.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with Imzadi that Bluebird207 has exhibited badgering or harassing behavior (based on this) and I feel that Imzadi is intentionally using these words because he knows they have a very negative meaning and they will help drive away Bluebird207 the quickest. That said, Imzadi1979 hasn't really done anything actionable and Bluebird207 should not edit his talk page anymore.--v/r - TP 00:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. As far as I can see, Imzadi1979 hasn't done anything that could remotely require admin intervention. Maybe he overreacted when he used the terms badgering and harassing, but there's nothing we could do about that. He already disengaged. → Call me Hahc21 00:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

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

POV pushing on Marketplace Fairness Act and Alliance for Main Street Fairness

Marketplace Fairness Act and Alliance for Main Street Fairness are both the subject of an ongoing ideological war between what seems to be PR staff or people otherwise interested in swaying the debate. This has been going on since April, and continues to today. Note: the diffs provided here generally encompass a number of edits each, in some cases including edits by unrelated editors; though the diffs I am providing represent the actions of each discussed editor, please check page histories for exact per-editor diffs.

On one side, we have Abouttheinternet. Aboutheinternet appears to feel very strongly, or at least be here to support very strongly, the notion that The Marketplace Fairness Act should not be passed, and that the Alliance for Main Street Fairness is wrong. Here is Marketplace Fairness Act before they came on the scene; here it is afterward. Similarly, here are the changes Abouttheinternet has introduced into Alliance for Main Street Fairness.

On the other hand, NotYourAverageRetailer appears to feel very strongly, or at least be here to support very strongly, the notion that the Marketplace Fairness Act should be passed, and that the Alliance for Main Street Fairness is fighting the good fight. Here is their first foray into Marketplace Fairness Act; here is their take on the Alliance for Main Street Fairness.

That we have two people trying to sway these articles two ways is problematic enough; however, in the process the users are reverting each other as well as uninvolved editors, leaving the articles in a constant state of see-saw from one POV to the other. For instance, from Marketplace Fairness Act's history: NotYourAverageRetailer edits, Abouttheinternet reverses the POV, NotYourAverageRetailer flips that back, is reverted by an uninvolved editor, tries again, is reverted by an uninvolved editor, I significantly prune both POVs from the article, Abouttheinternet pops back to insert a POV video, and NotYourAverageRetailer circles back around to make sure their POV is sufficiently represented. A similar effect has taken place on Alliance for Main Street Fairness, though in that case with NotYourAverageRetailer edit warring mostly with uninvolved editors to press his/her POV.

Previous accounts, now inactive, have also been involved in the warfare on these articles: Larrytheordinarydragon and White 720 spent months going back and forth repeatedly on Alliance for Main Street Fairness; Joedoe6 and Julio1297 similarly played a POV drama earlier this year; and Ollodart has been accused (see edit summary) of POV spamming for an ideological group.

NotYourAverageRetailer has been warned repeatedly about their POV pushing this/last month; Abouttheinternet, who was inactive between July and yesterday, has not. Nevertheless, I don't feel that it's in the encyclopedia's best interests that either of these editors - or any of the older POV pushers - be allowed to continue to push their POVs on Wikipedia articles, and I would like the community to put some remedies in place to stop these editors, protect these articles, or all of the above. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree; Marketplace Fairness Act in particular is kind of a mess. I had actually just suggested on the talk page that the 'Supporters' and 'Opponents' sections should be significantly reduced or even deleted over NPOV and undue weight concerns. As I said there, I don't think the article needs a paragraph for every person and organisation that has ever issued a statement about the subject legislation, and it currently has all those paragraphs because NotYourAverageRetailer and Abouttheinternet are both trying to prop up their respective POVs. Anyway, I'm just chiming in with my agreement here, for what it's worth. Neither user seems to be here for anything beyond their own self interest is how it looks to me. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 01:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Given the mess of the article, the community could place it on Article Probation per WP:GS and drop the bomb on anyone who keeps messing about in the article. Also, it might be worth considering a 1RR restriction for everyone who has been editing the article. Blackmane (talk) 02:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The Alliance article is just a WP:COATRACK of the Mainstreet article and a nonsensical one at that. The Mainstreet article is about a single federal law and should and does end there. The Alliance article goes into various state laws which not even quoting discussions about the group itself other than the fact that it uses the term "Main Street" for the group and for the laws. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• As a side note, the POV pushing seems sufficiently clear to me that if I had come across it as an uninvolved admin, I would have been comfortable blocking at least the user who had been repeatedly warned; however, since I've edited the articles more than once to try to de-POV them, and warned the editor, I'm too involved to take any admin action here. That's why I brought this to ANI, hoping that some uninvolved editors would be able to work on the articles or handle the editors. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Tagteam POV & TE on Ami Bera

