Assistance from one or more Admins and any experienced editors is requested with issues related to this discussion at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard (yes there is such a thing). Short synopsis; we have an editor who has created around 160 articles, and almost all of the ones we have looked at so far have major problems. We over at the tin foil hat noticeboard are sending out an SOS. Any help is greatly appreciated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose a Topic-Ban on New Articles in Article Space

I propose that this editor be topic-banned from creating new articles in article space (rather than via the AFC review process), since he or she is cluttering article space with a large number of articles that need deleting. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Holy crap batman--v/r - TP 17:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The combination of refusal to communicate with other editors, fringe topics (need less on here, not more) and the obvious vast amounts of original research. Their intent does not seem to be malicious, but they've chosen the wrong platform. All this belongs in their blog. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support seems pretty obvious that these articles need to go through AfC and that the user isn't willing to do that without some strong handed encouragement. CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/Question How will this go any better at WP:AFC? Some of the articles appear to me, a non expert in Hindu material, to be potentially direct translations form a worthy book or set of texts. I am wondering whether it might not be 'our' problem that 'we' cannot understand them easily as submissions in clearer English. A comment from an experienced, perhaps immersed, editor would be relevant to this discussion before moving to a draconian apparent remedy. For example, if they be direct translations or quotations from learned texts then we should, surely, treat them in an identical manner to other such texts an the editor should be granted the same courtesies as are extended to editors creating articles in other faiths/disciplines.

This material is arcane, certainly, but is it proper or improper that it is in Wikipedia as articles? If proper then there is no issue save for our understanding the material. If improper then remedies are already available to you, ranging from deletion through to blocking the editor. Fiddle Faddle 18:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"is it proper or improper that it is in Wikipedia as articles?" Yes, in the way it is written. It presents material from Hindu astrology as uncontested fact. We don't do that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent: A host of reasons: 1) AFC space isn't indexed by search engines, 2) AFCs arn't searched by our search bar without going to more advanced options, 3) AFCs can be deleted easier by CSD guidelines, 4) Editors in AFC space review it before the first 2 things limitations get removed, 5) AFC has a giant "THIS IS A DRAFT" banner.--v/r - TP 18:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not proper for the articles to be here, and I suspected it was not for the reasons stated by AndyTheGrump, might the correct route not be a bulk AfD? If it is not proper then AFC is not the place for them either, surely? I come back to my thoughts that one does not need extraordinary measures to deal with this. I have never heard of a topic ban against creation of new mainspace articles and I feel intellectually against it for a great many reasons. Fiddle Faddle 18:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am cementing and formalising my opinion as a firm Oppose. I have made a asmall edit to my original text, adding the word "clearer" as a modifier for "English"Fiddle Faddle 18:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Timtrent (Fiddlefaddle). Look at this revision of Rasasvada, for example, which Aditya soni had created, and nobody else had edited it except one editor adding a single cleanup tag. It's quite difficult to read and understand, but that's because I'm completely unfamiliar with Indian philosophy; the article appears to have solid sources, and the difficult-to-understand comes partly from the author's way of writing, which makes me suspect that the author isn't fluent in English. As a result, I can form only two conclusions: either it's a decent article on a specialised topic, warranting only some wording cleanup, or its problems are profound enough that only a specialist can understand them. Neither one warrants the ban that's proposed here: if it's a decent article, we shouldn't sanction the guy, and if a specialist is required, the article will sail straight through AFC because people over there aren't specialists in Indian philosophy — AFC is good for filtering problems that anyone can understand, not things like this. Either levy no sanctions at all, or prohibit creation through AFC as well; if the nominator were to remove the AFC creation option, I would be neutral. Nyttend (talk) 18:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as much too broad. If one were to prepend "For the large majority of Hindus" to most of these articles they would be indistinguishable to me from Holy Spirit (Christianity) which begins: "For the large majority of Christians" and then is entirely based on WP:INUNIVERSE sources. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I do not think the editor in question is being malicious here. But whether intentionally or not, the serious problems with so many of these articles is creating an enormous amount of work for everyone else. The FTN Board is not exactly one of the more well traveled ones and we just don't have enough regulars to deal with well over a hundred suspect articles. (Sometimes we are stretched to handle even normal posts and issues that pop up.) Beyond which the editor's refusal to engage with the community and take some advice on board or show some regard for standards and consensus makes it almost impossible not to see more problems down the road without the new article creation ban. In short, I support the ban because I believe that without it we are going to continue to see the creation of questionable articles on a scale that will further severely tax the limited resources of the community to fix or delete. I am still trying to come up with a sane way of dealing with 160 articles that need to be checked and possibly deleted or mass migrated somewhere. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing position to Oppose based on compelling arguments from several editors, as well as closer examination of the editor's record by Salimfadhley, whose judgment I trust, and who concluded the issues are likely not as widespread or serious as initially thought. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Mixed view here. This seems like good content and it seems clear that the user knows a lot about Hindu astrology. The real problem here is that the articles themselves are badly written. Readers of WP should not have to be experts in Hindu astrology to get through even a single paragraph, but that's kind of the issue we have here. I think this user's material and knowledge are valuable but the articles he is making should spend some time in userspace being edited a bit. It doesn't have to be perfect by any means, but it has to at least look like it was written in English. Would anyone be available to help mentor or copy-edit this content? I can do some work with the grammar myself but I would like someone (perhaps from Wikiproject Mythology, Wikiproject Hinduism, or Wikiproject Astrology) to help out since they might have familiarity with the information and can offer more direct constructive criticism. Alicb (talk) 21:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - A ban from creating new articles related to this topic might give this editor an opportunity to improve the existing articles to a point where they meet the WP:NFRINGE standard. I would prefer this than to have to manually review the hundreds of articles on this subject. My greater concern is that this editor feels that this subject (Hindu Astrology) is somehow exempt from the normal rules that govern articles about religious topics in Wikipedia. As a result we have over a hundred pages most of which would never have got past AFC review, this is a prime example [1]. The comment about Einstein in the lede is an automatic 5 on the Crackpot Index. Let's not allow articles about Hinduism to be of lower quality than articles about other religions. If editors were writing such blatant gobbledygook about Christianity or Judaism I think we'd be quick to delete it. I think we need to be consistent in our standards. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Why do you think this would get stopped at AFC? It appears to have decent sourcing, and to someone unfamiliar with the subject, the only problem is the comparatively poor English. Most people at AFC are totally ignorant of Hinduism and other Indian philosophy (not complaining; I am too), so if an article's not badly sourced, they have no reason to object to it. Nyttend (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, definitely. Miniapolis 23:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have been asked to participate in this discussion but I do not know where to begin from.

I started my exercise of creating new pages by first locating the most important and relevant topics that had not been earlier dealt with by any contributor, and having done that one by one I took up those topics, worked on them and created the pages on Indian philosophy and Hindu astrology, the subjects that are known to me. Nowhere have I expressed my own thoughts or done original research; I have based all information included therein as has been available to me online and in the texts that are in my possession which texts also find an online mention. I never thought my well-intentioned efforts would one day cause the kind of problem they have. As an ardent follower of Indian philosophy I was merely obeying the Vedic instruction that if given the opportunity I should unhesitatingly pass on to others, who are willing, all that I have studied and learnt. Knowledge is the light that reveals the true nature of things and removes ignorance; knowledge purifies the mind, that mind which involves all human beings in duality to suffer the pangs of pleasure and pain. It seems I have failed in this task for I have not been able to convey properly.

Friends, I am not a preacher and I am also not a teacher set in the mold of Sankaracharya, Ramanujacharya, Ramana, Varahamihira, Vaidyanatha or Kalidasa. I am an ordinary human being. Philosophy and astrology are difficult subjects to handle. This I know. They are all the more difficult for those who do not know these subjects. Where to begin from I simply do not know. It was long ago said – "they do not know who know, those who do not know, know" - which paradoxical situation will always remain due to the limitations affecting our thoughts and acts.

It has been nice meeting you all.Aditya soni (talk) 02:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to comment here. I think that you are making a lot of useful contributions of information that is badly needed on Wikipedia. There are a few concerns with language that I think we can address but as long as you provide the sources for the information that you provide (either a link to a website or the names/page numbers of print texts) then that should be good enough for other editors to work on. It may be time to call on the users at Wikiproject Hinduism to take a hand in working on these articles. Alicb (talk) 03:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Alicb, no information in my 160 odd articles is without a direct reference to the source. I have dutifully provided the relevant links to the websites, given the names of the books, their authors and page numbers. I have neither promoted myself nor anyone else. There is no problem with the language either, because as far as is possible I have used the same words and expression that has been used by the authors of those very books and articles. Why should there be a problem in accessing those sources, I fail to understand. Moreover, there is already talk of difficulty in handling 100 odd intended AFDs pertaining to the pages I have created, doubt has also been raised about the ability of the editors who had reviewed those pages, and to top it all, my efforts have been termed as utter non-sense and a hoax and therefore already stand summarily dismissed. Then, I do not understand why so much time and effort is now being wasted just to prove my efforts are a bunch of trash. Even if all 160 pages are deleted I stand to lose nothing at all since I have already gained a great deal by way of revision of my knowledge while writing these pages, which revision has served as my Upasana (contemplation). And I am sure some readers must have also gained and improved their knowledge. Through your agency I request for the charade that is being presently played out to end, it is sickening to say the least. Already some very harsh and bad words have been used belittling my efforts, the kind of words I never use; that is enough, there should not be any more of it. There should not be any further delay in deleting my 160 odd articles. I hope you will speak on my behalf and have all 160 pages created by me deleted soon. After the requested deletion is done I shall quit Wikipedia and enjoy my liberation. Nice knowing you.Aditya soni (talk) 05:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • the Vedic instruction that if given the opportunity I should unhesitatingly pass on to others, who are willing, all that I have studied and learnt. There is a beautiful passage in the Taittiriya Upanishad (in the ninth Anuvaka) dealing with this. Learn and pass on the knowledge. That is what Wikipedia is about. That is what humanity is all about. But we cannot present the Vedas here without presenting them in the correct (for Wikipedia) form. In the Western phrase, we do not cast pearls before swine, for they will not, cannot understand. More work is needed to aid understanding. For those that are willing. --Pete (talk) 04:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now per Fiddle Faddle/Tim.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Fiddle Faddle/Tim. As a side note, talking about tin foil hats in this context should be blockable. --John (talk) 06:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't see any substantial problem here. It looks like Aditya soni is doing a pretty good job with the sources though a little more explanatory detail in some of the articles would be helpful. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

super strong support; unless those "opposing" actually pull their fingers out and hold this editor's hand through the process. However, I feel Wikipedia requires WP:COMPETENCE, and it requires its competent editors to be editing competently rather than holding the hands of someone who cannot write a coherent sentence in the forlorn hope that something might be salvageable from the inevitable mess. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barney, the editor seems to me to have written some very coherent sentences, right here, in this thread. Better, grammatically, than some of the comments from native English speakers on this page, and certainly better than I could do in a language that may not be native to me. Sure, there are problems with English in some of the articles - it's complex content, with difficult translation issues, I'm sure, and it seems it may need someone to help him work through those issues (if he's still willing). It's probably important that he stops adding new articles until that can be worked through, to keep things manageable. Seems we may need someone who is familiar with the subject matter, and that's obviously not you or me. Maybe nobody will come forward to do that. If they do, I suggest it's not up to you or me to tell them how they should volunteer their time. Speaking of which - I thank Aditya soni for the substantial time he has so far donated in an attempt to create and share this content, and I hope we can help clear up any issues. Begoon ^talk 15:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose any sort of "ban" at this stage, for clarity, per my comments above, in case anyone is "!counting". (Sad reflection on us, in my very humble opinion, that we leap straight into a "ban" vote after one line of non discussion, then try to hold the discussion we should have already had within the !vote. I hope I'm never subjected to that, and I suspect we all hope that for ourselves.) Begoon ^talk 16:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Just to clarify - nobody is proposing a 'permaban'. Nobody is proposing to wholesale delete 160 articles which are obviously the result of hard work and research. Some of us are asking this editor to cool it, and respect the norms of notability and sourcing on Wikipedia. I note that at least four of Aditya soni's recently created articles on Hindu Astrology are all subject to AFCs for broadly the same set of reasons: Incomprehensible articles on ultra-niche that are loaded with WP:OR and rely on unreliable occult/esoteric sources. This editor has not yet pledged to do anything differently even in light of the considerable attention criticism in AFD discussions. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Observation: Today I was glad to note that an esteemed editor had approached one page i.e.Rasasvada, with the intention of improving it. But just see what he has done. He has deleted the entire section – "Obstacles to Samadhi and their removal", in which part I have cited Sanskrit passages from Vedantasara that provide definition of the term – "Rasasvada" – in the context of Advaita Vedanta and are the basic reason as to why I decided to create this page. The editor in good faith has extracted the very heart from the body of this essay and killed it. The reason he gives is that the passage is original research based on ancient source. Three drawbacks are evident – 1) the editor does not know Sanskrit language, 2) he does not know who Sadananda was, and 3) he has never read the work of Sadananda titled Vedantasara belonging to mid-15th century, which systemizes Sankara’s Advaita philosophy. Since then, this work has been translated and commented upon by many learned savants. I chose to cite from the translation and commentary by Swami Nikhilananda which was first published in 1931 and which translation and commentary is available online, the reprint I possess is of a recent date. I have conducted no original research.Aditya soni (talk) 15:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UserAditya soni, I believe that you are acting in good faith, hence any bans or threats of bans may be unwarranted in your case. I have reviewed your older articles and found some of your work on Hinduism and Buddhism in general to be of good quality and potentially useful. I remain concerned about recently created articles such as Trikasthanas (astrology) which as I have previously stated are incomprehensible and fail to articulate any kind of notability according to Wikipedia's standards. None of the sources I was able to verify appear to be particularly important or reliable. None of the sources I could verify seem to deal with the subject matter in any significant depth. The reason I am pointing this out is not to criticize your scholarship, but to encourage you to apply your considerable intellect to an appreciation of Wikipedia's rules. --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• support I have mixed feelings about this, but I think in the end something has to be done about in the form of review and guidance. To some degree my issues with the Hindu terminology articles can be ascribed to my lack of familiarity with the material, but I also get the impression that a lot of what I'm reading is slight paraphrasing of near-to-primary source material. It's rather as if our articles on Judaica were constructed from reworded passages of the gemara. It's not an appropriate approach to a general interest encyclopedia. The astrology articles are worse, bordering on incoherency. I've said over and over again that we need people who know the material to write these Indian articles, but the articles need to be actually readable too. Mangoe (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I was still weighing this one up and believed the editor in question could turn over a new leaf until this comment which is just completely at odds with how WP works and suggest the editor just doesn't get it. An editor has no place here if they refuse to participate in discussion, especially about their own problematic editing. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Friends, I have already stated that I chose Wikipedia to share, with all those who are willing to know, the knowledge that I had fortunately gained through the intensive study of numerous scriptures and texts, guided by a Guru. For more than two long years I waited and kept on waiting for some good soul to turn up so as to help me improve and expand the contents I had posted. No one turned up. You will agree that most editors who are so very vocal in professing extension of aid, guidance etc., when they do appear on the scene come out with all their guns blazing, firing at will all ammunition that are in their possession ranging from code, technicality, procedure and so forth, in such a discouraging and insulting manner that persons like me who mean no offence are made to feel - "Why have I entered the dangerously dark abyss called Wikipedia, only to be unceremoniously driven out?" At least one really concerned editor ought to have long ago, or even recently, in a polite and purposeful manner pointed out my mistakes and volunteered to help and guide me; then he and I could have happily re-worked and re-written the 160 odd articles bringing them up to the set norms and standards. I would have been only too pleased to do so. But, now too much water has flowed down underneath the bridge, the bridge has collapsed, I have exhausted my patience, there is a very bitter taste in my mouth which I am unable to wash out, and I find my heart bleeding and genuinely crying out goading me to quit Wikipedia the soonest. I am being asked to turn a new leaf; I have failed to understand what is meant by this phrase. I have not rebelled. But, enough is enough. Please, for God’s sake, stop the farce which is being played out at my expense. I was here not to win praise and stars, and later become an Administrator, but all the same I have a feeling someone is being a sadist. I thank you all for allowing me to share my feelings. Be good and help the needy. Allow me to take leave. I had never had an opportunity to meet so many on a single stage; it has been a great learning experience. I have vowed not to create any new page ever.Aditya soni (talk) 03:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support purely for lack of a better alternative. If somebody were to offer to mentor this user, or some such, I would be far better satisfied than with a tban. Essentially, to me the user is eminently competent, but unable to distinguish between what they know and what the general reader can be expected to know; their articles are written for others like themselves. This is also borne out by the lack of wikilinks in their articles. This also raises an unusual sort of NPOV issue; though the articles may be written neutrally, their lack of context, or WP:INUNIVERSE if you will, make them harmful, because the vast majority of readers are not familiar enough with these topics to judge for themselves. To me their English is a trivial concern, and not a factor in voting "support;" there are armies of editors out there with far poorer English. Aditya soni, whichever way this turns out, I suggest you do not take this personally; take this as a break in which you can familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies. A Block is not infinite; it can be appealed, and if you can show that you've addressed these issues it will likely be overturned. Regards. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose It is clear to me that Aditya soni is highly knowledgeable on the topic, but needs to familiarize himself with WP guidelines. A break from creation and a focus on article improvement would be great. However, by the bitter tone of his reply, I am concerned that a tban like this might make him leave WP altogether, which would be pretty bad, as we would be losing an editor with great knowledge on a niche topic. However, I do not see any good alternative. Changed my mind based on discussion at the fringe noticeboard. Kingsindian (talk) 09:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Wikipedia does not come out of this with glory. As Wikipedians we have taken a huge potential step against an inexperienced editor and are causing them grief, a lot of grief.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the way they have approached the creation of articles, they are by no means a vandal, nor disruptive. They simply failed to engage with us in the way we expect usually. We must not have tried hard enough.

Now, we are voting on whether they should be allowed to continue. That appalls me.

Patently, they have a great deal to offer. And, equally patently, we are driving them away.

This started at a fringe noticeboard, which is odd, because Hindu Astrology does not seem to me to be a fringe theory. It seems pretty mainstream to me. The folk there needed the help of an admin, though I am wholly unsure why that was. This type of issue can almost always be handled by experienced editors without invoking the bucket and mop, but here we are, at the big ban hammer board, voting on how much hammer to use.

I am ashamed of our behaviour towards Aditya soni, and feel he deserves an apology, one I am giving him on my own behalf for any hurt I may have inflicted on him myself.

We need to guide him, yes. He needs to be content to accept guidance, yes. Requesting him to use WP:AFC for his next couple of drafts may well be a good idea. Mandating him to do so is not. This whole process is very WP:BITE, and we need to correct this now. Fiddle Faddle 10:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. [Non-administrator opinion.] I have not examined every article created by Aditya soni but I have extreme difficulty making sense of many of those I did read. I think it is fair to assume from the responses of others that I am not the only one. I reject the assertion that this is simply due to ethnocentrism, or as another editor has suggested elsewhere, a discussion of “my religious nuttery is better than thy religious nuttery”. While I have little experiencing studying the major writings of any religion, including Christianity, I am still able to comprehend articles that touch on obscure topics of a wide variety of religions with much greater ease that this group of articles. The fact that this issue was raised in WP:FTN is irrelevant, as is the issue of whether Hindu astrology is a fringe theory or not. I would have the same opinion if this was brought up in WP:FOOTY. With that said, I oppose a topic ban on Aditya soni. It is apparent from his/her edit history that this general topic is his/her only area of interest within Wikipedia, and a topic ban would ensure that we would loose him/her as an editor. As problematic as I find these articles and as much as I would like to see him/her attempt to work with others, I do not see any history of objectionable behavior (e.g. edit warring to prevent others from trying to fix the articles) that would warrant that action. Location (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One way in which the issue of whether Hindu Astrology is a fringe theory is very much relevant is with regard to the four articles currently at AfD where editors have raised WP:NFRINGE as a policy reason to delete them, among other reasons: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Equal house system (Hindu astrology), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unmaad yoga (astrology), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reka yoga (astrology) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trikasthanas (astrology). 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here appears to be whether or not Aditya soni can put together articles - regardless of the topic - that are reliably sourced and somewhat easily comprehended. Location (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Can we concentrate on one article? Trikasthanas (astrology), mentioned above, doesn't seem at all to match what a Wikipedia article should be. It looks more like something I'd find in a book that takes astrology seriously, or on an astrology website. Is this what we want? Dougweller (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dougweller: I am not sure what you mean by that. You mean the decision should be based primarily on one article? If so, I disagree. If not, as Salimfadhley, who has spent much more time than me on this says, there are many contributions, especially older ones, which are decent, and should be considered as well. Kingsindian (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsindian: That's good to hear. I'm not saying base it all on one article, I am asking if we want this one and if it is in any way typical. What do you think of it? Dougweller (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dougweller: Too much detail, very dense, impenetrable to people not familiar with the subject. Probably should be deleted, but I am very inexperienced in such matters. Definitely large sections should be removed. Kingsindian (talk) 21:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban from creating articles directly in article space. This seems to me very much the kind of thing the Articles for creation review process was created for. If the user creates articles via that process only, it'll be an advantage both for Wikipedia and for themselves. However, in view of the user's goodbye post above, I suppose the issue may be moot. But if they should change their mind about leaving, I do believe we need to insist they use the AFC process. Bishonen | talk 20:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

No, we don't need to insist on anything here. This does not even begin to rise to the level you are suggesting. I understand this is your opinion, and I will respect that, but Fiddle Faddle has this correct. We are not really trying very hard and I think a good deal of this is because some editors just don't understand the subjects and don't feel compelled to collaborate. I think that we need more patience with editors. I see no reason for admin intervention or community sanctions here.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I previously voted support and now continue to support this. Aditya soni is clearly an expert in certain aspects of Hindu culture but feels that this expertise provides an entitlement to disregard some of the fundamental rules of Wikipedia. This editor resigned in protest not just because of this discussion but because of the numerous AFDs and the growing consensus that his recent Astrology articles were not up to the standards of wikipedia 1, 2, 3. Aditya soni has never conceded that any of the criticisms of these articles were valid and his refused to make use of AFC (and other processes designed to assist new editors). Now faced with a possibility of mild and temporary editorial review Aditya Soni has resigned in disgust. In the immortal words of Cartman: "Screw You, I'm Going Home!". --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thank you for those words, which serve to escalate an unpleasant situation. As experienced editors our role is not only to create and edit articles but to provide a place where the less experienced can grow and become more valuable. I am thanking you for the Cartman quote, in case you are in any doubt.

