Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 69.125.134.86 (talk) at 22:51, 14 August 2013 (→‎Wolfe Tone Societies). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

    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

    Preempting discussion of Jesus

    Futuretrillionaire keeps trying to archive an ongoing discussion on the Talk page of Jesus that has barely even begun. He's doing this without any communication, so I'm not sure what to say to him or how to respond. It seems extremely antagonistic. Strangesad (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    He's now done this three times, which seems like edit-warring. Strangesad (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Archiving the thread and referring you to the FAQ was an appropriate response to the revival of a dead-horse discussion. Perhaps you should try taking this up at Futuretrillionaire's talk page before asking for admin intervention? - Cal Engime (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I left a message at his Talk page. Interesting you don't think he should be leaving messages at my Talk page. He is the one undoing other editors' efforts. I was not the only one commenting in the thread before the conversation was stomped. Regardless of all that, even if the content of the article is a matter of consensus, no rule justifies blocking discussion of the consensus. Strangesad (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with that. Also, removing a large slice of cited content (at 16:57) before starting the discussion (at 17:00) was somewhat provocative. Let's keep calm and discuss the issue on the talk page. --Stfg (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussing the issue on the Talk page is what I was trying to do. Strangesad (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    And then there was this. --Stfg (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    @Stfg: What did it say? I'm just curious. That edit has now been deleted.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing to see there. Strangesad was making the "Actually, I think Dawkins has said Jesus existed..." edit that's now at the end of the collapsed section, but while making that edit, he inadvertently reinserted some disruptive text that had previously been posted by an unrelated vandal (the IPs in the edit history), so his edit had to be technically hidden together with those of the vandal. The legitimate part of his edit was later restored. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @FutureTrillionaire: Like Fut.Perf. said. I'll just add that it wasn't directed at you (or any editor) personally. --Stfg (talk) 22:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    So, is there any guidance from admins on hiding discussions on Talk? The only presented argument is that the version being questioned is the consensus version. You are not entitled to stifle questioning of the consensus version of the article. By implication, these editors are proclaiming a right to invalidate any future discussion of these issues on the grounds that it is "in the FAQ" and WP:STICK. The civilized approach to such a thing is to ignore the discussion if you don't like it, not try to shut it down for everyone else wanting to pursue it. Strangesad (talk) 03:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Closing that was a kind gesture considering your argument about Michael Grant (author) was beginning to get into BLP policy for recently dead. Please be more careful espousing your opinion of real people as that could be seen as disruptive in itself.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 04:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you talking about? I said Grant was an expert on Roman coins. Strangesad (talk) 05:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There is something very odd about the comments being made here. Here is the BLP policy on the recently dead that Mark cites above: "The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death - six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime." Grant died 9 years ago, and the policy says "two years at the outside." The policy refers to "suicide or a particularly gruesome crime." Grant died at the age of 90, although I don't know how. The policy talks about "particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead, and I said his expertise was as a numismatist and not in the general history of the period. That is exactly what the Wikipedia article about him says: "some academics balked at his attempt to condense a survey of Roman literature into 300 pages, and felt (in the words of one reviewer) that “even the most learned and gifted of historians should observe a speed-limit".
    So, what we have are utterly contrived suggestions of BLP-violations, and a lot of insistence that a certain discussion--in which several editors participated--should not be allowed to be seen on a Talk page. I am restoring the discussion, so that those who want to participate can, while those who don't still don't have to. That is how academic freedom works. Strangesad (talk) 05:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "Academic freedom" is not how Wikipedia works. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    That page is about legal rights, which isn't what I was talking about. I was talking about what it takes to build a healthy intellectual community. Is that how Wikipedia works? Strangesad (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    My point was that it seems this editor is bent of bashing legitimate historians because they are dead. Fine, then we can now begin bashing all those dead religious figures used as references here as well. Light your torches and pick up your pitch forks folks, there are reputations to destroy! --Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 08:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The entirety of what I said is: "The citation says stuff like Micahale Grant is a classicist, without mentioning that his specialty was Roman coins". Exactly how is that bashing?

    Can I restore the discussion? The objections here are contrived. I'm puzzled by the lack of guidance. It appears I'm not going to "win" an edit war, but the implication is that only consensus views are allowed to be discussed in Talk, and that's not the intent of the consensus process. Strangesad (talk) 14:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The present wording of the article is firmly supporting by WP:RELIABLE sources from a variety of points of view. Do you know of better sources that say this is not the consensus of scholars? If not, then sorry, a vital article is not going to be edited to appease a WP:FRINGE view. - Cal Engime (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This thread is not about what the article should say. It is about whether a discussion of what the article should say is allowed on its Talk page. (It is also ridiculous to refer to views held by Harvard professors and Nobel prizewinners as "fringe.") Strangesad (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you'll have to explain what discussion there is to be had. You deleted important, well-sourced information based on your own interpretation of the words "virtually all" and "scholars of antiquity" (that phrase doesn't include Michael Martin). In your own words, "This has been discussed at great length", and "It always ends with the minority skeptics being chased off". Explain why another discussion will not just take up space. - Cal Engime (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The way to do that is start a discussion on the Talk page, which is what I did. Nobody has to start a discussion about whether it is permissible to start a discussion, and the idea that ANI would be the place for such discussions of discussions is absurd. Strangesad (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC) Strangesad (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Latest update. After censoring my attempt to talk in Talk, Futuretrillionaire is now reverting my article edits with the comment "discuss first." [1]. Pretty funny. This is fairly typical of my experience of few months ago editing a different Jesus article. It is how a group of dedicated editors maintains "consensus" on these articles. Gaijin has also continued the tradition of blocking skeptical discussion on the Talk page by closing discussions that are active. Strangesad (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The edits I reverted were of a different issue, so it's appropriate to discuss. In those edits, at least you're focusing on the arguments.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevermind, I didn't realize this issue was also discussed before. Still, the reverts were justified because they were POV-pushing for a fringe viewpoint.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    You have provided ZERO sources that contradict the sources we already have included which comply with WP:RS/AC. Rehashing the same arguments that have been discussed ad nauseam are disruptive. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    You are confusing issues. The edits FutureT reverted were non-controverisal, and the majority (re argument from silence) based on sources already in the article (which the article currently misrepresents). As for the "virtually all" disagreement, the problem isn't that sources contradict the article, it's that the stated sources are inadequate to support the article. If this has been debated thoroughly, you should know the stated problem.
    Trying to bring objectivity to an article on Jesus via the "consensus" process is a waste of time. The community is unable to handle such cases according to its principles. As was said a few months ago, when I last visited this subject: Atheists don't win popularity contests. Strangesad (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "Jesus probably existed.” – Richard Dawkins (atheist), The God Delusion, p.122 --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "If Jesus lived today, he would be an atheist." - Richard Dawkins. You're distorting the sources. Strangesad (talk) 18:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Richard Dawkins is not a reliable source on the subject of ancient history. His opinion is irrelevant. Besides, a historical Jesus who "would have been an atheist" is still a historical Jesus. - Cal Engime (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly.
    Then stop citing him as a skeptic who believes Jesus existed. Also, many people identify the historical Jesus as somebody who definitely would not be an atheist today. What Dawkins means by the historical Jesus and what Richard A. Burridge means are different. This is the exact topic I tried to discuss on the Jesus Talk page--where it belongs--and which was closed/hidden/archived in-progress. Why are we having it now on ANI, instead of where it originally began and still belongs? Strangesad (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh. No, you are. The topic at hand is the historical existence or not of Jesus. His divinity is an entirely separate matter. On a related, but also separate issue is how much of what is written about him is historical vs apocryphal, and there there is much wider debate (which we already discuss in the article). But you are attempting to use arguments from those like Dawkins, who admit he existed, as an argument that he did not exist at all. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    FutureTrillionaire's Behavior on Jesus

    • FT's last reverts of my edits are BLP-violations and misrepresent sources.
    • The article says Robert Price is "an atheist who denies Jesus' existence". When I looked at the source, I found this statement by Robert Price (who is a living person): "...I was for half a dozen years pastor of a Baptist church and am now a happy Episcopalian. I rejoice to take the Eucharist every week and to sing the great hymns of faith.". I changed the article to reflect what Robert Price says about himself.
    • FT reverted with this unhelpful comment: "Wrong. A Christian atheist is still an atheist)" [2]
    • I restored the article to BLP compliance, with additional informarmation in the comment.
    • FT reverted the edit again, and added a source which says nothing about Robert Price's religious belief.[3]
    • As described above, FT has aggressively tried to close/hide an in-progress discussion of the article.
    • He has made comments relevant to Jesus here, yet tries to keep it off the article Talk page there. Several others have begun discussing the topic here, showing the topic still has life in it. The discussion belongs on the Talk page.
    • Despite his squashing of my attempts to discuss, he has never left a message for me on any Talk page, nor did he respond to the message I left on his Talk page.
    • The article contains sources regarding something known as the "argument from silence" (drawing conclusions based on an absence of evidence). I added quotes from the sources (I didn't originate the use of these sources). I tweaked the text to make it clear that the sources are not rejecting the argument from silence--the article misleadingly implies otherwise. [4]
    • FT reverted again. Again, no explanation on any Talk page.
    • The article gives the background of a source as "secular agnostic." Aside from the redundancy, another relevant part of the source's background is that it is evangelical and his early degrees are from a Bible college and a theological institute. So I added that to the background info. FT immediately reverted that too.[5]

    He has reverted virtually every edit I've made to the article and tried to censor discussions of some of the edits in Talk, all without participating in discussion. I believe this pattern meets the definition of "ownership". Strangesad (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, all of your changes got reverted, because they are strongly against consensus that you have been pointed to repeatedly. You have introduced no sources that contradict the consensus. Your characterization of FT is grossly misleading, and you should look out for falling WP:BOOMERANGs Gaijin42 (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that User:Strangesad is actually giving a good description of their own tendentious, POV editing. Strangesad thinks that just about every authority quoted in the article on the question of the existence of Jesus is biased or unqualified to discuss it - Bart Ehrman went to Bible college! [6] - Richard Burridge is a member of the Church of England General Synod! [7] - Robert van Voorst is a pastor! [8] Michael Grant wrote "popular books" and only knew about Roman coins! [9] Strangesad is causing serious disruption to both the main article on Jesus and the talk page and I ask that some sort of warning or sanction be issued.Smeat75 (talk) 20:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If it is relevant that Ehrman is agnostic, it is relevant that his training and background are not. Still waiting for an explanation of "Christian atheist." Strangesad (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    {od} Three of my edits pronounced "disruptive" have now been reinserted or accommodated, and are now part of the consensus. Strangesad (talk) 03:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    FWIW, having looked at the quote above about Price, I guess it could be argued that he isn't actually indicating that he is necessarily in any way "Christian" however that term is defined, just that he really, really likes going to church. And it is, marginally, possible that he might be in some way someone who does not believe in Episcopalian beliefs, or that, possibly, the particular Anglican/Episcopalian church he goes to might in some way hold really unorthodox beliefs, even given the broad range of belief within Episcopalianism. Maybe. But that is a really weak argument. And I have seen "Christian atheist" used in some sources as describing someone who does not believe in god of the (mainstream, presumably) Christian belief system, making him an "atheist", but might, maybe, hold beliefs which might be consistent with some other system, which the individual himself might not have reviewed or know, which would only allow someone to say that he is "atheistic" at least relating to the beliefs of what might be the only religion he knows much about, Christianity. It is a term that is in occasional usage, and I think in general it has a clear definition, but I am not sure that the general meaning given the phrase would apply here. It would be a stretch to say that an Episcopalian is not theistic, and I don't see the source material used as being sufficient to make such a statement. John Carter (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Request swift admin intervention to prevent further disruption to the Jesus article by User Strangesad

    Strangesad's disruptive editing to the Jesus article continues and is escalating. Strangesad today removed a couple of sources from the article on spurious grounds [10] [11] and continues, against clear consensus on the article talk page, to alter the second paragraph of the lead, which has been arrived at through innumerable discussions over years and is a paraphrase of a cited quote from New Testament authority Bart Ehrman [12]. Strangesad says the cited source is no good because it comes from a "popular book" [13]. Strangesad has been disrupting this important article for days now and I request admin action to prevent further such activity. Smeat75 (talk) 13:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I concur. His eariler disruption is minor compared to the blanket removal of citations without discussion. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed two citations, and explained it in the commentary. We are completely distorting what the sources say. Just as we did in calling Robert Price an atheist. I've made the edit once. Strangesad (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Gee, can you get the facts right? I added to the use of the "popular book." I don't think you even read my edit. Strangesad (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I read it and speaking of not reading things, anyone who attempts to edit the second paragraph of the lead will see this notice, which you have either not read or simply ignore -

    "-- The paragraph below was created by consensus after considerable discussion by a variety of editors. Out of courtesy for this process, please discuss any proposed changes on the talk page before editing it.

    READ THIS FIRST. The following references are WP:RS sources which are used per WP:RS/AC guideline. The issue has been discussed on the talk page at length See the "talk page FAQ" about it—it may answer your question.

    The main source says "scholars of antiquity", other sources say "scholars", "biblical scholars and classical historians" and "historians".

    Sources do not say "X scholars" or "Christian scholars", so do not modify it as such for that will make it deviate from what the sources state.

    The source says "virtually all", so do NOT change it to "most", "several", "many", etc."
    Smeat75 (talk) 15:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In his first edit in this latest controversy, he removed the entire second paragraph, apparently rejecting the edit notice.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree. Something needs to be done about this. Strangesad's edits are undoubtedly disruptive.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    What the main source says is that there a "bona fide" scholars who question the existence of historical Jesus. Thus, I added to what the main source says. This discussion belongs in article Talk, where it would be now if FT hadn't tried to suppress it. Strangesad (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There has been no edit warring, your warning is one-sided, and my edit now appears to have been accepted (for the time being, at least). Please retract your gratuitous display of power. Strangesad (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that one edit was not one of the series of controversial edits you made earlier.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it was. It was one of five edits I made. All reverted by Smeat with the single comment "(reverting to version prior to Strangesad's latest disruptive changes) ".[14] Still waiting to hear how removing misrepresentation of a source is disruptive. Strangesad (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Although I don't think Strangesad's edits were (originally) made in bad faith, they have now risen to the level of disruption. I hope Strangesad heeds the warning given. – Quadell (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    By the way, there was an attempt to get Strangesad indef blocked back in April: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive247#Proposing indef block for Strangesad.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    In other news, and without making any accusations against specific editors, I find it highly coincidental, that two content disputes broke out at the same time about this tpoic, on two different articles, with no overlap of editors. It makes my WP:SPIdy sense tingle. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Paul_Barlow_at_Christ_myth_theory Gaijin42 (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Topic ban Strangesad from all articles related to religion This has been going on for far too long already. Many of us spent much of the spring involved in endless discussions about the behavior of Strangesad and her pal Humanpublic. Humanpublic was later banned for sockpuppetry. Strangesad actively encouraged Humanpublic to use socks. Strangesad also used highly abusive language directed at lots of other users. A long discussion about Strangesad saw about half of us supporting an indef ban. The closing admin understood that view, but opted for not banning "yet". Now we find ourselves back at ANI for I don't know which time concerning Strangesad and religion. Enough is enough.Jeppiz (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban - Strangesad started this latest controversy by deleting an entire paragraph of important information. The paragraph was constructed with consensus and had an edit notice clearly explaining that any changes to the paragraph must be discussed first. Strangesad is clearly asking for trouble.By the way, is Strangesad a woman? I want to get my pronouns correct. --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, no. This "controversy" was started when you tried to collapse and archive an ongoing discussion. I made the edit you mention once, and attempted to discuss it on Talk. That's not disruptive, it is what you're supposed to do. (And, yes, I am more of woman than you could ever hope to be (or get).) Strangesad (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Gee, Strangesad, I haven't seen your name in a while. I thought (mistakenly) that you'd gone away. It doesn't appear that your edits or your approach to dealing with other editors has improved any.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Long time, no see. At the moment, the edit that is being called "disruptive" is one that I made twice and has now become part of the consensus. My approach to dealing with editors is according to policy, namely, based on discussion. You will notice that I've spent 10x the effort at giving my reasoning in Talk that FT has, and made no edit more than twice. The problem, which the community refuses to problem-solve, is that normal assumptions and polices don't work for articles like Jesus (or anything highly ideological with a clear cultural majority, e.g. Palestine, etc.). It's very easy for the majority on a ideological subject to drum up a witch-hunt. The question is not when will I change: I have done everything according to policy. Step thru all my edits to this article in the last few days: nothing close to anything that would be considered disruptive on 99% of our articles. Yet, an admin gave me a warning for an edit that nobody objected to. And, there's a topic-ban being proposed (and winning, no less). The question is when will wikipedia change. Strangesad (talk) 23:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to wax philosophical, I don't think Wikipedia will change any more than you will.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban per Jeppiz and FutureTrillionaire. I feel Strangesad is not acting in a neutral and productive manner and is overtly trying to push a certain fringe viewpoint (in a distinctly discourteous manner, I might add). —Cliftonian (talk) 22:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Topic Ban Consensus can change. If there is a FAQ, that does not mean that the FAQ is set in stone and that it cannot change. If someone wishes to challenge the previous consensus, they should be allowed to do so. All topic bans are good for are getting rid of opposing viewpoints.--JOJ Hutton 22:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment JOJ, could we please not go down that road of trying to say that this is a content dispute? Yes, consensus can change and nobody should ever be blocked for challenging a previous consensus. That is not the issue here. The issue is that Strangesad is obsessed with this topic, has engaged in strong personal attacks directed at users who disagree and, most seriously, has actively encouraged sockpuppetry to get her opinion into the article. It's not Strangesad's opinion that is the problem, it is Strangesad's disruptive behavior.Jeppiz (talk) 12:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban of Strangesad from all articles related to religion per FutureTrillionaire and Jeppiz. Enough is enough.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 22:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Enough is enough of what? You do realize that Stranesad has only participated in two threads at Talk:Jesus and made 15 edits on Jesus and only one thread at Talk:Christ myth theory and no edits to the main page. How is that enough is enough? How is that worthy of a topic ban? Good Grief, a topic ban discussion of 15 total edits and three total talk discussions. Really?--JOJ Hutton 23:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the edit count. It only shows the amount of disruption caused by such few edits has been overwhelming in itself. You may continue to comment but my !vote stands.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 23:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No. It shows how quickly people want to start trying to get anyone who opposes them banned from a discussion. This fad of quick topic bans should be stopped. Topic bans should be the last resort. Not the first one. JOJ Hutton 00:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, JOJ, you're either intentionally dishonest (and assuming good faith, I guess that you're not) or you don't bother to check. Looking at Strangesad's edit history, there hundreds of comments and edits related to Jesus, to going after users who disagree with Strangesad's views about Jonas, and to endless ANI-discussions. You're perfectly free to oppose the topic ban, but both your comment above when you try to paint this as a content dispute and this comment about only a few edits are quite simply misleading.Jeppiz (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I only was referring to the recent ones, but I counted and there were about 100 edits Talk page/Main page on the subject. Most of the edits were on the talk pages. Just over 100 edits on the subject in about 6 months. Thats not a lot of edits to want to get a topic ban. And thats not the hundreds that you are alleging. And no I AM NOT BEING DELIBERATELY DISHONEST. So you can halt that line of thinking right now!!!--JOJ Hutton 13:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for pointing that out. He also canvassed Jeppiz [16] and Sergecross73 [17]. Exactly what is meant by "drumming up a witch-hunt." Strangesad (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You better be able to demonstrate that these editors are biased and that the attempt was to find editors who are on the side of the 'canvassing editor" otherwise you are just complaining about things you wish to raise to a level to defend yourself. Please show how this was canvassing or seriously, don't make the accusation because if they were not aware of the guideline we have to assume the didn't have a clue.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 23:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The canvassing is blatant. I've warned FT.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    How odd, I just got the exact same wording from an editor for another discussion canvassing only those with past problems with User:Sitush but that was not considered canvassing, nor when another editor canvassed editors to change their vote at an RFA. I will take you word for it Bbb23 as I would assume it to be but odd that thee seems to be no consistency in application of such warnings.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 03:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I deeply apologize. I shall notify all who have opposed the previous ban proposal (and only those) immediately.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, I sincerely apologize. I don't know what I was thinking. I have now notified 9 individuals who opposed the previous ban proposal (I think that's all of them?), compared with the two three users I canvassed. I've also crossed out my own vote and will not participate further in this discussion. I will also not revert any more of Strangesad's edits.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That diff shows an edit I made once, with the text I added supported by a source already used in the article. Strangesad (talk) 13:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the diff user:Johnuniq presented is a clear example of an improper edit by you that places the "WP:Fringe view ahead of the mainstream view". And what is worse, you are fully aware of what the mainstream view is, and know full well that the item you added upfront is a fringe view, by virtue of the very quote from the source you refer to. That is a clear case of intentional WP:Disruptive editing on your part, which can not be excused based on the ignorance of the source on your part. The edit and your explanation make it clear that you knew you were trumping the mainstream view with the fringe view in that edit. There is no disputing that. Not here anymore (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was notified of this discussion by FutureTrillionaire. In the previous discussion, I opposed a indef ban for StrangeSad, on the grounds that s/he has demonstrated an ability to make useful contributions to the wiki. However, it appears that StrangeSad has continued to show the same inability to work with others or to understand the concept of consensus versus Truth. This continuing pattern of bad behavior has caused StrangeSad to be a drain on wikipedian-hours that far outweighs his/her useful contributions. I thus continue to suggest as I suggested before that some sort of sanction be put in place to stop this fights from occurring, not because StrangeSad is necessarily wrong, but because s/he appears to be incapable of presenting his/her views in an appropriate way. -- LWG talk 07:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "Appears"? Do you know? Please list the edits I've made more than once against consensus. I'm pretty sure the list is empty, although I could be forgetting one. Strangesad (talk) 13:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Restored support for topic ban I was not canvassed, but have been watching the article talk page and its current FAC. Strangesad has been aggressively pushing a FRINGE view in a disruptive manner. This was continued in this edit to the Jesus FAC, in which Strangesad duplicated all previous discussion before adding her own comments. I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt to her explanation immediately below, but in the light of her unwillingness to entertain a good-faith explanation of FT's actions, even in the light of his two apologies, I am no longer prepared to do so, especially as she followed up the offending edit with four tweaks in a space of 25 minutes without noticing the error. The whole thing blew up because Strangesad edited against a consensus she know about before discussing it on the talk page. Consensus can change, but that's the wrong order. Original comment by Stfg (talk) 09:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC), heavily redacted by Stfg (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You do it by 1) Choosing "Preview Edit", 2) Seeing multiple errors, 3) Choosing "Copy All" forgetting that the entire article is in the edit field, 3) Making the changes in a word processor without noticing the extra text on top, 4) Choosing "Copy All" again and pasting back into the Wikipedia editor. The idea that I spent over an hour working on my comment for the FAC, and then tried to undermine the FAC is....what I've come to expect here. Strangesad (talk) 13:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Thank you for the explanation. To give you the benefit of the doubt, since your editing future is on the line here, I have deleted that part and revised my comment to neutral with an alternative suggestion. I hope you will make considerate use of any slack you may be given. --Stfg (talk) 14:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Benefit of doubt withdrawn in light of failure to AGF. --Stfg (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Holy sheitza. FT has now canvassed an additional six editors whose sole prior interaction with me was a ban discussion several months ago. He hasn't canvassed anyone outside of that one ban discussion..... Strangesad (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That is explained by this edit, which has received approval. --Stfg (talk) 14:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That is still canvassing people exclusively on the basis of a discussion to ban. It's a distorted lens. The damage was done when he canvassed Jeppiz, who had already tried to get me banned repeatedly, but hasn't edited with me in 4 months. Strangesad (talk) 16:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I have the article Jesus on my watchlist since at least two years and would have seen Strangesad being back to form regardless of any "canvassin". I find it rather revealing that Strangesad opts for the defence that the "wrong" people are commenting, while ignoring the actual topic. As I said below, there have been few users who have encouraged so many violations of rules and few users who have taken up so much of the community's time with so little to show for it. In short, few users have done so much damage to Wikipedia during 2013 as Strangesad.Jeppiz (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @Strangesad: a pity you couldn't AGF as I AGF'ed for you. My support for a topic ban has been restored. --Stfg (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Totally Support topic ban: I quit Wikipedia sometime ago because of this type of illogical and contentious situation, as I had explained here. I happened to look on the Jesus page again today and guess w2hat I saw: utter chaos caused by Strangesad - and its discussion here. As Raul correctly stated here, users like Strangesad are clearly in the "liability column" of this web site. Strangesad should be certainly banned for the clear disruption of sources, and logic. Frankly, frankly, did Strangesad expect this edit to survive beyond 10 minutes? In my view the edit that started this chaos was a clear case of WP:POINT and this discussion is a clear illustration of the need to ban disruptive users such as Strangesad. This user has previously encouraged sockpupetting (as shown on their talk page) and has shown little respect for policy all the way. Personally, I think of user:Newyorkbrad as one of the very best and judicious editors on Wikipedia. Alas NY Brad certainly failed when he opposed a topic ban on Strangesad last time around. The reason for the chaos here is that the ban and the warning issued last time were too soft. This user is a liability for Wikipedia, not an asset. This user needs to be banned without further fanfare. I m so glad I quit this web site. There is nothing but contention here. Not here anymore (talk) 14:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a sad thing, to me, that editors are being driven away by the sort of thing you describe. In the topic area we are discussing here, two of the most valuable editors who had expertise in the subject and could edit from a NPOV no matter what their personal beliefs may have been, have recently gone - User History 2007 vanished and User PiCo announced today he had made his last post. Neither of them gave reasons for their departure, and I hope they will come back as in this topic area at any rate we need help to maintain objective balanced articles from being disrupted by highly motivated cranks, POV pushers and fringe theorists who often have minimal knowledge of the subject.Smeat75 (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That account was created 3 weeks ago. Strangesad (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Background As some users seem to think that the issue is only the latest round of edits Strangesad had made, I thought it may be relevant to give a short background of the problem we've had with Strangesad.