Mark Miller and CFredkin are tagteam edit-warring on Ami Bera. They are working together to circumvent 3RR and manipulating a reliably sourced quote on the flimsy grounds of undue - while engaging in NPOV & TE - and ignoring the warning that their edits are also vios of WP:MOSQUOTE. Kindly address this. Thanks. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:BCB5:24DF:A4F4:D034 (talk) 05:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks more like you're trying to insert WP:PEACOCK language. The talk page is handling it fine but feel free to review Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_requests as it's just a content issue now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hatting User:Jeppiz disruptively shopping his complaints to multiple threads/pages including this one which has zilch do with his gripe.--v/r - TP 20:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment I would agree, Mark Miller is a (Redacted). On this page [155] he gladly deletes nine sources after having discussed only three of them. Even after I made it clear to him that there was no consensus and urged him to engage with other users, he keeps reverting to delete content (most of which he never even discussed) declaring he doesn't need consensus [156], [157], [158]. So I would agree that Mark Miller clearly isn't here to work with others, and is happy to edit war to push the WP:TRUTH.Jeppiz (talk) 09:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC) I'm still waiting for Jeppiz to "engage" and stop ranting and name calling in violation of NPA. But I can wait.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC) I've provided diffs of your edit warring, there's no name calling in that. I've tried to engage, your response what in effect that you're such an "experience editor" that you are above "the boggled down talk pages". And editor who believes himself to be so "experienced" that he doesn't need to bother with "boggled down talk pages" is not helping Wikipedia.Jeppiz (talk) 10:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC) LOL! I told you that BRD is to be used by experienced editors (and compared to your less than 3500 edits, I feel confident that my 38,298 edits at least give me some leeway to refer to myself as "experienced) and that BRD is for when the talk page becomes bogged down. Then you called me a "super editor" and basically mocked me among your other personal attacks.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC) I did notice you didn't mention all of your own recent edits were nothing but reverts...but I can understand you not wanting to point that out.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Now both Mark Miller and CFredkin are also flagrantly violating 3RR AND WP:MOSQUOTE. Please review. If necessary, a block, and possibly even a topic ban, should be seriously considered. It appears that other editors have also had unnecessarily unpleasant encounters with them because of their tactics and absolute refusal to follow rules or guidelines - unless of course, for when those rules suit them, or they can distort them to justify their disruptive and tendentious editing. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:BCB5:24DF:A4F4:D034 (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I'd like to apologize to Mark Miller, and indirectly to CFredkin for having made a premature and incorrect comment here. Looking at it more in detail, I see absolutely no indication of the two of them edit warring in team, quite the opposite, they have very different user histories, and both of them are serious users. My comment is already hatted but I withdraw it all the same, and feel quite embarrassed over having gotten caught up in the heat.Jeppiz (talk) 20:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

MayVenn

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

---

There is an interesting situation in Afd. Based on this edit where MayVenn said Some User chose to write a ton of articles about people who went to his fancy school for rich people in England. None of them are notable, but because some "Administrators" and "Senior Editors" love the British Empire they think we have to "open the floodgates" to everybody who got some medal or are in some "Who's Who", ..., and this edit which said If even the British Empire-loving "Senior Ediotrs" who made most of these junk articles get kept think this should be deleted, that is a sign. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise your fancy school and all the "famous" Imperialists who went there., the account of MayVenn seems to be a reincarnation of the Bristolbottom account which nominated (mostly on 21 Sept.) some 20 articles for deletion of Bedford Modern School alumni, only three of which were deleted, and most of which were kept with solid "keep" votes under clear guidelines. The MayVenn account is also similar to Bristolbottom in that they both immediately commenced AFD nominations as their initial edits. I am not sure what action, if any, is appropriate. But this type of new user activity does strike me as having an axe to grind. Bearian did leave some friendly advice at User talk:Bristolbottom, and several editors have made comments at User talk:MayVenn. --Bejnar (talk) 05:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: There's already a thread above on MayVenn. If you don't have any clear goals in mind, and your only point is that "the account of MayVenn seems to be a reincarnation of the Bristolbottom account", then the appropriate venue is WP:SPI rather than AN/I. Softlavender (talk) 05:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