People have driven away an editor whose understanding of the somewhat arcane topic appears to be great, but who is not quite working in a collegiate manner. I have read a number of the articles. They are difficult to understand. So is particle physics. They are not well referenced. Often, nor is particle physics, in that each has references from within the universe in which the topic exists. So what? We, the self styled great and good, are meant to be capable of editing the arcane and impenetrable to make it available to the ordinary reader. What we have said and are continuing to say to this editor is "Betake yourself and your topic that is difficult to understand, and go!" We disguise that as some sort of topic ban. Go us!

The wisdom of crowds often creates something far more unpleasant, and I believe we have seen it here. We have a posse and lunch law here. Yes, 'lunch', because we will have this editor for lunch.

The adult approach is to put this to bed as an understood but unwise proposal which will not be implemented, and to attempt to salvage something from the mess - we need to try to salvage this editor's feelings. I'm sorry that I asked them to come here and comment. As you see on their talk page they feel savaged the more by having done so.

For clarity, I have never met them before this, and never read their work. I joined this discussion because I felt then and feel now that this is a grave injustice being perpetrated on an ordinary person, someone like you and like me. I remain ashamed of us for doing this.

Are we not meant to guide and encourage the less collegiate editor, the less experienced editor? Or do we throw them under the bus when we don;t quite 'get' what they are trying to do? Fiddle Faddle 06:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I disagree strongly with Timtrent that we are seeing articles created that are simply written by someone who understands the subject but writes articles that are difficult to understand and need better referencing. They are in fact articles which have Wikipedia stating in its own voice that astrology is an objective fact. The author even says as much at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reka yoga (astrology) - " But all the same Reka yoga is a bad planetary combination; it has a restraining and at times destructive effect." Now he has the right to believe this all to be true, but not to create articles in which Wikipedia itself is asserting these things to be true. Dougweller (talk) 07:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Wikipedia presents many things as facts. A good number are not facts at all, but are hypotheses, theories, etc. If something is presented as a fact that is genuinely not a fact there is a simple and expedient mechanism for making it clear that it is not a fact. We use the Edit button and make judicious edits. We do not then seek to prevent an editor from ever creating articles in main namespace again by a massive ban hammer style proposal at ANI. If we did that we would have very few editors left and the WP:AFC backlog would go up tenfold at a stroke. Not all articles are excellent. That is why we edit as a community. We don't chuck them away unless and until they are shown to be hopeless cases. We certainly do not throw their creator under a bus.

If we are very lucky we may be able to salvage the editor as a contributor for years to come, but I do not blame him at all for being extremely upset with the way he is being treated. Fiddle Faddle 12:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - this guy clearly knows his stuff. He needs some help fitting it into our way of doing things, but this is exactly the sort of material we could do with more of. I'm disgusted at the behaviour of those who want it gone because they don't understand, it's foreign, it's arcane or whatever. I know a little about this sort of stuff, and while it's very hard to get into, especially on a sleepy afternoon after lunch when I listened to a chap explain this area for a week, it's valid within the limits of the subject. We shouldn't be presenting it as fact, but we shouldn't be deleting this very real scholarship. --Pete (talk) 04:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pete,I wish you had made your appearance earlier. I have stepped in mainly because of you. Whatever be the opinion of the people in the Western world about astrology as a pseudo-science or a hoax or a non-sense, but you know that Astrology has been a part of Hindu life and culture for the past 4000 years or so, and it still continues to play an important role in our life. Even those Indian skeptics who vehemently speak and write against astrology, in fact, secretly approach priest-astrologers in the time of need. I can vouch for this fact because I am in this field though not as a professional. After the introduction of British method of education by Macaulay, who divided the world into the educated and the barbarians, the longstanding Indian method of thinking changed; everything ancient was questioned and even rejected, which situation worsened because of the influence of Karl Marx. Hindu astrology also took a severe hit and the number of those rejecting it as a science grew larger and larger, and also because of the support extended by the then political establishment. The vexing question, whether astrology is a science or not, was finally settled by the Supreme Court of India which court on 05/05/2004 ruled that astrology is a science, and even directed the Indian Universities to teach this subject. This judgement was delivered in the Case No. Appeal (civil) 5886 of 2002 P.M.Bhargava & Others. Vs. University Grants Commission and Another. You can access the court order at Govt. of India website - http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=26188 I am sure you are aware of this court ruling which is now the law of the land. Please enlighten all participants especially those who are against Hindu astrology and eager to bury my four articles already listed as AFDs. You have read the Indian Sanskrit texts. Our ancient thinkers did not use many words, they were very brief while defining and explaining the various astrological and philosophical principles. The later translators and commentators were in no position to change that method of expression lest the true meaning became lost. Hence, the language appears arcane and difficult to understand. I have not digressed from the available and referred to texts. This is it. My objecting friends should have directly asked me to re-write and if possible simplify what I had presented all that which is now under their scrutiny. They did not and you know the rest. They have driven me out.Aditya soni (talk) 11:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, am glad to see that you have chosen to reengage. I found the reasoning of the Madras High Court (quoted approvingly in the decision linked) particularly apt for an encyclopedia: it had "held that the very purpose of imparting education is to gain knowledge and therefore there should be every scope for making a study on very many subjects in order to enrich ones craving for knowledge. Any such attempt from any quarters in furtherance of that pursuit should not be stultified. The learned Judge further held that it was for the pupil concerned to select any particular field or subject in furtherance of his future career, and merely because the subject has got its basis or origin traceable to some cult, it cannot be held that the same would only result in propagation of a particular religion." I, for one, believe that your articles can be edited so as present knowledge more neutrally and not necessarily only result in propagation of a particular religion. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn't say that I have read the ancient Sanskrit texts. I have a shallow understanding of the arrangement of the Vedas, the Upanishads and so on. It is a rich and deep subject! I can barely read Sanskrit, and puzzling out meaning with the help of Monier-Williams is a slow task. Though very enjoyable. Max Muller is another sage I revere, and when I next visit Oxford I am charged with visiting him at Holywell.

Despite what the court in Madras says, we cannot present astrology here as fact or science. We can certainly describe it for those who do, giving the sources and rewriting to make it less impenetrable, in line with Wikipedia's policies. We already present many arcane fields. Particle physics is mentioned above, but we also cover Harry Potter and Karl Marx in great detail. There is certainly room for the Vedas here, and your contributions are welcome, at least from those who have an inkling of what you're talking about. For many others, it comes across as nonsense, and I understand their confusion, though cannot support their behaviour towards a scholar. Obviously the wisdom of Advaita is yet to blossom in their hearts.

It is obvious that you are a scholar, and one who knows his texts. I can help edit your work here in line with policy, if you'll accept my feeble understanding of your field. Quite likely there are others here with better knowledge of both Sanskrit and Vedic tradition who can join in. Some of the advice given above is very good, such as the suggestion that you cease creating new articles until we have dealt with those already here by rewording them in line with Wikipedia policy. --Pete (talk) 19:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as proposal is too broad. AlanS (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I've actually read some (non-Wiki) articles on Vedic (Hindu) astrology, and the long-winded and often dire articles that this user is writing sound like they come from the Middle Ages. I believe they are not only inappropriate, too long, and a detriment to Wikipedia, I believe they are actually misleading in terms of the belief system they purport to represent. Softlavender (talk) 05:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• What an excellent idea. Let us ban every editor whose writing quality is poor, or whose style we do not agree with, from creating new articles. Far better to ban them than to educate them, because it saves so much trouble. And, even better than that, it isn't WP:BITE at all, if we say it isn't. Alternatively we can edit the articles we think are substandard. I thought that was what Wikipedia was about. Fiddle Faddle 13:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that the writing quality is poor or that I disagreed with the style. I said the articles are misleading. Do we want an encyclopedia to be misleading? If you think so, fine, but I disagree; I think an encyclopedia should be accurate and up-to-date. Softlavender (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Yesterday, I asked User:Aditya soni, if willing, to make some changes to one or two articles so that Hindu beliefs were represented as beliefs rather than as universal truths. [2]. Today, I note that User:Aditya soni has done just that. [3] and [4]. Even if one is not entirely satisfied with the results, I hope we can all agree that this is strong evidence of a willingness to work collaboratively. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 13:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I was invited to ANI for a third opinion. The concepts the user writes on are "real" concepts (not WP:FRINGE) in Hindu astrology. That said; many of them do not warrant an independent article, but however need to mentioned in the master article. Trikasthanas (astrology) IMO should be merged with Bhāva and retained as a para or 2. The articles created by the user are primarily based on WP:PRIMARY sources, thus may be coloured by the author's perception (Read WP:OR). Articles like Devatas (Vedanta) seem to be WP:POVFORKs of the master article (in this case, Rigvedic deities or Deva (Hinduism)).Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dear Mr. Redtigerxyz ^Talk ,I had seen the page Deva (Hinduism), but I did not know where to incorporate my written matter posted at Devatas (Vedanta), therefore, I created a new page owing to inexperience. But,I have not done any original research nor relied on primary sources -

Ref 1 Raj Pruthi’s book – Vedic Civilization is not a primary source; it is a secondary source on the topic. The entire book is available on line.

Ref 2 The book - Sree Varaha mihira’s Bhirat Jataka is not a primary source; it is translation cum commentary by B.Suryanarain Rao, and a secondary source. The entire book is available on line.

Ref 3, 5,6 Swami Gambhirananda’s book on Brahma Sutra Bhasya of Sankaracarya is a tertiary source; this is Swami Gambhirananda’s translation and commentary on the Sanskrit translation of Brahma Sutras by Adi Shankara. The entire book can be accessed at http://michaelsudduth.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Srimad-Bhagavad-Gita-Shankara-Bhashya-English.pdf

Ref 7 The book – New Perspectives on Advaita Vedanta is not a primary source; it is a secondary/tertiary source. The entire book is available on line.

Ref 8 The book – A Constructive Survey of Upanishadic Philosophy, as the title suggests is a masterly survey of the Upanishads conducted by Ramachandra Dattatrya Ranade.

Ref 9 The book- Patanjali Yoga Sutras contains the original Sanskrit text along with English translation by Swami Prabhavananda. It is a secondary source. The entire book can be accessed at http://www.estudantedavedanta.net/yoga-aphorisms-of-patanjali.pdf

Ref 10 The book – Eight Upanishads Vol.1 contains original text of Isa, Kena, Katha and Taittiriya Upanishads along with English translation and commentary by Swami Gambhirananda.

Ref 11 The book – Studies in Upanishads as the name itself suggests is a tertiary source.

By the way I have already sought deletion of all 160 odd pages created by me. Therefore, I request you to please quietly delete all pages without inviting or involving others, then, there will not be any kind of aspersions cast on my understanding of the subject, my ability, my sincerity and my integrity. And, by deleting all articles your precious time and effort would also be saved. I hope you will not disappoint me. I seek forgiveness from all you for having created so many thoughtless pages and thus carelessly bothered you all. I have deleted my user page but I do not know how to quit Wikipedia entirely (including disabling of my password i.e. access to any page), please help me. Also, please close this discussion too, which has needlessly gone on and on. I am glad you have also supported a ban on me. You may collectively ban me for ever, I won't be bothering you in future, never in any case. Thanks.Aditya soni (talk) 10:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No way you want to hear more about problems at Talk:Historicity of Jesus. But, I see no other good alternative.

John Carter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the person I'm having difficulty with.

Background:

1. John Carter has posted some oblique "warning" messages to me at Talk:Historicity of Jesus-- directed at "a certain obvious POV pusher," and "a rather single-minded POV pusher." diff1diff2 Frankly, I find these to be creepy - as if he's trying to intimidate me.
2. John Carter started an ANI a few days ago, accusing me of “tendentious POV pushing at Historicity of Jesus. He provided only one diff – to a comment totally unrelated to me, and provided no explanation of his claim. After I pointed this out, the ANI was closed, as I'd done nothing blockable. (The ANI is long and stupid. Please don't feel like you need to read it all.) diff to ANI
3. On my talk page, I asked John Carter (several times) what POV he thought I was pushing, since he never said. He doesn't seem to want to tell me, though he does go on at length about my personal failings. (You don't really want to read all this either, but I provide it to show that I'm trying to stay on topic, and am met with hostility.) diff to talk page about ANI
4. John Carter was desysopped several years ago, with the reasons listed pretty much corresponding to his recent behavior. [5]

Current issue:

1. John Carter deleted one of my Talk:Historicity of Jesus comments, without my consent. diff to first deletion
2. When I reverted the delete, and pointed out that he knew better than to delete other users' comments, he deleted it again. diff to second deletion
3. At this point, I consider it an edit war, of sorts (if Talk pages can have those.) If I reverted again, so would he.
4. He posted this “final warning” to my talk page. diff to user talk page warning
5. He added this warning to [[Talk:Historicity of Jesus] ], misrepresenting the talkpage guidelines. diff to talk page warning

Looking at WP:TALKNO, John Carter has:

• Made ad hominem attacks against me,
• Threatened me,
• Misrepresented my comments,
• Deleted my comments,
• Misrepresented WP policy and guidelines, and
• Presented himself as if he has some authority – possibly as an admin.

Administrative action requested:

• I'm bringing this to ANI, as I don't think any other dispute resolution will be effective.
• I'm requesting a short article ban for Historicity of Jesus and Talk:Historicity of Jesus

Fearofreprisal (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The deleted comment in question is clearly uncivil sniping, and while I would not personally have considered it severe enough to pull from a talk page, you should not have reverted its removal. Nothing to see here. --erachima talk 23:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was also restored under the hatnote which he didn't mention. A review of his recent history on the visible article talk page and his own user talk page would indicate warnings are called for. John Carter (talk) 00:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Forgetting the obviously snippy comments, what POV is he pushing on the talk page? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He has been among other things arguing that nominal Christians and Muslims are incapable of approaching the historicity of Jesus objectively, but that others who have more often than not either rejected some of the Western Christian social morays are, which is at best a dubious assertion considering the psychology of conversion, or that adherents of faiths which would regard the Christian incarnation as basically heretical have no similar biases. Having myself studied religion, I can say everyone in class were much more "nominal" believers than society as a whole, and might like him to meet some of the monks and priests I've met who have in their 40s or 50s acknowledged becoming agnostics or atheists but stay for retirement benefits and their religious friends. John Carter (talk) 00:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not just a POV-push, it's a violation of "no original research". He's betraying his own biases to draw such a conclusion. He has no evidence to support such a broad-brush claim. Deja vu. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is that based on a thorough examination, or just on taking someone's characterisation of their adversary at face value? Formerip (talk) 00:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As with the debate a few days ago, he's claiming that a Christian or a Muslim cannot objectively write about the historicity of Jesus. He's got no evidence to support that claim, it's strictly his personal opinion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(e-c)It's something that has some support in some circles so its probably more POV than OR. And I forgot to mention the 2 nuns and several non–Catholic agnostic/atheist nominally Christian ministers I've met as well. It was an an arranged meeting of the local "qualifiers" if anyone's curious. I've myself never been a religious and I was there basically as an outsider. John Carter (talk) 00:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That highlights one of many core issues in this discussion. Precisely what IS a Christian? Another is the matter of what Historicity of Jesus is really about, whether Jesus existed, or whether there is any "scientific" evidence that he existed. HiLo48 (talk) 00:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:John Carter is completely misrepresenting my position, and my actions. The diffs don't lie: [6]

Beyond this, POV, or what is a Christian, or any of this content related stuff is not an issue in this ANI. The only thing that is at issue is User:John Carter's hostility.Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is also this diff which you recently removed from your user talk page with the problematic "Off–topic comments" section in which Huon talks about your other recent micsconduct on the same talk page and your other problematic recent conduct still on the talk page. WP:BOOMERANG indicates that much as you apparently think otherwise your behavior is open to review as well.John Carter (talk) 01:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to get in a pissing contest with John Carter. Let's stick to his hostility: He's been accusing me of POV pushing, both in the article talk page diff1diff2, and in another ANI diff to ANI, and he's provided no evidence to substantiate it. Zippo. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because you'd lose. And you have demonstrated so much arrogance and self–righteousness that Huon had to call you on it before and it very clearly still hasn't apparently gotten through to you yet. John Carter (talk) 01:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the last discussion, this article might benefit from a page move to Academic history of Jesus or something of that matter to determinitively distinguish the difference between religious/faith-based history and scholarly/scientific history.--v/r - TP 01:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll send you a talk page message regarding the article. I'd really like to keep this ANI focused on John Carter's hostility towards me, as it's really getting in the way of improving the article. (He even said that my suggesting the scope of the article should be "the historicity of Jesus" was POV pushing!) Fearofreprisal (talk) 02:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the editor conduct deserves a reality check, and the language that is being used, even in this ANI post is not acceptable. And you have demonstrated so much arrogance and self–righteousness... It's ridiculous. In short, you give the impression of being a newbie with a profound ego but little real knowledge of the topic and less knowledge or awareness of wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please make an effort to read WP:TPG and try to realize that, despite your own obvious conviction of your personal genius... is wholeheartedly unacceptable and uncivil language while not exactly swearing and not exactly 'confrontorary' language, is anything but civil. Indeed, comments like We have talk page guidelines for a reason whether you are capable of understanding them or not. If you can't understand that please read WP:CIR which is implying that the user is not competent enough to understand policy or guidelines. unless you are a professional in the field, however high your opinion of yourself might be, the authors there probably know more about the subject and are better sources for our content than yourself and your OR speculations regarding their possible is also in my view is unacceptable. This kind of language is what is ambiguously dealt with on noticeboards, and what needs to be policed and enforced more. I advocate that John is put on warning for these comments and should be reminded that he is to act civil and delve into the real content and sources, not about other editors. Tutelary (talk) 02:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've avoided commenting on this before, but based on the while history of this dispute at WP: In my opinion JC is alleging wide-spread biases without evidence, trying to dismiss the work of almost everybody who has ever contributed to the academic or popular discussion of the subject because his own views are different. He has continued doing so to the extend that it is disruptive. His arguments here, that he can not be biased himself against Christians because he has talked to people of that religion, does not make sense to me. (It is even possible that my own views on the matter may be the same as his, but it remains the case that the position at the moment is very much a minority position, tho I would not go so far as to call it fringe, and I don't think it reasonable to pretend otherwise.) TParis, the term universally used for the RW question is Historicity of Jesus. It's not an assertion that Jesus was historically real, it's just a statement that the problem is whether he/He was historically real. "Academic history of Jesus is meaningless. The subject is precisely the question whether the faith-based account corresponds to the biography of a real individual. DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TL;DR version: what DGG said.

The reason why the historicity of Jesus is such a problematic topic on Wikipedia is that the historicity of Jesus is a problematic topic. It is an intersection of scholarly study and religious faith. Gospel scholars can debate whether Mark 13 contains an interpolation of a C1 eschatological text unrelated to the Jesus story or whether the Q-source existed despite there being no contemporary or patristic mention, without matters of faith coming into play.

The historicity of Jesus is different. It involves very deeply held beliefs about the very nature of the world and of existence. For adherents of the Christian faith in its many forms, the historicity of Jesus and its relation to the Jesus of Christianity is something that is perhaps one of the most important things in their lives. For people of other faiths, the historicity of Jesus and its relation to the Jesus of Christianity is - I will not be so presumptuous to make any comment. For non-believers, the historicity of Jesus can be a scholarly topic but often also involves very deeply held beliefs about the very nature of the world and of existence.

In short: JC - please stop making allegations of bias because someone simply disagrees with you.

Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I commented at the talk page, Talk: Historicity of Jesus, earlier this month, that it appears that the combined content disputes (now about whether to split the article into multiple articles) and conduct issues that interfere with resolving the content questions are likely to go to the ArbCom. Unfortunately, that again appears to be the case. Can you (multiple editors) put aside your anger to avoid having the topic area (including any future articles that are split off) placed under discretionary sanctions? Regardless of any other details of an ArbCom final decision, they almost certainly will include discretionary sanctions. For background, there was a filing at the dispute resolution noticeboard. It was declined, with the advice to take the content issues to mediation and the conduct issues here, WP:ANI. (I am not sure that mediation is the right vehicle, but that is my opinion.) I see two editors here, FearOfReprisal and John Carter, who obviously do not like each other, one of whom has been previously sanctioned by the ArbCom with respect to the history of religions. Both FOR and JC: Be civil. Equally importantly, be concise. Long WP:TLDR posts here are a common but useless practice, because they aren't read in detail. If you aren't willing to resolve your issues here, be concise, because the ArbCom doesn't accept walls of text. Enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My issue with John Carter is resolved as soon as he stops accusing me of misconduct.

As for fixing the longstanding intractable problems with the article -- here are the subjects we need to reach consensus on:

1. The topic of the article. i.e., the "Historicity of Jesus"
2. The definition of the term "historicity" (see Historicity)
3. The article's scope, i.e., the "historicity of Jesus"
4. Topics that are outside the scope of the article, e.g., religious belief, Christ Myth Theory, Historical Jesus

There is currently dispute about every one of these items. So, I suspect that discretionary sanctions will be required in any event. Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@FoR, arbitration is the way to proceed. This ANI will likely close for the same reason as the last one - it's not ANI's purview to resolve complex disputes that are a blend of conduct and content issues. Imo, there have been plenty of prior attempts to resolve both issues for ArbCom to take the case. I don't agree that filing a case will result in discretionary sanctions - the Arbs are wise enough to understand that a dispute between two parties isn't going to undermine the encyclopedia. Ignocrates (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I came here solely with a conduct issue. It's everyone else who has added in content issues. Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You do not seem to understand that you do not control the discussion here. While I believe that there is a very real question whether Ignocrates has once again returned to edit only in regards to something in which I am involved which may qualify as a violation of his interaction ban and I would welcome input from others on whether involvement in this discussion as his only edits in weeks as can be seen here qualifies as stalking and/or other sanctionable conduct as per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites 3 in their eyes. I also think much if not most of the problems at the article would be resolved if Fear would indicate the sources to establish the notability and weight requirements as per guidelines and policies because I've never seen them clearly indicated. John Carter (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that Christians can be objective about Jesus is silly. If you think someone is the son of God and walked on water and rose from the dead, you're not exactly objective. If you believe denying his historicity will result in eternal torment, you're in no position to be objective. But so what? Does fearofreprisal want to ban Christian editors? I'm not sure how the lack of objectivity can be applied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howunusual (talk • contribs) 00:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to try to be as concise as possible here. John Carter continues to be hostile, even in this ANI ("You do not seem to understand that you do not control the discussion here.") This is nothing new. Here are a few relevant diffs:

• Blocked for violating sanctions, Jul 2013: [7]
• ArbCom sanctions personal attacks, Nov 2013: [8] "John Carter has made personal attacks against Ignocrates during the arbitration case"
• Tells ArbCom that he can't control his temper, Nov 2013: [9] "I regret to say that over the years dealing with the comments of others I acknowledge that my temper can, and particularly sometimes around Ignocrates does, get the best of me."
• Resigns as Admin, because of ArbCom, Nov 2013: [10]
• Admits to trying to drive editors off WP through incivility, Nov 2013: [11]
• ArbCom admonishment for disruption and incivility, June 2009: [12]
• Desysopping discussion, Feb 2008: [13]

I'm perfectly happy to try and work with John Carter to improve the Historicity of Jesus article. However...