    - Strangesad repeatedly reverted others at AN [18], [19] despite being warned about it [20]. Ignoring the warning, Strangesad continued edit warring and reported the other for edit warring instead[21].
    - Strangesad explicitly encouraged "allies" to create a sock to avoid their topic ban. [22].
    - Despite several admins pointing this out [23], [24], Strangesad refused to withdraw the call to creat socks. [25]
    - Strangesad argues in favor of violating Wikipedia policies [26].
    - Strangesad often goes after people who displease here. [27], [28], [29], [30].
    - Shorter blocks has no effect as Strangesad declares they won't change her style. [31].
    The time we've all spent on Strangesad is mindblowing, and several good users have left Wikipedia because of her and her relentless fringe pushing. Few users have ever done so much harm and so little good to Wikipedia as Strangesad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeppiz (talk • contribs) 15:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    FT really scored canvassing you (Jeppiz). Those links are from the ban proposal you made 4 months ago, which followed a ban proposal you made weeks before that, which followed yet another ban proposal you made before that. Has anybody but you made one of these proposals? Why don't you provide links to, oh say, the article I created? Or the numerous non-disputed edits I've made? Meanwhile, still no diffs from the last 3 months showing any pattern of policy violations, unless challenging Christianity is a policy violation. Strangesad (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    unless challenging Christianity is a policy violation - I think it is. This is not a place to right great wrongs, battle for the truth or challenge any religion, but neutrally to present verifiable information based on reliable sources, please see WP:5 and WP:SOAP. Smeat75 (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutrally presenting verifiable information based on reliable sources challenges Christianity. [32] Strangesad (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The comments by Strangesad indicate a continued lack of logic. Strangesad is not just opposing Christianity, but all the respected Jewish scholars from Amy-Jill Levine to Louis Feldman who support the historicity of Jesus. Strangesad's position is pure WP:Fringe as multiple sources indicate. Strangesad does not have "a single professor of history" in a major university (not one professor of history) who supports the fringe view, and has never produced a source as such. As for the "article Strangesad created" it is just one page, nothing breathtaking by any measure - but it would not be an excuse for disruption even if it had been a major item. In any case, a quick review shows that the majority of Strangesad's time has been on WP:ANI fighting based on illogical assertions and with no sources to support that position. And the community has shown a "mind blowing tolerance" for these disruptions. It is time for that to change. Not here anymore (talk) 16:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm only challenging Christianity in the minds of certain Christians. The real point is that our sourcing is dubious, and selected to promote one view over another. Improve the sourcing and balance, and the objections go away. Who are you? Your account is less than a month old, yet you claim to be "Retired", yet you are obviously not retired (or a newbie editor). What's your previous account? Strangesad (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you are also challenging all Jewish scholars cited in the article. And again, you have not provided "one single professor of history" that supports your position. I was/am retired and will be again once this illogic is over. But please do not divert, and address the issues about your own disruption. Not here anymore (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, I hereby authorize a Checkuser to verify that I am not a sockpuppet for any of the user who have commented on this page. Not here anymore (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    unless challenging Christianity is a policy violation - that comment is the clearest possible indication that Strangesad is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia but to treat editing as a battleground - "Excessive soapboxing, importing or exporting of disputes, repeated hostile aggressiveness, and the like, may suggest a user is here to fight rather than here to build an encyclopedia" and fight for the WP:TRUTH. Smeat75 (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In my book this talk page comment was a clear WP:NOTHERE marker (in line with WP:GREATWRONGS), and all indications here are that the trend has continued. And having looked at the diff presented by another user above, it is clear that Strangesad "knows" what the mainstream view is, yet specifically edits the article to trump the mainstream view by placing the WP:FRINGE view ahead of it, and claims that it is supported by the source. This train of disruptive edits that ignore and defy policy needs to come to an end here. Not here anymore (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Topic Ban Hang on here... I don't see a topic ban offense. Edgy, bold, even a bit reckless? Yes indeed. But I do not think after reading most of this long thread that we have a serious disruption here, as I understand the term to mean. Challenges to orthodox thinking are refreshing, as long as they don't become a chronic condition. The Jesus article is one of the highest profile ones on the 'pedia, but someone who doesn't automatically think with the majority should not just be given a "fringe" label and tossed out. This is someone using the Talk page and working within the established system here. I see a lot of outrage and puffed up chests, but I think we as a group are better than this. Jusdafax 21:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a good and valid argument, and I fully agree with the principles you state. The problem as I see it is that with Strangesad, it is the chronic condition you describe. This started in December, spearheaded by Strangesad's pal Humanpublic/Minorview with the support of Strangesad. Humanpublic/Minorview was sinced banned for sockpuppetry, a sockpuppetry Strangesad encouraged as she thinks violating the rules are ok to achieve the "greater truth". We should never ever ban someone for the opinion, but when we've been going through the same arguments over and over and over and over again, it becomes tedious. Once again, we've been at this same argument since December. Since December, Strangesad and Humanpublic/Minorview have been encouraged to present WP:RS in support of their views. It's been eight months, and the discussion has never advanced from there. If that's not a "chronic condition", I don't know what is.Jeppiz (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, user:Jusdafax you just verified the comment I made weeks ago about the undue tolerance for disruption. So thank you for supporting my decision to quit. But did you say "a bit reckless?" This user knowingly breaches WP:FRINGE in the diff shown just above and you have fear of attrition? And you call it "someone who doesn't automatically think with the majority"? If I go off and edit the page on Earth to say that it is triangular am I just "not thinking with the majority?". Note that I made my comment about the problem with this website being the sudden defense of disruptive editors in these types of discussions weeks ago. It was not invented for you. And note that this user had been warned before and had been told that they precariously close to the indef block then. Not here anymore (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • First off, I detect symptoms of a WP:DIVA here, and citing the notoriously grumpy BWilkins (who actually finally banned Off2RioRob/YouReallyCan and is now just getting outta Arbcom, if unanimously) is counterproductive. Jeppiz, let's give this unbeliever a final warning and if you're still outraged if there's a next time, write up an Rfc that will probably get enough momentum to knock her outta here. Strangesad... time to chill. Take it from someone who doesn't know you but has a feeling he knows your POV a bit. Tread lightly when it comes to Christians on Wikipedia henceforth. Announce your proposals first, don't just hack away at stable versions. Think smart, edit cool. That way you'll still be around in a year. Otherwise you'll be on the ban list. And cool that sock talk too. OK? Now let's party, it's the weekend. Jusdafax 22:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect Jusdafax, have you looked into this situation at all? I've lost count of the times people have said "Yes, Strangesad is behaving badly but let's give her one more chance". I am not saying we should topic ban for that reason, but I am saying that it is not a valid argument. When someone has had umpteen "one last" chances, then the argument is not credible.
    Second, I find it quite offensive that you claim that only Christians can care about sources and neutral editing. I am not a Christian user and most of my edits concerning religion go against Christian views. The question of whether a person called Jesus existed is not a religious question, and trying to make it sound as if the problem here is some "Christians versus non-Christians" is very far off. Surely you can concede that there is nothing inherently Christian in putting sourced scholarship above blind belief. As a non-believer, I would even say it is often the opposite.Jeppiz (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry Jusdafax, but I could not agree with your trivialization of disruption, and the invitation to party. And the diva comment was totally uncalled for - this type of undue tolerance of "continued disruption" was a serious factor in my decision to quit, and I am glad I did. As for user:BWilkins and whatever the arbcom story may be (I am blissfully unaware if it) it is really beside the point here, for as an admin he closed the previous thread and issued a warning. And no one objected or the warning. This user has been close to an indef block before, and now is close to a well deserved topic ban. And note that hardly any of these user's edits to the topic persist beyond a day - and just cause disruption. So I do beg your pardon, but your invitation to party can not be accepted. Not here anymore (talk) 22:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban of Strangesad, at least from the historicity of Jesus sub-topic. The latest incident [33] wasn't that egregious, but he has a documented history of disruption [34]. This was the straw that broke the camel's back as the saying goes. (And I'm no fan of BWilkins if you really want to know that angle.) Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not support a long-term or permanent ban of Strangesad from editing religion-related articles. However, I do believe that a cool-down period is in order. As such, I suggest banning the user from the article Jesus for 1-2 weeks, and directing her to the appropriate talk page where she indeed has something to contribute. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is probably not just user:Strangesad: Looking at the edit history, edit style, points made, the level of contention in the arguments, length of comments, etc. I do not think these last edits are just by user:Strangesad, who is usually short on time and does not make these types of arguments, although the use of the word "absurd" was likely her at the start of the discussions. I think in one of their meetups, the password was likely given to indef blocked User:Humanpublic, who is now using the account. The edit behavior is that of User:Humanpublic who was confirmed as a sockpuppet by User:DoRD sometime ago, but keeps going yet. Not here anymore (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You'll want to add this to your arsenal. Your contribs log now shows 75% of all edits are to this thread. Strangesad (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Incidentally I'm much more comfortable proposing improvements at the FAC than the article Talk page. I can comment in peace there. And, I'm optimistic that venue can have more influence. Strangesad (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The previous WP:SPI link is implied from the User:Humanpublic talk page in any case. I do stand by my statement, and I have previously authorized a checkuser on myself to verify that I am not a sockpuppet. Would you do the same in return please? Not here anymore (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This makes little sense. If HP is using Strangesad's account to edit here, a CU would be useless. As for a CU otherwise on Strangesad's account, it was fairly conclusively demonstrated that Strangesad's and HP's accounts were unrelated. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Minorview/Archive.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually it does make sense. When User:King of Hearts issued the initial SPI, the accounts were unrelated, but that has likely changed now, given the edit trail. The way it will show up is that part of the edits in the last 48 hours will be from the OS and browser used by Strangesad, and will then interleave with edits from a separate device used by Humanpublic. That information is visible to the CU, unless the June edit by HP has gone stale by now, but may still be fine. In any case, based on that very statement by Humanpublic that "no one has caught me yet" it will make sense to look for sleepers, etc. That statement itself merits a check. Not here anymore (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not a CU, so I don't know what all is revealed when one is done. However, I do think that any interleaving should be checked during the summer while all the leaves are still intact, that despite the fact that Southern California doesn't know from deciduous.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I was/am trying not to announce all the checks that a CU performs, so potential sockpuppets do not get trained on avoiding them. So let us just say that a CU sees items that are not obvious to a general editor or a general admin. But let us put it this way: A and B know each other, and A has been indef-blocked. A SPI in the Spring determines that they are not related, prompting A to go out and get a sockpuppet that he uses on other pages. To be sure that the sock is not detected, he meets and gets the password to the account for B (who has less time and is less contentious) so he can edit the same pages he was editing/disrupting before. Then in mid-summer he starts using B's account. But a sleeper check on A and B will likely turn something up. Not here anymore (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Just having done a quick review of the discussion, I would have to say that I am not sure that an individual ban is necessarily the best way to go here. The article is currently an FA candidate, and such articles tend to get more attention, positive and negative, when such. The edits are certainly problematic, and I don't dispute that in any way shape or form, but I am not sure that under the circumstances, particularly given the contentious nature of this particular topic, that this proposal is necessarily the best option to employ here. ArbCom is an option, and honestly, given some of what I read above, might be a better option, particularly as I seem to remember some of them also have CU. Alternately, maybe some sort of other short term editor restriction, or page locking, might resolve the question for a while. While I agree that there is good reason for the editor in question to maybe be at least warned about conduct, I am not at this point necessarily convinced that other, less dramatic, options might not yield better results in the short term with less possibly problematic long-term results. Having said that, I personally really would love to see ArbCom place most of the material regarding early Christianity under discretionary sanctions, and hope to maybe get them to do so in the near future, given the number of problematic POV pushing edits from multiple sides. But that is probably a separate matter best dealt with elsewhere, not here. John Carter (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Arbcom is a separate issue and will take forever and a day. You could start that anyway. But these edits are certainly "problematic" as you said, and disruptive, as others have said. And I see that you are not disputing that. But puppetry will obviously render many of the other items on this thread moot in any case. The last round of edits were likely by Humanpublic, not Strangesad. Not here anymore (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose topic ban I'm seeing a content dispute with passionate editors more than I'm seeing severe conduct violations. Yes there seem to have been some problems in the past with socking and the like but I'm not seeing new evidence of repetition of past misbehavior. As mentioned before, WP:CCC, and sometimes consensus needs to be reassessed to determine whether it's changed or not. I generally do not find it appropriate to remove another editor's comments and to refuse to engage in discussion even if the matter is "settled" as doing so is a bit too close to WP:OWN than I'm personally comfortable with. If it is the case that Strangesad's case doesn't have a leg to stand on (and I don't know because all my "knowledge" about the historical Jesus comes from Dogma) then the best way to determine that is to invite wider community input. If after a DRN discussion or an RFC the consensus is still the same and then Strangesad continues arguing about it, it might be time for a topic ban, and if Strangesad is as wrong as people make him out to be then it should be fairly easy to demonstrate to uninvolved editors. Noformation Talk 03:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean well, but we've already done all you suggest and more. This started in December, and I would guess at least 50 uninvolved editors have looked at it. I became involved in February, after two months of this. Of course any uninvolved editor who look into it will find that Strangesad&Humanpublic advocate a fringe view. There is not one academic in any relevant field who supports their fringe view. That is easy to demonstrate. The problem is that Strangesad doesn't give a damn. She is convinced she knows the truth, and if other editors disagree, then they are a "lynch mob" (one of her favorite phrases). So it's precisely because this has been going on for so many months and because it doesn't matter how many people get involved that I think a topic ban is necessary.Jeppiz (talk) 13:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You have done none of what he suggested. No DRN and no RFC. I advocate no view on the historical Jesus. The view that there is no meaningful historical Jesus does not meet Wikipedia's definition of "fringe." According to the article's reliable, cited sources (Ehrman), there are "bona fide" scholars who make "intelligent" arguments against the existence of Jesus. You, on the other hand, have now proposed banning me four times, yet the number of times you've attempted to talk to me on my Talk page (excluding warnings) is zero. Strangesad (talk) 02:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I have not advocated for a topic ban for Strangesad, I am not an admin, so it seems to me I should leave it to them to decide what should be done here but I am certain that some action needs to be taken to prevent this kind of constant disruption to important articles on religion / Christianity / the Bible. As I said earlier, two of the most valuable editors in this area have recently left, History2007 and PiCo, editors who have not been involved in these areas may not realise what a disaster this is for the project as these two were highly knowledgeable in these fields and able to edit neutrally and fend off constant POV and fringe theory pushers. They appear to have got tired of doing that and who can blame them? Dougweller in another thread where I raised this [35] says "In History2007's case, too many sockpuppets were a big issue. For both I think pov editing was another factor." To me, this indicates that WP just is not functioning any more and lack of effective action by admins has resulted in more or less turning over the project in the area of Christianity to fringe pushers. Should History2007 and/or PiCo see this, I appeal to you to at least come back every now and then and check the most important pages. WP is, perhaps unfortunately, now the number one source of information on the web and WP articles come up first on most web searches for information. History2007 and PiCo were doing a service to the world in maintaining those articles, I understand the frustration, no need for either of you to go back to being as highly active as you were here, but please help us out every now and then at least, this project is too important to be abandoned to cranks.Smeat75 (talk) 14:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps I just missed it but I'm not seeing a diff of a discussion at DRN or an RFC. If I did miss it please point it out so I can review the discussion and determine whether sufficient outside input came to the same conclusion. As I said, if a DRN or RFC took place and consensus was upheld, and if Strangesad is continuing that same conversation then it might be time for a topic ban. If, however, neither venue has been exploited then a topic ban is premature. Just FYI - and though I'm sure you didn't intend it this way - "you mean well" can come off condescendingly. Noformation Talk 02:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @Noformation: DRN and RfC are used in cases where no consensus can be reached at the article's talk page. Since there is consensus for this issue (a consensus that involved dozens of users), I don't understand why DRN and RfC are necessary. Just because one or two users refuse to get the point does not necessitate the use of DRN or RfC. These two venues are used to establish consensus (if none can be reached via talk page discussion). They are not requirements for a topic ban. Strangesad is being nominated for a topic ban due to her continued anti-consensus and fringe-view-promoting edits.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    DRN and RFC are used when a dispute needs to be resolved and is a standard progression of WP:DR - soliciting uninvolved advice is never a bad thing (and in this case apparently hasn't been tried outside of drama boards). Again, if the consensus is as clear as you say then there should be no objection to it being evaluated by neutral, third parties and doing so can only solidify the issue should it arise again. If you don't believe the discussion is worth your time you can sit it out and let other editors deal with it, since there are, as you say, dozens who agree. Noformation Talk 03:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @Noformation:: Actually, it was Strangesad who chose to come to this drama board. The topic ban proposal is something that appeared in the boomerang's flight path. --Stfg (talk) 12:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure why this is relevant to my arguments. I did not make any statements about who brought the issues here, I simply noted that the content aspect of this dispute has not followed normal DR channels and ANI has been the only outside venue. Content disputes are outside the remit of ANI; indeed, Strangesad's complaint here is addressing a conduct issue: users removing her talk page posts - an issue I believe is valid for the same reason I cannot support a topic ban. To reiterate, if proper channels are utilized and if Strangesad continues to argue, then it might be acceptable to remove her posts as disruptive and to topic ban her. Until then I don't know how else to interpret it other than as an attempt to avoid discussion to maintain the status quo, which to me outside the spirit of the 5 pillars. Maybe you all are experts on the subject and Strangesad is on the fringe of the fringe - I don't know and it's not going to be determined on a drama board. The easiest way to solve the problem is to simply file the DRN and let the conversation take place. Noformation Talk 01:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban. For those commenting along the lines of "I've glanced at Strangesad's edits and I don't see anything seriously disruptive", I acknowledge that is indeed true. Deeper examination, however, reveals that this editor has engaged in behavior that is difficult to demonstrate in a single ANI thread: the long-term pushing of fringe views, coupled with a persistent and verbose rhetorical style designed to wear down detractors. The long-term effect is that contributors are pushed out of the topic area (or off the site completely) out of sheer exhaustion with dealing with the person. Strangesad is not offering anything constructive to this topic area, and should be removed while constructive editors are still around to maintain logic and fend off fringe positions. Now she is trying to derail the FAC. I do not agree that arbitration is needed at this point. Arbitration is for when the community has demonstrated an inability to solve the issue. If we can deal with it here, we can be done with it. For the record, I have nothing to do with religious topics on Wikipedia, so I am commenting from a neutral point-of-view. --Laser brain (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update I see Strangesad has now started deleting comments by users she dislike [36], [37]. The first time, she deleted the comments outright, as seen in the diffs above. Fortunately FutureTrillionaire noticed it and reverted. Then Strangesad instead moved all the comments, creating confusion [38], this time she was reverted by Stfg. I honestly don't know what Strangesad is thinking, deleting other users' comments while this thread is going on. Unfortunately, it's not surprising and it is preceisly that kind of disrupting behavior that had made me suggest Strangesad be topic banned.Jeppiz (talk) 09:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And as if that wasn't enough, Strangesad has continued to move around other users' comments. [39], [40]. So in addition to all the disruption already discussed, Strangesad is now deleting comments by others, and edit waring about moving around comments. How long will this farce continue? Has any one user taken up more of the communities time in 2013, and with so little productive to show for it? Strangesad is most definitely not here to improve Wikipedia.Jeppiz (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Number of times Jeppiz has tried to talk to me on my Talk page (notices/warnings excluded): 0
    • Number of times Jeppiz (or anyone) has requested an RFC/U: 0
    • Number of times Jeppiz has gone to AN or AN/I proposing to ban me: 4 Strangesad (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure why you excluded the notices and warnings sent to your talk. The point of these is to warn you, so that we don't have to resort to ANI. Also, RFC/U is not a requirement for a topic ban.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Strangesad is quite right. I've brought her behavior to AN or ANI four times. Not once has the community thrown it out as irrelevant. Quite the opposite, every time most users have agreed that Strangesad is disruptive, and there has usually been a quite even split between those wanting to ban Strangesad and those wanting to give Strangesad "one last chance". And it is quite revealing that Strangesad brings this up to try to change the topic, not commenting with even one word on her deletion of other users' comments or about her edit warring today. That is Strangesad's standard trick whenever her disruptive behavior is discussed, to change the topic to talk about others.Jeppiz (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is exactly why you should file a DRN. Had you done so before bringing it to ANI in the first place, and if the DRN was closed as upholding prior consensus, you could simply point to it in an ANI and it would be positive evidence that Strangesad was being disruptive. This would give you a much stronger case - one based firmly in policy - for a topic ban. ANI should never be the first resort when dealing with an editor making proposals in good faith, even if you are personally sure they are wrong. Seriously, if you want this dispute solved then go right now, file the DRN, make your opening statement, notify Strangesad, let uninvolved editors hash it out and get your answer. If you're right and Strangesad keeps arguing I will support your topic ban proposal next time and I imagine you'll find few who oppose. As a matter of fact, if you do so then feel free to copypaste this comment to the next ANI and call it my support !vote. Noformation Talk 01:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Not Here Anymore