My real point was that it was disruptive editing and appeared to be serial disruptive editing. Do what is appropriate, I am not an administrator. --Bejnar (talk) 05:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator either. We've already thoroughly discussed MayVenn's disruptive editing. The appropriate place to post specific suspicions of sockpuppetry is WP:SPI, not here. It looks like you have a good case, but your venue is wrong. Softlavender (talk) 06:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Deletion of RFC in violation of WP:TALK

I object to User:Jytdog's deletion of my RFC claiming that he didn't like either of the two versions being asked about, when one of them was his, and demanding that I "work with others so that the RfC really reflects both sides" after an impasse spanning weeks and several reverts. His comment that the listed sources "don't even include some of the best sources, like the Finkel review" should have been addressed as a response to the RFC. It refers to one (PMID 24119661) of the many literature reviews which do not reach a conclusion, a point of view which Jytdog apparently prefers, when there are several WP:MEDRS-grade sources which do reach definitive conclusions. Jytdog has demanded that I not use the words "inconclusive" and "conclusive" when referring to such reviews, respectively. EllenCT (talk) 06:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll not comment on whether he was right or wrong in closing. I will say I'm not a fan of pick mine or theirs style RFC's. It's like playing one of those picture games where one picture is slightly altered from the other and you have to find the changes. Typically an RFC will be seeking some of guidance but this seems more like a popularity contest.

• I have worked on this article and in my view this is a tendentiously-worded filing about a tendentiously-worded RfC. Following on from the concerns recently registered here at ANI[159], it seems to me EllenCT is now pushing hard for Wikipedia to state the fracking has been found to be bad for human health, and has been forum shopping to that end at WT:MED[160] and RS/N[161] (and abortively at DRN[162]) - where nobody has agreed with her position. This is because the good sources currently say otherwise: fracking carries a risk of adverse health impacts (sure), but there is no good evidence it actually has done harm. To her end, Ellen has invented two novel categories of source, "conclusive" (ones she thinks can support her view) and "inconclusive" (one which inconveniently state the current scientific position) and seems to think Wikipedia should prefer the former: even then, she is advocating original research to suggest their statements of risk are presented here as findings of harm, or that WP:MEDRS be set aside because it is "more important" to carry the view she prefers.[163] I think this shows a continued unwillingness to grasp that Wikipedia needs to convey neutrally what is stated in reliable sources, and that community consensus on that is not negotiable. This goes hand-in-hand with a quasi-judicial, rhetorical Talk page stance which makes interaction unnecessarily protracted and difficult—which I suspect we shall see more of in this thread. I propose that it would benefit the Project is EllenCT is topic banned from all environmental topics, broadly construed. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Jytdog should not have struck out EllenCT's RFC, and doing so is an example of his bad faith and unilateral editing that has so inflamed their interaction. Alexbrn's proposal for a topic ban is beyond the pale, and his characterization of the content dispute is inaccurate. Viriditas (talk) 08:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Totally violates Talk Page Guidelines . If you believe the RFC is worded wrong, say so and as the originator to re-word, but don't delete it. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 11:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Moderate support. Looking over the article talk page, it's looking like larger issues than just a content dispute and also like WP:BOOMERANG is in play here on EllenCT's part. The recent ANI [164] should have been enough of a warning for EllenCT to stop her disruptive behavior. One of my main concerns when posting that last ANI was that just attempting to interact with EllenCT in these topics requires a great deal of time and energy even at a minimum due to what's appearing to be either WP:COMPETENCE issues in how we deal with scientific sources or purposeful WP:ADVOCACY behavior for a specific POV (disruptive no matter the actual reason). That behavior results in any editor in these topics attempting to engage or help her about our policies and guidelines appear tendentious themselves (and are sometimes actually pushed to feel like they need to be to deal with the behavior as what appears to have happened here). Experiencing this behavior first-hand, I can voice my support for this ban as a potential solution, but I'm more in favor of starting with lesser admin action and ratcheting up if needed to hopefully finally get the point across. If any action is going to be taken against EllenCT, it might be better to to create a subsection below outlining her continuing issues as other editors reading this are probably not going to want to wade through the mess that tends to occur at related talk pages or the drama that seems to ensue whenever her behavior issues are brought up here. That way, we can focus on each editor's behavior specifically as the opposes so far are commenting on Jytdog, while the proposed action by Alexbrn is specifically about EllenCT's behavior. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Responding to the initial post. I did strike the RfC tag. I realize that was not the right thing to do and to be honest I wasn't sure what the right thing to do was, given issues with EllenCT's behavior as described by Alexbrn above and the recent ANI on her behavior mentioned below. I'm sorry I did the wrong thing. I will certainly accept a trout for that. When EllenCT restored the RfC, she also removed my comment on the RfC, which explained the problem. (dif) Also a violation of TPG, so in that regard we are "even" and a pox on both our houses.