• If he can't drop the condescension here in ANI, why would I think he might do so in the article and talk page?
• Over his long history on WP, he's not yet contributed a single word to the Historicity of Jesus article. [14] Why would I think he's going to start now?

With no reason to believe that John Carter will change, the only reasonable resolution I can see is for him to be topic-banned from "historicity" related articles. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are going to the trouble of posting details back to 2008, perhaps you wouldn't mind showing a couple of links for current problems? The couple I looked at in the OP show dime-a-dozen commentary that is standard for many contentious topics—they certainly do not justify a topic ban. I don't understand DGG's above comment regarding "bias"—is that something at ANI or a talk page somewhere? I can't see it (certainly the comment at 00:24, 19 August 2014 above shows no problem). I see no link which shows anything unexpected for a topic like this. ANI is for behavior, but my preference would be for someone to point to something that matters, such as who-is-doing-what in an article. Johnuniq (talk) 11:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I posted mostly issues that have happened in the last year. I posted the 2008 diff to show that nothing has changed. It's about context. His "chilling admission regarding the ways he attempts to drive editors off the project through controlled incivility" should give you pause. JC is an experienced former Admin, who uses his knowledge of WP rules to attack users who disagree with him. While JC's comments, considered individually, may be dime-a-dozen commentary, taken together and in context, they show that his pattern of intentional disruption continues.

I accept that it's likely that nothing will be done here to encourage JC to drop his incivility. But I've established a record. If, as he admits, he can't control his temper, we'll be back here soon enough. Fearofreprisal (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)provd[reply]

What you completely failed to do is post any indications of your providing the required reliable sources to give reason to make changes as per WP:WEIGHT and other policies and guidelines. Should you continue to engage in such behavior in violation of conduct guidelines we will probably be back sooner than you think very possibly regarding your conduct. John Carter (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Followup

It's not gotten much better. User:John Carter started a section at Talk:Historicity of Jesus#"Historicity” of Jesus or “Historicity of Jesus”?, where I can't figure out what he's talking about. I asked for a WP:THIRDOPINION, and that person couldn't figure out what JC was talking about either. It probably wouldn't matter -- I could just ignore him -- except his incivility is distruptive. The problems with this article are going to eventually go to ArbCom, but I'm trying to get things as cleaned up as possible before then, so we can deal with just one or two fundamental issues. Fearofreprisal (talk) 02:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you are going to have to explain an actual problem more clearly. At Talk:Historicity of Jesus we see two sections: "What is historicity?" (in which Fearofreprisal asks for people to share their understanding of what historicity actually is), and the section linked above (in which John Carter lists several sources along with a comment which requires some missing context to understand). I don't see how you could claim the section is "incivility"—it is obviously missing a couple of sentences to explain what it's all about, but is that such a problem? Just ignore it or reply with something like what I've said here. Why would you then add a third section (here) about the same point? My third opinion would be that you all stop talking about who-knows-what and focus on the article. What is the problem in the article? Johnuniq (talk) 04:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This ANI is about conduct, not content. I'll save the discussion on content for ArbCom. Fearofreprisal (talk) 05:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not right. Arbcom follows a strict (and often counter-productive) policy of not even thinking about content. Perhaps the arbs privately ponder what would be best for the encyclopedia, but public discussions must not deal with content (see WP:Arbitration). At ANI, anything goes. In general, content is not discussed here, but if necessary people will consider underlying issues and might, for example, offer an opinion that an editor should be topic banned because they are adding unhelpful text to articles (with a brief explanation). That's fine here, but does not happen at arbitration. It's unlikely that third parties will want to spend the time becoming familiar with all the background so it's up to people claiming that a problem exists to show links and brief explanations as to why there is a problem. Johnuniq (talk) 10:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. ArbCom will not deal with the content issue. I'm not sure all of the talk page discussion is appropriate, and I do see editors throwing "notaforum" back and forth. Editors trying to decide "What is historicity?" make me uneasy. Although it would be nice, as one editor asks, to have a " universal, clear definition for the term,", I'd be amazed if all the sources who think that they have written on this subject agree. It's just not up to editors to make these decisions. Sure, they can discuss which sources that discuss the meaning of "historicity of Jesus" that they wish to use, but they shouldn't be looking at sources that only discuss "historicity" without discussing Jesus. That's just the way we roll, and if we start opening the door to sources that don't discuss the subject of the article... But the issue is really "What conduct issue are you bringing here?" I do agree with User:Johnuniq - what incivility? Focus on the article, not abstract questions about historicity. And don't add huge templates at the bottom that belong at the top and seem to be there only to be used whack each other over the head. Hm, thinking about that again, Fearofreprisal was being pretty uncivil with that - see Talk:Historicity of Jesus#Need WP:RS citations that show "historicity of Jesus"= "existence of Jesus". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 12:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You once again demonstrate a pronounced lack of understanding of wikipedia in the above comment Fear, as you did in the above sections which raises serious WP:CIR issues about you which are not helped at all by the lack of understanding of several policies and guidelines you have already repeatedly displayed on the article talk page. That specifically includes your presumptuous citation demands on that talk page. The fact that you also seem to be insisting on immediate gratification of all your demands is another cause for concern. I have yet to finish the full research of this topic I had previously indicated I was working on and find these rather tendentious demands for immediate gratification of your every whim to be both counterproductive and completely unnecessary. As I already said on the talk page your cause would be much better served if you could find the sources sufficient to establish the notability of the article you want. It is perhaps a not unreasonable question whether you may not be able to establish sch notability on your own and that might be driving your rather disruptive and less than productive postings here. The article was not built in a day nor is it reasonable to assume that major changes to it should be made in a day. Honestly, I believe your conduct in this matter in general raises much more serious concerns about you than anything or anyone else.John Carter (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq - Thank you for the clarification on ArbCom. Is it OK to focus on John Carter's conduct in this ANI, and save content for a subsequent ANI? Or would you rather combine them into an unresolveable mess?

To clarify the conduct issue I'm bringing here: it is WP:POV RAILROADING. Would you like me to add even more diffs to show this, or are the ones I've provided so far (and that User:Tutelary has noted at [15]) sufficient?

A couple of question of how to deal with situations:

John Carter's language towards you is wholeheartedly unacceptable and that has not changed. Even now, he is using patronizing and almost insulting language at you in an attempt at making you leave the site. That is the language that makes other editors leave. When vandals use swear words at other users, they dismiss it outhand because a vandal is usually so easily blocked as they are blatantly disruptive. There are other users on this site that appear to be in it for the long hall, and massively influence content discussions, and when they are met with any resistance, use patronizing and euphemizing language for what would have been the equivalent of swear words from a vandal. I am not and will not get into a content dispute, but for conduct, John Carter needs to knock it off lest he face sanctions for his language. Tutelary (talk) 23:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• When someone posts talk page comments that are personal beliefs, apologetics, or polemics, how shall I respond? I used the notaforum template, and Dougweller thought that was uncivil
• How should I respond when someone (in this case, John Carter) post talk page comments that are either so ungrammatical, unparseable, or elliptical as to be impossible to understand? I've tried asking -- repeatedly -- what the JC meant, and even got a WP:THIRDOPINION, and have had no luck. Fearofreprisal (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More negative interactions with John Carter

This is truly getting old. It's really a challenge to *not* be snippy to hostile comments such these:

• Today in Talk:Historicity of Jesus: [16][17]
• Here in ANI: [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]

As I said before, this is part of a pattern of WP:POV railroading. John Carter is using false narratives, policy misuse, and incivility to try and discredit me, or drive me away. His behavior is indidious, and is not likely to stop without administrative action. Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC) Minor Edit 00:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No this is part of an ongoing attempt at badgering and harassment while also engaging in WP:IDHT by the above editor and I personally would welcome any input from uninvolved editors as to whether this behavior on the above editors part perhaps merits some degree of administrative action against him for his misuse of this page to attempt to bully others into accepting him making changes which are in no way necessarily supported by existing policies and guidelines. His recent indication on the talk page that he believes a subject being mentioned on two pages of a book is sufficient to count as a proof of notability is one of several indicators of possible lack of competence on his part.John Carter (talk) 00:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John - no comment on the rest of Fearofreprisal's comments - but you are aware that WP:CIR says "don't link this to the guy you think has a competency problem" right?--v/r - TP 00:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for sanctions

JC has been sanctioned by the ArbCom two times, and was recently blocked for violating sanctions. He is an unapologetic recidivist. (See the ArbCom motion on recidivism here: [26].)

I am requesting that he be given a 1 month topic ban on historicity, and a permanent interaction ban with me. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you have thrown a pile of diffs which show nothing unusual for a contentious topic. The only "bad" thing in them is that you were directed to WP:CIR, and that has already been dealt with above in TP's comment at 00:59, 23 August 2014. There is still no explanation of what the underlying issue is, and no recognition of the fact that when two people of bickering, ANI should not be used to knock one of them out with lame links. People at ANI just want the disruption to stop, so a quick fix might be to topic ban Fearofreprisal and John Carter from all articles and talk pages related to Jesus for one week. After that time, it would be easier to decide who is behaving inappropriately, starting from a clean slate. Johnuniq (talk) 02:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq - You may have missed User:Tutelary's comments, at 16:27, 22 August 2014:

John Carter's language towards you is wholeheartedly unacceptable and that has not changed. Even now, he is using patronizing and almost insulting language at you in an attempt at making you leave the site. That is the language that makes other editors leave. When vandals use swear words at other users, they dismiss it outhand because a vandal is usually so easily blocked as they are blatantly disruptive. There are other users on this site that appear to be in it for the long hall, and massively influence content discussions, and when they are met with any resistance, use patronizing and euphemizing language for what would have been the equivalent of swear words from a vandal. I am not and will not get into a content dispute, but for conduct, John Carter needs to knock it off lest he face sanctions for his language. [27]

John Carter's comments to me in this matter are similar to the personal attacks he was sanctioned for by the ArbCom.[28] They are not "business as usual." And, though most people might be forgiven for such comments, John Carter is a former Admin, who has been twice sanctioned by ArbCom. Do you really think he should get a "pass" on conduct he knows to be improper?

It is unfair and inaccurate for you to say "There is still no explanation of what the underlying issue is." I have indeed explained that the underlying issue is WP:POV railroading by User:John Carter. I've provided detail. If it's not good enough, possibly you can explain the level of detail you need.

Ultimately, if there's a consensus to impose a WP:CBAN on me, I'll understand. But I still reiterate my request to have John Carter interaction banned and topic banned. Fearofreprisal (talk) 06:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can post their opinion here. My view is stated above, and of course I did not miss Tutelary's comment. Your reply does not address what I wrote, and I previously mentioned that posting links to old stuff is not helpful. What's needed is brief text and/or links that address the current issue. Please do not post any more links to essays or other disputes (you don't imagine that linking to "WP:POV railroading" is an explanation?). If there is a succinct explanation of the underlying issue somewhere, please post a link. Johnuniq (talk) 07:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK -- I'll try again. The current issues are false narratives, Policy misuse, and incivility by John Carter. The underlying issue is that he jumps into discussions I've started, and attempts to marginalize me by lying about or distorting what I've said, misrepresenting WP policies and guidelines, and using subtly insulting and demeaning language. He appears to be repeating his admitted tactic of using incivility to drive away editors with whom he does not agree.

Following are quotes from him. While some of his statements are combinations of false narrative, policy misuse, and incivility, I've tried to group them in a reasonable way.

Each of the following statements is a false narrative:

...none of the statements you made above have been sourced and your own extremely obvious history of basically demanding that this article conform not to policies or guidelines but to what is apparently your own extreme preconceptions of what it should be about.

Regarding your continuing insistence as above that this article must be changed according to your own personal schedule...

Your apparently ongoing insistence that everybody else must act according to your time schedule is extremely problematic.

I very strongly suggest a certain obvious POV pusher refrain from further presumptuous pontification and if I were that editor I would not expect any more warnings regarding misconduct before an ANI discussion on that editor's conduct is initiated.

The phrasing of the lead before a rather single-minded POV pusher, specifically, you, came in would be I think a reasonable place to start because that seemed to have some consensus which few of your own edits seem to have.

What an odd statement for you to make, conesidering I don't know that to date you have provided a single sourcewhich explicitly supports your apparently OR conclusion of academic bias yourself.

...I do see how you continue yourself to continue to engage in personal attacks as perWP:NPA.

He has been among other things arguing that nominal Christians and Muslims are incapable of approaching the historicity of Jesus objectively, but that others who have more often than not either rejected some of the Western Christian social morays are, which is at best a dubious assertion considering the psychology of conversion, or that adherents of faiths which would regard the Christian incarnation as basically heretical have no similar biases.

There is also this diff which you recently removed from your user talk page with the problematic "Off–topic comments" section in which Huon talks about your other recent micsconduct on the same talk page and your other problematic recent conduct still on the talk page.

What you completely failed to do is post any indications of your providing the required reliable sources to give reason to make changes as perWP:WEIGHT and other policies and guidelines. Should you continue to engage in such behavior in violation of conduct guidelines we will probably be back sooner than you think very possibly regarding your conduct.

You once again demonstrate a pronounced lack of understanding of wikipedia in the above comment Fear, as you did in the above sections which raises serious WP:CIR issues about you which are not helped at all by the lack of understanding of several policies and guidelines you have already repeatedly displayed on the article talk page. That specifically includes your presumptuous citation demands on that talk page. The fact that you also seem to be insisting on immediate gratification of all your demands is another cause for concern.

No this is part of an ongoing attempt at badgering and harassment while also engaging in WP:IDHT by the above editor and I personally would welcome any input from uninvolved editors as to whether this behavior on the above editors part perhaps merits some degree of administrative action against him for his misuse of this page to attempt to bully others into accepting him making changes which are in no way necessarily supported by existing policies and guidelines. His recent indication on the talk page that he believes a subject being mentioned on two pages of a book is sufficient to count as a proof of notability is one of several indicators of possible lack of competence on his part

Each of the following statements is a policy misuse:

Unfortnately as a thorough review of the existing talk page would reveal that is not the definition or scope of the article Fear personally wants to see although as has also already been at least implied there seems to be a very real question whether he can establish the notability of that topic as per WP:NOTABILITY and other relevant guides.

I also believe notability as per WP:NOTABILITY may well be relevant as the works to be used to establish notability have to be significantly about the topic rather than just one topic among several they discuss.

If you honestly believe that being mentioned on just two pages in a single book of clearly over four hundred pages is sufficient to establish the notability of that topic then I believe that it would very much be in your own interests to thoroughly acquaint yourself with all aspects of WP:NOTABILITY and also with WP:CIR. (He wants me to establish the notability of the topic "the historicity of Jesus", which is already the topic of the article.)

The one you have been wanting to change it to per the sections above. The one you have still so far as I can tell found no sources to establish the specific notabiity of. Regarding your difficulties of understanding, well, you seem perhaps to have had difficulties understanding such things as WP:NOTABILITY,WP:WEIGHT, and other similar subjects as well.

If you could produce sources as WP:BURDEN pretty much requires of you to demonstrate the specific notability of the question of whether academics are capable of reviewing this question without being overwhelming influenced by personal bias no one would have any problems about seeing that article exist.

WP:DUE and related pages are the most directly relevant guides here and it indicates that material for inclusion is judged based on the degree of attention given in independent reliable sources directly relating to the subject at hand. As none of the sources you indicate seem to relate directly to the subject of this article they cannot really be used to indicate relevance or degree of attention to give those ideas in this particular article.

Each of the following statements is incivility:

The comments in the last sentence are frankly beneath contempt and not deserving a direct reply as they seem to indicate you indulging in pure emotionalism.

Regarding your difficulties of understanding, well, you seem perhaps to have had difficulties understanding such things as WP:NOTABILITY,WP:WEIGHT, and other similar subjects as well.

Because you'd lose. And you have demonstrated so much arrogance and self–righteousness that Huon had to call you on it before and it very clearly still hasn't apparently gotten through to you yet.

You do not seem to understand that you do not control the discussion here.

I have yet to finish the full research of this topic I had previously indicated I was working on and find these rather tendentious demands for immediate gratification of your every whim to be both counterproductive and completely unnecessary.

Fearofreprisal (talk) 09:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for topic ban of Fearofreprisal

I believe a reasonable review of the article talk page woulud raise in the eyes of most people serious questions whether that individual suffers from some form of significant cognitive impairment. This includes the length of time he had engaged in rather pointless self-serving monologing specifically including a thread title ending in a rather ridiculously pompous "I'll explain" at Talk:Historicity of Jesus#Author doesn't understand what he posted is not Historicity, But is the history of Jesus according to folklore. The article is incorrect. I'll explain." All of that it should be noted was done without providing a single source other than a definition of the term "historicity." His single-minded fixation on the definition of the term as can be seen in multiple threads he has started on the article talk page including the one linked to above and Talk:Historicity of Jesus#What is historicity? despite indicators from others that his opinion regarding that matter is not necessarily clearly supported by any policies or guidelines is another indicator that he may have some form of significant cognitive inability to deal with any degree of ambiguity. In addition to these concerns I believe a review of the sources he has provided to attempt to establish the significance of the topic of the historicity of Jesus according to his favored definition here not only fail to provide any evidence of the true notability of that subject but would also raise questions about WEIGHT considerations in other articles. It also could very easily be the case that Fear has recognized this and is seeking to use the ongoing commentary here in this thread which is itself dubiously founded on any reasonable grounds as an attempt at intimidation or harassment to attempt to quell any objections to his single-minded attempts at basically hijacking a rather poor article and making it worse. These concerns are not alleviated in any way by his regular comments here and on the talk page which seem to indicate that he seems to believe contrary to policies and guidelines that this page and that one are basically soapboxing and that any attempt to introduce for discussion anything other than the single topic he wants to discuss is not relevant and not worthy of his addressing.

In summary I believe he has provided numerous serious indicators that he as an individual may not be competent to reasonably edit at least in this topic area. That being the case I believe it is not irrational to request that he be banned from the topic area and any discussion of it elsewhere so that his disruptive influence can be removed any the editors involved given more of a chance to concentrate on improving and developing the topic area without his distractions and disruptive influence. John Carter (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I stopped reading at "significant cognitive impairment". Not sure this is accomplishing anything but perpetuating gratuitous insults. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • But as you yourself said you apparently stopped reading at the first sentence so you would have no way of being sure what even the rest of the comment contained or what might be accomplished by well maybe reading the entire comment would you? John Carter (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regards the "pompous thread" John Carter mentioned -- he has confused me with someone else. Follow his link, and you'll see that it was written by an IP editor, Not me. (Though I did respond to it, saying "If you'd like to help improve this article, you're going to need to do some more homework, and try to build consensus for change.") This is not the first time he's pointed to other people's posts when talking about me.

I don't really want to engage with John Carter if at all possible, but thought I should mention this issue, just for the record. I rather figure that, if we can't get a consensus here on ANI, this is going to have to go to ArbCom. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @John Carter: A carefully worded attempted character assassination. However, not careful enough. How you think this avoids NPA is beyond me. I predict an in-bound boomerang soon. - Nick Thorne ^talk 07:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Based on edits on Jesus article, there is a problem with Fearofreprisal's edits - I don't watch the centre of the teacup here at Historical Jesus article so my watchlist beeped with the overflow into the Jesus article: I just saw the diff before this and clicked "thank" on the editor who reverted the addition (whose name I don't recognize but thanks anyway) and now I see that Fearofreprisal has forced through his rather outlying "Jesus of Galilee" addition to the lede over 3 other editors User:Hazhk (here) User:FutureTrillionaire and User:Tom harrison and having forced it through a 4th time against all 3 of them (and presumably a 5th time if I followed my instinct and became the 4th editor to revert the addition) and Fearofreprisal threatens (Undid revision 622607118 by Tom harrison (talk) "Now at WP:3RR Next stop is WP:AN3". To the best of my knowledge, when you make an innovative addition to a highly visible/controversial articles lead and get reverted by 3 different editors, you don't threaten the 3 editors reverting you with "Now at WP:3RR Next stop is WP:AN3". Am I wrong? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there I want to inform that 78.86.173.85 keeps crossing names of articles even after I warned him.He also changed names of some articles without providing valid references.Here are some links kept crossing out name even after I warned him Look at his contributions you can clearly see that he is not trying improve those pages. other articles:

1. Difference between revisions
2. Thorney Island: Difference between revisions
3. Poole: Difference between revisions
4. Airport: Revision history
5. Airfield: Revision history

He edited many more articles.I hope you would look into this and provide a solution.ChamithN (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs are coming out malformed on my side, so I've fixed them below:

• "he kept crossing out name even after I warned him"

1. Larkhill (#1) (He's been doing the same edit back and forth for a few days.)
2. RAF Thorney Island (A bit different than the diff provided above)
3. RM Poole
4. Farnborough Airport
5. Hullavington Airfield

- Purplewowies (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The same editor appears to have used IP addresses 78.86.173.81 and 94.193.131.4 (see history of Hullavington Airfield article). ISP and location are same or similar to this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive845#Long-term unsourced additions by an IP 94.193.131.142 which resulted in a 2-week block - also similar in undoing their own edits, sometimes repeatedly (78.86.173.85 on Hullavington Airfield, 94.193.131.142 on HMS Agamemnon (S124) and other 94.193 IPs on Bere Alston railway station). Peter James (talk) 23:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please block this user from editing.He is so annoying and keeps undoing reverts.We already warned him like 5 times yet he still keeps vandalizing pages.Also I notified him that we are having a discussion about him.ChamithN (talk) 14:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It now appears the user has moved to "78.86.173.249". They have not been notified they are discussed here on this new IP address. Gavbadger (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rangeblocks. Well, I think that's all right about the notification, Gavbadger; people can can hardly be expected to chase after this IP-flitter to notify them all over the shop. Very strange edit pattern, the way those IPs keep reverting themselves (and each other), over and over. If this was a new account trying to get autoconfirmed, I'd understand it, but from an IP it makes no sense. Anyway, it's clearly not constructive. I went to block 78.86.173.85, 78.86.173.81, 78.86.173.249, 94.193.131.142 and 94.193.131.253, but it seemed a bit pointless. They're supposedly static, but I'm still not sure I'd be doing any good; it's obviously all the same individual, who is comfortably able to change between any number of "static" IPs. :-( The good news is that the ranges are very small: 78.86.173.0/24 and 94.193.131.128/25. I've rangeblocked them both for one month. Checking this tool shows that the rangeblock also catches 78.86.173.131 and 78.86.173.249, who have been doing lots of exactly the same kinds of edits today. Very busy individual! Please feel free to alert me if you see more IPs, or if these ranges resume after the month is up. Thank you all for these helpful reports. Bishonen | talk 22:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

ChrisP2K5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Addition of unsourced content to Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (U.S. game show) ([31]):

• No source for "...Judge Judy, which had been removed from the WCBS lineup two years prior when WNBC-TV picked it up."
• No source for "...as most of those stations filled those slots with talk shows, court shows, or syndicated reruns. BVT asked WCBS to reconsider, but they did not", and added in-between a statement referenced by the cite news link that is now after the unsourced statement
• No source for "...with the only exceptions being WLS-TV and KABC-TV (the show airs on WPWR and KNBC in those markets)."