    Request interaction ban on this account. Since registering, the vast majority of edits have been targeted at opposing me on this one topic. [41].

    Also, what is the policy on breaking up someone's comments in a FAC with sniping and other attempts to turn my comment section into his debating forum? I expected this to be a bit more like ArbCom, where each editor has there own space, and isn't drawn into bickering by point/counterpoint sniping.

    Also, please note that FutureTrillionaire reverted my attempt to get NHA's comment out of my section, after announcing (above) that he would no longer revert any of edits. It's harassment. Strangesad (talk) 03:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, there is this sleazy message [42], in which he says "there is now a discussion that they may have exchanged passwords." (The truth is that nobody has made that suggestion but NHA.) Strangesad (talk) 03:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Finally, continusouly calling me "Humanpublic/Strangesad" is sort of antagonistic. File a sock puppet report, or find a more constructive way to spend time. Strangesad (talk) 03:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I moved them to that editor's comment section. Very important. Strangesad (talk) 04:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop doing that. FAC reviews are threaded discussions. Your comments section is not your private space. --Stfg (talk) 08:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have now put the comments back to their original position, as moving them obscured which comment was replying to what. --Stfg (talk) 08:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Rather definitely not happening: "I will also not revert any more of Strangesad's edits.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)". I wish admins would give guidance. I think NHA is clearly harassing me, and his arguing with my comments in the FAC is intended to disrupt. However, I'm now getting into 3RR territory if I'm wrong. Rather than blocking for being wrong that 3RR isn't mean to apply to this situation, why don't admins engage in discussion? Prevent problems before they occur. Strangesad (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    My reversion was a mistake in protocol, for which I have apologised on the talk page, but you clearly cannot forbid other reviewers from commenting after your signature. The current state of the FAC review page is that there are no comments by anyone else between your section header and your signature timed at 04:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC). That's all you're entitled to. The "protocol" you cited talks about nominators' comments, but it does not forbid other editors from commenting too. --Stfg (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting closure

    I'm requesting an uninvolved admin close this report and defer it to WP:DRN. All the arguments are in and at this point it's just the editors involved in the principle dispute bickering with each other, a sock of someone created just to argue here, and me (uninvolved) explaining that proper dispute resolution has not been followed. Nothing productive is going to come out of this. Strangesad, you can help move this along by filing the DRN yourself immediately, which you should have done in the first place. And if it doesn't go your way then seriously drop it or you will be topic banned next time. Everyone involved needs to adopt a mindset of colaboration and to try and see the opposing side. Noformation Talk 02:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe it is time to close this -- I'm not a good judge of that. But I trust all views and proposals will be considered, not just yours. You are presenting this still as an authentic content dispute. Many of us here feel that it is not an authentic content dispute, but a conduct issue, with editing against a consensus documented on the page's edit notice, deletion of another editor's FAC comments, and so on. You are in no position to state that next time she will be topic banned. You simply don't know how it would go next time. The only thing that's certain is that a lot more good editors' time would be spent if there's a next time. Seeing the opposing side doesn't mean we have to give credence to fringe theories. Collaboration isn't a suicide pact either. --Stfg (talk) 13:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Stfg. While I believe that Noformation is right that it may be time to close, Stfg is right to point out that this is not the content dispute Noformation seems to think. More important, the last time this was at ANI about 50% wanted to topic ban Strangesad and the others said "let's give her one more chance, then topic ban the next time". Well, now is that next time. I don't say that that means Strangesad must be topic banned, but it does mean that Noformation's argument is moot. Either ANI sticks to "one last chance" or not. If it does, it should mean something. If it doesn't, then "the next time" shouldn't be used as an argument as it's meaningless.Jeppiz (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "a sock of someone created just to argue here" I don't believe User:Not_here_anymore is a sock, but a former editor who created the account to say what he thought about this issue. Smeat75 (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, he said as much, and agreed to checkuser verification. Mind you, NHA had been making unsubstantiated socking allegations too. So many accusations, and not one SPI filing to date. Hmmm. --Stfg (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, Noinformation, I think you're widely missing the core issue here. This hasn't been a content dispute for a long time. It's been long-established that Strangesad is pushing fringe views and trying to edit against consensus. Therefore, this is a user conduct issue that should be handled here or, as a last resort, at ArbCom. --Laser brain (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't necessarily disagree with your premise but I take issue with your conclusion. Strangesad is an editor with less than 500 edits attempting to work on a page that elicits strong emotions, and aside from boilerplates it doesn't seem as though anyone has respectfully attempted to work this issue out in a non-aversarial manner. I'm not saying that Strangesad will not eventually be topic banned; it very well may be the case that she can't edit on these pages constructively - but the only way to find out is to attempt a real discussion on the subject. I'm honestly astonished that the experienced editors involved in this dispute are actually of the position that discussion on Wikipedia need not take place. Aside from content ground, what is the downside to following proper procedure by simply having the issue evaluated at DRN? ANI will still be here in two weeks if DRN fails and Strangesad continues arguing. Hell, this could have at least been posted to WP:FTN! What is the argument against trying to work collaboratively? It is difficult to interpret this, as an outsider, as something aside from an attempt to silence discussion to maintain the status quo (not from you of course, as my understanding is that you are uninvolved in the content dispute). Noformation Talk 20:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In general, all the points you make are valid, even very good. That is why nobody objected to a discussion when the couple Strangesad-Humanpublic (along with various now-exposed socks) first turned up. The problem is the two of them have some kind of Wiki-record in WP:IDHT and dismiss any argument. As I've already said, we've been through this since December. What Strangesad and Humanpublic are pushing is an extreme fringe POV. That is not unusual. There are editors denying the Holocaust, denying the moon landings, convinced about Bigfoot's existence etc. Strangesad and Humanpublic's fringe POV is no different. It is a fringe idea dismissed by any academic in any field related to the subject who has looked into it. As you say, the topic of Jesus elicits strong emotions, and there are literally thousands of aspects on which experts don't agree. This simply isn't one of them, this is one of the very few aspects on which every academic agree. Just as we don't insert fringe theories about the Holocaust or the moon landings when dismissed by all experts, I don't see the need to do it here either. Please read WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. That is not to say the question should be buried. Things may change, there may be academics who will challenge this aspect as well and present new evidence. Then we should of course take that into account. When Strangesad and Humanpublic first appeared, nobody told them to get lost, instead they were invited to present sources for the claims they wanted to insert. It was only after a long period of the two of them refusing to hear contradicting arguments, and refusing to accept that their view is contrary to that of all experts, that people started finding the pair (along with the socks, we did not know about the socks at the time) a bit disrupting as they never brought the discussion forward. From there, it just went downhill with increasing sockpuppetry, personal attacks, harassment, and more time spent at these boards than at any articles. Jeppiz (talk) 21:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I also think this should go to Dispute Resolution. At this point, there are too many diffs covering too many months of activity for parties who are not involved in the article editing to sort through. It may be a minority opinion, but I'm most concerned about present behavior (the past two weeks), than edits someone did April, especially if they were a new account and, unfortunately, dove into one of the most contentious articles on Wikipedia.

    The point that sticks in my head is WP:BRD...Strangesad was bold, most of her edits were reverted and the next step was to discuss. But her original charge, and the reason that this case was even opened, was that her Talk Page comments were being deleted or collapsed. If this discussion had been talked out on the Talk Page, we probably wouldn't be here in ANI.

    What I sense is that there are a lot of editors who, through a painstaking process, have created this article that they can more or less live with. Then, a new editor arrives, makes some edits, is reverted, comes to the Talk Page and the regulars are all talked out. These debates have gone on for years and it's a pain to go over it all again with every new editor (hence, I imagine, the FAQS).

    I haven't looked at all of the diffs but gathering from the response, Strangesad probably made some bad edits (maybe really bad edits). But if an editor whose edits are reverted comes to a Talk Page and asks why, there should be a discussion, even if that discussion has been going on for 12 years. So, my question is, how did the regular editors deal with Strangesad's questions on the Talk Page? This is what a Dispute Resolution editor can get into.

    There very well may have been some disruptive behavior here. But people tend to act out when no one listens or responds to them. That's not an excuse, it's just human behavior. On ANI, I often see a quick rush to ban/block which is a way for frustrated people to silence someone who is irritating them (whether intentionally or unintentionally). It's a knee-jerk reaction and I think in this situation, the parties would be better served by having DR sort through all of the claims and counterclaims and propose a scenario where the parties can work better together. Newjerseyliz (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    PrivateMasterHD and 69.122.190.4

    PrivateMasterHD keeps adding baseball terminology to football articles (and has added generally incorrect information and used questionable word choices in several articles) and has been unresponsive to messages left on their talk page except to blank the page. There have been documented concerns about them for past behavioral issues and while PrivateMaster has demonstrated the ability to make constructive edits, edits such as this continue.

    I became aware of their activities on June 17 at Nick Folk when they made this edit that I reverted. Nearly a month later, they returned to the article to make two consecutive edits. There was a third edit made by an IP account (69.122.190.4) that I believe them to be using as the edit was a minute apart from the other edits. The IP claimed Folk was "designated for assignment" however, this does not exist in the National Football League (NFL) only in Major League Baseball (MLB). I left a note on the IP's talkpage however, I did not realize that Yankees10 had warned PrivateMaster a month earlier for a similar incident which aroused my suspicions. As it turned out, both accounts heavily edited MLB and NFL articles so I decided to do some research and found some trends.

    Via PrivateMaster's account: Jason Babin ("designated for assignment"), Boomer Esiason (In this instance, the majority of the edit is fine but the disabled list does not exist in football), Kris Jenkins ("eliminated for the rest of the year"), Michael Crabtree ("disabled list"), Orlando Franklin (Trivial information under "Other"), Danny Woodhead (Incorrectly stating Woodhead "lead" the Jets to the AFC Championship when he had little playing time), Shaun Suisham ("designated for assignment"), Jonas Mouton ("eliminated for the entire season"), Billy Cundiff (There is no preseason roster however, there is in baseball), Jeremy Maclin ("eliminated from the season"), Percy Harvin ("60-day disabled list"), Rob Gronkowski ("60 day DL"), Physically Unable to Perform (addition of a link to the disabled list which is exclusive to MLB), and Joe Morgan ("eliminated from the season"). Update 8/12: "Optioned" is not terminology used in football.

    A look at the edit history of the IP account reveals a similar batch of edits: Darius Slay ("disabled list"), Shawn Nelson ("designated for assignment"), Colin Baxter ("disabled list; designated for assignment"), Albert Haynesworth ("designated for assignment"), Dennis Pitta ("disabled list"). Most concerning is an edit made back in May to the Injured reserve list which stated MLB players were placed on an injured reserve list if they were lost for the year. This is not true because the MLB utilizes the disabled list (for example Johan Santana was declared out for the year after undergoing shoulder surgery prior to the start of the baseball season—he was placed on the 60 disabled list).

    For what it's worth, in addition to the consecutive edits made by PrivateMaster and 69.122.190.4 at Nick Folk, this occurred again on July 27 at Andre Gurode with the IP incorrectly stating Gurode had been ""designated for assignment" while PrivateMaster added dates in the section titles which has been a trend in the edits of both accounts (see here and here).