The context for the RfC, was that after EllenCT claimed for the Nth time that "well-cited secondary MEDRSs since 2011 claim that fracking is dangerous" to health, I asked her which sources she meant, and she told me. I took about an hour to build a wikitable showing what those sources actually said and whether they complied with MEDRS, trying to reason with her. Instead of directly responding, she launched the malformed (as described by Alexbrn above) RfC out of the blue, without discussion.

We just finished an ANI (see here) about EllenCT's disruptive behavior on another environmental article about pesticides. A topic ban was sought there; it was closed with no consensus but the closer, Drmies wrote "we have no clear consensus on a topic ban, though there are plenty of valid concerns about EllenCT's behavior and temperament, as is demonstrated in this very thread by Ellen's reactions" EllenCT's behavior continues to be full of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:IDHT, and she just ignores WP:PAG, making up her own rules. That is the most frustrating thing - we cannot resolve disputes because she refuses to ground her arguments and behavior on PAG, even after they are explained to her multiple times. Intransigent. Jytdog (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. Jytdog's lapse of judgement is far outweighed by the patience he has had in trying to work with EllenCT's WP:IDHT behavior. Interacting with EllenCT in these topics requires a great deal of time and energy even at a minimum due to very blatant WP:IDHT behavior that is already covered in-depth on the article talk page and the ANI about her behavior listed above. That results in any editor in these topics attempting to engage or help her about our policies in and guidelines appear tendentious themselves. If someone actually thinks this single action of Jytdog's requires admin action, then we'll also need to look at action on the larger behavior issues from EllenCT that lead to this as well. Deleting the RFC tag may not have been the smartest idea, but I'm also not sure how I would have handled the particular forum shopping behavior myself either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Looking over the recent edits at that talk page, EllenCT started an RfC about some content where there are strong disagreements, and formatted the RfC in a way that other editors felt was not fair in how it presented the issues. Jytdog removed the RfC tag, once. He has not subsequently reverted, and he has stated clearly here that he recognizes that it was a mistake to have done so. When EllenCT reverted Jytdog, she not only restored the RfC tag, but deleted Jytdog's comments, so she is at least as much involved in reverting against WP:TPO as he was. As it stands just before I commented here, the RfC is open, and the editor objections to the RfC are visible to editors who will respond to the RfC. Unless, as is unlikely, there is subsequent edit warring over the RfC, the best thing is to let it be, and perhaps open a better-worded RfC, after which there may be consensus to close the existing one. I don't think there is anything for administrators to do here. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Repeated edit warring by Mark Miller