User has recently been warned multiple times for adding unsourced content to other articles:

• Warning 14 June 2014
• Warning 1 July 2014
• Warning 2 July 2014

And for warned for disruptive behavior in other recent edits:

• Removing sourced content 30 June 2014
• vandalism/edit warring 1 July 2014
  • 3RR noticeboard incident
• Edit warring 19 July 2014
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive249#User:ChrisP2K5 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Protected)

User repeatedly blocked between in 2008 and 2009 for edit warring and disruptive editing. Blocked indefinitely 9 April 2010, but given a second chance 27 September 2011 following multiple requests to be unblocked (User talk:ChrisP2K5/Archive6#Notification). Within four months of unblock, user warned again for adding unreferenced information.

Following unblock in 2011, user has clearly evidenced a long-term pattern of disruptive behavior and despite multiple warnings and 3RR noticeboard incidients, continues to engage in disruptive editing. AldezD (talk) 13:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

millionairetv.com is my source for listings. The Hollywood Reporter article cited clearly states WCBS was asked to consider another timeslot and it's clear they did not do so because the show left. The TV listings confirm Judge Judy had been airing on WNBC. I don't see the issue here, at least not with the first two facts. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 20:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We're well past the point on this wiki where it's okay to add unsourced content to the articles. Please add your sources when you add new content or make extensive changes to existing content. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly certain the info he removed was properly cited, at least where the airing stations and dropping of the show were concerned (which, as I said, is in the article). Since I don't currently have a guide to cite regarding Judge Judy, I'll withdraw my position until I do. And apologize for the editorializing regarding what was left. I will properly cite the millionairetv.com entry, but challenge the removal of the consideration request made by BVT because evidence already cited in the article says it happened. I will quote the portion of the article. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 05:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The user has been around for well over five years (including blocked time). The user knows what is expected and what is appropriate behavior. Despite this, the user continues to make unsourced edits even after multiple warnings and does not follow WP:V. At what point is the disruptive behavior stopped? Is the user WP:COMPETENT to be a contributing member? AldezD (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The edits in this case were properly sourced, with the noted exception. Bears repeating. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 08:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing of the current dispute, but I wanted to add that there was a lengthy DRN which the user promptly violated and had to be warned repeated to stop (see past user talk page discussions here and here). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant to the current discussion, and I said in the DRN that I did not support the wording. Rewording the info, which I left intact otherwise, does not constitute a violation. You were also cited for multiple violations in that discussion. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 05:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, hold on a minute. I was under the impression that the Millionaire local listing page had been taken down when AldezD challenged my sourcing of it claiming that WLS and KABC don't air Millionaire. The dropdown menu on the page says the show airs on WPWR in Chicago and KNBC in Los Angeles. If you cross-reference every O&O ABC has with the cities listed in the dropdown menu, you'll see that WPVI, KGO, KTRK, and WTVD all air the series. I can't help that there's no actual list, but the dropdown is the same as a list and it supports my contention, so what's really going on here? Even the Hollywood Reporter piece, which I introduced into the article to begin with if I'm not mistaken, clearly states that BVT sought a reconsidering of WCBS' position and since Millionaire switched stations the next season, it seems clear enough that the attempt failed. It's the last sentence before the cutoff. The only issue to me here is the inclusion of the Judge Judy piece and as I said, I withdraw until I can find sourceable info. So again, what's really going on here? --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 05:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding the user's comment "The edits in this case were properly sourced, with the noted exception. Bears repeating.": The edit made by the user was not properly sourced. In this ANI the user mentions the drop down at millionairetv.dadt.com/local-listings/ as the source, but that source is not linked in the sections edited by the user. Even if that source was intended to be used for those edits, because the information is not static on the page and requires another user to verify information, some sort of notation discussing the dropdowns would likely be required using parameters within Template:Cite web.
• Regarding the user's comment "Since I don't currently have a guide to cite regarding Judge Judy, I'll withdraw my position until I do.", the user has been warned three times within the past 90 days about adding unsourced content prior to this ANI. Withdrawing and/or claiming it was inappropriate to add that content to the target article only during the process of this ANI does not negate the fact that the user has engaged in a pattern of disruptive behavior despite multiple warnings and earlier blocks.
• Even while this ANI discussion is going on—which is specific to the user's pattern disruptive behavior of adding unsourced information—the user made additional unsourced edits:
  • Reintroduced unsourced information to Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (U.S. game show) (specifically, contestants participating and amounts won by those contestants) that was earlier removed by another editor.
  • Introduced unsourced information to Clifton, New Jersey about George Bayeux, who is not discussed elsewhere in the article, as well as added a cause of death for Richard Stockinger.

AldezD (talk) 12:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of the three edits on Millionaire done on 20 August (diff, diff, diff) included the addition of any sources. In fact placing new content immediately before an existing citation gives the illusion that the material has a citation when it may actually be unsourced. The presence of supporting citations elsewhere in the article is irrelevant; each piece of content should have a supporting citation immediately following. That's the current standard we are striving for, in our goal to become a world-class resource for our readers. ChrisP2K5, what you need to do is to start following that standard on every edit you undertake. That's the desired outcome of this report. Will you make a commitment to do that? -- Diannaa (talk) 15:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree at all that this is the desired outcome of this report. I believe the desired outcome is for AldezD to have me permablocked from editing. I find it just a little unsettling that he reverted an edit I made to my hometown's page. That's bordering on stalking, and I'm not going to accept that.

I think that my additions to the article, especially with the cited info, prove that I have already made that commitment and my complete history of editing will show that.

The last two edits you cited were largely a rewording of information that was already cited and in the article.

As far as the Tournament of Ten thing goes, there were ten participants and considering I'm the one who added much of that information in the first place, specifically the list of the participants which I found through the about.com article, I don't see why it's irrelvant to the article to list the people who qualified, considering that it was the first time Millionaire did something like that.

The info on the station list is reference #77. The info on the entire WCBS/Millionaire debate, including the asking for consideration which they obviously didn't get and had to move to another station, is marked as reference #75. As far as the readding of the time slot info, I removed it in advance of WABC changing its daytime lineup and moving Millionaire out of that 12:30 slot, which they've announced but haven't made official yet (they've begun airing commercials to that effect, but DADT hasn't changed the schedule info yet and likely won't until the move is made official), and thus it's ceasing to be accurate. I think my commitment to improving the wiki is more than made clear, if one is willing to take my entire editing history into account. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "I find it just a little unsettling that he reverted an edit I made to my hometown's page. That's bordering on stalking, and I'm not going to accept that."—Further evidence of WP:BATTLE, an issue that lead to the user's earlier permanent block in 2010. AldezD (talk) 00:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(What would you call it then? --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

• "I think that my additions to the article, especially with the cited info, prove that I have already made that commitment and my complete history of editing will show that."—The user's edit history clearly shows a pattern of making unsourced edits, even after the ANI was opened. AldezD (talk) 00:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(I said my complete history, you're cherrypicking. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

• "The last two edits you cited were largely a rewording of information that was already cited and in the article."—Again, the user fails to understand that edits containing new information must be referenced. The user added information to Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (U.S. game show) and Clifton, New Jersey without citing references. AldezD (talk) 00:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(I wasn't talking to you. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

• "As far as the Tournament of Ten thing goes, there were ten participants and considering I'm the one who added much of that information in the first place, specifically the list of the participants which I found through the about.com article, I don't see why it's irrelvant to the article to list the people who qualified, considering that it was the first time Millionaire did something like that."—Again, WP:COMPETENCE, as the user fails to understand that information needs to be sourced.

AldezD (talk) 00:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--...which, if you could have been bothered to look, was. I introduced the info to the page with proper citation some time ago. The rest of my responses to you are noted in parentheses above. You made a claim I was adding unsourced data, I'm showing you where the sources are, that they were there beforehand, that I withdrew anything that might cause a problem, and that you jumped the gun. And instead of admitting your error in judgment and apologizing, you're continuing to badger me over it.

As far as the sources you're so desperate for, you're welcome regarding two thirds of that. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "you're cherrypicking", "I wasn't talking to you", "you're continuing to badger me over it"—further evidence of the user's WP:BATTLE pattern of disruptive behavior. AldezD (talk) 02:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • When making edits that add unreferenced information, the user continues to claim references are either already in the article or were once there and had later been removed, but the user fails to understand basic principles of WP:V, and that any information added to the article must either accompany a reference or be tagged using WP:NAMEDREFS. AldezD (talk) 02:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying that, but where in the already cited sources is the info I have lacking? The dropdown menu on the already cited local listings page says Millionaire airs on every ABC O&O outside of two, as I've said. That's indisputable. The Hollywood Reporter article, which I added to the page some time ago, says that BVT made a request to WCBS to reconsider the dropping and since they sold Millionaire to WABC, the request proved unsuccessful. That's indisputable. And thus meets the verifiability criteria. You ARE cherrypicking information to support your case, I was talking to User:Diannaa and not you in the second portion of the argument, and if you aren't continuing to badger me over these two and the tournament of ten pieces that you falsely claim are uncited,.then what are you doing? I don't understand why we're still having this discussion and ask an admin to close it because all AldezD is doing is recycling the same three sourced items he claims are uncited and using them to try to get me permablocked because he wasn't successful in doing so over an earlier incident where he insisted on leaving inaccurate information on The Joker's Wild page because of difficulty with a potential COPYVIO violation. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 03:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm seeing here is a lack of understanding on your part of the need to add citations whenever you add content. The fact that you're denying that you added unsourced content shows that you still don't understand what you are doing wrong. I repeat: Every time you add content, you need to add a citation to your source. If the source is already used elsewhere in the article that's fine, use the same source again. If you don't know how, please refer to the content guideline Wikipedia:Citing sources, and for re-using sources, there's info at Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: using a source more than once. Could you please make a commitment to do this in the future? -- Diannaa (talk) 04:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know about using the same source more than once. I've done it multiple times before on various articles, and know how to use it. But here's the issue that I don't think you understand. I'm contending that when I'm using the source in the same sentence (as the Millionaire listing page and the request made by Buena Vista TV), to cite it twice back to back is redundant. If there is a significant gap, then sure, I'll note it more than once. But in the same sentences there's no point. If I'm doing something wrong by doing that I'll try to steer clear of it in the future, and please let me know if I'm not steering clear. Bottom line, the station list is cited properly, the tournament is cited properly, and all the info I could glean from the WCBS fiasco is cited properly. If there's info in there that's challengeable (which these are not), then it should be removed until it can be verified. That's the way I see it and I think that we all should see it this way and close the discussion. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 06:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "When I'm using the source in the same sentence (as the Millionaire listing page and the request made by Buena Vista TV)"—That source was not in the sentences the user revised in the edits from 20 August. (Yes, they were. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]
• "The station list is cited properly"—No reference to the station list was included in the user's edit.(It was already referenced, there wasn't a need to do it again. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]
• "To cite it twice back to back is redundant"—This is the crux of the issue and why WP:NAMEDREFS is used. (So if I put something that's already cited by a reference in the sentence where it is, why is it not redundant if I re-cite it? ChrisP2K5 (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

After multiple requests by an admin to commit to adding references, the user acknowledges the request and agrees to comply—then changes position in the same response and says it is not necessary and/or redundant to include named references when making edits that (in the user's opinion) are supported by citations elsewhere in the article. AldezD (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC) (It's not my opinion that the articles say something that can be cited as factual, it's right there in black and white. If the source has more information than listed and I can add the info directly to the already in place info without having to create a separate paragraph for it and rehash the reference, why shouldn't I do that? It saves time and trouble and keeps the page from getting cluttered. That's the crux of the issue. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

ChrisP2K5, if you add content to the same sentence that already has the source at the end of the sentence, you don't need to add the source again. But you could mention your source in the edit summary. If the source is already present in the article, please use named refs, as already discussed. If the source is a new one, add the source at the time you add the content. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the future I will be more vigilant with that. And obviously if I have new source material I'll add it when I edit. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two and a half years ago (February 2012) user:Skäpperöd made some major contributions to Teutonic takeover of Danzig (Gdańsk) [32]. After an intense discussion with User:Volunteer Marek and user:MyMoloboaccount (From Talk:Teutonic takeover of Danzig (Gdańsk) #Recent edits down to Talk:Teutonic takeover of Danzig (Gdańsk) #Another problem with sources) a compromise was reached, which led to a stable version for 2,5 years. Different viewpoints (the topic is one of the traditional Polish-German conflicts) were presented in a neutral manner, opinions were clearly marked as such and attributed. As a secondary product of that discussion the ref section featured large quotations of the sources. These quotations were provided because Marek asked for them.Talk:Teutonic takeover of Danzig (Gdańsk)#Sources; [33] [34]

In August 2014 Marek returned to the article and deleted more or less every single addition Skäpperöd had made two years ago. He argued, that “block quotes” should be avoided (those quotations he had asked for in Feb. 2012) and deleted not only the quotations but the whole sourced info from the article. He regards a critical view of a monument erected in post-war Poland as WP:Cherrypicking and in general anything not supporting his POV as WP:UNDUE.

I have removed the quotations from the ref section and some minor problematic parts (though WP:TRUTH wouldn't require that). However Marek, who was joined by Moloboaccount [35], continued to delete what he doesn't like [36] [37] [38] and ignored my attempts to find a compromise in a detailed discussion [39]. He was supported by MyMoloboaccount, who blindly reverted to VM's version and declared that the reasons to remove large parts of the article had already been explained [40].

In my opinion his "reasons" to delete large portions of the article are actually just attempts to mask WP:IDONTLIKEIT, the "repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors" and the way he ignores attempts to find a compromise are typical WP:DISRUPTSIGNS.

I had started a request at WP:DRN which was closed without a real response[41], unfortunately my patience in waiting for some neutral input was mistaken as "stasis". HerkusMonte (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Herkus doesn't want a dispute resoluation as he stated that this is a "waste of time"[42], even when advised to seek mediation by the closing admin, which he didn't pursue.

Herkus accusations found no response on DRN after people he accused responded.It's just an attempt to reignite a case that was already ignored.

Herkus is incorrect in stating that there was a "compromise"-the article was simply left alone.

I don't believe that sources that were used by Herkus and are based on writings by people like Werner Conze or Theodor Schieder both of whom were dedicated Nazis propagating ideas of German supremacy, nationalism and ethnic cleansing and genocide against Poles should be used as sources for articles about Polish-German history. We had issues before where such sources were repeatedly removed and Herkus is aware of them, having participated in defending them before and naming such publications as "highly reputable"[43], which was not accepted by WP:RSN and such sources are not considered reliable. Contrary to what Herkus claims, I have not "blindly" reverted but explained why Nazis shouldn't be used for source for Polish history[44].--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you are unaware of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It is perfectly reasonable to say that citations from such authors should not be allowed to dominate articles. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. Saying that sources by post-war West German academics are unreliable does not seem reasonable. Saying that they have a minority point of view that needs to be balanced by what is the currently accepted mainstream point of view, is reasonable.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ay. First, it's not very nice to condescendingly lecture long established users about WP:NPOV using passive agressive language like "apparantly you are unaware..." Second, this is a content dispute, not "disruptive editing" as in the misleading section title, so why is this at AN/I? Because Herkus didn't like the closure at Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (I sympathize)? Hence, while your comments may be irrelevant, this isn't the venue for them. Third, if we are going to talk content, then yes, you are precisely right: "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject" The whole problem was that this is NOT what the article was doing. It was presenting minority sources in disproportion to their relevance, like including extensive quotes and text from an author whose (self published?) analysis contradicts established consensus of historians on the subject. That's one example. Another is the overly extensive use of works one of whose listed co-authors is a (perhaps mildly reformed) ex-Nazi. I mean, ok, if we take WP:UNDUE seriously then maybe, just maybe, we include something to represent this "minority point of view". But not for most of article. Apparently you are unaware of Wikipedia:UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, that these "extensive quotes", which were not part of the main body but just mentioned within the ref section, were provided because Volunteer Marek asked for them. These quotations have been removed meanwhile but VM still keeps deleting content which was based on these sources. VM is not even trying to rewrite or whatever might be necessary to improve the article, he just deletes large portions of the article (in fact, German research only).What Marek calls "minority views" are actually just scholary views not supporting the traditional Polish POV, while they are not at all a minority in Germany. VM and Molobo are also still refusing to discuss in detail what might be a step to improve the article based on WP:COMPROMISE and WP:CONSENSUS, instead they are pushing through their version. The "repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors" and the "repeated disregard of other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits" is certainly disruptive and not just a content dispute. The usage of different policies (UNDUE, CHERRY) is actually just a random listing without any precise rationale (WP:GAMING).

As a reaction to this request Molobo followed one of my latest edits at Template:Did you know nominations/Mendelsohn house, which had already passed the DYK process and added a (not even a , right into NO) falsely claiming that a certain fact was not supported by the sources. Actually everything is well sourced and easily accessible. Adding "unjustified ^{[citation needed]} tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable" is also a matter of WP:DISRUPTSIGNS.

Regarding the disputed source. I already suggested to bring it to WP:RSN but Molobo carefully omits such a step. HerkusMonte (talk) 09:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi sources have been debated already before on RSN and the consensus is that they are not reliable sources for information on Polish history, Herkus is well aware of that as he participated in these discussions[45],[46] and his attempts to defend them as source for articles on Polish history were rejected by the community. Herkus's edits on Mendelsohn house included unsourced claims that Poland destroyed Jewish cemetery because it was anti-semitic. Such claim obviously requires a good, reliable source which I requested.I have worked with Herkus DYU nominations before, and unfortunately sometimes they violate NPOV, take for example last nomination and article written by Herkus[47],[48], which presented a nationalist racist activist as opponent of Hitler, while completely absent of information about his involvement in biological warfare and terrorism and racism which I had to add to the article[49].Current nomination unfortunately follows the pattern, with strong claims remaining unsourced and organizations named in the article as having "unbiased research" implying those with opposing views are biased.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS:Do note, that the closing admin on DRN suggested to Herkus to take this issue to formal mediation[50], which Herkus refused to do so, claiming such efforts are a "waste of time"[51]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about a book by Hartmut Boockmann, Professor at the Universities of Kiel (1975-1982), Göttingen (1982-1992, 1995-1998)) and Berlin (1992-1995), an expert in Eastern European medieval history and especially the history of the Teutonic Knights. To describe Boockmann's publications as "Nazi sources" is simply unbelievable. Consequently, your "examples" above refer to a completely different book (which I never used, btw; I just participated in a RSN discussion).

This is not the place to discuss the Mendelsohn House. Every single detail is based on sources: the destruction of the remains of the Jewish cemetery in 1968 as well as the role of the Borussia Foundation, which received the Lev Kopelev Prize [52] in 2004 because of their attempt to research the local history unbiased and without the traditional taboos of Polish postwar historiography. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete.

Regarding Rudolf Nadolny: I'm not going to answer your unbelievable assumption of bad faith, however your statement shows that your recent contribution wasn't accidental but you purposefully followed my edits in order to add an completely unjustified "citation needed" tag (WP:DISRUPTSIGNS) and a without even trying to resolve whatever you might regard problematic. You are constantly repeating your claim that I used "Nazi sources" in the past and that I was warned about it [53][54] [55], which is a) utter nonsense and b) offensive. I already told you that I regard this a WP:PERSONAL ATTACK.

WP:HOUNDING is described as: "If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions. Are you aware of that policy? HerkusMonte (talk) 15:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Taboos of Polish postwar historiography"? Oh dear, this is obvious heavy POV.

And we are talking about a book co-written by Werner Conze who "envisioned a social policy based on racialist principles in German "Lebensraum"; he demonstrated his concepts on Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, where he accused Polish peasants and their "petty peasant instincts" of revolting against "German order". In doing so Conze mixed his deprecating views with empirical results and transferred racialist concept of society to agrarian situation in Central and Eastern Europe. He viewed Polish population as "degenerated" and engaged in "vegetative reproduction", and blamed lack of social progress of rural population on Jews"

The book btw is based on sources from Nazi Germany such as Theodor Schieder's publication from 1941 or Rode's from 1944. Now Schieder "During the Nazi era he pursued a racially oriented social history (Volksgeschichte) and warned about the supposed dangers of Germans mixing with other nations.[4] The primary purpose of Schieder's research was to justify alleged German supremacy.He was the author of the "Memorandum of 7 October 1939",[6][7] calling for expulsion of millions of Jews, Poles, Russians and other nationalities from Eastern Europe in order to create "room" for German settlers.[4][8] His suggestions were later incorporated in the German Generalplan Ost".

These authors are well known Nazis who aren't reliable sources of information on Polish history.

As to" You are constantly repeating your claim that I used "Nazi sources" in the past and that I was warned about it [56][57] [58], which is a) utter nonsense and b) offensive"

I will just point as an example that you inserted a reprint of map by Nazi Walter Kuhn and were warned about it are you seriously trying to put in a map based on the work of a Nazi propagandist into the article?