    Being that they frequently edit MLB and NFL articles, I could see, earlier on, if it was a mix-up however, we're to the point where multiple messages have been left for both accounts and yet they are still blatantly substituting the incorrect terminology. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 17:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Nor do I. It's still problematic that they continue to remain silent however. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 16:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Being hounded

    Two weeks ago, I had posted a thread requesting assistance dealing with an edit warring dynamic IP editor and the thread was responded to by 99.251.120.60 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) attempting to turn my report into a WP:BOOMERANG against me in the ensuing archived discussion, by taking various resolved issues on multiple pages and saying I was violating WP:OWN. Last week, when I reported an editor to WP:AN3 the IP appeared again to attempt to turn my report against me. And in the past day, in the thread above, he has done the same in regards to another report of mine, even though an editor has commented and realized the problem that I've stated. This is all the IP has done. There are two edits to the article space simply fixing missed grammar, and everything else is a comment on this board attempting to implicate me in some trouble or contributing to other pieces of ANI drama. The IP appeared out of nowhere to turn my post against me 2 weeks ago and has done nothing else of note on this site. In response to my inquiries as to his identity, he made this claim, which I still find highly unlikely, and also accused me of having handed off my account to someone. It feels like I can't get help because of this IP editor. Can someone please help me out?—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    If you weren't here to complain about so many editors that edit YOUR articles you wouldn't be seeing my observations here several times per week. You attempt to use ANI to resolve your content disputes and waste everybody's time here using half-truths and exaggerations. The edit histories do not lie. Please read WP:Battleground. Try to collaborate with other editors instead of attacking editors with insulting tone. I stand by my previous remarks. Instead of displaying so much WP:OWNERSHIP in these articles, use more AGF and things may look better in Wikipedia for you. Your "boomerang" assumption and personal attacks on the intent of my neutral observation reports display more bad AGF from you. 99.251.120.60 (talk) 02:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And you are one to fail to assume good faith by accusing me of attempting to WP:OWN the articles I request assistance on. What am I supposed to do when an editor on a dynamic IP edit wars with multiple people which just happens to include myself (the Korean IPs)? What am I supposed to do when an editor edit wars and I attempt to communicate with him but he outright refuses to do so and continues to enforce his own preferred version of the page (User:Black60dragon, now blocked for a month for edit warring elsewhere)? What am I supposed to do when I make every attempt to communicate with an editor on a static IP to change his editing practice and he outright ignores me (User talk:108.54.106.70)? I cannot get anything done because you have harassing me over my attempts to keep articles in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines when dealing with IP editors who are not knowledgable in them or editors who have said they are not going to read any of them. I felt that these issues required administrative attention, and in several cases they did (a page was protected, an editor was [later] blocked). What they did not require was derailing from yourself in your constant attempts to get me in trouble.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "IP sock of banned editor" light is certainly blinking. It's disappointing if ANI will do nothing about this. Is there an alternative venue/protection you can pursue? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I just can't figure out who it could be. To be honest, I have pissed off a lot of people onsite and off. There is an odd editing pattern that seems to suggest that the individual is not familiar with MediaWiki formatting, but I can't be sure. Of course, the checkuser policy changed over the past few years to where they will no longer comment on any IP addresses because it's allegedly an invasion of privacy.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe it's not personal. Special:Contributions/99.251.120.150's comments looks similar in terms of the fatuousness of the histrionics. Perhaps they'll move on to someone else soon. You can see how 99.251.120.150 was dealt with here. Reverted 3 times by 3 different users with edit summaries 'go troll somewhere else, kid', 'il garbagio' and 'WP:RBI', then blocked. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So basically this guy is some sort of serial ANI troll who was actually evading the 48 hour block initially made on the previous IP?—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably. One simple step that might help them become more productive is if they registered an account using their full legal name and edited with that account from now on (assuming their statement that they "have never used a named account" is true). Sean.hoyland - talk 14:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    "Troll" and "sock"? Your personal attacks here are very offensive and it would seem some admin action will be required to make you into a more collaborative editor using AGF. You are attempting to build a defense for your behaviour out of imagination and lack of WP:AGF for others. If you have witnessed some personal attacks from me, against anyone, please advise. Otherwise, stop your personal attacks. You need to WP:DROPTHESTICK on this one and spend your valuable time being more productive on WP. Please discuss IP prejudice with User:Jimbo. He used to make the rules. 99.251.120.60 (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    AGF does not require us to treat anybody with kid gloves. If it quacks like a duck, we can call it a duck; I also point out that it was not the original reporter here who first used the word "troll" in the thread, so don't blame them for use of the term. —C.Fred (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be foolish to AGF in your case and I haven't started with the personal attacks so cut the crap. You seem to be trapped in a disruptive cycle. You can probably break that cycle by registering and using your actual name, the name you use in the real world where there are consequences for your actions, where you have learned to adjust your behavior accordingly. Exploiting the cover of anonymity to disrupt a charity is wrong. If you are going to hound editors and write inane nonsense, have the common decency and courage to own it. None of this is related to "IP prejudice". That's just a story you tell yourself. This is about you, the person, not an IP, the things you do and say and their effects. Were 99.251.120.150's edits made by you by the way ? You didn't say. A simple yes or no will suffice, but it must be an honest answer. Block evasion is not allowed. If that is what you did you should say so, agree to not do it again and mean it. But above all, in my view, you should stop editing anonymously because you can't handle anonymity. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for advice

    Hi I have a complaint regarding this editor who seems to have been looking through my contributions and reverting my edits. I first encountered him when I edited the planet of the apes articles and Jurassic park articles. He sent me a message claiming I was not justified in making edits without discussion. However, the problem persisted when he reverted an edit I made weeks earlier before encountering him on The X-Files article. I had edited the x-files with discussion and reaching agreement with another editor.

    What's more is the x-files article was left alone for days, that is until I encountered the editor in question. Clearly people seemed to be fine with my edit. It was left alone since July until the editor in question discovered it and reverted it. This time his excuse was that I "did not build consensus" when I clearly explained it on the discussion page. He continuously revert wars over it with some new excuse each time.

    His latest excuse is that he doesn't agree with it.

    I unfortunately cannot currently edit wikipedia too often as I do not have the time just yet, but I am concerned that the user will continue to revert my input and waste my efforts to contributing for the encyclopedia.

    What's more is I don't find his tone very friendly and skimming through his talk page it seems I am not the only one [45]

    You can view our conversation on my talk page [46] and his too [47].

    He is presently edit warring against me on the X-Files article but I am trying to refrain since I share the sentiment of it being disruptive and even warned him over it (see talk:The X-Files).

    I mentioned earlier I do not have time for fights since I'm not editing often but any effort to engage with him seems to have no effect on his stubbornness. I also have no idea weather he plans on reverting my future edits or not so I think some advice/assistance in this situation would be my best option. Thanks.

    • Additional note: It seems my suspicions were correct that he is looking through my contributions and reverting me on several articles, his latest revert being on the Lord of the Flies article from the notification I received in my changed messages.

    I'm proceeding to inform the editor of the board post. Taeyebaar (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: His stubbornness and edit warring is continuing. As usual he ignores anything I write so it's pretty likely he will not change his conduct. He's continuing to edit war. Any suggestions or interventions will be appreciated.-Taeyebaar (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: You would do much better to provide exact edit diffs you are concerned about. In a brief look through the links you supplied it is very hard to identify any behavioral patterns. Use the WP:AN3 page to launch a specific editwarring complaint there but you will require a complete list of diffs there also. Admins don't have a lot of extra time to do hours of research and sift through "he said, she said". 99.251.120.60 (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll probably be better off then referring to wp:stalk as he is reverting me on several articles. I'll even add the diffs to those if necessary. Taeyebaar (talk) 20:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Without studying your complaint more "reverting me on several articles" is usually part of the normal WP editing process. Editors may tend to be interested in the same topic areas. See WP:BRD. Without more detail using specific diffs to identify each infraction mentioned in a complaint it may be just too much time to prove your complaint and it gets ignored. 99.251.120.60 (talk) 00:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll provide the diffs. Thanks for the heads up. Once I finish writing up an article I'm working on, I'll provide the diffs here. Taeyebaar (talk) 03:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Fairleigh Dickinson University and PublicMind

    Matter handled. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Can we please de-archive this ANI thread so it can finally be put to bed? (I suspect a final resolution was imminent.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Peteforsyth & Russavia

    On 19 June I blocked Russavia (talk · contribs) indefinitely for disruption and this block was overwhelmingly supported by the community [48]. On 24 June AGK locked Russavia's talkpage for a month as a consequence of using his talkpage to continue the disruption and threatened to remove his talkpage access permanently if this continued [49]. Following the expiration of that lock Russavia has been using his talkpage in a manner clearly designed to solicit desired edits on the project. For example, the following diff shows him striking out comments once they have been actioned [50]. Since then a further 4 edits designed to solicit edits have been made.

    On 9 August I revoked Russavia's talkpage access as I felt that it was being used for an inappropriate purpose. I felt that another recent ANI discussion [51] concerning Apteva was relevant as their talkpage access was removed while blocked for using the page to solicit edits while blocked. While Apteva was more blatant than Russavia, I see no difference in substance between their actions - especially given that Russavia has been blocked indefinitely and, at the time, Apteva had been blocked for a month.

    My block of Russavia's talkpage was challenged by Peteforsyth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - see discussion on my talk page [52] who subsequently undid it as well as removing the standard block settings preventing account creation and ip-autoblocking (basically turning a hard block to a soft block). I see absolutely no logic for this alteration and no satisfactory explanation for the change has been provided - referring to blocks being preventative rather than punitive seems to step around the strong consensus endorsing my original block. I am also concerned that Peteforsyth is not neutral with regard to Russavia - He is clearly friendly with Russavia on Commons and recently supported him in de'crating and de'admining discussions as well as a March post on Russavia's commons talkpage expressing his admiration [53]. I have asked Peteforsyth to clarify this but he did not respond to this question.

    I basically have 3 questions that I would appreciate feedback on:

    • Is it acceptable for an indefinitely blocked user to solicit edits on their talkpage?
    • Is Peteforsyth sufficiently neutral to have undone my talkpage block without seeking a consensus here & was it OK to convert Russavia's block to a softblock?
    • Should we leave the softblock be or restore the hardblock?

    As noted on my talk, I'm on holiday and have sporadic internet access so may be not be able to step back to this discussion regularly. Thanks Spartaz Humbug! 05:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    According to previous discussions on this noticeboard, Russavia was de facto community banned. Peteforsyth is a supporter of Russavia on Commons. He has expressed his personal view that the dispute between Russavia and Jimmy Wales will "blow over". That completely overlooks the Jimmy Wales topic ban of Russavia put in place by Newyorkbrad. Now that the dust has settled from mid-June, it might be worth formalizing a community ban of Russavia either here or on WP:AN. Mathsci (talk) 05:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Responding to the 3 questions in order: If the solicited edits are not themselves problematic, I have no idea. Probably not a WP:Involved violation, as such the conversion was permitted, but unwise. (unwise both due to the potential appearance of bias, and because an admin action should only be reversed prior to discussion for very good reason) I can think of no justification for the change to a soft block, and so Support restoring the hardblock. Monty845 05:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not understand why concerns about copyright (see here) or images not conforming to WP:NFCC (like this) lead to the removal of the talk page access as they were considered as not being helpful. In his reasoning, Spartaz claimed that In the case of indefinitely blocked users, talkpages should not be used to post material about article content. Is it really the intention to have notifications about copyright problems suppressed just because an editor is blocked? --AFBorchert (talk) 06:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Just an observational note. The block is a hardblock, and Russavia came into #wikipedia-en and made the following comment:

    [02:08] russavia an admin around? a hardblock in conjunction with an account creation prevention -- this would mean that any IP i've edited from in the last 3 months would be prevented from editing or creating an account?

    Just wanted to point that out. Dusti*Let's talk!* 06:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed it is now a soft block [54]. Spartaz Humbug! 06:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Dusti, aside from being wrong about the block, do you know that posting IRC logs on-wiki is considered a blockable offence by some? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Point 1, doing so would normally be, in my book, meatpuppetry but given that they're blocked anyone acting on their behalf is basically a sock (not in the classic sense, I hope people understand what I mean). Point 2, Peterforsyth could argue that their friendly relationship with Russavia on Commons is off-en-wiki, but I would argue that given the closeness of Commons and En Wiki, Peterforsyth could in no way be considered uninvolved to be performing such admin actions. Point 3, admins should not be unilaterally converting imposed hard blocks without consultation. Blackmane (talk) 08:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Responding just to your first question: it all depends on how it's done. Since good blocks are imposed to prevent disruption, a reasonable request for what's really an improvement should definitely be fulfilled, and any rule that prohibits it is a rule that prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. Of course, requests for things that damage articles should be denied, and unreasonable requests (e.g. attacks on someone else) are a great reason for shutting down talk page access. Nyttend (talk) 11:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed in general, but I don't think we want to encourage people to become meatpuppets who proxy edit for people who are de facto banned. If Russavia came across something glaring and posted it to his talk page in the hopes someone could help, that would be fine. But if he is repeatedly asking for people to edit on his behalf, then I agree with removing access. I also support others in stating that the hard block should be restored. Resolute 13:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note Whatever the issues over talkpage access, the IP block and account creation blocks need to be put back, they are entirely standard settings and Pete did not address why on earth he had done that in his response to Spartaz. [55] Black Kite (talk) 12:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think this was an appropriate use for a talk page of an indefinitely blocked editor. By indefinitely blocking someone we have decided that we do not want them contributing to the encyclopedia. Talk page access is primarily given for the purpose of discussing the circumstances surrounding the block, not for making more contributions. Whether the edits are constructive makes no difference - blocked editors are blocked from making any sort of edit, not just from making unconstructive edits. If anything I would consider use of a talk page in this way to be a form of gaming the system by showing that the block is ineffective. Nor do I see why the hardblock was turned into a softblock, as hardblocks are almost always used in situations where the blocked editor was being actively disruptive. Hut 8.5 15:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support talk page access, though I have no opinion on the rest. AGK shouldn't have revoked his talk page access in the first place since Russavia was simply responding to an article written about him in the Signpost. Now he has just been commenting about legitimate issues with content. Revoking talk page access under these circumstances is unduly punitive. As Russavia is merely blocked rather than banned he is allowed use of his talk page for things other than appeals regarding his block.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    A couple comments, since it seems people want them.

    • Russavia's edits to his talk page in no way relate to the stuff that he was banned for. Since I restored his privileges, he has flagged four clear copyright violations that have existed on the site for 4 to 9 years -- clearly and uncontroversially problems that should be addressed. That's it. No fanning of flames, no drama. In my view, no harm, no foul. This is a markedly different circumstance than the one Spartaz originally cited as precedent, which among other things involved the use of the {{helpme}} template. If anybody can't handle what's going on, all they have to do is unwatch Russavia -- problem solved.
    • Yes, of course I am a collaborator who works with Russavia. He has been around a long time, does a lot of good work; I have learned a lot from him and enjoy his company. This is a far cry from saying I endorse everything he does, or am some kind of meatpuppet. If there is relevance, I fail to see it. My actions have been motivated by what is best for Wikipedia, not by a sense of personal loyalty.
    • The hardblock-to-softblock conversion is something I did for a different reason, and something I had expected would be entirely uncontroversial. I have had more than one student who, when attempting to create their first Wikipedia account, are prevented from doing so, and after some digging the reason has turned out to be an autoblock that had absolutely nothing to do with them. To me, this seems like a significant problem in the recruitment of new users, and I would think that autoblocks would typically be used very lightly in consideration of that unintended consequence. I have never heard an allegation that Russavia has socked; doing so seems to me out of step with his approach to editing wikis; and I looked through his block log to confirm that socking has never been at issue. With all that in mind, I thought that removing the anti-socking aspects of the block would be a simple and uncontroversial change. I guess I was wrong, and this is probably not the best venue to address what now seems to me like an overly reactive general approach that has evolved here in relation to blocks.

    With all that said, I'm done here -- this is not the kind of thing I log into Wikipedia to work on. I'll probably check back to see what is said, but overall I don't see this as an issue worth the ink that has been spilled on it. I think we all have better things to do. -Pete (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    If you don't want to be involved in discussions about this sort of thing, don't go messing around with high-profile blocks like this one as it is pretty much guaranteed that this sort of hint will attract attention on the drama boards. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Status quo ante - Quite clearly an ill-advised and possibly bad-faith maneuver on PeterForsyth's part, given their Commons connections. Tarc (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not to put too fine a point on it, blocked means blocked. If a user is blocked, the inherent assumption is that they may not edit the English Wikipedia except to make a block appeal. If that assumption is incorrect, the appropriate action is not to grant them talk page access and give them a limited, hindered route to editing by proxy; it is to unblock them. And to "un-revoke" their talk page access because the edits, of themselves, are constructive is to entirely – I regret to say – miss the point. Revoke talk page access and refer Russavia to an appeals venue. (Full disclosure: Last month, I protected Russavia's talk page for a month, thereby temporarily revoking his talk page access.) AGK [•] 13:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure that's an assumption which is particularly prevalent. The user talk page is used for all sorts of notifications (ANI, copyvio, SPI) which may be unrelated to their block but where some sort of response would be expected or solicited. Besides this, many blocked users, like Russavia, use their talk pages to discuss page content issues, and this is the first I've noticed anyone object to this practice. It would help if the community would actually codify its attitude towards this behaviour. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support talk page access - I do not find the edits that are at the heart of this complaint to be problematic. As this is an editor with a history of figuring out where the boundaries are and then walking 3 steps over with his pants around his ankles, shaking his backside at the world like Bart Simpson, I don't anticipate that he will stay within the bounds of such directed, content-related criticism for long. There will no doubt be a time when the cudgel needs to be wielded again, but I don't find anything the least bit wrong with the "corrections to be made" approach. Carrite (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support talk page access. I do not see any point in blocking talk page of a blocked user unless it is used for personal attacks, harassment, soapboxing of particularly offensive POV and similar disruption. Seems to be the case here as I do not see Russavia using talk page for disruptions (at least recently). Some users do not have the right temperament or skills to work with the article space directly but they are productive discussing article content on their talk page. Usually such type of work reduces tensions and helps the problem editor to learn the correct way of editing in article space. Not sure about account creations and autoblocks. Usually it is a bad idea, if Russavia has any special circumstances related to the matter, it is really should be discussed offwiki Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Status quo ante - it just looks like the ultimate gamer is starting to game again. What part of "no, we don't want you contributing, everything you do is disruptive" doesn't he understand? Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Status quo ante - obviously. Why would I need to add anything to what Smallbones said? That's it, really. Begoon talk 05:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support talk page access, until and unless he starts to actually use his talk page disruptively. Don't care if he's soft- or hard-blocked - no evidence has been presented supporting the view that he's likely to sock. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cjlim and continued linkspam

    User's only contributions are to add material related to World Scientific, which has previously had problems with promotional SPAs. They've continued to add refspam despite three warnings, and have not commented on any talk page or their own. a13ean (talk) 14:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    You sure you've got the right guy? Cjlim has edited science and engineering articles since 2009 and hasn't touched World Scientific as far as I can tell. CtP (t • c) 21:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Every single one of their edits adds material sourced to something published by World Scientific, although they have not edited the article of the publisher. a13ean (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying, I misunderstood what you said. CtP (t • c) 23:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No prob, I did not phrase it very well. It's not exactly a massive problem, but the person has not made a single non-promotional edit and continues to not participate in talk pages. a13ean (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dwaipayanc, User:AfricaTanz, Warning flood and discretionary sanction

    I want to draw your attention towards this incidence. I'll divide my post into two parts—

    1. Flooding of warnings: User:Dwaipayanc has been given at least 4 warnings today, see few sections from here. This is against a) Wikipedia editor retention b) Wikipedia assume good faith etc. In addition, when it is a known issue that the editor is a trusted editor for a long time, one should be careful before giving so many warnings. So, (may not be deliberately done), but, this has become almost a harassment to a trusted editor. (see next point).
    2. Discretionary sanctions: Future Perfect at Sunrise has imposed a discretionary sanction on editors here. I feel, there has been confusions: a) User:Dwaipayanc has been given a warning, but, not User:AfricaTanz who has done more reverts than AfricaTanz. b) I think the main confusion here has been: 2 consecutive reverts of Dwaipayanc— Dwaipayanc reverted an edit of me mistakenly and then immediately self-reverted that. So, these two edits should not be counted in the edit war. With due respect to Future Perfect (he has been one of the best editors I have ever seen), I have a hunch that he did not carefully check these two edits and the other edits/editing trends here. If you see the editing pattern, then you'll find out that this has been an issue of one editor (i.e. User:AfricaTanz), his edits are being questioned and challenged in multiple articles. Giving the editor who is trying to help a series of warnings and leaving the problematic editor free is unacceptable. Finally, in my opinion, the discretionary sanction on editors here was not required too. In the warning message it has been told— an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia — this is incorrect, a) Dwaipayanc is one of the best editors of WikiProject India with no complaint against him at all, b) the issue was not that serious. I have not seen where the Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions, there are many more serious issues, this was a minor issue where one can easily get clear idea that what is happening and what should be done. --Tito☸Dutta 23:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (small observation) I think you might have an error in your post: "... AfricaTanz who has done more reverts than AfricaTanz." Did you mean "than Dwaipayanc"? OSborn arfcontribs. 23:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I was warned the same way that Dwaipayanc and another editor were. To my knowledge, no one has yet cited Dwaipayanc's mistaken (was it?) reversion of you. What Dwaipayanc has done, with your help in response to Dwaipayanc's canvassing of you, is very, very serious. A huge portion of the Bengal article is unsourced and now temporarily protected from editing because the two of you kept adding back the unsourced material and refused to source anything: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5). Not one source was added. Please tell us why you and Dwaipayanc could not be bothered to add a source for any of the material you kept adding back. You and Dwaipayanc achieved precisely what you wanted: the complete preservation of an awful and embarrassing article that violates Wikipedia policy in many different ways. AfricaTanz (talk) 00:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • hi all! Thanks Tito for your concerns. I don't mind getting warned if policy dictates so. So, no problem with that! Yes, I did a revert of Tito by mistake, and immediately self reverted.
      • unfortunately, AfricanTanz, despite his great intentions, did not really follow suggested guideline for content dispute. WP:V suggests a nice civil way for that. Try to fix the error first, then tag with citation needed, and discuss in talk page. If no response, then of course delete material. Despite several requests, the user did not follow such a nice guideline/policy. Instead he quotes a post by Jimbo Wales from 2006, a post that explicitly mentions that it is not a policy! --Dwaipayan (talk) 00:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you merely forgot what I said here and are not intentionally engaging in selective quoting, i.e., lawyering. AfricaTanz (talk) 04:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking of selective quoting, you should have quoted the whole paragraph from WP:V. It says, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. 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. If you think the material is verifiable, try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." This is precisely what I am stating. Try yourself first, then tag, and discuss; if no improvement, you are welcome to remove.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's look at the items that Dwaipayan, Titodutta, বিজয়_চক্রবর্তী, and Bazaan keep adding back to Bengal with no sources and no demonstrable effort to source:

    (1) "Smaller numbers of Pathans, Persians, Arabs and Turks also migrated to the region in the late Middle Ages while spreading Islam."
    (2) "After a period of anarchy, the native Buddhist Pala Empire ruled the region for four hundred years, and expanded across much of the Indian subcontinent into Afghanistan during the reigns of Dharmapala and Devapala. The Pala dynasty was followed by the reign of the Hindu Saiva Sena dynasty. Islam made its first appearance in Bengal during the 12th century when Sufi missionaries arrived. Later, occasional Muslim raiders reinforced the process of conversion by building mosques, madrassas, and Sufi Khanqah. Beginning in 1202 a military commander from the Delhi Sultanate, Bakhtiar Khilji, overran Bihar and Bengal as far east as Rangpur, Bogra, and the Brahmaputra River. Although he failed to bring Bengal under his control, the expedition managed to defeat Lakshman Sen and his two sons moved to a place then called Vikramapur (present-day Munshiganj District), where their diminished dominion lasted until the late 13th century."
    (3) "During the 14th century, the former kingdom became known as the Sultanate of Bengal, ruled intermittently with the Sultanate of Delhi as well as powerful Hindu states and land-lords-Baro-Bhuyans. The Hindu Deva Kingdom ruled over eastern Bengal after the collapse Sena Empire. The Sultanate of Bengal was interrupted by an uprising by the Hindus under Raja Ganesha. The Ganesha dynasty began in 1414, but his successors converted to Islam. Bengal came once more under the control of Delhi as the Mughals conquered it in 1576. There were several independent Hindu states established in Bengal during the Mughal period like those of Maharaja Pratap Aditya of Jessore and Raja Sitaram Ray of Burdwan. These kingdoms contributed a lot to the economic and cultural landscape of Bengal. Extensive land reclamations in forested and marshy areas were carried out and trade as well as commerce were highly encouraged. These kingdoms also helped introduce new music, painting, dancing, and sculpture into Bengali art forms. Also, many temples were constructed during this period. Militarily, they served as bulwarks against Portuguese and Burmese attacks. Koch Bihar Kingdom in the northern Bengal, flourished during the period of 16th and the 17th centuries as well as weathered the Mughals and survived till the advent of the British."
    (4) "In 1534, the ethnic Afghan Pashtun Sher Shah Suri succeeded in defeating the forces of the Mughals under Humayun at Chausa (1539) and Kannauj (1540).[citation needed] Sher Shah fought back and captured both Delhi and Agra and established a kingdom stretching far into Punjab. Sher Shah's administrative skill showed in his public works, including the Grand Trunk Road connecting Sonargaon in Bengal with Peshawar in the Hindu Kush. Sher Shah's rule ended with his death in 1545."
    (5) "Shah Suri's successors lacked his administrative skill, and quarrelled over the domains of his empire. Humayun, who then ruled a rump Mughal state, saw an opportunity and in 1554 seized Lahore and Delhi. Humayun died in January of 1556. By this time Hemu (also called Hem Chandra Vikramaditya), the then Hindu prime minister-cum- Chief of Army, of the Sur dynasty, had already won Bengal in the battle at Chapperghatta. In this battle Hemu killed Muhammad Shah, the then ruler of Bengal. This was Hemu's 20th continuous win in North India. Knowing of Humanyun's death, Hemu rushed to Delhi to win Agra and later on Delhi. Hemu established 'Hindu Raj' in North India on 6 Oct 1556, after 300 years of Muslim rule, leaving Bengal to his Governor Shahbaz Khan. Akbar, the greatest of the Mughal emperors, defeated the Karani rulers of Bengal in 1576. Bengal became a Mughal subah and ruled through subahdars (governors). Akbar exercised progressive rule and oversaw a period of prosperity (through trade and development) in Bengal and northern India."
    (6) "Bengal's trade and wealth impressed the Mughals so much that they called the region the Paradise of the Nations. Administration by governors appointed by the court of the Mughal Empire court (1575–1717) gave way to four decades of semi-independence under the Nawabs of Murshidabad, who respected the nominal sovereignty of the Mughals in Delhi. The Nawabs granted permission to the French East India Company to establish a trading post at Chandernagore in 1673, and the British East India Company at Calcutta in 1690. The most notable among them is Murshid Quli Khan, who was succeeded by Alivardi Khan."
    (7) "Agriculture is the leading occupation in the region. Rice is the staple food crop. Other food crops are pulses, potato, maize, and oil seeds. Jute is the principal cash crop. Tea is also produced commercially; the region is well known for Darjeeling and other high-quality teas."
    (8) "The common Bengali language and culture anchors the shared tradition of two parts of politically divided Bengal. Bengal has a long tradition in folk literature, evidenced by the Charyapada, Mangalkavya, Shreekrishna Kirtana, Maimansingha Gitika or Thakurmar Jhuli. Bengali literature in the medieval age was often either religious (e.g. Chandidas), or adaptations from other languages (e.g. Alaol). During the Bengal Renaissance of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Bengali literature was modernised through the works of authors such as Michael Madhusudan Dutta, Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay, Rabindranath Tagore, Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar and Kazi Nazrul Islam."
    (9) "Other folk music forms include Gombhira, Bhatiali and Bhawaiya. Folk music in Bengal is often accompanied by the ektara, a one-stringed instrument. Other instruments include the dotara, dhol, flute, and tabla. The region also has an active heritage in North Indian classical music."
    (10) "Bengal had also been the harbinger of modernism in Indian arts. Abanindranath Tagore, one of the important 18th century artist from Bengal is often referred to as the father of Indian modern art. He had established the first non-British art academy in India known as the Kalabhavan within the premises of Santiniketan. Santiniketan in course of time had produced many important Indian artists like Gaganendranath Tagore, Nandalal Bose, Jamini Roy, Benode Bihari Mukherjee and Ramkinkar Baij. In the post-independence era, Bengal had produced important artists like Somenath Hore, Meera Mukherjee and Ganesh Pyne."
    (11) "Bengali women commonly wear the shaŗi and the salwar kameez, often distinctly designed according to local cultural customs. In urban areas, many women and men wear Western-style attire. Among men, European dressing has greater acceptance. Men also wear traditional costumes such as the kurta with dhoti or pyjama, often on religious occasions. The lungi, a kind of long skirt, is widely worn by Bangladeshi men."

    AfricaTanz (talk) 04:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Excellent. Thank you AfricaTanz for listing the specific paragraphs/materials that you wanted to delete. Since I am not a regular editor of the article currently, it would be helpful for me to find out references for those materials. Of course, if no references are found, those material will be deleted. Thanks a lot for cooperating. Exactly this thing you could have done in the article talk page, or, even easier, could have tagged those areas with citation needed tags. That would have prevented all these unfortunate proceedings. Bye the way, did you search for references yourself before suspecting that these materials are un-sourable? If yes, please say that yes you searched but did not find. that would save us time. Anyway, thanks again. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You are seriously claiming that you never looked at this material before you restored it time and again? What I listed is everything. Do you ever look at diffs? Why do you need to be spoon fed a listing of the material you are restoring before you are willing to make even a cursory attempt to source it? Do you not see a problem with knee-jerk, constant reverting of an editor's deletion of unsourced material? I am even more shocked than I was before by your conduct. AfricaTanz (talk) 07:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Answers: No I am not seriously claiming. Yes, I do look at diffs. It is much esier to work systematically, such as having a list etc. I do see a problem with knee-jerk reversion of any kind.
    You did not answer my question. Did you try to look for sources before blanket-deletion of such a large chunk? Did you make make even a cursory attempt to source? This is expected from an experienced editor. If you did try, please let us know for which sentences you tried to find sources. That would help us. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's also look at the nonsense edit summaries they have used when protecting this mountain of unsourced (and perhaps unsourcable) material:

    (1) "Vanga is a well known sanskrit word for Bengal (cite added), Bengalis are a blend by Aryan race too is very well known!"
    (2) "Well known are not necessary to be cited or sourced as you enter the interior of the lined pages you would get cites! Well known history!"
    (3) "Well known are not necessary to be cited or sourced! Bangladeshi women wear only sari, The common language is only Bengali and was mordenised"
    (4) "a well know face, pakistani forces and the liberation war and all of history before independence, and obviously 1991 is the restoration of democr.."
    (5) "it;s a basic info dude."
    (6) "basic info"
    (7) "AfricaTanz, what's your problem with a citation tag? You're removing well-known information, which can be verified through other wikipedia articles already linked"
    (8) "the project is not a destructive me, but collaborative see talk page. Read WP :preserve. Tag with cn as I was doing."
    (9) "Again insertion of same problematic content, please discuss at talk"

    AfricaTanz (talk) 04:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's take a look at some of their discussion page posts:

    (1) "But stuff like Vanga, the Pala Empire and Bhatiali are highly important subjects in the history of Bengal and frankly its ridiculous and outrageous for someone to remove them all together merely on the grounds of sourcing issues."
    (2) "Any materials challenged or likely to be challenged needs citation. Please challenge the materials that you think needs verification with citation needed tags. Even many good articles do not have citation after each and every sentence. Indeed even after your deletions, Bengal article may not have citations after each and every sentence."
    (3) "This is a collaborative process, not a destructive one, obviously you should delete vandalism or blatant hoax immediately. But, for usual material, one should first try to fix it rather than deleting straight-forward. Do not blanket delete."
    (4) "So, please refrain from your biased editing behavior."
    (5) "You are making error in the context. Learn to use common sense in some instances. Obviously you should remove something that is absurd to common sense."
    (6) "The other point here is that all this information is already linked with various Wikipedia articles and can be easily verified."

    AfricaTanz (talk) 05:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    But, in my opinion, Dwaipayanc's edits were not disruptive. --Tito☸Dutta 06:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you consider your own reversion disruptive? Did you realize you were restoring a mountain of unsourced material? Why did you falsely say in your edit summary: "Again insertion of same problematic content, please discuss at talk"? Had you been paying attention, you would have realized that I was not "inserting" anything. When I asked you about this on your talk page, you didn't respond. AfricaTanz (talk) 07:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Avanhard resort article and self-promotion

    I have noticed that someone tried to pad this article several times with various links to a foreign commercial third-party websites, such as this one, this and this. All of these commercial sites are using self-published basic info about resort (and few photos of unknown source) for a self-promotion of their own commercial services (namely selling the tours or rooms at the hotels at this particular resort). Am I correct to assume that such sources (which have the only purpose of self-promoting their own commercial service) should not be used due to WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:IS or am I wrong? I have tried to remove these but they were reverted and I was straight away accused of vandalism. I do not really want to break any WP:3RR rules (and if I already did - I apologize for that) or engage into further pointless conversations at an article's Talk page so please help me figure it out here... 173.68.110.16 (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree as per WP:LINKSTOAVOID this is exactly breaking point 5. Also some content in the page was focusing more on a resort than the town/village itself. I have removed the content but not the external links yet though.  A m i t  웃   02:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the problem? Clear-cut advertising case. Just delete the links again and ask the user to discuss on the talkpage per WP:BRD. You're not the one edit-warring here, so I don't see anything worthy of ANI just yet. He's only posted on the talk page once. I'm sorry I no longer have the time to just help you with this, but I don't see any reason why I (or anyone else) would need to at this point. Also, try pointing out to him that "vandalism" is a label that should never be applied to anything but obvious bad-faith edits and so is clearly being used wrongly. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It would hardly be fair to leave 173.68.110.16 to deal with this alone; naturally, they're worried about 3RR. I've warned the user on their page. Thanks for raising this, 173.68.110.16, and feel free to alert me on my page if there's more trouble. Bishonen | talk 11:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]

    Negative, the user 173.68.110.16 has never tried to discuss his edits, but rather had intentions to delete the whole article without any discussion. The article itself is not a "clear case" of commercial advertising, but I agree that a lot of links may have lead to such assumption. However, I am willing to improve the article in near future. Also, please not that the article is not about a town, but rather a ski resort that is located in the town of Vorokhta (a bid difference). Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 13:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Please could an Ukrainian/Russian-speaking admin take a look at the links?

    Both the references and the external links, please. They're in languages I don't understand. However, having looked at the article more closely, I now consider the whole of it falls foul of WP:NOTADVERTISING, and have nominated it for deletion here. Bishonen | talk 18:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]