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

---

Mark Miller, already reported for edit warring on another article above, is actively edit warring at Historicity of Jesus. The article is highly contested, so editors have engaged in long discussions before Mark Miller swept in to disregard it. His first edit was to remove sourced content based on nine academic sources, despite there being no consensus on the talk page for it [165]. I restored the deleted content, saying that there was no consensus for such a bold removal but Mark Miller immediately reverted [166]. I restored the deleted content (with hindsight I shouldn't have) and informed Mark Miller of WP:BRD, that it was fine for him to first do the bold edit but know when he was aware there was no consensus for it, he should discuss instead. Mark Miller completely ignored in and deleted the content for a third time [167]. He also informed me that he is such an "experienced editor" that he doesn't need to bother with "boggled down talk pages" [168]. Not wanting to edit war, I left it at that. Trying to improve the article in other aspects, I inserted a clarifying sentence that is a consensus version crafted after long discussion among a large number of editors and sourced by the leading scholars in the field. I also explained at the talk page why my argument for the text. Mark Miller again reverted immediately, making it the fourth time in just a few hours that he enforced his preferred version [169]. He did not bother to discuss the changes in the talk page section I had started. Instead he headed straight to page protection to ask for full protection so that nobody can change the version that he unilaterally has imposed four times [170]. There was already a demand for semi-protection after IP-vandalism yesterday, nobody had asked for full protection.
In short Mark Miller has imposed his own version four times by now, he has removed a large amount of sourced content every time, he has explained that he is above talk-pages and he tops his edit warring by asking for full protection for his preferred version. This user is WP:NOTHERE to discuss with others. Incidentally, the same page had been disrupted for weeks by an WP:SPA, "Fearofreprisal" who admitted before being topic banned that he started that SPA to "protect himself". Perhaps it's just a coincidence that Mark Miller turns up for the first time to continue the edit warring right after the SPA is topic-banned, but a sock investigation could be warranted. Regardless of socking or not, Mark Miller's constant deletions of content regardless of what others, his assertion that he is above talk pages and his attempt to gain full protection for his own version (that nobody else shares) is highly disruptive.Jeppiz (talk) 11:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC) Withdrawn Mark and I get a bit intense this morning (morning for me at least), admins have warned us both and rightly so. For my part there is no need for this report to stay opened.Jeppiz (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Funny how when you demand someone else weigh in...and when they do, and it is not in support of you, you just edit war and start, yet more drama here. I have been patient with you as this is something you clearly have a very personal bias with. I am not a Christian hater, nor am I a supposed "super editor", but you have really been yanking on the rope being provided.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks WP:NPA. I have never said you're a "Christian hater" nor anything remotely similar. Nor have I said "super editor", so please stop putting words in my mouth. The I've pointed out you have inserted the same version four times in just a few hours. I've done it two times, perhaps I should just have done it once but twice is not an offence. Besides, I restored a consensus version with sourced content. What is more, you have not even discussed your latest deletion of a large number of sourced content, you just revert to your own version at sight and then asks for full protection.Jeppiz (talk) 11:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Please show that there was an actual personal attack and not just a deflection and mirroring of the defense I have given against your actual violations of WP:NPA. I know asking you to defend your actions is not something you have been able to actually demonstrate yet...but I can wait. Seriously. I can wait because I am still assuming good faith that you are just too biased right now to see that I am not disrupting the article.....you are. I am now bowing out of this discussion as I feel this itself disrupts ANI. A discussion clearly is not going your way at the article talk page. Blowing up here and my replying is just filling up space.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Making insinuations about other users' bias by speculating about their religion is a personal attack. Deflecting the edit warring back at me is weird. You have inserted the same version four times. I've done it twice. I would even say mine was a bit justified as it restored deleted content, but I acknowledge that being right is no excuse which is way I haven't insisted. Your four edits to your preferred version is another matter, and your only provided reason for the latest is to make insinuations about my faith.Jeppiz (talk) 12:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Despite trying to encourage Mark Miller to discuss the content, the user just continues to rant at me. I asked for his reasoning to removing the sentence that was backed up by a large number of scholars, Mark Millers only answer was again to attack me, insinuating I edit because I'm Christian and treating this like my "personal theological discussion board" [171] All of those are ad hominem arguments that have nothing to do with the article. He further tries to make it out as if the discussion is about whether deities exist, which nobody has argued. The whole article is about whether the person Jesus existed. Regardless of personal opinions, we have a number of sources by leading scholars in the field saying clearly, in line with WP:RS/AC that there is academic consensus that he did. Mark Miller deletes those sources, provides no argument except personal attacks and disinformation. It could hardly get any more disruptive.Jeppiz (talk) 12:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• See above. I really have nothing left to say. --Mark Miller (talk) 12:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment So do we break out the wet noodle and commence the whipping of Mr Millar? I think we can skip that. I don't see any problem with the removal. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 12:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure why this is here. Either it's edit-warring and belongs at AN3 or it's a content dispute and belongs at the Talk page (and from there, on to dispute resolution etc). Having said that Mark Miller is edit warring, and has said some odd things e.g.:"Consensus is not required when the sources do not support the claims" and that the "reasoning" for BRD is that it is "to be used on these very types of articles by experienced editors when the talk page has become bogged down". I had a quick look at your (i.e. Jeppiz's) sources (not all of them) and what I don't see is support for the opener "most scholars agree...". The rest (on, as I say, a quick look) seems to be actually supported. The issue looks to be around WP:UNDUE therefore rather than OR. DeCausa (talk) 12:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

You can find a plethora of sources saying "most scholars agree..." here. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