The Nazi Walter Kuhn"

tried to determine "biological strength" of German peasants and pointed out the "weakness" of "intermarrying with Slavs" which could lead to "de-Germanisation".[2] Kuhn viewed himself and his colleagues as "bearers of civilization" and his goal as "to transform the instinctive feeling of superiority and pride towards the surrounding peoples(...)into a true national consciousness".[2] He also published works regarding Poland which were aimed at presenting its western territories as German[6]"There are many publications in Germany Herkus. You tend to support and defend a fringe minority that is either connected to or written by Nazis like Kuhn or Conze. Why not choose from hundreds or thousands of publications that have no Nazi connections? Nobody will oppose insertion of trustworthy, reliable sources not connected to Nazis or nationalism.

add an completely unjustified "citation needed" tag. An unsourced claim stating that Poland destroyed Jewish cemeteries because it was anti-semitic is rather a heavy accusation that requires good reliable sources Herkus. A request for citation for such a claim is neither "endentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior" but a perfectly justified request.

Cheers.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not getting more true just because you repeat it on and on. Hartmut Boockmann was the leading expert in Eastern European medieval history. To delete his publications would ignore a significant part of modern scholary research, which seems to be the purpose of all this. HerkusMonte (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are are talking however about publications from Werner Conze and Theodor Schieder, both of whom were Nazis engaged in ethnic cleansing and genocide of Polish and Jewish population and whose writings aimed at justifying German conquest of Polish territories, presenting them as "eternally German" and Polish culture as "inferior".There are perfectly acceptable Western German historians that aren't connected to Nazism or genocide for example Heinrich Winkler or Fritz Fischer, why not use them?-MyMoloboaccount (talk) 08:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are are not talking about publications of Conze or Schieder, we are talking about your attempt to discredit and delete modern research. And Fritz Fischer? You mean the member of the Freikorps Oberland who joined the Nazi Sturmabteilung in 1933 and the Nazi Party in 1937? The one who praised the Nazi German Christians and lectured about the influence of "Jewish blood" on the British upper class and the economy and politics in the US? Sure, because you like what he wrote later on while you don't like Hartmut Boockmann. HerkusMonte (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you guys arguing about POV, sources, and content on ANI? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because "repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors" and "repeated disregard of other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits" are WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. Deleting large well-sourced parts of an article without even trying to find a WP:COMPROMISE, ignoring the attempts to discuss, ignoring WP:RSN and WP:HOUNDING other editors DYK nomiminations is certainly not just a content dispute. This kind of coordinated editing of Molobo and VM has been a well-known problem since the WP:EEML case. HerkusMonte (talk) 09:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Simonmana has been reverting my changes [59], reinstating info that is clearly against WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:NONENGEL, ignoring my edit summaries where I explain this. Eik Corell (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not against WP:GAMEGUIDE or WP:NONENGEL other Articles have this kind of information

WP:VGSCOPE sometimes a concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry

WP:NONENGEL Outside of citations,external links to English-language content are strongly preferred in the English-language Wikipedia. It may be appropriate to have a link to a non-English-language site, such as when an official site is unavailable in English. Simonmana (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simonmana, Eik Corell is right. Your edits are violating WP:GAMEGUIDE (there is no need for Wikipedia to detail the scoring details) nor is there any need to provide the non-English language websites you've been adding when an English language one exists and the official one in the original language exists. Stop edit warring, both of you.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does not state that a scoring is uninmportant considering its a vital part of the games mechanics.And those are official sites of S4 league regardless of language. Simonmana (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Giving details on how many points you get by doing something in a game is a violation of WP:GAMEGUIDE and it doesn't matter how many official sites there are in other languages, this is the English Wikipedia and if there's anything beyond the original language and English then it doesn't matter.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well delete the page if its going to be an unfinished censored mess then. Simonmana (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the removal of the official sites. Since in most cases only the English and the one from the country or origin is included. I also don't see trying to equate removing gameguide material with censorship as helping your case since that term has a specific meaning that does not apper to apply here.--67.68.22.129 (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Simonmana talk has repeatedly placed and restored a speedy deletion tag on S4 League apparently as a tantrum against the current AfD on that article. The article clearly exceeds the standard for A7 deletion and I have declined speedy twice, but he has again restored it and I cannot revert again without violating 3RR. An administrator look would be appreciated. Safiel (talk) 02:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for requesting this whole thing is dragging along too slow.Simonmana (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the A7 It's been removed multiple times and I think it's best to let the AFD run through.--67.68.22.129 (talk) 04:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we can just let the AfD run its course.--Nowa (talk) 11:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simonmana is presently disrupting Wikipedia because he lacks the maturity to contribute constructively. I requested multiple times that he properly indent in the AFD and even fixed the indents only to be met with this. I believe that he is not here to contribute constructively anymore and should be blocked.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see i am fully capable of Indenting if i wanted to add them i would have.Your edit was unwanted so i removed it simple.I am here to contribute the problem is you are in my way. Simonmana (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So now you're just violating WP:POINT amongst other rules. You were told your edits were wrong in various places yet you persisted in making them. Calm down and let people look at the article rather than feel like you're being attacked.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I let people look at it some even vandalised it.I do not feel like iam being attack.but the article is being scrutinized by you and others.Guidlines are Guidelines they can be ignored. Simonmana (talk) 12:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They can only be ignored if there's a good reason for it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well the guideline states in the first place that it is circumstansial.I dont like using other games as a point(nor do wiki guidelines aperently ), but it really is the only way.Alot of other games have huge lists for expample the character list for Mass Effect,but it states that such list are unneeded yet a popular often visited (i would presume) wikipage has a guideline diviation or violation (depending on how you see how absulute a certain guideline is).Another example is the wikipage for WoW.It has its own soundtrack page and asubscription page (the later of which i am positive is against the rules).Another is Ever quest its goes too deep into the games classes something the wiki guidelines dont by your definition permit.And ofcourse that isnt a reason for us to do the same thing ,but then again your argument for removing is that it isnt interesting to you( ie notable) well if you played the game you would know that everything in the wikipage is true.We arent here to provide false information about the game.Welp that should be enough if it isnt go play it.Simonmana (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The characters of Mass Effect are a major part of the game. The scoring system on a free to play MMO which has no critical coverage anywhere are not.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How major something is is subjective.None of the charachters in Mass effect are major for me since i havent played the series yet it isdor someone who hasSimonmana (talk) 01:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enough of this bullshit. Simonmana is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. He should be blocked immediately.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please dont use vulgar language.I am not here to fight with you or do i seek conflict of any kind.I am here to build an encyclopedia and i have done it multiple times only to be met with your persistant actions of removal.Please dont take it as a personal attack against you.Simonmana (talk) 09:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, you've done nothing but engage in petty vandalism and edit war. I think Ryulong is right. This is getting tedious. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You would be right except that edit was not intentional hence why it wasnt repeated.But you failed to see that.And if you looked at me as you claim you would know i had and still have no reason to vandalise something like papa YGs entertainment company wikipage.In short claim is invalid.Simonmana (talk) 12:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I took a look at User:Simonmana's contributions, and have blocked them for edit warring on S4 League. Bishonen | talk 13:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Fine then 79.100.56.75 (talk) 14:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could we get some people watching Zoe Quinn, and possibly even more restrictive protection? It was previously set at admin-only which got people discussing at Talk:Zoe Quinn, but now that it's set to autoconfirmed users we've got a lot of back and forth reverting and serious WP:BLP violations. In particular, User:Crisis has been adding controversial statements based on a porn site and Know Your Meme, Reddit, and Imgur, and even blatantly misrepresenting a source. Woodroar (talk) 04:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, thank you for notifying me, second, I'd also like to call attention to the article myself, as anything that seems to be remotely negative about Miss Quinn is being removed citing unreliable sources or allegations, which is interesting seeing as one of the things removed was a blog from Quinn herself alluding to the allegations (TLDR: (Redacted)) Crisis.EXE 04:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think a better solution than full protection would be the blocking of the problem users/issuing them one final warning and noting that if they add material like that into the article again they will be blocked. Let's not shut down the whole castle because a servant did something wrong. Added Note: It appears an admin just issued that final warning so if they revert again...well... Tutelary (talk) 04:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that I'm involved here, so I can't make any administrative actions regarding the article. I won't be blocking anybody here. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is also at RFPP. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Crisis blocked for 48 hours for BLP violations. Negative material sourced to reddit and a porn site are just beyond the pale and with this edit it is clear that Crisis intends to continue.--v/r - TP 04:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I personally wouldn't have blocked in this situation (if I were an admin, but I'm not), but it's on you. Since after the final warning Mr. Stradivarius gave him, he didn't revert again. Essentially a softer version of WP:ROPE (since they aren't blocked yet), where if they did just one more revert...they would've been blocked. But redundant now. Tutelary (talk) 05:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you were an admin, you should have blocked for it. I've revdeleted the porn stuff; I don't know if there's more in the history that needs removing. Thanks for blocking, TParis. Drmies (talk) 05:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did a pass back as far as the 16th and revdel'd a mess of stuff, but the links you got were likely the worst of it. --j⚛e decker^talk 07:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good block. Kudos for taking swift action. We shouldn't allow that sort of nonsense to continue any longer once the pattern of behaviour was identified. Daniel (talk) 07:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand WP:BLP, you seem quite personally invested in this particular issue too, is it possible that you don't like Zoe Quinn? --94.175.85.144 (talk) 08:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith.72.89.93.110 (talk) 05:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article is currently being targeted for harrassment by users of 4chan and reddit, and they're doing their best to spread their campaign to Wikipedia. There's a great deal of back and forth on the Talk page which ranges from the tendentious to the straight up BLP-violating, and the intervention of an uninvolved administrator would be very much appreciated. While much of what is being debated is a content dispute, the rate of unsupportable claim are becoming rapidly unmanagable for most editors. 1.124.49.77 (talk) 08:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There are a couple of recent IP posts on Talk:Zoe Quinn that need to be revdelled, if someone has a moment. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 21:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --j⚛e decker^talk 02:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In connection to this mess, Phil Fish and Polytron Corporation (Fish' previous company) have just been hacked in relationship to Fish' strong opinion on the Quinn matter. Those pages might see activity similar to the Quinn ones, but nothing yet that I immediately see. Just documenting this in case that needs admin help --MASEM (t) 05:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Am more a reader than an editor, but wanted to say it's cool to see the encyclopedic integrity of the page being protected with such patience and civility and attentiveness from veteran Wikipedians during this onslaught of attention. I feel like I'm learning more about Wikipedia just by observing. 173.239.141.98 (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Edumacater a new contributor, has been spamming multiple articles with conspiracy-theory material concerning the Rothchilds, the French revolution, the Illuminati and similar nonsense, either unsourced, or (after being warned about unsourced additions [60]), citing a crackpot conspiracy website [61] I'll not bother with diffs, as Edumacater's entire edit history is sufficient in itself to demonstrate that s/he is WP:NOTHERE and needs to be shown the door. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Administrator. I have not violated any of the terms of services of wikipedia, and I am well within my rights to post factual information. If posters do not like my information, they are welcome to remove parts of it that they say is untrue. It is a violation of my rights as a user of wikipedia to be "shown the door" as the arrogant user above states. If he has a problem with facts that he doesn't like, Wikipedia is not the website for him. (Edumacater) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edumacater (talk • contribs) 10:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be under a fundamental misapprehension as to the purpose of Wikipedia. You have no 'rights' to do anything here - this is a privately-owned website, and individuals are permitted the privilege of contributing only as long as they do so in the interests of the encyclopaedia. And filling it with the same old half-baked conspiracy-nonsense that has been crawling the sewers of the 'civilised' world for the last few hundred years certainly isn't doing anything remotely encyclopaedic. Sadly, there are still plenty of forums where such drivel is considered acceptable - I suggest you find one, and slither off there, where you will no doubt feel at home... AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Edumacater:: Although the word "right" really has no place, as a member of this community, you do have the ability to suggest edits to try and obtain wP:CONSENSUS for them. This ability remains yours as long as a) the suggested edits are properly sourced to a provider that is considered by the community to be reptutable, and b) as long as other community members concur that the edits belong. Also, we do not necessarily accept "truth" (it's so subjective), we accept verifiable. By submitting anything, you agree that it might be rejected. You also have agreed to the Bold, Revert, Discuss process as a way to achieve consensus, with the understanding that in the long run, your specific edits to a topic may never be accepted by consensus. the panda ɛˢˡ” 14:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of the problems I had with Edumacater is that his text additions are too often inserted without context, breaking the flow and introducing irrelevancies. This is an outstanding example of how a sentence of Illuminati stuff was slapped onto an otherwise Illuminati-free article. Binksternet (talk) 15:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So pointless: just like Chuck Norris, the Illuminati are actually a part of every single Wikipedia article, even if they're not specifically mentioned the panda ɛˢˡ” 15:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked as not here to help build an encyclopedia, along with the 90.180.82.152 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) IP, which makes very similar edits. The history of Frankfurt am Main is especially suggestive in regard to the IP: note that the account User:Edumacater was created 16:09 UTC, between here and here. Bishonen | talk 05:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

This is with reference to this discussion on Talk:Shudra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shudra#Scholarly_referenced_content_on_this_page_is_being_removed.

I have taken the discussion to its logical conclusion. The editor @Sitush: instead of considering the research evidence provided is reverting the edits made by me. The article involves contentious material, including the use of the word "untouchable", a word considered illegal by article 17 of Indian constitution, and needs to be reverted to my cautiously phrased, neutral and evidence-backed edit. Since any change I make to this page would be reverted by this editor and his friends, who collectively act as a vested interest, to denigrate a large mass of Indian population (it has been a victim of oppression for centuries) which the Mandal Commission set up by Indian government estimates as constituting 52% of the Indian population. I think a bunch of editors promoting "racism" and "discrimination" on wikipedia is a serious problem and needs to be tackled at the earliest. Since I have already spent a lot of time and energy in convincing this editor who has no research backing his claims, and who makes sloppy statements like "we have spoken to a few lawyer-type people, they have told us the use of the word 'untouchable' does not constitute a crime" when I give him links to the article in the constitution (http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1987997/)as well as an Encyclopedia Britannica entry (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/618508/untouchable) I think responsible administrators should intervene and stop this horrible misuse and abuse of wikipedia by vested interests.

See diffs

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shudra&diff=621632984&oldid=621632225

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shudra&diff=621633114&oldid=621633059

My final edit every statement of which is backed by research evidence, some provided in the article itself and some provided on Talk:Shudra:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shudra&diff=621635879&oldid=621633395

I hope the responsible administrators here will take speedy action, and restore my balanced edit. Thanks. -Spark121212 (talk) 13:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators do not get involved in content disputes - your edit issues seem to be a basic follow of WP:CONSENSUS. You're required to discuss potential changes on the article talkpage, otherwise follow dispute resolution processes the panda ɛˢˡ” 14:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We do get involved in matters of personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith, though, as you have been repeatedly told, Spark121212. It's funny how you seem incapable of discussing this, even here on ANI, without assuming conspiracies and disreputable motives ("reverted by this editor and his friends, who collectively act as a vested interest", "a bunch of editors promoting "racism" and "discrimination" on wikipedia"), no matter how many times it's explained to you that it's inappropriate. You're new, and I don't want to block you, but really, what's so hard? Please re-read my comments on your talkpage. And please re-read Sitush's explanations, too. Bishonen | talk 14:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen:When did I attack anyone? My edits were reverted without any explanation, which is what made me question the motives of the editor. When you told me that I discuss the matter in good faith, I withdrew my statement, and discussed it extensively on Talk:Shudra. I have provided research evidence for all my claims, Sitush has provided none, and still his edit stays, and there is no response to my last comment on the Talk page. What am I supposed to make of this maintenance of the status quo? If you were really fair you would see that Sitush has lost the argument, he has no evidence for his claims, and would revert to my edit, or at least discuss the specific problems you may have with my edit. Instead you are trying to condescend by calling me "new", and saying "I don't want to block you", as if there is a reason for you block me, and asking me to re-read arguments which I have convincingly refuted. Again, what would I again by assuming bad faith and assuming disreputable motives? You are NOT addressing the real issue which is the Shudra article. If you say there is a consensus on the article as it currently exists you have to show me research evidence on which this consensus is based, otherwise all this talk of "consensus" is just hot air. From your comment it is clear that 1.You don't want to engage with the discussion on Shudra Talk page 2.You cannot see that Sitush has provided no research evidence, and therefore his claims are empty 3. You want to maintain status quo and let the article stay as it is. 4. You want to make an issue of my assuming bad faith which is a NON ISSUE, I am assuming bad faith because of points 1,2 and 3. It is regrettable that an intellectual discussion to reach consensus has been reduced to a power struggle ("Look we are the senior editors here, you are new, we can block you".

Now that I have taken the discussion to its logical conclusion on Shudra Talk page, I would like to know from you or @Sitush:, once and for all, whether you will revert to my evidence-backed edit or not -- and if not, why not? I hope you/Sitush will provide an honest answer and not filibuster again by throwing in links to wiki consensus pages. -Spark121212 (talk) 16:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When did you attack someone? You attacked someone when you said the things I quoted above. Here, I'll make them green: "reverted by this editor and his friends, who collectively act as a vested interest", "a bunch of editors promoting "racism" and "discrimination" on wikipedia". Those are the things that you said that were attacks on Sitush and other editors, because those things assumed bad faith, and assumed conspiracies and disreputable motives. I'm sorry, I don't know how I can make it any clearer. Did you click on the blue link there? As I have also told you repeatedly, I have only engaged you as an admin, I'm not prepared to discuss content issues with regard to articles on subjects I'm not familiar with, and I will not revert to your version. Which version to use is a matter for the editors of the article, of which I am not one. See what I said about that on your talkpage. I feel like a gramophone record. Can anybody help explain? I'm done here, I won't post in this thread again to repeat myself further.

As for "Look we are the senior editors here, you are new, we can block you": no, you've got it backwards. It's because you're new that I haven't blocked you already. New users deserve, and get, extra consideration and extra chances to adjust to the site policies. Bishonen | talk 18:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Spark121212, this report is not going to end well for you. There are a host of policies that have been pointed out both here and at the article talk page which you seem either not to understand or not to accept. If you read nothing else, please read WP:BOOMERANG. We do tolerate the misunderstandings of newcomers but not indefinitely. - Sitush (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave you guys with a quote from good old Cicero: "Those who in a free state deliberately put themselves in a position to be feared are the maddest of the mad. For let the laws be never so much overborne by someone individual's power, let the spirit of freedom be never so intimidated, still sooner or later [the subjects] assert themselves […] Furthermore, those who wish to be feared must inevitably be afraid of those whom they intimidate. […] And we recently discovered, if it was not known before, that no amount of power can withstand the hatred of the many." Cicero, De Officiis -Spark (talk) 11:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read WP:FREESPEECH. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dreadstar has blocked User:NazariyKaminski for one week, claiming that they were "edit warring", after NK reported two other users at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Rick_Perry_article and has remained steadfast in his placement of an egregiously long block (1 full week) based on claims that he is allowed to "escalate" blocks based on a months-old previous content dispute.

Dreadstar also claims as a justification that "I'm not seeing any BLP violations; you were edit warring, removing 'abuse of power' [1][2][3] when it is clearly stated in the reliable source provided. Dreadstar ☥ 21:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)"

The source Dreadstar links, however, states: "Perry was indicted on charges of abuse of official capacity"; Dreadstar says that the block was for "removing 'abuse of power'" when the edits actually change the title to reflect the official charge description, "Abuse of Official Capacity." [62] Whether or not Dreadstar intended to do so, his commentary is a misrepresentation of the edits he is using as justification for the block.

Commentary by Cwobeel also indicates that the block is not intended for a valid reason, but is an illegitimate "cool down block" created for an overly long time period that does not serve the purposes of wikipedia or conform to Wikipedia policy.

Per suggestion by Nomoskedasticity as an uninvolved, neutral party and as Dreadstar appears to have an axe to grind with the user per Dreadstar's commentary on the user's talk page, and as Dreadstar has refused to modify the terms of his block despite opposition to his action both on the talk page and on the BLP Noticeboard talk, I am posting here to get more eyes on Dreadstar's actions that seem to violate the blocking policy and the policy on actions by involved administrators.

I'm not convinced that a block is warranted. The editor did not exceed 3RR. If you're not willing to undo it, I think it should be reviewed at ANI. I don't think the editor will edit again in the relevant time period, and I think they should be able to participate on the talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.234.202 (talk)

It is common practice that edit warrring/3rr block increase in duration if repeated. I don't have time now to look into the BLP claims. Chillum 16:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While that may or may not be true, it seems out of line to jump straight to a full week block based on something that happened over six months ago with no pattern. The commentary also leads to the conclusion that rather than being legitimately intended, the block was intended as a "cool down block" and such blocks are forbidden by policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.234.202 (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3rd block for edit-warring certainly is a "pattern". One is supposed to learn before the first block. Additional blocks escalate accordingly on purpose. No comment on this specific situation, yet the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support block. There's four instances where NazariyKaminski changed the phrase "abuse of power" to read "abuse of official capacity": diff, diff, diff, diff. While the official charges are phrased as "abuse of official capacity" and "coercion of a public servant", source at the Washington Post does use the phrases "indicted for abuse of power", "abusing his official powers", and "allegedly abusing the powers of his office". Other sources such as Fox News and ABC News are also describing the event as abuse of powers. The final two edits add unsourced negative information about a living person ("cursing out the officers that arrested her"). Blocks of escalating duration are usual for edit warring, so a block of 24 hours in January 2014, 72 hours in April 2014, and one week in August 2014 is not exceptional or draconian imo. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Problem: Dreadstar linked to [63], the Washington Post, which accurately describes the charges as "Abuse of Official Capacity" to justify his claim that removing "Abuse of Power" was incorrect. At very best that's a horribly lazy misrepresentation of the source. "Perry was indicted on charges of abuse of official capacity, a first-degree felony with potential punishments of five to 99 years in prison, and coercion of a public servant, a third-degree felony that carries a punishment of two to 10 years." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.234.202 (talk) 16:31, August 21, 2014 (UTC)‎

The wording "abuse of power" does not in my opinion constitute a violation of the BLP policy, one of the few exceptions to the edit warring policy, as while it is not the terminology used in the official charges, it is an accurate reflection of the content of multiple reliable sources. My opinion stands. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Being right or being justified with a source are not exemptions to edit warring. Everyone thinks they are right - and so everyone would claim the exemption. You are supposed to stop and discuss the issue - not war over it. Escalating blocks are appropriate.--v/r - TP 16:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse block I think it's unlikely there's a BLP violation rather than trying to shoehorn a preferred (less damning) wording in through BLP. While BLP requires accuracy, this isn't a case of inaccuracy. As an aside, consider that "abuse of official capacity" could reasonably be redirected to "abuse of power". As to the block length, the escalation is entirely reasonable. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Good block. Edit-warring is the scourge of collaborative editing and NazariyKaminski has not learned from previous blocks of 1 day and 3 days already this year. Anything less than 7 days now would be out of line with current practice. It's worth noting that the claim of 'BLP' as a get-out for edit-warring is becoming an increasing problem and editors who abuse that should expect the community to take a dim view. As with any edit, if you're right, then others will agree with you; forcing your own view into an article through edit-warring, rather than seeking consensus through reasoned discussion, is the antithesis of how we write articles. --RexxS (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Anything less than 7 days now would be out of line with current practice." Request for clarification: where is there any documentation of this supposed "current practice"? Because the policies as written do not support your view.