    Wolfe Tone Societies

    I created this article yesterday: Wolfe_Tone_Societies. User:Psychonaut has blanked the page citing copyright violation. I believe this is overkill. I am a hardworking, daily contributor to Wikipedia and if he had highlighted any issues to me I would have rectified them immediately. I think he is aware of this. I don't believe it is to the advantage of the wiki to have this article placed in stalemate for any length of time when I am absolutely committed to putting any errors right. If any admin wishes to make the page available to me again and either tags the suspect text as "copyvio" or hides it with a note to tell me what is wrong I will correct it so that it fully complies with whatever guideline I have overlooked. I do apologise for getting it wrong in the first place and will use this experience to help me avoid such issues in the future. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at the text of the article again it appears to me as if the only thing wrong is a missing set of quotes to identify the section "Formation" as a quote from CAIN. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Just remove the (potentially) offending material and reinstate the other stuff. Unless Psychonaut has given you a better, more specific reason that you're not telling us about. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Duplication Detector report The Banner talk 12:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's some of it. The duplication detector doesn't work on printed books. The material copied was from the section of the book cited as a reference. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive805#Werieth may provide some context here. Since that thread (before which I had no knowledge of or interactions with this user), I've been occasionally observing their activity here and on Commons, cleaning up after their copyvios where necessary, and offering them help and advice. Regretfully I have come to agree with Cailil's conclusions that SonofSentanta has been given more than enough time and opportunities to familiarize and bring himself into compliance with our copyright policies. That he has failed to do so in five years can only be explained by either incompetence or disingenuity. The latest copyright violation (i.e., the subject of this ANI report) is rather blatant, with a considerable amount of text copied and pasted verbatim from a website and a printed book, and yet he professes not to know where the problem lies. His personal insults and threats to disrupt the projects don't help much either. (The latest link is to a Commons thread, though it reflects his attitude to objections to his copyright violations generally, irrespective of whether they're done there or here.)
    Anyway, to address the specific subject of this complaint, when I tagged the article as a copyvio I immediately provided the author with full instructions on how to go about correcting it. He knows now (if he didn't already from reading the template on the article) that all he has to do is to write a non-infringing version of the article on a temporary page. The temp version will then be copied over the original, and the problematic versions will most likely be revdel'ed by an administrator. This is the standard procedure for complex copyvio cases here (i.e., those which mix infringing and non-infringing text). I imagine it would have taken him less time to simply follow the instructions to fix the article than to post this complaint here. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is what happened when I went to Werieth asking for help and advice [56]. Some mentor eh? This was after I had posted this message [57]. Does anyone notice that I'm the one doing all the work, approaching people and asking them to work with me? What do I get for it? "I don't have the time to deal with you". SonofSetanta (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. Mentoring or block for SoS. Is "copyvio" an acceptable topic for TBAN? Like if he makes any more copyvio edits he is immediately blocked, and this is his final warning? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think he's going to get any more information from a mentor than he has from me, User:Stefan2, and several other users who over the past month (if not longer) have very patiently and repeatedly explained various aspects of copyright law, licensing, and Wikipedia/Commons media use policies to him. I am not going to waste any further time on what amounts to retyping information which was already provided to him in copyvio/deletion notifications, directing him to informative policy pages that he doesn't appear to actually read, and explaining what distinguishes free content from non-free content over and over again. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Persistent violation of copyright is grounds for an immediate indef block usually. SoS is already on a final warning per the previous ANI thread, which wasn't that long ago. At the very least, a sanction for CIR should be considered. Blackmane (talk) 12:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am dreadfully upset by your comments Hijiri. Why would I need to be blocked because I make a request here? The copyvio notice at wolfe Tone Societies states "Do not restore or edit the blanked content on this page until the issue is resolved by an administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent." As per that I am requesting the page be restored so I can correct the errors - that's all. I've made no complaint about Psychonaut or anyone else - just a simple request to sysops from a hardworking editor. Restore the page, clearly identify any areas of concern, and I will rectify it/them immediately. The fact that there are errors are simply oversight on my part. I should have used quote marks when I cited CAIN and Richard English and I apologise for not doing so. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do I need to be blocked for making a request here? This is not about image copyright, which is what all the previous discussions have been about. This is about me making a simple request to have an article restored so I can correct errors. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:BOOMERANG. By posting here you inadvertently drew the community's attention to your own persistent pattern of disruptive behaviour. As much as it pains me to say this to a fellow Paddy. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    How have I violated any warning? I left out some quotation marks. The warning you're referring to was in regards to me trying to keep images where there were copyright issues. That's a totally different matter. I've come onto this board to request an article be restored to allow me to correct it by putting in quotation marks. So how is it an open and shut case when I'm trying to comply with copyright? Am I saying anywhere there isn't a copyright issue? Am I saying I'm not going to fix it? Am I insulting anyone for drawing my attention to copyright issues? No. I've made a simple request for the article to be restored to allow me to quickly correct it. FYI: I use quotes from CAIN copiously. I have a permission from CAIN to use an image from their site - sent to OTRS today. I quote from books all the time and fill in the bibliography diligently. Why on earth am I getting all this grief because I left out a couple of quotation marks and want to correct that error? SonofSetanta (talk) 13:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    But there is no persistent pattern of disruptive behavior. There were issues a few weeks ago concerning files I had uploaded in 2008 as well as a couple concerning military insignia where I didn't understand the complications of Crown Copyright. That has all been resolved now, mostly through my own efforts to keep them. I have worked with the editors who are trying to enforce copyright and I have worked very closely behind the scenes with OTRS: something which editors on here won't be aware of. All my copyrights on images are fine now and I understand the process a lot better. This issue is simply about a textual copyright concern where I failed to put quotation marks in to show I was quoting from CAIN and "Armed Struggle" by Richard English. It was the end of the day and I was trying to get my wee article largely wrapped up by dinner time. I had an article update in mind for today. I examined the copyright violation notice at Wolfe Tone Societies and was more than a little annoyed that Psychonaut didn't just tag the text and draw my attention to it. I would have fixed it immediately and I believe he knows that. The softer option to me was to request restoration of the page here as per the notice. I did investigate the other options but noted complaints from others that temporary pages were left for months without action. I promise you: I am a hard working Wikipedian. Take a look at my "contribs". Have you looked at the copyright discussions I have been involved in where I've managed to fix issues, sometimes with the help of others? I am not a disruptive editor. Whatever problems I had with copyright are in the past and I just want to fix these wee errors I made yesterday. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    May I draw your attention to these files: File:BKY08MEM Memorial Gdn BKelly 3677.JPG (uploaded today); File:Crest of the Royal Ulster Rifles.jpg; File:TSMG UDR 1.JPG (nominated for deletion by self]]; File:UDR Stable Belt Colours.jpg (nominated for deletion by self as new image was introduced follwing advice); File:Royal Irish and UDR badges side-by-side.jpg; File:Army Training Booklet.jpg; File:The Elizabeth Cross in presentation box.jpg; File:GSM-ACCM and miniatures.jpg; File:Royal Irish Rangers.jpg; File:Irish Guards cap badge.jpg; File:UDR Greenfinch.jpg; File:Soldiers of 1 UDR on parade at Steeple Camp, Antrim.jpg. These are all files I've uploaded recently - within the last two weeks. There are no copyright issues with any of them. All the issues of concern with copyright are dealt with and my understanding and appreciation of copyright is vastly increased since two months ago when all this started. May I suggest that, instead of taking up everyone's time deciding whether or not I need a mentor, can the page Wolfe Tone Societies be restored so I can fix the copyright issues by putting in quotation marks? SonofSetanta (talk) 13:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, there are still copyright issues with several of your images. Isn't GSM-ACCM_and_miniatures.jpg simply a variant photograph of the one deleted as a copyvio at Commons:Deletion requests/File:General Service Medal 1962 rev.jpg? And isn't Army Training Booklet.jpg the very same scan which has already been deleted as a copyvio twice (first from File:Basic Battle Skills.jpg and later File:Excerpt from Basic Battle Skills.jpg)? The current image description page has a prominent notice indicating that the confirmation of permission received by OTRS was invalid, so it too will soon be deleted as a copyright violation. I can also point to several more absolutely unambiguous copyright violations of yours made in the past few days, including File:3 UDR Funeral.jpeg, File:A soldier of 3 UDR on patrol in Irish Street, File:Piper 3 UDR.jpeg, File:3 UDR with RUC-Newcastle.jpeg. The fact that some of the photos you've uploaded recently haven't (yet) been challenged doesn't atone for the infringing material you have continued to contribute in the meanwhile. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you are incorrect. GSM-ACCM_and_miniatures.jpg is not a variant of the Commons:Deletion requests/File:General Service Medal 1962 rev.jpg. It does not show the reverse of the medals and has not been used on the General Service Medal (1962) page. It is an update of another file uploaded by User:The Thunderer and used at Ulster_Defence_Regiment#Awards.2C_honours_and_decorations. Someone challenged my ownership of the medals so I took a new picture and uploaded it - with the correct licencing, under the guidance of OTRS. Other images were challenged in this way and I uploaded new versions of them all to prove my veracity, even offering to upload negatives to prove my ownership. Army Training Booklet.jpg has been uploaded to replace others but doing so isn't a copyright violation. Much work has been done on tracing the original and I am currently working with OTRS to establish the correct licence now that we have the publication date of the first edition. You know all of this from the discussions and I'm very disappointed you're using this example to try and show me as a copyright violator. I've got all the e-mails exchanged between myself and OTRS, MOD, IWM. HMSO and Defence Imagery on the subject of this book. I can show very easily that I have worked hard to try and find the correct copyright tag to use. As for File:3 UDR Funeral.jpeg, File:A soldier of 3 UDR on patrol in Irish Street, File:Piper 3 UDR.jpeg, File:3 UDR with RUC-Newcastle.jpeg, I misunderstood the licence from the Boston College Library. I made an enquiry at your talk page here [58] when you deleted them and was satisfied with your answer. I realised I had made a good faith error and didn't repeat it. I have made no infringements with my other images. If I had, you or one of the others who are engaged in the witch hunt against me would have tagged them for deletion by now. Feel free to check all my image files however and note any errors I have made. By becoming aware of where I have made good faith errors I become more aux fait with copyright requirements. I think sometimes you lose sight of the fact that we're all good Wikipedians and have something to offer. As a graduate my skill is in text and I've had to learn all about copyright since you guys took an interest in me. Constantly beating me like this isn't very encouraging and it doesn't display the type of collegiate discussion which Wikipedia is supposed to foster. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Whilst it can be seen as a violation of their last warning, in all technicality that was in regards to images not text. The copyvio's going by the report don't seem that bad, and SoS at the opening of this AN/I (why open it here in the first place?) has said that they are willing to work to fix the issue. This appears to be a simple easily fixed situation that has become blown out of proportion by SoS's own posting of this AN/I thread. Articles have talk pages and I see that SoS went to the talk page, and whilst Psychonaut did post a template, engaging with SoS on the talk page would of helped the matter as well.
    A solution for this issue would of been for a test page to be created in SoS's talk space where they can edit it, for example at User talk:SonofSetanta/Wolfe Tone Societies, and the objector or whoever can give it a going over when SoS has finished to see if it is still has any copyvio issues.
    In response to Hijiri 88, how exactly is this an instance of disruptive behaviour? There is no edit-warring or the like. SoS did the right thing and take it to discussion.
    If this does count as a violation of their last warning, should they not receive a minor block/topic-ban first? There have been worse offenders in Ireland related articles that have got away with 1/2/3/6 month topic-bans for doing far worse. Psychonaut also could of engaged with SoS in a more direct way. Mabuska (talk) 13:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "For all you people say you know about copyright you don't seem to be aware that Crown Copyright on written or printed matter expires after 50 years, except where otherwise stated - idiot! ... I really don't know what gets into you people but you seem to be the sort who enjoy pulling the legs off spiders." I know it's on a different Wikimedia project, but it's clearly related to this issue, and obviously disruptive. Both users are engaging each other on the same issue on this project as well. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    SoS also clearly thought he was posting on Wikipedia at that time. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you looked here: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Arthur_Denaro.jpg where I get called a liar? And here Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tannenberghindenburg2okt35ba.jpg? These are just two of the number of occasions this has happened. I get frustrated with them from time to time. I can find more, probably worse examples if you wish? There was hardly a day went by for over a fortnight but they hadn't tagged an image of mine for deletion sometime with the spurious tag "suspected of copyright violation". I have dealt with approximately 15-20 cases now where images were incorrectly removed or tagged for removal. In the vast majority of these the image has either been kept or reuploaded with revised licencing. It has been frustrating and I have to confess that sometimes I have allowed my frustration to spill over onto discussion pages. I haven't called anyone a liar though or accused anyone in the wrong the way I've been. I'm only human and ultimately I'm a disabled editor who doesn't always cope the same way an able bodied person would. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Mabuska. In fact I did try another option. In the lead section there is a statement: The previous content of this page has been identified as posing a potential copyright issue, as a copy or modification of the text from the source(s) below, and is now listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems (listing) I followed that link, which seemed to be the most sensible first option, but there's nothing there about this issue. There were however other comments from editors who've been waiting for some time for their issues to be resolved so I made the choice to come here and make a request to have the page restored in order to correct the errors. I felt that, for once, coming to the ANI board for a common sense decision on a minor matter might resolve the issue for me and for the wiki much faster. In the past when my name has been on this board it was as a result of me complaining about something or somebody complaining about me. What I'd love to see happen now is for a sysop to display that famous WP:COMMONSENSE and act on my request. At the moment I'm feeling very upset because things from the past which have no relevance anymore are being dragged up as a stick to beat me with and I don't feel it's warranted. I don't feel like a valued editor. Can anybody see that I just want to correct the errors on the Wolfe Tone Societies and move on to the next article. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not try actually creating your own article on the subject, using sources appropriately? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The article Wolfe Tone Societies is my own article. I created it yesterday to replace Wolfe_Tone_Society, an article which was very inaccurate and which I had tagged as such the previous day. I can promise you I used all seven sources correctly to ref inline. I created a bibliography to index the two published sources I used. There's actually nothing wrong with the article itself beyond the fact that I forgot to use quotation marks where I did a copy and paste from CAIN and typed up a quote from "Armed Struggle" from Richard English. The inline refs are all these however. As someone who works regularly on articles which deal with the various periods of Irish "Troubles" I am always very careful to make sure that every statement is properly sourced. In the time it's taken for all of this discourse however, the article could have been reinstated by one of the involved sysops and I could have corrected it. That's all I want to do - correct the article as advised to do so. Are you not a sysop? Can you not let me back into the article to correct these minor errors by using quotation marks? Do you not think that would be preferable to the situation we have now whereby various editors are trying to assert that I am a constant copyright violator who cares nothing about Wikipedia rules and conventions? Look at Pyschonaut's comments above: Isn't GSM-ACCM_and_miniatures.jpg simply a variant photograph of the one deleted as a copyvio at Commons:Deletion requests/File:General Service Medal 1962 rev.jpg? Totally untrue - neither image is related. It doesn't stop him making the accusation though - why? Do you know how many times Psychonaut and his fellow travelers have called me a liar over images I have claimed ownership on? Should I start posting links to those exchanges? Such displays of incivility were common. I was being interrogated like a criminal until I rescanned my original images and posted them. I protested vigourously of course and got apologies but the fact remains that editors who concerned themselves with copyright affairs called me a liar, on more than two occasions. Now we've got Psychonaut trying to assert here that I am a constant violator of copyright. My issues with copyright arose from my use of military insignia. They are resolved now. I have two images, Army Training Booklet.jpg, and another, where OTRS and I are trying to work out copyright at the moment. That isn't copyright violation. It's simply me working with OTRS to satisfy the requirements. The onus is on me, because any images I don't work out the correct copyright for will get deleted. Nobody has considered either the number of my own photographs I have uploaded onto Wikipedia and put into the public domain. Does none of this satisfy anyone of my good intent? Does nobody want to look at Special:Contributions/SonofSetanta or commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SonofSetanta and see the amount of good work I do on Wikipedia? I'm not asking for thanks, just a recognition that I'm an ordinary, hard working editor, who doesn't cause problems on the wiki. I don't understand why this simple request here has created so much trouble for me. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    At Wikipedia:Noticeboards is says, Noticeboards on Wikipedia are pages where editors can ask questions and request assistance from people who are familiar with the policies and guidelines covered by each individual board. That's what I've done: I've asked for assistance to allow me to correct a previous error. The debate has been ongoing since 12:20 GMT and no sysop has restored the Wolfe Tone Societies article to allow me to do so. All I've seen is argument about why I should be blocked or banned. Will no-one allow me to render this article readable again? I've come here in good faith for help. Will you not give it to me? I'm very tired and frustrated now and at the moment I could see Wikipedia far enough. I'm feeling that if this is the kind of message being sent to hard working editors when they ask for help, why should I ever bother asking again if all I'm going to see is a load of people lining up to kick me? SonofSetanta (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd have to say that this situation is of your own doing. Any other editor who had asked this probably wouldn't have raised an eyebrow, although there may have been a few trouts issued. However, with your history of issues with image copyright more than a few eyebrows are raised particularly if there is a sentiment that your copyright issues are extending into text. As has been said many times in the past, AGF is not a suicide pact, it will extend only so far before it runs out. Rather than bring it to ANI where one can be guaranteed a thrashing, approaching an admin directly probably would have been a better idea, that being said I personally don't see why the article couldn't be userfied into a subpage. Blackmane (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Whatever issues I had were temporary and came from a lack of understanding of copyright law. As my understanding of that has improved the problems have faded into the background. I believe I enter enough textual information to illustrate I have a good understanding of the requirements. Why should one be guaranteed a thrashing here? I did approach an admin directly btw but he didn't reply. I also contacted OTRS and they didn't reply either. I'd never encountered one of these notices before so I made my choices based on the information I could see.SonofSetanta (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, SoS, "Check my contributions list on a different Wikimedia project to see all the good work I do for Wikipedia" is not the right way to convince us that sanctions need to be placed on another user. Your opening post here, especially given that it was here (on ANI), heavily implied that you wanted an admin or the community to intervene on your behalf in a dispute. I told you yesterday how you can deal with the problem in good faith, but then further evidence came out that you in fact have a persistent problem in this area, and apparently you have already been given your final warning... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I haven't sought sanctions against another user. I moaned about the way it was done is all. I felt, and still feel, that it would have been better for Psychonaut to have tagged the offending material and allowed me to correct the errors without the need for blanking the article. It wasn't a dispute. I read the text in the notice, and reproduced it here, which suggested an admin could restore the page. I dealt with the issue in the way you suggested by using a temporary page. The article still hasn't been restored. This further evidence you speak of all relates to the past. The copyright issues I had at that time have all been dealt with and my learning curve has extended into working closely with OTRS, to whom I am very thankful, to resolve any issues regarding copyright directly with them and some quite complicated licencing has been used in this process. To say I'm now a copyright expert would be very wrong but I know enough to approach OTRS for help when the correct method of licencing seems difficult to select. Let's put this all into perspective by saying: I have never willfully created an image with the wrong licencing information. I made some errors, that is all. It would be very wrong to assume that I did so in a deliberate attempt to disrupt editing on Wikipedia. The fact that I involved myself in all discussions regarding images I felt were worth keeping is surely evidence of that - and the fact that most, if not all, of those images were kept, either as originals or by substituting new images with the correct licencing. If you're asking me will I ever have a copyright issue in the future then the answer would probably be yes because it isn't my area of expertise. The difference is, I know how to resolve the difficulties now. Is that not the Wikipedia way? SonofSetanta (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    On ANI, I often see a leap from discussing the initial complaint to scrutinizing the behavior of the participants in a dispute then leading to talk of blocks and bans. There is a reason these are called the "drama boards". Is it possible not rehash SonofSetanta's mistakes of the past and address the question that brought them to ANI in the first place? Should this discussion return to the Talk Page of the article? Or move to Dispute Resolution? How can we move from talking about users' failings to resolving whatever problems surround the posting of this article and any deficiencies it has? Can this be a constructive conversation instead of a punitive one? 69.125.134.86 (talk) 22:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Repetitive and extensive OR-violations by Migang2g

    Migang2g (talk · contribs) is inserting tons of original research over and over again. If it's removed, he reverts and if it is tagged, he removes the fact tags. The problem is not a content dispute (Migang2g may be right or wrong) but the fact that Migang2g continues even after being informed repeatedly about Wikipedia's policies about WP:RS and WP:OR. The problem in a nutshell is this:
    Migang2g uses perfectly good sources, but he always uses them to say something completely different. Here are just a few examples:

    • For his figure of how many Spanish speakers there are in the US, Migang2g uses one source that gives the total Hispanic population in the US, then another source that says which percentage of Hispanics speak Spanish, and then he calculates his own figure based on this. There are loads of problems there. First, some non-Hispanics also study Spanish. Jeb Bush is not Hispanic, but speaks Spanish. Second, the figure Migang2g presents is not found in any of the sources, it's his own calculation by combining data from two different sources that weren't necessarily computed at the same time.
    • For Spanish speakers in Morocco, it gets even more bizarre. The source says between 4 and 7 millions, but Migang2g has decided that the actual number is 5.5 millions.
    • For all European countries, Migang2g uses the Eurobarometer. First of all, the Eurobarometer only focuses on people older than 15 years, so applying it to the whole population is clearly wrong. Second, the Eurobarometer study consists of a sample in every European country, usually between 500 and 1000 people, and the gives a percentage for how many of these speaks a given language. So the Eurobarometer never gives any figure for the number of speakers in any country. Yet for more than 20 countries, Migang2g takes the percentage found in the sample, then calculates that against the number of people older than 15 years, and then presents his results as the number of Spanish speakers in the whole population.
    • For many non-European countries, Migang2g looks at how many people there are in the country from Spanish speaking countries, and then he adds all these up. This is wrong on many levels. First and foremost, it again means that the number Migang2g presents is never found in the sources, it's just his own calculations. Second, the calculations are obviously wrong. For some countries, he only finds data for some Spanish speaking countries. Moreover, he is wrong to equate "people from Spanish speaking countries" with "Spanish speakers". In Spain alone, there are millions of people whose language is Catalan, Galician or Basque rather than Spanish.
    • For a large number of countries, Migang2g doesn't even bother with a source. He just presents a number with no source at all. If it's removed, he reinserts it. If it's tagged, he deletes the tags.
    • Last but not least, Migang2g presents a percentage of Spanish speakers for the whole population. There is never a source for this. Instead he takes the whole population of each country from some source. Then he divides that with his own estimates of Spanish speakers (which are always OR, as shown above) to arrive at the percentage. Even if his calculations of Spanish speakers wouldn't violate OR, and they certainly do, this percentage nonsense would be obvious OR and false as the sources Migang2g has used are never taken at the same time.

    Now, I have tried to explain over and over to Migang2g that this is OR.[59], [60], [61]. I have pointed out twice that he cannot calculate in this way and that he cannot make up numbers that aren't found in the sources. He doesn't give a damn, he just continues anyway. Last time, when I tagged the OR claims to give him the possibility to present sources for them, I also warned him that I would bring the matter here if he continued.[62] He ignored that as well. Given that I've directed Migang2g to WP:RS and WP:OR repeatedly and he still continues to delete every fact tag and to present his own calculations (and often his own inventions) as undisputed facts, I see no other way to deal with this than to take it here. This is not a content dispute, it's about Migang2g deliberately falsifying data, misrepresenting sources and deleting fact tags despite multiple warnings.Jeppiz (talk) 11:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent insertion of original research, misrepresentation of sources and synthesis of data coupled with persistent WP:IDHT and lack of competence, particularly for someone who has a 6 year old account should be met with a swift block. Blackmane (talk) 11:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the second last sentence by Migang2g in this diff says it all: This is the reason I inserted my original research. This comes after Jeppiz tried in detail to explain why the edits were original reseach and why it is against policy. I'm not sure if this is a language-barrier issue or just a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT issue, but some restrictions need to be placed on Migang2g if the editor is going to continue to insist on inserting WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Singularity42 (talk) 11:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. I have also wondered if the problem is that Migang2g's English isn't good or if he just refuses to hear. That's why I've given him the benefit of doubt this far, and tried to explain over and over again why he cannot push OR of this kind. As you say, some restrictions would be needed know, because any attempt at discussing with him is fruitless. He knows and acknowledges that he has calculated all the numbers himself (apart from all those that he just made up), but he just doesn't seem to care. I've already reverted two times and tagged all the claims that aren't sourced (or "sourced" by misrepresenting the source), and I have no wish to start a long edit war, especially as Migang2g has made it perfectly clear that he will continue to behave in the same way.Jeppiz (talk) 14:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello. If Jeppiz delete every data I used, people will not be able to opine, then It's neccesary people see the data to debate it.

    First I am going to talk about the sources I can not understand why are violating something, according to Jeppiz.

    • In USA, Jeppiz deleted the source about the Spanish speakers as a first language. It’s a direct source from the US census Bureau. There isn’t any discussion here, but Jeppiz deleted it.
    • About European Union countries I used a direct source. It’s not the combination of two sources. The eurobarometer give us the population older than 15 years old of each country (page TS2), and the percentage of the population of these countries who speak Spanish enough to be able a conversation (Page T64). For example for France, eurobarometer says that 14% of 47,756,439 can keep a Spanish conversation. It’s the same to say that 6,685,901 can keep a conversation. Check also pages T40, T46 and T74, for other data I used. Jeppiz says that this is only a survey to 1,000 people. Of course. This is the best way to know the reality and to do a good statistic data. It's imposible to ask to everybody.
    • About Brazil, I used a direct source from Instituto Cervantes (page 6). This source says that there are 12 million speakers with limited knowledges. Its not my calculation. This data was in the column: "Total Spanish speakers including speakers with limited knowledge". I added the last phrase, but Jeppiz always is reverting everything.


    After these 3 points, I'm going to talk about other points I can understand the discussion:

    • About 43.7 million people who speak Spanish very well. The Pewhispanic's source says that 82% of the Hispanic people in USA speak Spanish very well, and the Hispanic population is 53.3 million according to US census Bureau. If I can claim both data because both data have own their sources, mathematics says that 82% of 53.3 million = 43.7 million.

    Readers can see that the figure is the combination of two sources, because is specified beside the figure with the reference number. But It isn't my own calculation. I didn’t make a statistic study to calculate the population of USA or the percentage of the population who speak Spanish very well.


    Finally I used 7.8 million Spanish students. The students are frecuently used to talk about the speakers of a language. Arab for example is studied in the schools. Practically don't have a first language speakers. About English speakers, this wikipededia says that there are 1,500 million speakers, because there are 750 million speakers as a foreign language. It's a source from the British Council. In the Encyclopedia Britannica you can find similar figure. Of course It's included English students. Anyway I gave sources that talks about 50 million speakers. Instituto Cervantes (page 6) says that there are 37 million speakers as first language and 15 million speak Spanish with limited knowledge. This data was in the column: "Total Spanish speakers including speakers with limited knowledge" that I recently added part of the last phrase.