True, but as I said, I did not file this report for any content dispute. Even if Mark Miller would be right, he still would be disruptive when he inserts the same version four times, tries to have it protected, rants against several other users, declares he's above consensus and even talk pages, and continue to insist on his bold version despite a consensus to the contrary. It's not about right or wrong, it's about disruptive behavior.Jeppiz (talk) 13:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

On reflection, I think you're right there is a problem. DeCausa (talk) 13:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually having just taken a look at this talk page thread, Mark Miller seems to be on a bit of a POV rant (and I'm a strident atheist!) DeCausa (talk) 13:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

DeCausa, just as you said, Mark Miller is ranting aggressively (not just against me). Contrary to what he says, a number of users on the talk page have told him that they don't agree and he is the lone voice edit warring for his version. It's not here because of any content dispute, but because of the combination of edit warring, refusal to even discuss, abusing page-protection and insisting that he doesn't need to care about consensus because he's above boggled down talk pages. That combination, to me, shows a user who clearly is not here to contribute and work with others.Jeppiz (talk) 13:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

No, there's zero proof that Mark Miller "clearly is not here to contribute and work with others". Inflammatory rhetoric doesn't help resolve issues the panda ɛˢˡ” 13:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. But when you look at the talk page of that article, then look at the sources and then look at his multiple reverts and the reasons given for them, Mark Miller's actions aren't making much sense to me. DeCausa (talk) 13:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I never said these edits made sense - I simply said it's not proof that he's overall WP:NOTHERE in the grand scheme of things the panda ɛˢˡ” 13:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

That's why I said "Agreed". DeCausa (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I see nothing "inflammatory" in Jeppiz's statements. They are fairly accurate as regards MM's involvement in this article. His activities elsewhere are not under discussion. Paul B (talk) 13:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Have article restored to its version before the edit spats began & keep it protected. GoodDay (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete and salt the article. While Mark certainly was edit-warring, the circle of editors protecting that article have ensured that it will be impossible to have a neutral article about the topic. Most scholars have never issued any kind of opinion about the historicity of Jesus at all. Scholars that are neither Christian nor Islamic are essentially silent on the topic, and those groups have a bias towards arguing for his historic existence.—Kww(talk) 14:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I know this is off topic, but frankly these comments are typical of the sophistry that smears the talk page. "Most scholars have never issued any kind of opinion about the historicity of Jesus at all". Of course that's literally true. 'Most scholars' in general haven't "issued" an opinion about global warming, natural selection or the sphericity of the earth either. That's not an argument. Most scholars, means most experts on the topic, of course. Paul B (talk) 16:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe so. But that's a different question with a different process needed. i don't think that gives MM a free pass to do what he's doing. DeCausa (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Wasn't campaigning for an unblock. The pattern of disruption around this article makes me classify it as irreparable, however.—Kww(talk) 14:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it should be deleted. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 14:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Someone should just close this now. Mark Miller has been blocked for edit-warring for 48hrs so he's unlikely to continue where he left off when he comes out of the block. If the article should be AfD'd no doubt someone will do that. Nothing left here.DeCausa (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Killing an 11-year-old article just because a few editors can't get along??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
• I've not looked at the deletion policy all to recently but I don't recall the presence of (shall we say) disruptive editors or a content dispute being a cause for deletion. Perhaps any conduct issues can brought to a place like ANI and any content issues can be taken to the proper dispute resolution. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Page move

I am trying to change a page name from 'Ian David Cohen' to 'Ian Cohen' as that is his recognized name on-air ( he does not use his middle name, I put it there in error when setting up the page) However there is also another Ian Cohen (politician).

I need to change it as many of the wiki links for my Ian Cohen (Media broadcaster) entry do not include the word DAVID, and my submission is unlinked at the moment, I am trying to link it all up now.

Thank you

BD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdchill (talk • contribs) 11:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I just had a look at the article, it is up for deletion at the moment. No coverage in reliable sources means a likely delete outcome, so don't sweat the name thing. Tarc (talk) 12:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Block requested for IP 41.13.120.135 Personal attacks/ possible sock

This editor User:41.13.120.135 seems to be an SPA here only to make personal attacks.