Wikipedia:Sanctions_against_editors_are_not_punishment

"Some editors, even some administrators on Wikipedia forget why we are here and begin to adopt a punitive model for Wikipedia politics. They support blocks, bans, and enforcement of community principles in order to exact retribution on "bad users" rather than helping to create and improve encyclopedic content. This is regrettable and problematic, not to mention contrary to the reason for blocks, bans, and enforcements as stated in the Wikipedia guidelines and policies linked in the previous sentence. When proposing or supporting an action that could easily be interpreted to be punishment, ask yourself, "Will this action help make the content on Wikipedia better?" If the answer is not an unequivocal "yes" and you still end up supporting the action, you may be an adherent to the punitive model of Wikipedia. This may also mean you enjoy the perceived "power" that you get from enforcing your will through the various features (or bugs) of the Wikipedia community." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.234.202 (talk) 19:13, August 21, 2014 (UTC)‎

Wikipedia:Sanctions against editors are not punishment is a user-created essay, not a policy. The policy page is at WP:Edit warring. The section Wikipedia:Edit warring#Administrator guidance says that 24 hours is the usual block for a first edit war, and escalating blocks are usual thereafter. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems reasonable. Edit-warring is bad and escalating blocks can be used to discourage it. If you don't like it, don't edit-war. --John (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Block - nothing harsh about this at all, especially considering prior blocks for the same thing. Escalating blocks for repeated violations is part of the blocking policy. Sergecross73 msg me 19:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Can someone review the reporting IP's edits, they have been edit warring on Vani Hari, continuing to do so after being warned [64], [65]. I've warned the IP again, but they may have violated 3RR after the first warning. I strongly suspect IP is a WP:Sock - (Just to add that I have Vani Hari on my watchlist and noticed the edit-warring from that.) Dreadstar ☥ 19:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) I agree. The IP seems like an obvious sock.- MrX 20:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe a week is justified by policy - certainly it would be much fairer to users to go 1/2/3/4 days rather than 1 day, 3 days, a week which resembles illegal "cool down" blocking - but since there is consensus, there is consensus. I do however object to the uncivil way Dreadstar has now attempted to retaliate against me for listing this, especially as I am working very hard to discuss edits on the talk page, have requested helpers to assist me in finding compromises, and am in no way engaged in an "edit war." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.234.202 (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your belief turns out to be wrong. Policy documents what happens on wiki, not reflects your personal ideas of "fairness". The fact is that when placing a block, the admin has a drop-down box to pick the block length from. The default setting in the mediawiki software offers "1 day", "3 days", "1 week", "2 weeks" ... "1 year" (doubling or tripling each step). That scheme enjoys consensus (or it would have been changed by now), so that's the reason why the three blocks that NazariyKaminski has garnered this year were 1 day, 3 days, 7 days. Of course it's justified by policy, because that's normal practice and here "normal practice" = "policy". --RexxS (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked as a LTA due to CU and Behavioral evidence --Guerillero | My Talk 02:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse block. Duration OK. Glrx (talk) 23:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not an explicit legal threat, but perhaps an implicit one?[66] I thought it was at least worth bringing to your attention.

This[67] is what she's referring to; note that at least 2 users other than me have reverted her edits, too. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 18:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They're skirting on the edge of it. Be sure the edit in question is supported by reliable sources. Then tell the user in question that legal threats are not allowed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NLT this would fall under "Perceived legal threats" and might need admin assistance to clarify, but I have seen editors blocked for less and unblocked after retracting.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threat

Venustruth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This COI user is involved in an edit war at Venus Nicolino, and has just claimed to be the attorney of the article's subject[68], complete with a threat to sue if the (well-sourced) edits they object to are restored. Note that the user had been warned about legal threats.[69] cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 02:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The editor just also broke the 3RR rule, making a fourth revert [70] after being warned [71]. But that's probably irrelevant at this point, since the legal threat is very explicit and far more serious. --MelanieN (talk) 02:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeff block - blatant legal threat as well as a threat to edit war.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Done Indef'd per NLT. DMacks (talk) 03:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taking WP:DOLT into consideration, I looked at the article the editor was clearly disputing the statement about Nicolino's struggles with psychopharmaceutical drugs. The sentence could be worded better IMO, and more reflective of the terms used by the sources. The sources do not outright state that she was "addicted" to the drugs. Also psychopharmaceuticals include drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and other illegal drugs. A tightening of the language would be helpful because the statement doesn't make it clear that the drugs either prescription or illegal. —Farix (t | c) 14:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a request a couple of days ago at Wikipedia:AN#Advice_on_images_please but I have not gotten a reply nor any advice on how to proceed. I want to continue to assume good faith with this editor but after their response at User_talk:PNGWantok#Copyright, I'm not sure how to proceed. They are claiming that the images are different. They are the same but the photo they have uploaded has been reversed. I see they have uploaded many other photos too. Most of these need looking at too. I am reasonably new and have spent the last week reading policies and guidelines, but I could do with some advice here please. PNGWantok (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The dead giveaway as to which one is the original is that you can read the word "Wenger". On the one the guy uploaded to Wikipedia, of course, the word is reversed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes User:Baseball Bugs that is what made me enquire about how to approach this. The editor is saying that they will upload another photo. I have looked at their other uploads at Special:ListFiles/Wapacman, and I see many others. All of the photos are small in size. None have proper EXIF. This has EXIF stating the file was last change in December 2013, but the information template says it was taken on 1 August. Because the editor insists that the photo I enquired about is theirs, when that does not appear to be the case, how should I approach the issue on how to deal with the other photos which are likely copyright violations. Your advice would be appreciated. PNGWantok (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm missing something here but there's a photo with exif that mentions some Adobe software, and has a timestamp corresponding to the edit date, which is understandably different than when the picture was taken. So an AGF interpretation would be tha like the person took the photo, cleaned it up or edited it a bit with the Adobe program, and uploaded the edited version. It might be nice to have the camera original, both to check the dates (note though that those are easy to fake) and for remix purposes; but on the other hand the person might not want to upload it, since it can have potentially private info like the camera serial number or other identifying characteristics. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm missing something too. Like what on earth has this got to do with ANI?  Philg88 ^♦talk 22:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's the same image with some enhancements and horizontal mirroring. The EXIF data isn't all that big a deal on its own; the big issue is the mirroring and alterations taken with the uploader's claim that it's a different image by a different photographer. Those sorts of alterations might be done to hide the source for privacy reasons, but it's also one way to try to keep automated copyvio discovery programs from finding it (I don't know how effective it is though). I think it's discretionary whether to go with {{db-f11}} or {{db-f9}}. The fact that the uploader is lying about the image makes me lean towards F9 (it's simply not credible that someone who is an uploader AND author would make an honest mistake about the image being mirrored versus a different image by a different person). AGF is good and all, but there are limits. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK, the issue is that File:HIFI_Festival.jpg is obviously the same picture as [72] after being cropped and flipped, while the uploader says it's a different picture. Yeah the explanation is surprising and I think it's best to ask the uploader for further clarification and/or contact the the historicfilipinotown organizer to ask where the picture is from. It's not ok for someone to claim they took a picture themselves if they didn't, so if this can't be sorted with the uploader then we may may have a bigger problem than yet another jacked picture (added: I see now that this has happened with several other images from the person). That all said, requiring OTRS permission for uploads in general is news to me. I've submitted a few off-wiki pictures for upload through WP:FFU and nobody said anything about OTRS. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 01:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would only say that we do not need to contact anyone. If the editor cannot, or refuses to show permissions, than we don't need to go chasing after the image to save it. F-9 and move on. No one is going to mention OTRS until there is a question....there is a question and a refusal to document to copyright. So...I feel we have a clear enough reasoning to delete.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At this point it's not about deleting a doubtful picture. It's about whether we should block the user. That requires a higher level of evidence than just being unsure of where the picture came from. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 01:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could certainly support a temp block...but no, it is not what the OP was asking. The thread is for advice on images.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I don't want to get the editor into trouble if there is something they can do to avoid it. I only want advice on how to deal with these issues when they arise. I initially asked in #wikipedia a few days ago and was told to post here. I asked in #wikipedia-en-help and they helped me. Can we please delete this thread as the issue seems to be resolved? Thank you all PNGWantok (talk) 06:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support F-9 If the image is on the internet elsewhere (reverse or not) the file requires permissions via OTRS regardless of whether the author is the editor or not.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Important note: Based on the opener of this discussion asking on IRC, I've found and deleted at least 12 (yes TWELVE) blatant copyright violations by this user. They have very simple tactics: horizontally film image, crop, distort, etc. photos. Most of which I've had to pull into an image editing tool to find the copyvios and I haven't found one for every image uploaded. That being said, over 50% of the users upload's are copyvios and while they are claiming the images "were taken from different angles." I've given the uploader a final warning on their talkpage and if we see another uploaded copyvio, the uploader should be blocked immediately. I have half a mind to delete the rest of the uploads based on the pattern of copyvios. You can see his deleted images in his upload log Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 02:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on this, I think we should consider all the editor's uploads tainted, delete and indef. Copyvio because someone doesn't understand copyright is one thing, copyvio and taking steps to cover it up is something completely different. I'm of the opinion that this sort of conduct is worse than vandalism. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mendaliv is unfortunately probably right, unless some convincing explanation is forthcoming that I don't see as likely. We can't go around investigating every new upload from the user. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nenad_Erić_"Thomas" (talk · contribs) has added a lot of (unsourced) content to Dionysus and Histories (Herodotus) in Croatian. I've left him a link to hr.wikipedia, but since it was in English (sorry, don't know Croatian), he didn't seem to get the message. If anyone knows Croatian (or feels more confident leaving a machine-translated message than I do), it'd be nice to explain to him that there's already a a Croatian-language Wikipedia where his edits might be more valued, but otherwise... Ian.thomson (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{contrib-hr1}} does that job. We've got a whole series of bilingual templates to notify such editors. They've turned out to be quite effective so I've put such a message on Eric Thomas's talk page. Let's see how that develops. De728631 (talk) 20:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do my best to remember that next time, thanks. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's continued to add material to other articles. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, that's actually Serbian. I've warned him in Croatian, using largely simple and common words, which they will understand, so hopefully now they will get the point, if not, let me know. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Modernist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Modernist seems to be on his/her own personal campaign against the WP:LAYIM, WP:NOTGALLERY, WP:GALLERY over several articles. A while ago I cleaned up too many images in the article 19th century per WP:LAYIM, WP:GALLERY - over-image "stacks" that shoved images into the next section and an indiscriminate shoehorn gallery[73]. User Modenrnist reverted it back with the comment "seems ok"[74]. I reverted it back with explanation per guidelines[75] and left further rational in talk[76]. 8 months later Modernist is back reverting the same cleanup edit without comment[77]. Since there seemed to be no rational given I reverted it back and then User:Coldcreation showed up and reverted it back to Modernists' edit[78]. Modernist and Coldcreation seem to act very closely in votes[79], double team in discussions[80] and reverts[81][82][83]. Modernist and Coldcreation were addressed jointly about some of their edits by Curly Turkey[84]. This pushiness to make Wikipedia more of an image host has shown up in Talk:Claude Monet and Impressionism[85]. At Talk:Impressionism Modernist seemed to refuse to get the point via adding a further image gallery during the discussion[86], would give no other rational other than "The images are needed" or WP:MOREX arguments, and got quite un-civil re:"Lets be crystal clear - I don't and no one else here owes you an explanation of anything. Who are you?", "Yeah, that's your opinion; you clearly have no experience working on articles in the visual arts - you are owed nothing - nothing". It also came off as a campaign to drive away a productive contributor (HappyWaldo). If these editors want Wikipedia to be an image host I wish they would take it up at the relative guideline and policy talk pages instead of warring it over many articles. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The portrait images of very famous and important 19th century personages are fine to use in that article - The gallery contains a few other very important, famous 19th century portraits. The galleries used in visual arts articles like Impressionism and Claude Monet are crucial to our understanding of the subject of those articles. Paintings need to be seen. This thread reads like a personal attack against me...Modernist (talk) 22:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think all three of the articles mentioned look great...Modernist (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this looks like a content dispute.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree this is a content dispute. User:Curly Turkey and I had an argument - that was a long time ago - we've collaborated together long after that argument was history, and I supported his work on 2 featured articles...Modernist (talk) 23:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no desire to re-open old wounds, especially because Modernist and and I have managed to work with each other amicably for some time now, but I have to disagree it's only a content dispute. Modernist, if you're going to continue making the kind of comments pointed out above, you can only expect people to feel they need to fight back. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you feel that the comments deserve admin intervention? Please...get a thicker skin. No one "deserves" any explanation (just discussion and that does not mean editors have to explain every action) and unless these comments crossed a line, fighting against them is just drama...drama...drama! Don't "fight" back. If you think he/she was being a dick than just ignore them. Fighting back against every perceived insult or incivil comment just drags out the drama. We are here to write an encyclopedia not right great wrongs and...we are talking about image galleries....not BLP violations! While I believe Modernist could be nicer...until they cross the line into personal attacks...there really is nothing to do here...and frankly...I would more than understand if your good relations with Modernist were now ruined. But that is up to them. But you sure jumped on this fast enough.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mark Miller: whose comment was this in response to? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Look, we all work very hard here as volunteers without much appreciation - CT, me, and many many others who create this encyclopedia and its contents. I do my best; and I'm proud of the contributions made here by so many editors...Modernist (talk) 01:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No we don't always get much appreciation. In fact, many times we get the very opposite. Do I agree with Modernist on everything? Heck no, but I also see that editors are trying to ask for intervention for not being very nice.... but that is a far cry from incivility that requires intervention. I really suggest this be referred to the DRN board. I can't take the case because I have had interactions with Modernist on Neoclassicism as Amadscientist, but this seems very much like a simple content dispute.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Images can be properly used, improperly used, or omitted. Modernist happens to have a good sense concerning the use of images in articles. Bus stop (talk) 11:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ANI is not a place to discuss the appropriateness or not of images—that belongs on the talk page. What's being reported is the personal interactions. I get the feeling things have calmed down enough that the discussion can continue on the talk page now. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 13:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason to bring this here is behavior. If an editor like Modernist shows contempt for other editors with comments like the ones above, or gives "flippant" edit summaries such as "seems ok" or "unrelated to your IDON'TLIKEIT - looks fine", or no edit summary at all then its going to come here. I have to really disagree with Mark Miller's above "No one "deserves" any explanation", being asked several time for a rational for an edit(s) and saying "I don't and no one else here owes you an explanation of anything" or "you are owed nothing - nothing" is disruptive editing, #4-a at WP:DISRUPTSIGNS to be exact, and, again, brings us back here. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you don't agree with that, but really we have no rights here and no one really "deserves" anything. Editors are expected to collaborate and the burden of evidence is on those that add or restore content. But with images we generally have to accept the consensus of the involved editors. Demanding an "explanation" could be as disruptive to editors that have come to consensus as it is to you for getting that response, and to be clear, I don't think it was very nice but many editors make comments that are not very nice. The issue is whether they crossed a line into personal attacks or incivility requiring administrative intervention. While I don't believe there is anything requiring intervention here, others may disagree. But the subjects are image related and text alone cannot get the same information across that a visual aide can. You can discuss brush strokes in a very lengthy text...but an image of a brush stroke will only help get that understanding across better.

My main problem here is your first sentence: "User:Modernist seems to be on his/her own personal campaign against the WP:LAYIM, WP:NOTGALLERY, WP:GALLERY over several articles. " Funny...but on the Claude Monet talk page it appears that there was a recent RFC that resulted in no consensus other than to add more text and captions for context. Yet, here you are now accusing an editor of having their own personal campaign. I have to admit...I do see a personal campaign here...but not from Modernist. Is 6 months long enough to start another RFC? I don't know. Try it and see what happens.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I have no intention of picking at old wounds, but Mark Miller you might want to look at the edit history of Claude Monet and see how radically the page was restructured as a result of the discussion there. The point FoBM brought up was that Modernist is often not open to discussion—too frequently belligerently so—and, to be honest, if you decline to state or discuss the reasons for your edits, you are forfeiting your right to maintain them when someone else does explain their own edits. Getting there first is not a free pass except in certain areas (choice of spelling, date formatting, and a few others). If an editor intends to maintain an article on The Ecyclopaedia Anyone Can Edit, then they'd better have a rationale to back it up—otherwise it's pure OWNership. Again, I'm not trying to slag Modernist—I'd like to see him discuss the issues respectfully. I vote that FoBM open a fresh discussion at the article's talk page and invite Modernist (and whoever else) to discuss. It's my hope that having brought the interaction issues up here will now have brought some perspective on how the discussion should proceed (nad without admin intervention). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 05:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To add (but I don't see an enforcable ANI issue here, yet), I have had problems trying to convince Modernist about avoiding NFC issues in galleries on articles like these (particularly History of painting), and even considering only free images, how these pages are so bloated in considering WP:SIZE to the end user, and by simply offloading some the galleries to more detailed pages, they'd still serve the purpose they are looking for. But I got the same responses back that others have documents "but they look fine" "art needs to be seen", etc. I haven't pursued it past that point, but I can speak to the hand-waving type dismissals of NFC and image count/gallery issues. --MASEM (t) 05:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should lightly dismiss the argument that "art needs to be seen". Modernist adds a lot of good quality content on visual art. I think Modernist tries to bring out those concerns that arise with greatest frequency in scholarly discussions of visual art. Reference to imagery is very common when discussing visual art and it is preferable that images be close at hand. Linking to images elsewhere may not be a good idea when writing about visual art. It may represent a reasonable tradeoff to make allowances for larger WP:SIZE pages when visual arts is the subject. Images themselves are better seen at larger scales. And the topic of art history is probably better read at a slower pace, allowing time for the page to download. These are largely visual questions that are being addressed. We are often talking about paintings, which have to be seen. Bus stop (talk) 02:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not focusing on the content issue, I'm focusing on the dismissal that Modernist has done in the past with my experiences to simply say "images have to be seen" when challenged about the technical issues with so many issues on one page. That's hand-waving without discussing policy and guidelines that have been set, as well as numerous methods that the same images can be used but distributed on a larger number of subpages. Modernist flat out refuses to accept others' viewpoints when they do that, which is disruptive if a continued practice. --MASEM (t) 02:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I myself have never had any issues that I can think of with Modernist but it is always possible I just can't remember anything off the top of my head. I see no issue needing intervention at this time. As far as Claude Monet, as I said...there was an RFC from February and there is no consensus to remove the galleries there yet. And yeah...I did check the history, but if you want to debate the content issue further...there is always DRN. As long as trying to change the consensus will not be disruptive this soon after an RFC, I could support opening another discussion but I have to tell you I could also see if some might find it to be disruptive. I know nothing about any NFC concerns from Modernist. I just don't see anything here to block or ban over. Even Masem seems to agree with that much. But no...just because someone doesn't want a discussion does not mean we can force them. We still allow editing without discussion so just because we feel one editor is not as forthcoming as others does not mean you get to disregard their edit in this matter. Because we are talking about images...not text or claims without references etc.. On the Monet article I believe he did not have to explain himself as the RFC is pretty clear. If this is a pattern with Modernist I would support some sort of intervention but at the moment there is nothing but a content dispute and some less than cordial replies. Are there diffs to show a pattern?--Mark Miller (talk) 06:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor that reverts changes made, where the changing editor has given reasons why something should be done within their view of policy and guidelines, and the reverting editor is just reverting without providing any comment or falling back to non-policy/guideline reasons, repeatedly, that is a problem. It's not necessarily an ANI problem but it is a civility problem in that editors are expected to explain their reasons for doing such actions. --MASEM (t) 06:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, not when the view of the policy and guidelines are this off. There is nothing that says we have to remove galleries or that they are unacceptable on Wikipedia. There isn't. And the entire issue of Modernist not giving a rational or explanation is exaggerated a great deal.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there appears to be some issue I see with the way that the OP has attempted what looks like a good deal of exaggeration to support their position.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Miller, you wrote "If this is a pattern with Modernist ...", and Masem responded that, yes, it is. I can confirm that: Monet was not the first time I've been involved in a similar dispute with Modernist (one reason I refused to back down). Discussing things with editors he disagrees with is not one of Modernist's strengths. Preferably this can be dealt with outside of ANI, but that's not going to happen if you insist on keeping this "discussion" alive, slagging those of us who disagree with you. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 10:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"No, not when the view of the policy and guidelines are this off." If the person making the change is using a skewed view of policy/guideline to insist the change has to be made, the revert should be explaining that, not doing it without comment or "it looks fine to me". I'm not saying that the changer isn't scott free if they're misinterpreting policy, but reverting these should not be done without that, and discussion should take place by the reverter to explain what the problem with the changer's stance on policy is. Modernist, from my interactions, tends to simply fall back to arguments along the lines "I like it so it should stay", which is not helpful in the long run. --MASEM (t) 13:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Masem - you and I have been having these conversations for years; you basically know my position and I basically know your position so when we discuss those issues together I see no great need to continously and redundantly repeat endless policy and guidelines interpretations. I've been having these discussions since 2006...Modernist (talk) 14:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Masem I asked for diffs. I am being told, point blank that you believe this is a pattern with Modernist when I asked. Now, please provide the diffs. I have gone through all of this. I see you are involved so you should have no trouble providing clear evidence that Modernist has a pattern of refusing to discuss his edits. On occasion we have butted heads, but I find you to be extremely reasonable.....much more so than you are being now.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion when History of painting was tagged with having too many non-free images lead to a discussion that went mostly nowhere because Modernist's common line "art has to be seen" (also accusing that the idea of separating the article into smaller parts was censoring them). The aformentioned RFC (Talk:Claude Monet#RfC: Are the galleries in the Monet article excessive?) was also a case that I ran into "art must be seen" arguments. Many of the arguments in both cases are the same ones he has brougth here. Mind you, I can't claim much more than that on the specific issue of image galleries, unlike what FoBM is able to claim (which might include article edit warring - that never happened w/ Modernist in my experience). I'm just saying from what I've seen with Modernist from these points is that they refuse to discuss the issue of too many images (whether an NFC issue or a free gallery issue). --MASEM (t) 03:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again Masem; I stand by all of those arguments made at length over the years; regarding the visual arts and imagery, especially in those threads. I'm right from my side - and maybe you are right to some extant from your side - but we are creating an encyclopedia and the founders and the foundation have set out some interesting principles from the onset - and one of those basic principles - is to use common sense. The articles are well formulated; and they convey important and relatively accurate encyclopedic information regarding the subjects described...Modernist (talk) 03:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am simply providing the information Mark asked for, the instances I found your behavior dismissive of suggestion to change. --MASEM (t) 03:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; I think we both go back to 2006, and it's been a long road and in my opinion we've made great progress since those days...Modernist (talk) 04:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I am confused and a little annoyed right now. You state that Modernist refuses to discuss the issue of too many images (whether an NFC issue or a free gallery issue). That has already been demonstrated below to be false. In the actual diffs already provided I see huge amounts of explanation from Modernist and in the link you provide I see another huge discussion with Modernist taking the lead...again and stating: "Removed tags per long discussions; images are replaced with PD whenever possible - see [14] also...Modernist (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)", and "We have been discussing this for years and please read the link [15], the imagery is crucial to the subject and the galleries are practical, efficient, and economical...Modernist (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC) ", and "There is not one word about galleries in the link rather this paragraph that clearly is the basis for the use non-free imagery when there is no recourse (emphasis mine):

Some Wikimedia projects use media that is not free at all, under a

doctrine of "fair use" or "fair dealing". There are some works,

primarily historically important photographs and significant modern

artworks, that we can not realistically expect to be released under a

free content license, but that are hard to discuss in an educational

context without including the media itself. Because the inability to

include these works limits scholarship and criticism, in many

jurisdictions people may use such works under limited conditions

without having license or permission. Some works that are under

licenses we do not accept (such as non-derivative) may meet these

conditions. Because of our commitment to free content, this non-free

media should not be used when it is reasonably possible to replace

with free media that would serve the same educational purpose.