    • About Morocco, I used a direct source, however the source says that there are between 4 and 7 million speakers, and I used 5.5 to have a concret figure. Maybe this figure could change it for a concreter data.
    Migang2g (talk) 01:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    Well, the above answer by Migang2g doesn't really address the issue. I agree with him about the first point concerning Spanish speakers in the US and I've reinserted that source. However, that still leaves more than 150 unsourced claims. The rest of Migang2g's answer consists of him explaining how he calculated his data, showing that he still does not hear the point: there should be no calculations at all. For the US, he thinks it's ok to combine data from different studies and calculate his own figure. For European countries, he thinks the Eurobarometer can be used to claim a number of speakers. It cannot, as the Eurobarometer never presents any such figures, only percentages. That equating "immigrants" (and immigrants alone) with "speakers" isn't possible should be obvious, and I hardly need to point out that a source saying "between 4 and 7 millions" cannot be used to claim "5.5 millions".
    Apart from these problems, Migang2g doesn't address all the "facts" that simply are made up. So in short, it seems we all agree that Migang2g is calculating (and often making up) his own population figures. As everybody except Migang2g also point out, it is problematic and worrying that Migang2g still refuses to get the point. At Wikipedia, we cannot calculate population figures ourselves, not to mention making figures up.Jeppiz (talk) 07:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    You can claim that I used two sources for the "very well" Spanish speakers in USA, but not for EU countries. I'm economist an I studied about survey and I can claim that the Eurobarometer's study is about the population of each country, older than 15 years old who speak the different languages. The study don't give us a figure, only the percentage, but the study was made thinking that is more representative and summarized to give us percentages, but they also give us their population calculation for the study, and that's the problem with the other source. Pewhispanic give us the pecentage 82% of the Hispanics who speak very well Spanish, but they don't say anything about the population data they used. But when a study talks about a percentage is a percentage of something. We need to know the quantity of population we are talking.

    Migang2g (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Migang2g, what you describe above is the very conduct issue that has brought you here. You are applying your knowledge of economics and your study of the survey to interpret the results and put them in Wikipedia. Wikipedia cannot accept your interpretation of the surveys, etc. Either the survey directly states it or it does not. If an interpretation is required, then you are adding your own original research. Singularity42 (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Direct question to Migang2g

    What we need from you at this time is an answer to the following question: Will you refrain from adding content based on your own original research, including, but not limited to a) your own interpretation of sources beyond what they directly state, b) your synthesis of two sources to create new information, and c) your own calculations using raw data contained in the sources? If the answer to that is anything but "Yes, you will refrain", then an administrator will have to take action. Singularity42 (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Buckshot06

    Buckshot06 (talk · contribs) is some what bashing the Afghan National Army (ANA) with his POVs. He refuses to discuss Talk:Afghan National Army#Merge proposal to NATO Training Mission-Afghanistan and blindly reverts all my edits [63] simply because he doesn't like any improvement made to that article. For example, he claims that there are upto 350,000 active ANA soldiers. That is just preposterous! But wait, there's more. Buckshot06 claims that Afghanistan was created as a state in 1880 by Abdur Rahman Khan when in fact that guy was the 24th king of Afghanistan. The CIA World Factbook states "Ahmad Shah DURRANI unified the Pashtun tribes and founded Afghanistan in 1747." [64] This is backed by 100s of other sources. Buckshot06 is determined to keep inserting in the ANA article this unimportant quote: "Thus, former mujahideen who had been fighting for two decades, many wearing plastic sandals and carrying rickety Soviet-era AK-47s, were requested to continue their role as "proxies", while US troops in helmets, kevlar armour and insulated clothing, carrying the best weapons and cold-weather equipment the richest nation in history could provide, looked on." This is nonsense in an encyclopedia because I have never seen a single ANA soldier wear plastic sandals. These actions of Buckshot06 are clearly attempts to degrade ANA and the United States who is spending around $7 billion dollars a year on the ANA. Admins should not be making controversial edits like that or making ridiculous POV-infested statements in an encyclopedia. He is basically trying to tell readers that the ANA is the most low class army in the world but in reality it is the best army Afghanistan has ever seen in its 300 year old history. At least this is what most news reports tend to say and we need to follow up on that. Buckshot06 is only focusing on all the negative reports and that's the problem here. In the meantime, during the training period (2002-2013), there were some negative issues but most of that belong in the NATO Training Mission-Afghanistan. That article specifically deals with that.--Fareed30 (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I cannot comment on the content as I'm no expert on this area. However, that is what this appears to be: a content dispute. It seems that both Buckshot06 and Fareed30 have strong opinions about this matter, but after a look (admittedly a quick one) I can see no evidence of one being more responsible than the other. Fareed30, it appears that you have deleted sources used by Buckshot06, sources that satisfy WP:RS, and that you have been reverted him at least as much as he has been reverting you. Once again, I won't take sides in a content dispute about a subject I don't know well, but if you want ANI to comment on this, you have to display that Buckshot06 is guilty of violating policies. I've found no such diff.Jeppiz (talk) 13:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    He is POV-pushing, reverting without a discussion, adding irrelvant information, putting past events in present form, to make readers believe that ANA army is still low class or in bad shape as it was in the past. As for me, some irrelevant and outdated sources may be removed. Who says they can't? We are suppose to choose between sources, pick the better ones. News reports sometimes make obvious mistakes and in that case it doesn't matter if it is WP:RS or not. For ANA we must use current reliable sources from experts. Buckshot06 relies on information from 2008 and from particular individuals, those that satisfies his POV. I use latest news reports on ANA regardless if they're US based, European, Australian or Afghan.--Fareed30 (talk) 13:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Please provide clear diffs of edits of his that you find problematic, and explain why they are problematic. For ANI to look at this, you have to be much more specific about what he has done that is wrong, and you have to prove it. General talk about POV-pushing with no diffs to show it won't get far.Jeppiz (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are the diffs, he stated "Abdur Rahman was the creator of the modern Afghan state." That is problematic because it was Ahmad Shah Durrani who created Afghanistan in 1747, and is recognized as the Father of the Nation. Buckshot06 is making alot more changes in the same way. He falsified the total number here from 200,000 to 350,000. The source clearly states "200,000" [65] so why is he falsifying the numbers? He deleted "As of July 2013, the total number of the Special Forces reached 12,000". Why do that? What's going on? He is a very strange admin, I have not seen other admins make such edits or revert people who make constructive edits. He is basically an edit-warrior and POV-pusher with admin previlages--Fareed30 (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    For what its worth I can also state that I was there for a few months and the ANA wear a similar uniform as the US military, boots and all. So I would agree at least that statement probably should come out. There are hundreds or thousands of pictures showing the ANA wearing military outfits. Wiht that said there may need to be a temporary interaction ban between these 2 and this topic. Kumioko (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    AN/I is no place for a content dispute, but the article is supposed to cover the history of the army as well as a snapshot of the current day, isn't it? There were well-documented problems in recent years; the article should reflect that.
    Accusing somebody of falsifying numbers is a Bad Thing if those numbers are actually supported by sources. The article already cites other sources which say 350,000, so Buckshot's "Expert assessments vary from 250,000-350,000" doesn't seem so bad (though it could be improved)... and it's very hard to understand why Fareed30 thinks Buckshot06 is devoted to making the ANA look bad whilst, um, making it look much more powerful. bobrayner (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the two parties need to relax a bit and discuss more on the talk page instead of ANI. Sources not being in perfect agreement with each other is nothing new for a topic like this. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just been informed of this. In my view, the material that Fareed30 wishes to transfer to NTM-A simply doesn't belong there, because NTM-A was established in 2008. That is a military formation article, and most of the training took place under Combined Forces Command or Combined Security Transition Command - Afghanistan auspices; U.S. formations.
      • Now, I've been involved in editing many, many, national military articles, and have been abused regarding Poland, Somalia, Azerbaijan, etc., etc., on information which usually seems to disagree with nationals of those country's views, but is well supported by WP:Reliable Sources. There may be some mistakes in my approach - maybe the plastic footwear quote should go; willing to be corrected if Fareed30 can distinguish between the first claimed king back in 1500 or whenever and Abdur Rahman Khan, who all the WP:Reliable Sources assert effectively made a modern state out of Afghanistan (Library of Congress Country Studies) - but the basis for this dispute, in my view, is Fareed30's desire to move the rather unappealing information in the 'Training and Current Challenges' section to a less visible article. Now, national pride is just fine, but WP:Reliable Sources trumps all. The ANA faces significant challenges at present, and that material should not just be hidden because some find it unwelcome. Support for my general approach, and my qualifications, may be found from any of the coordinators of the Milhist project. Regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 06:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Why would anyone put a 'blocked' template on their own talk page?

    User:Filmmaking has just done so - any guesses? [66] AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The editing pattern is also kinda weird. He seems obsessed with removing entries and flags from several TV shows list articles. I'm unsure if they're improvements or not.-- cyclopiaspeak! 13:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps in an attempt to fool anyone about to report him to be blocked that he was already blocked Cabe6403(Talk•Sign) 14:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed it - Andy, did you attempt to ask the editor themselves before running off to ANI? GiantSnowman 14:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No - and you are right, I probably should have done. I seemed not to have notified User:Filmmaking about this thread too - I thought I had, but obviously didn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think she likes TV shows so she edit TV show articles. Squidville1 (talk) 05:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a wierd vibe to all this, notice the edits by Bretonbanquet(who also has a block for vandalism) who seems to be up for defending this user at all costs and their edits are quite different too(wont call it vandalism yet until some one can see a trend or dig more).  A m i t  웃   15:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Bretonbanquet's edits to User talk:Filmmaking appear to have been perfectly reasonable responses to some terrible edits by NewFranco. I haven't looked very deeply into Filmmaking's edits yet, so I won't put forward an opinion on that, but this may explain why NewFranco went after Filmmaking. Neither of the two has covered themselves in glory, I think. bobrayner (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Amit, would you care to explain your comments? I do not have a block for vandalism, and just what the hell are you insinuating? Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    just because it is old doesn't make it vanish, and get off my user talk page.  A m i t  웃   17:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Actually, you do - but the fact it's from 2005 makes its mention here slightly...curious. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Amit, did you bother to check that out? First day of editing in 2005 where I made a couple of innocent mistakes and was blocked with no warning, nothing. I think the word you were looking for is "had" a block. It ought to be struck off, it was so blatantly unmerited. But clearly you think that makes me some kind of "problem editor". Now, what do you mean by my "edits are quite different too"? If you can't explain the accusatory comments that you make, you have absolutely no business on this page. And I'll take that apology for a massive violation of WP:AGF now, thanks. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Looking at Bretonbanquet's edits in 2005 I can't see any vandalism, but hey, the blocking admin has long since retired and although the wisdom of digging up a brief block in 2005 is questionable, we're not going to make that issue any better by poking at it with the AN/I stick. Let's try a different point; a.amitkumar, could you explain why you think that Bretonbanquet is "up for defending this user at all costs and their edits are quite different too(wont call it vandalism yet until some one can see a trend or dig more)"? bobrayner (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the impression I got. Filmmaking seemed to be an inexperienced, slightly bewildered editor who was receiving some rather undeserved threats from another editor, hence my input. Another thing, Amit, I have no record of being informed by you about the mudslinging aimed at me on this page. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    But you are here aren't you(but yes I missed it)? I mentioned your contributions to his user pages weird because that's the only contributions you did to his user talk page. I obviously should have mentioned the warnings too which you responded to. And don't expect an apology from me. You had a block(a fact) which I mentioned though it might have been irrelevant as others mention, AGF is a policy that works both ways, which you don't show either.  A m i t  웃   18:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm here because I had Filmaking's talk page on watch and bobrayner posted on it linking to this. I don't need to explain to you why I posted on his page, and others have found my input perfectly reasonable, which it is. There are others who have only posted there once, what exactly does that have to do with anything? I'm not asking you to apologise for mentioning the 7+ year-old block which you inexplicably found relevant to this discussion, I'm asking you to explain and then apologise for your vague accusations against me. You have now accused me of not showing AGF, maybe you'd better explain that too. I've got nothing whatsoever to say about you. If you've got something to say about me, have the guts to actually say it and stop dancing around it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • As an uninvolved editor reading this, I'm struggling to understand Amit's grudge. Bringing up Bretonbanquet's block log would only be relevant if the offences were both recent and numerous. A single block in 2005 fits neither of those things. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "Anyone can edit" is not quite the same thing as "Anyone can accuse other people of problematic editing and then clam up when other editors think the accusation is unfounded". Whether that's NewFranco or a.amitkumar. bobrayner (talk) 10:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I gotta admit that she is falsely accused of editing two article just because she edit many articles doesn't mean that she edits articles with only two topics. She is just a newcomer. NewFranco and/or AnomieBOT should apologize for what they did to her. Squidville1 (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Kinda hard for a bot to apologise for anything... - The Bushranger One ping only 17:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize for being a mere bot 7SeriesBOT (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TransVannian again.

    Blocked indefinitely (or certainly until they agree not to continue down that particular path). Black Kite (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    TransVannian (talk · contribs) was here before, and was blocked for disruptive editing. However, recently, they've shown pretty clearly that they're WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia, and instead, are here to push their own agenda. They either misrepresent policy, or completely ignore it. A lot of the back story is covered at Talk:2012 Delhi gang rape case, where TransVannian has fought tooth-and-nail to include the unproven name of the victim in the article. They filed an RfC, which they constantly tried to manipulate, and were blocked for that. The RfC was closed with almost everyone voting against TransVannian's stance. However, since then, they returned to demand an apology, (don't let the fake "please" fool you, it's a demand) and, upon being informed by several users that they were the disruptive party, made this outlandish statement. It doesn't take an expert to see the number of policies that TransVannian violated in that edit, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BLP being two obvious ones. There are also multiple personal attacks in that statement. Needless to say, I took a fairly angry stance to this, and demanded the retraction of their statement. Instead of doing so, they attempted to wikilawyer around the situation. A quick look at TransVannian's contributions shows that they haven't edited an actual article since this edit, and that they have almost solely focused on their POV-pushing on the talk page I initially mentioned. The only thing unrelated to this article I can see in the last month is Talk:2013 Latakia offensive#Unregistered user making wrong claims about other users, which isn't the most helpful set of interactions I've seen. As I stated at the start of the thread, this user is not here to build the encyclopedia, but instead to push their own POV out at any cost. As a result, I'm proposing an indefinite block, partially based on NOTHERE, but also based on WP:IDHT/WP:CIR, since the user shows no interest in consensus or policies, no matter how often they're informed. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yes, that's ... not good. " I'm going to add the unproven name after time limit expires because there is actually a policy for it. And your consensus doesn't have a say in it irrespective of what you might think. So I advice you to just deal with it.". I think, on the basis of that, it is best to "just deal with it". Indeffed. Black Kite (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:64.25.215.94 and WP:POINT edits at Septic shock

    64.25.215.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly edited Septic shock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) trying to make a point of some sort, pasting two links and claiming that the article has a "gaping vagina-like hole". Diff. Attempts at dialogue resulted in this being posted to my talk page. Rather than protect the page, a preventive short block may be in order. Perhaps they will "get it" and improve the article instead of defacing it. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 16:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Thats vandalism. If user persists after your final revert, issue a final warning on the page and if that doesn't help take him to WP:AIV. This wouldn't be needed to be handled at ANI A m i t  웃   16:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    To save the valuable time of WP:AIV, I've blocked the IP three days for warring to re-add an offensive comment to the article text at Septic shock, as explained above by the FreeRangeFrog. EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikihounding by IP 199.198.223107

    IP was blocked seperately to this thread, per WP:DUCK as part of a long running campaign of harassment of various editors (including HighKing and previously Bjmullan) and transparent attempt at evasion of scrutiny. This is *not* an endorsement of Murry1975's position which is a content dispute and should have dealt with via normal dispute resolution methods--Cailil talk 16:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The IP 199.198.223.107 has, as of today started reverting my edits in relation to Irish articles in the same manner as he has done with HighKing. Stating a reason of, amongst other "not applicable to dates prior to GFA 1998". This is covered at WP:IMOS, which this IP seems to have a dislike for, with guidelines that have been agreed after much discussion following the ArbCom case on the "Ireland" articles. The IP was breifly involved in a thread there today. I am seeking admin assitance on this, the IP is being provocative and using a view to garner reaction. They have already wasted time on this board, the time of admins and seem to like wasting thier own time. I have asked them to stop hounding me, their only previous contact before they reverted my edits this morning was the comment above on the HighKing thread, they then set about editing three articles [67], [68], and [69], I since revert to conform with guidelines and they have reverted two after I asked them to stop hounding my edits. Murry1975 (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I made one revert inline with IMOS the other 2 reverts were against POV pushing. Tell us all M1975, how you made 3 edits in 3 minutes to 3 different pages and adequately read all 3 articles? Simply, you do not understand the implications of IMOS. When faced with an objection to an edit the onus was on you to discuss on talkpage as to why you think your edit should be made. I requested you do so and here we are, you are reporting me. Already today you applied IMOS across 10 pages in 10 minutes!!! This has been noted before and you seem to have not changed your editing style since the last observation. Shambles man, shambles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.198.223.107 (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you both really going to edit war over the word "THE" ? Are you serious ? Let's close this out as WP:Lame  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  16:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    the series continued to be issued when the Free State became Ireland,
    The Series B Banknotes (Irish: Nótaí bainc sraith B) of Ireland replaced the Series A Banknotes.
    The Series C Banknotes (Irish: Nótaí bainc sraith C) of Ireland were the final series of notes created for the state before the advent of the euro; it replaced Series B Banknotes
    And to qoute WP:IMOS, and in particular WP:IRE-IRL

    "A consensus emerged with respect to referring to the island and the state in other contexts:

    • Use "Ireland" for the state except where the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland is being discussed in the same context. In such circumstances use "Republic of Ireland" (e.g. "Strabane is at the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland").
    • An exception is where the state forms a major component of the topic (e.g. on articles relating to states, politics or governance) where "Ireland" should be preferred and the island should be referred to as the "island of Ireland" or similar (e.g. "Ireland is a state in Europe occupying most of the island of Ireland").
    • Regardless of the above guidelines, always use the official titles of state offices (e.g. "Douglas Hyde was the first President of Ireland").
    • Per the Linking guideline of the Manual of Style, the names of major geographic features and locations should not be linked. If it is thought necessary to link, in order to establish context or for any other reason, the name of the state should be pipelinked as [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]]."
    Points 1,2 and 4 apply and the edits conform with these. Murry1975 (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)Kosh, read what the dispute is about, don't skim. As seen in this edit, they are fighting over linking to Republic of Ireland vs. Ireland; the "the" is incidental. Tarc (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tarc dont use the word fighting, its not nice, dispute is the correct term, but my main concern is that this is the second time this IP has hounded someone, the last can be read above. And you nearly read the edits right "Republic of Ireland vs. Ireland". Murry1975 (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't "nearly" read the edits right, I read them precisely right. You're fighting (yes, fighting; each side always thinks they're right) over which "Ireland" to link to. I'm not concerned with the piping. Tarc (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry Tarc that is mightly uncivil. A dispute is a dispute. Understanding of guidelnes and application of them in different manner is a dispute. Fighting is the wrong way to go about things and the wrong attitude to have. Murry1975 (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In the case of [[70]], Northern Ireland is referenced in the text, so can IMOS be applied here? yes it can and is exactly why I made a revert, to keep it in line with IMOS guidelines, not rules, ill remind you. As for the 2 other edits and Series B and C notes, Ireland was not officially recognised as the name of the state until the GFA in 1998. This was the rebuke in my edit summary. I think this is a pretty legitimate revert. SO then I asked to discuss on Article talkpage, which is normal practice I believe. When an edit is reverted go to talk page to discuss, so I expected M1975 to start a convo as the onus is on them to prove their edit is correct or inline with these guidelines. M1975 did not start a discussion and reverted breaking 1RR and playing aunt fanny. Note that both HK and M1975 appear/are IMOS warriors. They do not actually read the articles, but replace "Republic of Ireland" with "Ireland" quoting IMOS but not actually having read the articles. How do I know they havent read the articles, because only Johnny5(short circuit) or SUperman could read as fast as these guys. Recently M1975 applied IMOS to 10 pages in 10 minutes. Thats pretty quick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.198.223.107 (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "Ireland was not officially recognised as the name of the state until the GFA in 1998", WP:OR and WP:POV, it had been the states only offical name since 1937. As for your single point of reason above "except where the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland is being discussed in the same context", it wasnt and this type has been discussed previously on the IMOS talkpage. Murry1975 (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not disputing the make up of IMOS I am disputing its application at an article page, so you must then go to the article talk page to discuss I'm afraid, and in this case Northern Ireland is in the same context. As for the name of the state ROI should be used if there is any ambiguity and to reference Wikipedia is not correct either. The truth is M1975, you are going page to page removing instances of ROI whether they adhere to IMOS or not. And this is the real issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.198.223.107 (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Content disputes wont be encouraged here at WP:ANI. If there are issues bring them forth. Else please leave this page.  A m i t  웃   17:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies for getting forked. As stated above in my opening comment this is a hounding issue, I am the second editor being hounded by this IP and they seem to want to continue at this. Murry1975 (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Now who is stalking who? Its only a bit of bait and it tastes sarcastic. Nothing worse in that comment than the 2 I was referring to and their activities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.198.223.107 (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems pretty obviously a troll with no intention of doing anything but cause trouble. Dmcq (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue here is "term" policing and Highking/Popaice is a single purpose account, whereby they systematically remove the term "British Isles" or "Republic of Ireland". HK has straight away ran to the admin who imposed the ban, user:Cailil. What is funny is that Cailil's talkpage is riddled with complaints about highking including notable complaint by Doc. HK is banned from Policing the term "British Isles" but obviously feels the same behaviour is acceptable when dealing with the term "Republic of Ireland". M1975 is also guilty of term policing. So not stirring, but someone has to police the police. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.198.223.107 (talk) 12:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User 62.31.226.175 edit warring and changing ethnicity claims in multiple articles

    Edit warring on several articles, changing ethnic backgrounds on numerous biographies. The edit warring and edit summaries constitute one reason for concern; the rationale for the changes requires separate discussion. JNW (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Paddington (UK Parliament constituency)

    User:Sam Blacketer is restoring content to the above article for no good reason, and for no benefit to the article or the UK parliamentary project. The information I want removing deals with the Sixth Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies which has been abandoned, making the information irrelevant and pointless to the article itself.