• here
• here
• here
• and here

This IP seems to be related to this one: 41.13.86.167 who is also making disruptive comments on the related articles

• [172]
• [173]
• [174]

SW3 5DL (talk) 13:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked for 31 hours. Drmies (talk) 14:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion

I am requesting other users' input on the merge discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Distressed_securities#Merger_proposal. An uninvolved admin should take a look at the merge discussion and decide whether or not it should be closed. I'd like to see other users give their two sense on the merge, but if activity remains stagnant, an uninvolved admin should close the discussion. Thank you Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~}` — Preceding undated comment added 14:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Political edit-warring

Victor Ponta is a candidate for president of Romania, and Ilie Sârbu is his father-in-law. EddyVadim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been edit-warring at both. At the Sârbu article, he's been modifying the text, unsourced, to boost Ponta. At the Ponta article, he's eliminating a sourced phrase and again replacing it with one promoting Ponta. As a three-year editor, he really should know better. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Not commenting on the merits of the edits, but it's pretty clear EddyVadim has breached 3RR at Victor Ponta. I'm also concerned at the lack of discussion prior to coming to ANI; while I could understand a 3RRN report on the reverting, discussion is a central part of reaching a consensus. I see no indication that EddyVadim's edits are so inappropriate as to constitute vandalism, or otherwise not meriting any discussion. BRD, while it does mean that the person seeking to reintroduce the reverted content should start discussion, should that editor fail to do so, it is a good idea for the reverting party to try to start a discussion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: I think the issue is pretty clear. Αs a speaker of Romanian, I can confirm that the source in the article Victor Ponta doesn't mention any polls. (Thus leaving aside the issue that polls might predict election outcomes, but don't necessarily do so.) I have also reported him for breach of R3R here. --Mihai (talk) 14:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. It's just concerning to see an ANI report without any notes left on relevant talk or user talk pages (except of course the required ANI notice). Not saying there should be a pre-ANI discussion requirement, or that such discussion must proceed to a deadlock. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I also favor dialogue, but not with somebody who knowingly manipulates text. And the less so when this concerns the biography of a politician in the wake of elections. That's always a waste of time.--Mihai (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked two weeks by EdJohnston per the AN3 report. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Quick history merge

User:WikiOriginal-9/Wolfgang Schmidt (serial killer) and Wolfgang Schmidt (serial killer) needs their history merged. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. Nyttend (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Elvey attempting to squash an RfC

Elvey attempted to close an RfC that I had originated less than 24 hours earlier. They seem to think that I was wrong to revert, but I see no justification for his closing an RfC without any prior discussion with me or anyone else. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Plagiarism, BLP violation, and long-term POV pushing by User:The Discoverer

User:The Discoverer has been persistently adding non-neutral claims to articles related to the Sino-Indian border dispute, for well over a year. More recently, he repeatedly added criticism to the BLP article Neville Maxwell, the authoritative expert on the subject, by misquoting and misrepresenting Roderick MacFarquhar, another renowned scholar. During the process, he likely resorted to IP sockpuppetry and canvassing, and was caught plagiarizing a blogger, mistaking the blogger's comment as MacFarquhar's work and using it to add criticism to Maxwell's article.

Summary of the previous ANI complaint (Sept. 2013)

• I first came into contact with The Discoverer last year, when I noticed he added false information to several articles, citing sources that are often diametrically opposed to what he claims.
• He also created Category:Areas occupied by China after the Sino-Indian War, adding articles such as Khurnak Fort and Lanak La to the category, even though all sources, including Indian ones, say that they were under Chinese control before the war.
• I repeatedly reminded him of Wikipedia's NPOV policy, all to no avail, and he reverted all my attempts to remove Khurnak Fort, Lanak La, and other articles from the incorrect category. In September 2013, I filed an ANI complaint regarding his behaviour.
• Administrator Jreferee generally agreed with my points, removed Khurnak Fort from the offending category, and closed the discussion. In his closing, Jreferee remarked that The Discoverer's personal opinion was getting in the way of editing neutrally, but said his behaviour was not yet disruptive.
• See this link for detailed evidence and arguments regarding the last ANI.

Sockpuppet investigation (Oct. 2013)

• After the closing of the ANI, I removed the offending category from Lanak La, following the step taken by Jreferee, which was quickly reverted by The Discoverer.
• A few days later, a suspicious IP (an open proxy) reverted Jreferee's removal of the offending category from Khurnak Fort. Another IP, with intimate knowledge of the ANI complaint and all related articles, canvassed on the India noticeboard for support.
• After noticing the similarity of the canvassing IP (117.195.122.22) with two other IP's that had repeatedly removed warning messages from The Discoverer's talk page (117.195.99.85 and 117.195.96.62), I filed a sockpuppet investigation.
• Partly because of Wikipedia's policy against identifying users with IPs [175], the SPI ended inconclusively, although the closing admin agreed that it's unlikely that the canvassing IP was unrelated to the ones removing warning messages from The Discoverer's talk page.
• See sockpuppet investigation archive for details.