We use the galleries because common sense tells us it is the best, most economic way to present the information here. These are paintings - visual works that must be seen - the format used is practical and works. The proviso use of non-free imagery here is always being reduced as works from the public domain become available...Modernist (talk]) 02:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)"

Our policy on the use of non free images in galleries is "Fair use images may almost never be included as part of a general image gallery, as their status as being "fair use" depends on their proper use in the context of an article (as part of analysis or criticism). See Wikipedia:Fair use for more details." Almost never is not "never" and I think that discussion deteriorated more because you seemed to be in a disagreement with more than just Modernist but Slim Virgin as well, who started an RFC due to your posts and disagreements. Clearly modernist said waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more than just "art has to be seen" in that discussion and does not support your claim that Modernist does not discuss the issue of too many images. Now the last thing (I sure as heck hope this is the last thing) I should say is this, Wikipedia image use gives us an example of how to use galleries with: 1750–75 in Western fashion and History of painting looks strikingly similar but with far more prose and images. If there are non free images in the galleries, it is on you to demonstrate how they are against our policy. Now, you are really good at that, but you are also not always correct and many times that is simply because NFC is just a guideline. It still takes a discussion to remove them for even being non free images being used incorrectly.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there are non free images in the galleries, it is on you to demonstrate how they are against our policy.: we're talking about the law here, not mere Wikipedia policy. Images use must conform to the law, which means the onus for image use falls on whoever tries to add the image. We're lucky that the US even allows fair-use—Japan (where I live) doesn't, and their Wkipedia pages are often entirely bare of images at all as a result. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's why we use Fair Use Rationales when needed, although PD images are always recommended; and I agree with you - as much as I love Japan; we are far better off here, being able to use as much imagery as we do...Modernist (talk) 04:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yes and no. There is no actual fair use "law" but case law where a number of decisions have been handed down. I am familiar with that actually. There is no exact definition of what even constitutes fair use. Copyright law is the particular area but even then it is rather ambiguous, but for Wikipedia, we have a much sterner approach to what we allow as fair use but the Foundation has been clear that we are to allow the use of non free content that is within our Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP). Masem and I have discussed this at length I believe some time ago. You're in Japan Curly Turkey? Then I should say gomenasai, for not realizing you were pinged above. Gosh, I had no idea Japan was so strict with their copyright issues. Haven't been there since I was three. Born there actually. Their earthquakes are supposed to make California feel like a Disneyland ride. I would have to agree that we in the US are lucky with most of our copyright/fair use laws but many people still get a bit confused with Freedom of panorama. But anywhoo...Wikipedia has a much sterner policy in place than just fair use case law to protect both the uploader and the works.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My points are related to changes at about Oct 2013 (when the pge was tagged with non-free overuse) and beyond - the stuff pre-2013 is not a question. My point is still that Modernist and others fall back on "common sense" when others have pointed out NFC requires minimization of non-free image and almost never allows for non-free in galleries, and WP:SIZE which is an accessibility issue when 300+ images in an article is going to slow down the page loading and in some cases non-accessible on some browsers. Modernist simply falls back on "I like this", "art must be seen" and "common sense" claims but without trying to demonstrate how this meets policy (yes, IAR can apply, but we're talking NFC were there is no IAR wiggle room). The claim that splitting the galleries into separate articles is akin to censorship is extremely disconcerting, and the typical sign of ownership. People have offered solutions that provide the equivalent amount of content but in multiple pages, and this is flat-out rejected, and there's no attempt at a consensus solution. That's the issue here. (Please also consider how Modernist is reacting in this thread. This is the behavior that's the problem). --MASEM (t) 04:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add - I am not trying to open the question if there are image problems on these articles or what the proper resolution is. That's a discussion that should be done elsewhere. I am simply reporting my experience in the process of trying to achieve a solution to the images on these article to fit better with consensus on image use through the rest of en.wiki (both free and NFC), of the resistance to work towards a solution that Modernist gives, in line with the issues that Fountain brings up. I'm providing that evidence and my take on the evidence, and comparing it to what I've seen before. I still don't think Modernist's behavior here requires ANI interaction, but it is important to document that Fountain's issues aren't isolated. --MASEM (t) 04:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you still need a consensus to do so. I think what is possible (and maybe you don't even realize it?) is that at the end of the day consensus requires discussion and in that discussion many different editors will use different arguments. Some will be detailed and make no sense at all and some will be very simple and just be to the heart of the reasoning, that, as images, there is no reference to show, no book to produce that contains all the answers. It still comes down to almost a simple !vote of keep or discard. At the NFC review board we are presented with stuff that is clearly a violation of the NFC criteria and stuff that is less obvious...and sometimes things that are just not clear. In those case we certainly do have to go by the best and must rational argument in considering to keep or delete, but on an article we have a slightly different standard with images alone unless it is a formal RFC requiring a closer to make a decision based on the best rationales. I can think of a number of number of articles right now that I had to have admin reduce sizing or I, myself had to go into the rationale and add the correct information. The amount of non free content on Wikipedia that should not be here can be overwhelming and Masem is the go to guy for much of these issues, but...I know msem and even I and others who are very experienced in these issues just don't have all the answers and again, that's mainly because it just a guideline and one man/woman's opinion of a copyright violation is another man/woman's fair use for educational purposes. By the way...our standard is much higher but by case law, educational purposes are covered. We just attempt to limit how many non free images we allow due to our own minimal use standard. But minimal use is about the minimal use of the work, ([T]he amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole. 17 U.S. Code § 107 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use) not how many works...by codification in copyright law. That's a Wikipedia standard.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the current diffs

• The first diff, #84 was not needed and is just the OP showing us their work. The second diff, #85 is the revert by Modernist and contains an edit summary. I personally do not see anything "flippant" about it, but regardless of that, it was not uncivil.
• Diff #86 is the OP's revert back with this edit summary:"WP:LAYIM avoid over-image "stacks" and shoehorn galleries WP:Gallery (they are not "ok")". How is it not "OK"? The link that was left was to the manual of style and is not policy. It is just a guideline but more importantly...it doesn't say that. WP:Gallery does...in a paragraph below this: "However, the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject." While I dislike the term shoehorn, that means trying to "shove" images in where they does not fit by use of a gallery. That is not what is going on here. When editors discuss the "shoehorn" part, I noticed they don't seem to mention this part (bolded for emphasis): "A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or moved to Wikimedia Commons" So just reverting or removing galleries with that link is just wrong and is not supported by Image use policy, and does not say galleries are not OK.
• Diff 87 is where the OP states they left a rational on the talk page. That's is nice...but they failed to mention it was actually a reply to Modernist who had already begun a discussion over deletions in 2011 with no replies....none. Then the OP states "8 months later..." Uhm...seriously...the first 4 diffs show nothing of any real concern except that the OP seems to not understand the full image use policy in regards to galleries. But had there been some issue...it would be stale by now.
• Diff #88. Eight months later and the OP reverts to the same version and Modernist reverts back, as the OP says, without comment. OK...but...neither did the IP editor.
• Diff #89 is where Coldcreation reverted back after the OP had reverted where they state above: "Since there seemed to be no rational given I reverted it". The IP didn't provide one either but that seems to matter little.
• Diff #90 is a very bad attempt to claim there is tag teaming going on and only shows a random vote where the two both voted the same way. Uhm....what exactly is that supposed to prove?
• Diff # 91 is where the OP now attempts to show tag teaming in discussion. Wait.....didn't the OP say there are no rationals provided. No explanations etc.? Funny thing...diff 91 actual proves that Modernist will certainly provide a pretty detailed rational. But...this is supposed to be demonstrating tag teaming by Modernist and Coldcreation. Again...funny thing...Cold creation only has 4 posts in that entire exchange. I also noticed this comment from the OP: "There is no need to establish or follow local consensus on edits when there are clear guidelines (and Wikipedia recommends against it)." I gotta tell you...that's a new one on me. The actual policy is that a local consensus cannot override the broader community consensus. In other words WikiProjects cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. The OP is attempting to tell editors that there is no need to come to a consensus because the policy is the broader community consensus. OK...but the Broader community consensus says that we can still have galleries so...I think that was clearly Wikilawyering.
• Diffs # 92, 93, and 94 are all from the same article and from that discussion where the OP appeared to be telling editors a consensus on that article didn't matter. I see no evidence that this is tag teaming.
• Diff #95 is actually a clear violation of WP:NPA. Discuss the contributions not the contributor. Curly Turkey created a thread on the Claude Monet talk page entitled: "Edits by Modernist and Coldcreation" where they accuse the two editors of "trying to scare contributors off by spamming your own messages to those talk pages".
• Diff #96 is the exact same diff as #91.
• Diff #97 is supposed to be an issue? We are still allowed to make use of BRD, are we not? If the discussion becomes intractable, that is indeed the very time to make a bold edit.

This took a great deal of time to go through (which I will never get back) and frankly I see a few problems with the overall exaggerations of the OP in both policy and guidelines as well as the overall issues with Modernist. Again, I see a campaign...but not from Modernist. We absolutely do not need to remove all galleries, just because they are galleries.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, Mark Miller, you've now made it crystal clear that you're gunning for a fight—as if it weren't already obvious with this edit and (amongst other inflammatory comments) its bad-faith "But you sure jumped on this fast enough" (I was very obviously respoding to both Fountains of Bryn Mawr and Modernist pinging me for comment). I bit my tongue then, but you obviously won't be satisfied with a full-on conflict.

I said it and I mean it: I have no intention of opening old wounds with Modernist, and what follows is not intended to do any such thing---we've put this behind us, and I intend to keep it there. It is nothing more than a direct response to Mark Miller's contentious, bad-faith, pot-stirring personal attack above:

This was in direct response to these clear-cut bad-faith edits intended to discourage editors from joining the RfC: [87][88][89][90][91][92]. The response to it was bad-faith accusations of CANVASSing, despite the fact the RfC notice was following to the letter the instructions at WP:RFC: entirely neutral (Quote: "Please join in the discussion at Talk:Claude Monet#RfC: Are the galleries in the Monet article excessive? about the number and choice of images in the galleries.") and posted only to the talk pages of WikiProjects the Monet page had already been tagged with. Your job: demonstrate how advertising an RfC strictly according to the WP:RfC instructions was in any way inappropriate, or strike your revisionist slander (yes, slander is precisely to the letter what it is—you're not getting around that one, Mark Miller).

So, Mark Miller, it's pretty obvious I've put every effort into getting this dispute out of ANI and onto the article talk page where it belongs. Tell everyone now what your motivation is for keeping this asinine discussion alive and slandering everyone in range. I'll take a "no one here owes you an explanation of anything" as conclusive evidence that your only goal was to stir the pot. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 10:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I did miss that you were pinged and apologize for thinking you jumped in (my computer displays links that have not been clicked in a dark blue and that, along with the size of the fonts makes it difficult to see there is a link). However, your overly aggressive manner here and your overuse of my name, mentioning me over and over is one of your problems. You don't understand that WP:NPA is a serious policy and that you breached it by creating a specific thread on an article talk page about two editors. Then you were accused of canvasing but the replies to those project requests does not seem to be bad faith or actionable either.

You said: "you've now made it crystal clear that you're gunning for a fight" Really? Is that really true from the diff you show, where I tell you not to "Fight back" because it just creates drama? Look, the reason I comment is because I disagree with a great deal of this and when I took a close look the actions of others looked worse than those of Modernist. The thread has not been closed so, I replied to the continuing discussion. I am not the one that continued to discuss this after you said things had calmed down enough to continue on the talk page but I don't feel your actions do you credit. I think your above post was horrid and inappropriate.

• Per WP:NLT, you just committed a borderline "perceived" legal threat.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Legal threat"?! Oh, go harass someone else, Mark Miller. You're trolling. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 11:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Please lets not create more drama and stay calm; especially because there are far more important things to be done - CT you have important articles to write; and MM thank you so much for your good insights. Please lets close this thread...Modernist (talk) 13:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless any action is required, I agree this should probably be closed now.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to make some things clear, Wikilawyering could also be characterized as ignoring why I brought this here. The reason is behavior/ignoring guidelines (with no rational given) at 19th century. Problem #1 (not addressed) is when you read about "Athletics" you are looking at Ellen Terry and P. T. Barnum (hey, maybe they were kick ass athletes and I just learned something ;)). Problem #2 is shoehorning more images into a gallery. We are ignoring the main aim of the guideline ---> images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and not be just an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject. What we have is an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject. Can it be "improved?" Yeah, by adding 97 more people to the list or by simply replacing it with a themed gallery: all the 19th century "Emperors of Russia" or something of the sort. Since one is highly unlikely and the other would not be needed there was no common sense rational for the gallery. As for Monet, it was brought here as an example of past behavior (and was nothing I ever participated in or plan to participate in in the future). Impressionism was something I participated in (and for my troubles I was told I was an idiot and was not owed any explanation). That was ANI time but Modernist seemed to see some reason in the end (it was like pulling teeth) and I (like MASEM) haven't pursued it past that point. Modernist starting it up again at 19th Century brought us here. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• While as stated above this is not the proper venue to discuss content - I'll say this: galleries and images are invaluable, educational tools we have to elucidate, describe and identify information for our readers. The 19th century article is a broad overview covering 100 years - it is also a century that has produced an enormous number of people who influenced and affected most of our lives in the 20th and 21st centuries. More so than earlier time periods the 19th century has directly impacted science; religion; industry; commerce; art; medicine; literature; philosophy and much more. The plethora of images elucidate in other ways then do the brief and discreet subject paragraphs. If you want to know more about 19th century theatre for instance - you'll need to read more specific articles about that subject; to be found elsewhere in wikipedia through links and images. To fully appreciate the text and the imagery at 19th century the reader doesn't necessarily have to 'walk and chew gum' but the reader needs to read the text and peruse the portraits separately in some cases, it's really not a big deal. The idea that images and galleries convey valuable and educational information in our articles is well established. I think this thread needs to be closed...Modernist (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editor with only three edits in all, initiates an AfD.[97] Also a SPA. Suspicious behaviour. Experienced oversight solicited. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you think this is a sock of someone, and you have evidence, there is nothing suspicious whatsoever about someone creating an acct solely to AfD an article; IPs cannot do it because you have to create a new page. Let the AfD run its course -- that's how you determine if your article is appropriate. Not by running to ANI at the first perceived slight. By posting here, you will inevitably draw much more attention to the AfD than you probably intended, so suggest someone box up this thread with a nice neat {{archive top/bottom}}. Rgrds. --64.85.217.167 (talk) 12:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD may be justified, if the effort is to attain artificial notability via Wikipedia. The suspicion about the SPA, though, is why would someone be so desperate to get some minor thing deleted, that they would create an account just to push for that deletion? It sounds like a potential conflict-of-interest on both sides. P.S. Thanks for tipping us off as to your location. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The IP's location (and presumably the editor Hangeron as well), by an amazing coincidence, is from rural Missouri. This could well be a POV-push in connection with the Michael Brown situation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Twas not I that created the AfD -- not my modus operandi to create a one-off acct; I'd simply tag it and then ask for a hand at HD (done it before). However, I do know that you are anti-IP, and basically anti-anyone-who-doesn't-100%-agree-with-you, so: Nice talkin' at ya, B. You can get in the last word if you like, and then respond to yourself a few times, and then generally be a pest, starting....NOW. Rgrds. --64.85.217.167 (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not anti-IP. I am anti-suspicious behavior. And it's written all over you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK everybody, he got in the last word... Now let's see how many times he responds to himself... --64.85.217.167 (talk) 13:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Preposterous the suggestion that both sides have a COI, what COI do I have? Secondly there is a strong suggestion that the IP itself is a seasoned editor Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't know what COI you have. As to the IP, yes, it's obviously a veteran troll. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dearest B, I've been here since 2005. To see how this troll rolls, hop on over to the current edition of AN and search for 64.85. That is how this troll rolls, B. Much more productive than, oh IDK, you? How're those i-bans working for ya? Kindest of all Rgrds. --64.85.217.167 (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The I-bans are working fine. I-bans are good. What do you think about establishing an I-ban between you and me? That is, between any IP from the 64.85 range as well as any and all of your registered accounts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're funny. Rgrds. --64.85.215.200 (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I-ban?

Original proposal withdrawn by proproser as impractical. Counterproposal so much more impractical as to require no further comment. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Following up on the previous section, I would like to request an interaction ban between myself and every IP under the prefix 64.85. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think an i-ban on a dynamic IP range will accomplish? Are you suggesting everyone in this range is the same person or that the same person only uses this range? Chillum 16:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was the IP's suggestion. Maybe you should ask him? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to your request. The one you put at the beginning of this section. I have already responded to the IP. Chillum 16:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The IP put the idea in my head, and it seems like a good one. If you're not willing to do it, that's OK. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I asked that you explain your request. It does not really matter who put the idea in your head, you are the one making the request. Chillum 16:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Yes, the entire range. Any obvious non-troll from that range could be exempted. Case by case. But I can't of any reason why I would ever need to interact with someone from that range. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this proposal, but suggest extending it to all IP's. That way, we wouldn't have to put up with Bug's recurrent accusations of bad faith from every other IP he encounters. If some of them are trolls, his responses are only feeding them anyway... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I call it "exposing" them. However, I find your proposal excessive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Putting aside that the person making the request does not seem to want to justify it, this request is not practical. I don't know if this is a serious request or an attempt to make a point but I don't think it is productive. Chillum 16:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not practical, then forget it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

The proposed ban on anonymous IPs interacting with Bugs is of course impractical - but a ban on Bugs responding isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose a one-way IBAN. The behavior of the trolls is worse than that of Bugs. With a one-way IBAN, the trolls will deliberately (and maliciously (good faith has already been disproved)) provoke Bugs to get him blocked. Bugs should know better, but the trolls do know better. A one-way IBAN will be manipulated. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How can bad-faith behavior be recognized if someone doesn't point it out? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alas -- such a proposal fails the laugh test :( Collect (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Recommend Blocking the IP

Regardless of what to do about the issue about Baseball Bugs hostility to IPs, the two specific IP addresses that appear to be one user are being disruptive trolls. They deserve hostility, not because they are unregistered editors, but because they are disruptive trolls (and are taking advantage of the dynamic IP to be disruptive). Recommend that at least the second one be blocked for a week (because a longer block would cause collateral damage). Robert McClenon (talk) 19:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That’s 64.85.215.200 and maybe 64.85.217.167. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a method for checking the retributions contributions of an IP range, but I don't recall what it is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here, you can see quite a few IPs contributing from this range (64.85.208.0/20), and also see that they're mostly helpful edits, at least on a quick spot check. So I don't think anybody'd want to block the range. Bishonen | talk 11:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Topic ban Baseball Bugs from AN/I (again)

11raccoon1 (talk · contribs) has attacked Plarem (talk · contribs) (me) and United Union (talk · contribs) on multiple occasions, with me issuing relevant warnings on the user's talk page. The relevant diffs are:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALGBT_rights_in_Croatia&diff=622339704&oldid=622323032
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:United_Union&curid=43613572&diff=622357234&oldid=622355991
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AUnited_Union&diff=622354476&oldid=622177573