    The information has been removed, without any reverting or reversal or protest, from around 100-200 other articles. I therefore find that Sam Blacketer is purposely choosing this one article to revert and re-revert for his own pleasure, or for purely disruptive purposes.

    Further more, you will notice that he has removed a 3RR warning from his page that I put on there as a friendly wrist-slap, and a further removal of advise that I would being his constant edit warring to an administrators attenion (see [71]

    doktorb wordsdeeds 18:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    A. don't link to off-site harassment pages. B. You've broken 3RR and he hasn't, so you don't really have "clean hands" here yourself. I suggest you discuss the matter on the talk page instead of continuing to edit war or you'll likely be blocked. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not in the wrong. Over the history of the Paddington article, I have not broken 3RR, he has. I will continue to fight my corner, because I am in the right. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you won't. You do not have to breach WP:3RR to be in a edit war, and being "in the right" does not entitle you to "fight your corner". Right now you are at 3RR, he is at 2RR. Stop the edit war now and discuss. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no discussing with that editor, as you should be able to see, he is an edit war editor, and I am not. I will not be bullied into submission here. No other UK Parliament constituency article contains the information he wants to include. No other editor agrees with him, else they would be putting it the 650+ articles. That proves - not merely implies - that I am right. So I will keep reverting because I am not in the wrong. I did not come here to be warned about banning when there's a proven sockpuppeter re-reverting everything! doktorb wordsdeeds 18:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF - and WP:POINT. Also provide your proof of the other editor being a sock. And let's repeat this: being 'in the right' does not entitle you to edit-war. Your promise to "keep reverting" and claims that you are "in the right" indicate a complete refusal to listen and will result in a block if continued. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I'll just echo what The Bushranger has said: you seem to think you have the right to continually revert but he doesn't... the fact is neither of you do. You need to start a discussion on the article's talk page instead. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is madness. I have looked after hundreds and hundreds of UK Parliament constituency articles. I'm damn proud of articles being looked after and tendered well. I revert vandalism. I add election results from the 1940s onwards when they are missing. I clean up pages when I can. Now this! I can't believe that *I* am being threatened when someone else is in the wrong! I want all UK Parliament constituency articles to have the same content, that's all I'm doing, it's not vindictive, it's constructive! How can you be twisting this against me - can't you see my side of things? I won't back down on this - Sam is in the wrong, not me, and I have to revert his edits, it's a matter of principle. I'm not backing down. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you do not "have" to revert his edits, and "matters of principle" have no place on Wikipedia. I could very easily block you immediately for threatening to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point and gross refusal to listen. However, instead, I have reverted the article Paddington (UK Parliament constituency) to the state it was in before this edit-war began, and full-protected it, as the two of you have been the only editors, batting this back and forth, for the last 45 days (indeed, the last edit before this started was 1 January). You both need to discuss the contested content on the article's talk page to reach consensus for its inclusion or non-inclusion, and you need to start by dropping the contention that you are automatically right and he is automatically wrong. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Also both of you need to avoid having this edit-war spill over to other articles like Cities of London and Westminster (UK Parliament constituency). - The Bushranger One ping only 19:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, what The Bushranger says is absolutely correct in terms of Wikipedia policy, but I do want to point out that we set up a very difficult dilemma in human psychology by asking editors to give their all to improve articles, to the point of their taking pride in their work and feeling not WP:OWNERSHIP of the articles, but a positive sense of stewardship regarding them, and then not giving any recognition of that feeling when situations such as this come up. It is far too easy for casual editors to put vested editors in the position of having to restrain themselves for fear of being blocked for edit-warring. Some recognition of "stewardship" ought to be taken into account by admins when sizing up these types of situations (and perhaps it has here, given that Doctorbuk has not been blocked), and more care should be taken to gently "talk down" the vested editor to get him or her to the talk page. Contrarily, those casual editors who provoke these situations (probably without meaning to) should have the situation explained to them, and be put on a shorter leash if they continue to revert. Because the relationship of the editors to the article is asymmetrical, there should be a similar asymmetry in how the editors are dealt with. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Incidentally, no one should take my comment as criticism of anything that The Bushranger has done in this case. It's really a general comment and not specifically about this incident. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you BmK, that's exactly how I was feeling. I can spend an hour putting in past election results and all of the rest of it, knowing that I'd not get thanked. Then this happens. Feels like a lot of hard work has been for nothing. But as you say, I've not been blocked, so that's a positive sign at least. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    @Doktorbuk: - in your opening statement you accuse Sam Blacketer (talk · contribs) of being a sockpuppet. I strongly suggest you either retract your accusation, or back it up with conclusive evidence. GiantSnowman 08:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]

    The alternative account (which finally was User:Fys) was explained in 2009 when Sam Blacketer resigned from arbcom.[72] It's hard to see that it has any bearing here. Sam Blacketer is a long term contributor on politics and politicians in the UK. Mathsci (talk) 09:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really. Please see WP:OWN. In these particular circumstances, I think you should take Sam Blacketer's contributions in good faith. As a side remark, asking that articles conform to a particular mould is not something that you can insist upon. That just leads to problems similar to disputes over WP:MOS or infoboxes. The issues here are best discussed calmly on the article talk pages or on a suitable wikiproject page connected with UK politics. Mathsci (talk) 10:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "Not really"?! So Sam is good, Dok is bad, despite us doing the same thing? I've worked damn hard on the same kind of pages that he works on, so why "not really"? doktorb wordsdeeds 10:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that is your misreading. You started this thread with bad faith accusations about Sam Blacketer, which have been removed by an administrator. You needlessly personalised things and escalated the dispute to this dramaboard. You have been advised to continue your discussions calmly at more relevant venues (see above). Please do so. Mathsci (talk) 10:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Why hasn't this been taken to DRN? The existence or lack thereof of material in one or another article is covered by WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and is never a valid argument. You have a content dispute with another editor, take it to an appropriate venue ([[WP:3O, WP:DRN, etc) and get an outside view. Histrionics isn't going to get you far. Blackmane (talk) 11:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]

    I would strongly recommend doktorb to take this much less personally. It is clear to any neutral observer that both users are involved in a long and tedious edit war. I won't comment on the actual content dispute, but it is painfully clear from the long edit warring and the lack of discussions on the talk page that none of the users is adhering to Wikipedia's policies. Unfortunately, doktorb seems to take any comment from uninvolved editors as a personal insult, as seen by his/her replies above. That attitude is not productive, neither is claiming that you will continue to revert because you know you're right. I would strongly recommend a short break, and re-reading key Wikipedia policies and procedures such as WP:OWN, WP:EW, WP:AGF and WP:TRUTH.Jeppiz (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kevin Gorman personal attacks and assuming bad faith

    The world is not a fair place, and nothing that Gorman said (or other named editors might have done) is out of order here. Laval should be happy that this gets closed before the boomerangs start flying. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Please see the following diffs: [73] [74] Gorman has left a blatant personal attack against me that I attempted to remove as is my right under WP policy regarding blatant attacks of a personal nature, yet he reverted me on that one. Gorman has also threatened me with ArbCom sanctions and assumed bad faith here [75], despite going out of my way to attempt a reconciliation and a lighter tone to diffuse the tension between the editors involved in the dispute at Grant Cardone, yet Gorman assumes bad faith and read my comment as an attack and threatened me with ArbCom sanctions. Previously in the same thread he threatened both User:Thimbleweed and myself to permanently ban us from Scientology-related articles if we even attempted to include any sources he personally disagrees with. As I have related, even when Thimbleweed and myself have attempted to open lines of dialogue and assume good faith and diffuse the tension, Gorman reads anything I write as an attack and an opportunity to bully me with the threat of ArbCom sanctions. I have also complained to Sandstein and Alex Bakherev because Gorman has never been warned once for this behavior, while Sandstein not only warned me, but demanded that I not edit the article and work things out on the talk page. He did not warn Gorman or Bbb23 despite their edit warring and their own assumptions of bad faith and wikilawyering regarding what is acceptable source under BLP. So Thimbleweed and I have not edited the article and have maintained communication and gone out of our way to be friendly, and I tried making some jokes to make the situation less serious in tone, and yet I still get threatened and bulled; Please, this is not right. Laval (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Laval has repeatedly insinuated that other editors are paid shills for scientology while providing absolutely no evidence. He's also been trying quite hard to insert a long negative coatracky section about a relatively minor incident sourced to the blog of an alternative weekly in to Cardone's bio. See the talk page of Cardone's article. Suggesting other editors are paid shills for scientology while at the same time complaining that they are violating AGF is pretty confusing. (Tangentially: I'm in class right now, so my ability to respond will be somewhat limited for a while.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Those alleged PAs are about as mild as I've ever seen brought to ANI. Maybe Laval should stop accusing other editors of being scientology shills if that's what's going on. Kevin, can you provide some diffs? Toddst1 (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, Todd, I don't see any evidence of personal attacks. Also, the diff that Laval says indicates that Kevin threatened him with ArbCom doesn't say that at all (doesn't even mention ArbCom).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume he's talking about the fact that I've repeatedly reminded him that Cardone, as a scientology-related article, is under arb sanctions, and asked him to conform his behavior to those sanctions. (Coincidentally, he was already warned about them by Sandstein.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    He explicitly makes an accusation about it in this diff. I think these diffs are also informative about his general behavior: [76], [77]. I feel like he's made explicit accusations elsewhere as well, but can't find them offhand (and am still in class) Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Laval accused User:Setomorp of being in the pay of Scientology at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Christy_Lee_Rogers. Andrewman327 removed the offending personal information about Setomorp. Binksternet (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're talking about the Ortega link, that alternative weekly is the triple-Pulitzer Prize winning Village Voice and its author is its former editor-in-chief. Let's not misrepresent where this is coming from. The incident may not meet Wikipedia criteria for inclusion, but its source certainly does. Now this shill business needs to stop, and I'm watchlisting the article and posting on the talk page to make sure everyone plays nice. Gamaliel (talk) 23:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think anyone has ever suggested it's not a reliable source, just that a negative incident significant enough to be mentioned in someone's relatively small biography would've been picked up by other sources as well. If it ended up getting significant coverage elsewhere, I'd totally support including it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    When you mention "the blog of an alternative weekly", that definitely indicates that you think the source is unreliable. If your sole problem is the significance of the incident and not the quality of the source, why use this phrasing? Gamaliel (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not speaking for Kevin, but one of my objections to including the material was the quality of the source.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't indicate that I think the source is unreliable, it indicates that I don't think the source is of a high enough quality or authoritative enough to be used as the primary (and only) source for negative information in a biography of a living person. I would consider many alternative weeklies to be reliable, but there's a difference between a story appearing on the blog of an alternative weekly vs a story appearing on the front page of the NYT or appearing in Nature. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This content dispute has been pretty well fleshed out on the article talk page, as well as other places. Laval had no basis for bringing it here and trying to transform it into something it's not. Because of my involvement, I won't close it, but my opinion is it should be closed. Rehashing the content dispute here serves no purpose and is not appropriate for this board.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Laval outing

    Hang on a minute, here. Laval just outed an editor on WP:COIN. I know outing happens fairly regularly there, but they also throw in accusations that both the editor and the subject of the article are Scientologists. This comes after Laval failed to get the article deleted in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christy Lee Rogers}an AfD]]. It seems petty, at the very least. ArbCom just banned an acknowledged Scientologist for allegedly outing someone. I'm not a fan of either side of this dispute, but I got sick of the hypocrisy around this issue long ago. Laval needs to learn that the rules are the same for all sides. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I've just revdeleted and warned Laval, but if anyone thinks blocking is merited or Scientology sanctions are needed please weigh in. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Laval has already been warned per WP:ARBSCI but has continued to pursue a battleground agenda. Calling people Scientologists and outing an editor after being warned is call for an indef block. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been asked to comment here. It appears that Laval has alleged at WP:COIN that another editor works for a certain PR firm and (without providing evidence) that this PR firm is a Scientology-related organization. At first glance, this may well be outing and/or harassment, and may merit sanctions, but there may be circumstances – such as genuine conflict of interest situations that jeopardize Wikipedia's neutrality – that legitimize such conduct. To enable other administrators to examine this further in a more structured environment, I recommend making a WP:AE request.  Sandstein  17:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Enclos

    NAC/OP: Article deleted by RHaworth. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I'm not sure what to do about this. A new editor, User:ARCHjunkie, has tried five times to get a new article on the glass consulting company "Enclos" created through Articles for Creation, but has been turned down each time. [78] This editor's only edits are to that proto-article, and to insert the name of the company into other articles. [79] Because of this, I left him or her a comment pointing out our WP:COI policy.

    Today, another completely new editor, User:ObviouslyNotAGolfer created the article Enclos directly, using the text from AfC. The creation of the article is this editor's one and only edit. [80] Immediately after, a third editor, User:ConsiderMeMilesDavis also brand-spanking new, edited the Enclos article and added the name of the company to the same articles that ARCHjunkie had. [81].

    I don't think it's a lack of AGF on my part to believe that these three editors are either the same person or, at the very least, meatpuppets working in concert, and that they are in some manner connected to this probably only barely notable company, but I don't know what to do about it. Did they break any rules by creating an article after it had been rejected numerous times at AfC? Does their obvious COI make the article subject to being deleted? If so, what's the best pathway to do that? Or am I simply overreacting?

    Any advice and/or action will be welcomed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    All accounts notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I decided to mark it for speedy deletion under A7, no indication of importance. As far as I can tell, the article makes no claim of importance or notability for the company, the sources pretty much show that it exists, and that it did certain projects and bought other companies. I don't normally do a lot of deletion-related stuff, which is why I was hesitant to take this step. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    ARCHjunkie has been on the IRC help channel a few times, and I wouldn't be entirely surprised if this was sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. As it is, the article's sources are not good enough, cited to one in-industry book, a niche magazine, and enclos's website. Howicus (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Users circumventing topic ban

    DocIger67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has shot himself in the foot and has been blocked indefinitely for username impersonation (in this case, it's Dodger67 (talk · contribs)) and disruptive editing. Now, go edit someplace else. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Lucia Black and Ryulong have been collaborating in an effort of evade the three month topic ban levied at Lucia Black. There is evidence of this on Ryulong's talk page (and probably a great deal more done via PM) [82]. Ryulong has also deleted a previous conversation with Lucia Black in which she gives him instructions on what to do [83]. It seems that there is meat puppetry going on. DocIger67 (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Will notify with next edit. DocIger67 (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, acutally, because you have been blocked for username impersonation. And a quick look at the evidence indicates that your case is wholly without merit, as the "deleted previous conversation" is still there and the diff used indicates a warning that Ryulong believes it would violate Lucia's topic ban. Suggest this be closed forwith. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I'm not sure if I should feel flattered or insulted to have been impersonated. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Call me cynical but this might indicate that Special:Contributions/99.251.120.60 (being discussed above for hounding Ryulong) has changed their MO. They appear to have taken a shine to both Lucia Black[84] and Ryulong. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    They tried this tack earlier; there should be reference to it in the ANI archives of a while ago, to someone claiming to have been Chris Gualteri but posing as Lucia Black's sock though pretending to be Chris's sock or something like that. A clear attempt at trolling, to exacerbate an already bad situation. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment) I'm not entirely sure this was an impersonation of Roger (Dodger67) as DocIger67 made no attempt at least in this discussion to try and pass himself off as "Roger", which until recently (because he felt generous after I pointed out that not including his real username in his signature and the fact that there really is a User:Roger, that the signature was confusing at least) was the only name in his signature. Doc Iger, while if mashed together just right (which he made no apparent attempt to do with css) doesn't seem to have ever included "Roger" in his signature. Technical 13 (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Nanshu's personal attacks

    At Hokkaido (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Nanshu (talk · contribs) has been vehemently opposing the inclusion of what is as far as I can discern from multiple sources I've scoured across the internet to be the Ainu language name for the island and has done so for the past several years. Last year, when Nanshu came upon the page, he falsely accused me of vandalism and he posted this lengthy screed wherein he calls me "not just rude and dishonest but ignorant". I sought out several more sources to back up the claim I had added as seen here. Within the past several hours Nanshu has once again posted a lengthy essay to the talk page where among many things he says I lack common sense, continues to attack my intelligence by stating that something is too long for me to understand, and says that I am an example of the anti-intellectual threat to Wikipedia. He has also called me a hopeless cause and said I am "too bold to edit Wikipedia"??. I should not have to tolerate this behavior.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I warned the user on their talk page. The level of incivility in this case is relatively minor, I don't believe any other action is warranted at this time. If the incivility continues, report it again to escalate the consequences. ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 16:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Incivility going on for 3 years now though is a bit much.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Suspicious/problematic behavior of Moheen Reeyad, TilottamaTitlee, and Leelabratee

    I've noticed some problems with editors Moheen Reeyad (talk · contribs), TilottamaTitlee (talk · contribs), and Leelabratee (talk · contribs).

    I think that, at the minimum, meatpuppetry between these users exists (note that according to their userpages, TilottamaTitlee and Moheen Reeyad are dating), and AfC was definitely used to evade scrutiny of articles. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I've just noticed Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hashimukh, being actively edited. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And Leelabratee accepted it a different one by him. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Adam Hills

    The Adam Hills article needs to be protected. On the live TV show The Last Leg he challenged people to update his Wikipedia page, and guess what? It's happening. Mostly it's nonsense/vandalism. Thanks, Bazonka (talk) 21:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It's OK, someone just did it. Bazonka (talk) 21:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:R-41 and various IP addresses

    R-41 (talk · contribs) was indefinitely blocked back in May by User:Dennis Brown at their own request, following a run of problematic content additions and general behaviour, and on the basis of evident issues, including edits that had to be oversighted. In blocking, Dennis Brown suggested that in six months they could request an unblock but that in the meantime any IPs they continued to edit through should be blocked also. Since then the editor has returned to editing through a succession of IPs. In doing so, they have made no attempt to edit in different areas or amend their behavior, ie to make a fresh start (and even if they had of course, they would still be falling foul of the terms of the block). They are still editing in a combative fashion – for example shouting in full caps in edit summaries and telling other users, ie me, that they "hate [my] guts" and that I am a "smart-ass" – and are edit warring even when mistakes in the content they add are politely pointed out to them. They have also made several further talk page comments that have had to be oversighted. There is also the underlying issue that their continuing to edit here is clearly not helpful for them as an individual. I guess this could have gone to SPI but I'm not sure that is technically the problem and arguably it goes beyond that anyway. The following IPs are the ones they have definitely been editing from recently, with the most recent/current one at the top.

    Not sure what can be done if they insist on editing from constantly altering IP addresses, but something clearly needs to be done with them, if only for their own good. N-HH talk/edits 21:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.chped.com/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=568573939"