Extensive POV edits (since 2013)

• Having escaped serious consequences from the ANI and SPI, The Discoverer became further emboldened. He flooded Lanak La and Kongka Pass with Indian and 19th-century British-Indian sources [176] [177], drowning out authoritative scholarly sources such as Neville Maxwell and Larry Wortzel, claiming a need to present "both POVs", even though both POVs are already described by scholarly sources.
• I raised the neutrality issue on Talk:Lanak La, but he insisted that I need to "prove" that the Indian sources are non-neutral, while asserting that the renowned US Army scholar and Congressional Commissioner Larry Wortzel is biased [178]. He went on to claim that "There are no sources which contradict the Indian sources; this indicates that the Indian sources are stating objective facts" [179], despite the fact that they're clearly contradicted by authoritative scholars including Neville Maxwell and Larry Wortzel.
• He added unsubstantiated Indian claims to Sino-Indian border dispute, misrepresenting them as undisputed facts [180], and refused to acknowledge the difference between claims and facts. See Talk:Sino-Indian border dispute.

BLP violation and plagiarism (Oct. 2014)

• In September 2014, The Discoverer started a campaign to disparage Neville Maxwell, the authority on the Sino-Indian War. In the past, he had cited (and misrepresented) Maxwell in his edits [181], before I pointed out that Maxwell (as well as other sources he misrepresented) did not support the POV text he added [182].
• The Discoverer added criticism to Neville Maxwell, citing a book by the renowned scholar Roderick MacFarquhar, an addition to other decidedly non-neutral sources [183]. Having previously read the section of MacFarquhar's book he cited, I knew immediately the source was misrepresented, and pointed out to him on the talk page. [184]
• In the meantime User:CWH got involved, removing some of the unfounded criticism that The Discoverer added [185], and explained his edit on the talk page. [186]
• After I proved that MacFarquhar did not criticize Maxwell, The Discoverer apologized for his mistake, but at the same time added a new excerpt, purportedly from a different section of MacFarquhar's book, to "prove" that he criticized Maxwell [187], and added a modified version to the article, with the quote "The counter-attack on the external front (against India) was the other side of the one on the internal front". He also added similar text to the related article Sino-Indian War [188].
• Again, I could not find quote in MacFarquhar's book. After some research, I found out that his whole "analysis" of MacFarquhar was plagiarized from someone's blog [189], and while copying from the blog, he mistook the blogger's comment as a quote from Roderick MacFarquhar's book, and added the false claim, together with the false quote, to the BLP article. [190] Faced with the indisputable evidence, he admitted copying the analysis from the blog, and again apologized for the "serious error", but claiming it was unintentional [191]. However, in May 2012, The Discovered was brought to ANI on an unrelated matter, in which he also admitted to "unintentional" copyvio, apologized, and promised he would not do it again [192].
• Details about the discussion above can be found at Talk:Neville Maxwell#Edits on Influence section.

I've been reverting both pro-Chinese and pro-Indian POV-pushers on articles related to the Sino-Indian border dispute for years [193] [194], but have never seen anyone as insidiously dishonest as The Discoverer. His edits always appear to be well-cited (often with links to subscription websites), easily fooling people unfamiliar with the subject, and requiring extraordinary effort to prove wrong. It was only by chance, for example, that I happened to be familiar with MacFarquhar's work, and stumbled upon the blog post that he plagiarized from, that I was able to prove his dishonesty, which apparently has been going on since at least May 2012. He frequently resorts to underhanded tactics such as canvassing, sockpuppetry, and plagiarism. He has been brought to the ANI and SPI at least three times, but escaped serious consequences every time because the community always tried to Assume Good Faith. After two and a half years, I say enough is enough, and request that The Discoverer be permanently blocked from editing Wikipedia, or at the minimum, topic-banned from the Sino-Indian border dispute. -Zanhe (talk) 22:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Zanhe it will be helpful if you can also tell about Discover infringing the copyrights. [195] had to do more with simple misunderstanding with the source because big part of this edit was copied and pasted from the website of BBC. I have warned Discoverer and I think that he can be topic banned from all China-India articles. Bladesmulti (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)