I would like to ask for someone to review User:11raccoon1's conduct. Thank you. – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 16:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see insults that are worth blocking over, though 11raccoon1 (talk · contribs) should really tone down the rhetoric some. As for the content matter underlying all this--wait, it's a content matter, which means it's not for this board. Now, I find the back-and-forths to be somewhat amusing, each side attacking the other and making all kinds of claims about bad writing and original research--and that lead actually has both. But you should solve that, somewhere else. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would this be worth blocking over? It is hate speech and discrimination based on nationality and religion. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALGBT_rights_in_Croatia&diff=622390463&oldid=622381672 – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 21:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not worth blocking over, and it is neither hate speech nor discrimination. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This thread has been superseded by a request on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard where there is a wealth of evidence about problematic behaviour by the editors involved in the dispute. --Fæ (talk) 13:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An IP editor is back that continues to replace the CEO and other leaders of various companies with "Brian Thompson" (see here with Dodge and here with Chevrolet.) This user has done this in the past, too, and uses multiple IP addresses. Any help in blocking this vandal would be appreciated. Bahooka (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMalaysia_Airlines_Flight_17&diff=622361893&oldid=622357335 is a clear case of vandalism. --82.198.102.128 (talk) 18:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or possibly a case of mistakenly editing a past version of the talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have jumped the gun with bringing the issue here. Sceptic1954 has not made an edit since you left a message on his talk page. I would give him the chance to respond before assuming it was vandalism. It could have been a mistake, as Andy pointed out. Mike V • Talk 18:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could especially have been a mistake because it looks like there is a perfect match with an old revision in regards to what information has been removed (this one, to be exact. Here is a comparison between old revision and Sceptic1954's edit, with the edits in between not shown), so if they accidentally edited that version, instead of the one most current at the time, the diff the OP linked to would be a logical result. If it had been blanking-style vandalism, there likely would not have been a perfect match of "old edit + added text = result of diff shown by OP", but instead would have been more garbled in what was removed. That, or they purposefully edited an old version to cause trouble, but that certainly is one of the rarest forms of vandalism around. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

12hrs later (18 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown), 5,965 bytes removed and the thread of the topic destroyed. Yeah, right, easy mistake to make. --82.198.102.128 (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly can be. If they had opened the talkpage in editing mode earlier, but for whatever reason not saved it, (nor necessarily even finished typing whatever they intended to type), came back to it later and continued editing it, yes, it would be a relatively easy mistake to make, even if clumsy. (And while yes, they should have gotten an edit conflict notice if such was the case, it wouldn't be the first time that one glitched out). Similarly, if they had that page open for a fair few hours (such as as one of multiple tabs), came back to it and pressed "edit" without first refreshing to see if new edits had been made since. They might even have closed the browser in the mean time, reopened it a while later (provided they have their settings to their browser's version of "remember open tabs"), figuring it'd be reloaded while it's still the old version. (Firefox does that to me with some regularity, loading pages as they looked when I closed the browser, not as they look now). And that's just a few examples of how it may have happened with nothing more than some clumsiness or forgetfulness at worst. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One case of vandalism intentional or otherwise seems to be a heck of a jump over to here. A rough count on the information they edited would put there edit being done agaainst this version of the apge {https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17&oldid=622308491] the version before there last edit before the removal of data. Looka a bit like a poor edit to me but doesnt appear to be vandalism. Amortias (T)(C) 20:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea what's going on. I made, or thought I made, a simple remark in the talk section on the BBC quote, anything else is a mistake, sorry. I've made well over a thousand edits and never had this problem before. Sceptic1954 (talk) 04:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)I can't figure out what happened, possibly I logged in via an emai notifying me of the previous remark in that section and edited. It wouldn't be a case of browser open for many hours. I never saw an edit conflict message. Sceptic1954 (talk) 05:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think AddWittyNameHere was quite right: this, is what seems to have happened (17 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown). This mistake could have been avoided by checking the Revision history: (-5,965)‎ should have set alarm bells ringing. It certainly did with me. --82.198.102.128 (talk) 07:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh this anonymous user really seems to have it in for me. I thank the other administrators who have assumed good faith. To confirm what I think happened. I had an email, didn't go to the laest revision of the page but just to the change in question and replied directly. Can someone confirm that this would be the result. I would try to avoid such a mistake in the future (but have a tendency to absent-mindedness.) Sceptic1954 (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you logged in selecting view this change instead of view current revision it would take you to that revision, if you then edited that page with your comment then it would have had the effecting of saving the previous page history with your comment attached and overwriting the edits inbetween. Appears to be a bit of an accidental screw up from what I can see of it. There should have been a warning message at the top of the page when you opened it advising it was an old revision of the page you were viewing. Accidents happen, no-one died, lets move on. (If its any consolation one of my first edits was accidently blanking what I thought was an attack page that just happened to be a vandalism edit) Amortias (T)(C) 13:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/86.41.152.149 Unhelpful edits, and targetted personal attacks against one user - see comments in edit summary. Finishes with [101] (I will revert the edits to the articles, up to present)Prof.Haddock (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I beat you to the reversions. Perhaps someone may want to speak with Oranjblud as well. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 19:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Please have the picture removed from the ice bucket challenge! Its' the first picture that pops up on the page when you open it! It's terrible!

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 40.140.201.50 (talk) 20:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Was quickly reverted, and the editor responsible for adding that image blocked for vandalism. DMacks (talk) 20:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the image has been added to WP:Image blacklist.--v/r - TP 21:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...and such is the effect of an ice bucket on a penis. the panda ₯’ 21:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... spoken like an expert (?) Let's hope that fad doesn't go viral. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Shrinkage?Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey *****, if that was you, tsk tsk! Drmies (talk) 23:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same image added by (already blocked) User:Jones 8842 a few days ago, both calling themselves Jones. Martin451 23:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, trigger-happy admins, there's a couple of threads that need your attention. It seems Bbb23 is in the bathroom, and there is no replacement. Drmies (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on it, I hear the call, it's time to do my duty. (Runs to the bathroom to hold Bbb23's hand).--v/r - TP 23:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there no privacy around here? There's something about going to the bathroom and blocking that evokes all sorts of unsavory images.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's just that it's so unencyclopaedic an admin having to, you know, use the bathroom. Don't admins have a bot or a software for that? SlightSmile 01:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crats get catheters. Admins get nothing. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New user Litalbn1 is making many changes to I/P related articles, like changing nationality of Yasser Arafat from Palestinian to Egyptian here, inserting massive POV pushing here and moving pages here with the edit summary " Headline is not connecters fully to the page content. The name Palestine didn't exist in 3000 years ago and thus it doesn't represent the entire ar".

Something should be done before he does more damage. Kingsindian (talk) 23:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Something' should probably begin with a post on the new user's talk page, explaining why this is wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just did, sorry, after posting here. But there is lots of stuff he did which I have to revert. Kingsindian (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are also supposed to notify someone if you start a thread on them here... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, just did. I am not too comfortable with this. I kind of panic-reacted by seeing so many contributions. Luckily, they are not too widespread, so perhaps some simple talking to him might suffice. If you want, you can close this discussion. Kingsindian (talk) 23:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In general Andy is correct. In a case like this however, things are difficult because the edits are clearly POV yet the topic is under WP:1RR which makes it hard for others to handle (and it's very hard to take the time to explain all the arbitration background to the steady stream of new editors in this area). I just left the standard discretionary sanctions notification. Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This (with the "middle name S") is Winston Churchill's pen name - hence, and quite logically, it has always redirected to Winston Churchill as writer - the primary topic on Sir Winston's writing career. This is now in dispute - another editor wishing it to redirect to Winston Churchill (an article primarily about Sir Winston's political career, and hence of little relevance) instead. The discussion has long since ceased to be very constructive on either side, we do need a definitive ruling on this one. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edited slightly) The history of that redirect ((T·E·H·L·R) Winston S. Churchill) is a little bit less clear than Soundofmusicals describes. It was created in 2003 and at different times before 2012 it has pointed to the "famous" Churchill or to some disambiguation pages, or been a dab page itself. Soundofmusicals changed it in 2012 to the page about famous Churchill's writing career, and it stayed there til August 19 2014, when Barney the barney barney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverted it back to "famous" Churchill, with Barney and Soundofmusicals both reverting 3 times that day. Then Barney moved it back on 22 August and Soundofmusicals posted here.

More at issue IMHO than the localized 2-person edit war was Barney's quite obnoxious interaction and personal attacks in edit summaries[102] and at Talk:Winston S. Churchill and also at User talk:Barney the barney barney#Winston_S._Churchill. Soundofmusicals could have gone to the redirect talk page a little sooner but was basically civil about the issue.

Soundofmusicals, the usual way to deal with a content dispute is to ask for help at WP:3O (since it's a 2-person dispute) or WP:DRN or open a content RFC. I don't have a view one way or the other about the redirect target, so I'm mostly left asking Barney the barney barney to tone down the incivility and sarcasm such as this (regarding an unrelated query about a personal attack in an edit summary), before admin intervention is required. There was no reason for that and it really does get on people's nerves. If someone else has clearer thoughts about the redirect itself, they might post to the redirect talk page (we're now past the bold/revert phase of WP:BRD so it's probably best to temporarily refrain from further direct edits).

Note: Soundofmusicals mentioned on Barney's talk page that they had "formally asked for arbitration" but I think that means they posted here at ANI. WP:Requests for arbitration is entirely different and not the right thing for this. I'll notify Barney of this thread. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 15:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have put in a request at WP:3O - hope this is in the right form. To be fair I think I might have been the one who got sarcastic first. My only issue with Barney_the_barney_barney is the article to which this redirect should point to, not our mutual irrelevant banter. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, this edit summary of yours was not nice, though neither was the "wtf" that it responded to. I had mostly looked at the talk page first. It's best to stay polite and factual in situations like that. Your 3O request looks ok to me, though you might want to neutrally describe the historical Churchill situation (about the US novelist, the pen name, etc) in a little more detail on the redirect talk page so people can understand the issue better. I think I understand it, but I still don't have any advice about the redirect. Ultimately IMHO it's an obscure enough issue that it doesn't matter that much one way or the other, and thus getting in conflict over it is even more counterproductive than some other sorts of conflicts. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 23:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• See below: for an entirely different situationn Barney has been blocked for 96 hours. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user DiasMi012 is trying to start an edit war on the Los Angeles Metro bus fleet and is not respecting other people's work/edits at all. [103]

Here's a story about my complaint against this user: When I put move the C40HF (5000-5222) to retired list, I put the list of Divisions that the C40HFS were assigned before and I listed 3, 5, 7, & 18 and this user had the courage to delete 3 from the list and I told him that there was NO reason for him to delete "3" from the Division list as the C40HF's have been to D3 before and yet this user reverts my edit(s) [104] and I had to tell him talk page to stop missing with the page, he did respond but he ignores what I said and continues to do this. Some other users revert his edits but yet he reverts them back again. He's not respecting other users work/edits at all. I had to revert his edit once again. I'm getting frustraded with this user and I think action needs to be taken against this user. This user for a long time has been problematic towards other editors and now towards me. I think the adminstration needs to monitor User: DiasMi012 because he basically trying to start a problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.58.202 (talk • contribs) 02:21, 23 August 2014

Los Angeles Metro bus fleet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I will notify DiasMi012 (talk · contribs). Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @DiasMi012: Comments like the one seen here must not be made on any Wikipedia page. If you believe an IP editor has made a mistake, leave them a polite explanation or a standard template (such as at WP:WARN2). Better still, make an explanation on the article talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 04:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I have another complaint against this user, he attacked me once again and he did it on the user page here[105]. This User: DiasMi012 is being disrepectful towards me again.

75.82.58.202

Garden variety NPA's might lead to warnings, but referring to someone as "inferior" earned a 24 hr break from the project the panda ₯’ 21:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User King1559 has made numerous edits to the Big Brother 16 (U.S.) Page, putting up a chart that no one agrees upon on the talk page for BB16. Its been noted in the edit summary numerous times to see the Talk page, which they ignore.Please help --Tech-Chef (talk) 03:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a matter requiring admin intervention at this moment, until an edit war breaks out. A few pointers.
  • Tech-chef, NOT VANDALISM. Don't abuse the word.
  • Consensus on the talk page is claimed for the current (?) table, but it's hard to gauge because no one thought it worthwhile to include a diff pointing at the table they thought was best, and so I can't figure out who's supporting what in the various sections. Best to get a clear consensus with clear diffs pointing at the relevant version.
  • I'm glad humanity is spending so much time making sure that a little TV show about people with no life locked in a house who are being watched by a bunch of voyeurs who then draw up colorful tables: that's progress.
  • The article as a whole is a bloated bag of trivia, albeit that some of it is in nice, colorful tables. What "Have-nots" and "Voting history" is, I can't tell, but I'm not a fan. But seriously, get iron-clad consensus. Drmies (talk) 14:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a clarifying note: Have-nots in the Big Brother show are the people who sleep in a freezing cold room and eat basically mush on any given week. They get there because the Big Brother people think they didn't do much work the previous week. I'd say voting history is probably history on who got voted out? Not a huge fan of the show, myself, but I've watched it with my cousin enough and felt a strange need to clarify those points for some reason. - Purplewowies (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh_My_Volcano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an account created specifically to push the idea that just about anything in the Hebrew Bible goes back to volcanoes. Leviathan? Volcano. Yahweh? Volcano. He has since taken to the talk page, where he's posting a bunch of sources that fail WP:RS (and some that fail WP:COMMONSENSE), many not even actually supporting any sort of volcanic connection to Yahweh.

We have an WP:SPA who is here to push a particular POV, one that is WP:FRINGE, with awful citations meant to assign undue importance to a single aspect of a subject, who is barely listening to anyone -- all to teach us the truth about Yahweh. This is simply not the place for anyone to be "teaching us the truth" about any deity, regardless of whatever religion or lack thereof they have, especially when their sourcing is downright horrendous. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Block - there's a small element of significance to volcanic imagery in the Hebrew Bible, mainly in Psalms, and some notable historical hypotheses by Freud and amateur 19th Century geographers/geologists, but those sources are can be handled by non WP:SPA non WP:FRINGE editors. This account appears to have made not one single non-volcano theory related edit, of which nothing represents anything but a time sink for other editors. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be considered outing if I where to point out that his username (unexplained emphasis on username) is (if you know what you're looking at) evidence of WP:NOTHERE? Ian.thomson (talk) 05:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, clearly WP:NOTHERE, also see his talk page edits. Love the fact that he claims changing section headings is censorship. Dougweller (talk) 07:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 08:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There is actually some pretty good sourcing available about the volcano thing, though being obsessed with it is surely not good. No opinion of the block since I didn't look at the user's edits. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The indefinite length of block is uncalled for. A 48 hour block would give the potentially good editor time to reflect on concerns expressed by others. You have to give potential editors adequate space in which to "rehabilitate" themselves. Bus stop (talk) 01:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A new account, ClaphamSix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has popped up to continue the same disruptive behavior and harassment that Festal82 and his sockpuppets carried out before his ban. The CheckUser admin on the SPI page believes the account to be another sock, but this is awaiting a behavioral evaluation by the clerks. In the meantime, this user is flooding the metamodernism talk page with as many alarmist comments and page-long screeds as they can, obviously to give a false impression of conflict--where there has otherwise been considered, calm discussion and consensus since Festal's ban--and to obscure the relevant discussions that have been taking place there. His tactic seems to be to drag in other editors from the WikiProject Philosophy page that may not be fully aware of the history and frustrations we have all experienced on this page with Festal's POV pushing, to cause chaos and bring into question the integrity of the discussion there.

The user has continued Festal's malicious, unfounded and serious misrepresentations of mine and other editors' edits (see previous ANI incident here), trying to falsely Out me by bizarrely claiming he knows my IP (which he obviously doesn't), from which he's spreading the lie that I live in a tiny village I have never even heard of (!?!), seemingly to try to discredit my transparently consensus-led edit history, and slinging a vast quantity of mud in the hope that some will stick. He's also dragged the CheckUser admin into the discussion, being seriously condescending about their actions, which is why they advised I take this matter here and request another admin look at this, to avoid a WP:INVOLVED conflict. As his latest posts seriously break just about every rule with regards to WP:HARASS, WP:OUTING and WP:NOTHERE, please could someone help here with a swift block, and save us all the headache of having to constantly defend against the barrage of lies he keeps spreading. Esmeme (talk) 10:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For information, there has been a long dispute over the metamodernism article. It has ebbed to and fro with at least two socking users getting themselves indef blocked, and it is currently focused on two antagonists - Esmeme who posted here and ClaphamSix about whom they are complaining. Both are WP:SPA editors to date and inexperienced in Wikipedia's habitual ways. While one involved Admin suspects ClaphamSix is a sock, this user's very first edit was an appeal to the philosophy WikiProject to review the situation, so I think that suggestions of WP:NOTHERE need to be treated with caution.

Although pots and kettles spring strongly to mind, especially with respect to harrassment and outing, both editors have so far been constructive in helping me work towards a resolution at Talk:Metamodernism and I'd suggest that this ANI is a bit premature. IMHO the less smoke and heat the better. I'd personally rather wait and see how things develop for a while. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steelpillow, please take at look at Festal82's edit history, and his repeated baseless attempts to smear my name and accuse me of being various people associated with the article (which I am plainly not). There is no doubt in my mind that this new account is the same user, and his tactics are the same. The repeated, blatant violation of WP:OUTING is surely more than enough to warrant a ban. The discussion there has not so much "ebbed and flowed"--it has simply been Festal's sockpuppets trying to give the illusion of conflict in order to push a POV that only he holds. On the other hand, I believe you will see that my own behavior here has been nothing but exemplary (and that I did not make the edits he accuses me of), and I am now fairly familiar with wiki's processes, having had to deal with Festal's devious edits for many months. It should be clear that none of the banned sock accounts have any relation to me or the neutral POV I have tried to uphold. From your comments, it worries me that some of his mudslinging is having the desired effect, so I urge you to investigate every one of his statements, and I think you will find the majority turn out to be deviously misrepresenting the facts. We all welcome your input and that of other editors on the page, but these abusive and mudslinging sockpuppets need to be clamped down on. Esmeme (talk) 11:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to reassure you, I am not looking at unsubstantiated mudslinging as anything except just that. I have seen no serious suggestion that any of the socks was you. As yet, the suspicion that ClaphamSix is a sock of Festal82 remains unconfirmed, I am just not prepared to second-guess the outcome. Hope this helps. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steelpillow, that's twice on ANI that you've made a similar statement on awaiting the SPI outcome: please don't as it's not helpful. WP:DUCK is often sufficient the panda ₯’ 09:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification Steelpillow, I appreciate your position entirely. What we can say at this stage is that the admin has stated that ClaphamSix is somebody's sock. Esmeme (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add that the user is back with more lies, bizarre WP:OUTING claims and disruptive screeds [106]. Please can someone take a look at this urgently, as the account is obscuring and severely disrupting the genuine efforts of editors there. Thanks. Esmeme (talk) 08:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please could an admin take at look at the constant WP:HARRASS and false WP:OUTING I am having to endure on Talk:Metamodernism‎. This needs to be put a stop to, as it is severely disrupting any useful discussion on the page, and is personally very unpleasant to have to constantly defend against. Esmeme (talk) 08:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming they know your IP is not outing. the panda ₯’ 00:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry DangerousPanda, but isn't it an attempt at outing in order to try to intimidate/discredit me? Making continual false claims (they clearly don't know my IP, as I live nowhere near the locations they claim I do) is surely WP:HARRASS? One day the user said they "know" I live in a tiny village in Europe, the next they say that I'm someone from LA. It's tiresome and impossible to reason with, combined with their complete lies about my edits and those of other editors, and their outright denial of the previous sockpuppetry. Esmeme (talk) 07:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I came to find out about this issue originally by looking at the history of Philippe Cousteau, Jr.'s wikipedia entry. I was referred by someone on the Wikipedia finance talk page to bring my issue here. It seems that User:UserNameUnderConstruction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)(and other names like User:ETFinvestor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)that may be sockpuppets) has only been editing pages related to Advisorshares (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (including Fund.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Philippe Cousteau, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)). All of the edits the user makes are to get rid of factual information that may reflect negatively on the company and replace it with marketing language. Other users have suspects that this and confronted the user, but the user never denies working for the company and instead tries to go after those accusing him/her and get them banned from wikipedia and asking admins to protect the pages so they can´t be edited to change the marketing language. I don't know how to track ip address on Wikipedia, so I can't tell if UserNameUnderConstruction or the users challenging him or her are sockpuppets. But it is obvious that this person has some connection to the company. The information in the links they deleted was factual and from established sources. The motivation to delete them is most surely to hide details of the company's past. My understanding of Wikipedia's rules is that company paid editors must disclose that they are editors and if they edit should give the other side of an issue and not just try to erase history. Icelandicgolfer (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A cursory search shows that this account is brand new and is possibly operated by Etfcanadian who has operated several sockpuppets to disrupt the Advisorshares and Philippe Cousteau, Jr. pages, and in particular harass UserNameUnderConstruction. SPI opened, again, but someone should close his retaliatory SPI too.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

editor at ip 50.186.0.13 continues to revert changes to an article with no reason whatsoever. I've asked for explanation, but they never respond - only revert. Diffs here. They use multiple different IPs Thebrycepeake (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have semi-protected the page for a week. If the problem resumes when the protection wears off, please list it at WP:RFPP for another round of protection. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the current AFD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Mutton, User:Barney the barney barney has been making persistent allegations that my nomination was a bad faith attempt to misrepresent the subject's notability. The article, as written, makes no claims that inherently entitle the subject to an automatic keep under WP:NPOL — his political career took place entirely at the city council level in a city which is not large enough to confer automatic notability on its city councillors. He could potentially qualify for an article which was well-sourced enough to pass WP:GNG, a point which I've made right from the start, but as written the article relies on a single source which isn't substantively about Mutton, but rather merely mentions his name in passing as a predecessor of the person the reference is actually about.

Barney's argument has been that the subject was the leader of a political party bloc on the council — however, NPOL does not accord any greater weight to that distinction than it does to "garden-variety" city councillors. Even with that claim in place, a person still has to pass GNG on the basis of coverage which is substantively about them, and is not automatically entitled to keep an article based on a single source which only contains a single mention of his name.

But instead of making any effort to improve the sourcing so that the article could potentially be kept, Barney has consistently attacked me as an individual, asserting that I'm lying about and misrepresenting the subject's notability — even though all I'm doing is looking at the notability claims and sourcing that are in the article as written, and comparing them to what WP:NPOL accepts or does not accept as sufficient notability for a politician. And when I advised him that he was pushing the WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF lines, he doubled down with an assertion that I have a longstanding pattern of "lynching" quality articles, and that he had extended me an assumption of good faith which I had betrayed with continued "lies" (including some personally directed at Barney, but I'm really struggling to identify where I've done anything of the sort.)

Accordingly, I'm asking for this situation to be reviewed, because the back and forth about it is becoming unproductive and distracting from the fundamental issue of whether the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article or not. Bearcat (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked him for the duration of the AFD (96 hours) for disruption and personal attacks the panda ₯’ 21:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This block needs reviewing by an uninvolved admin, quickly. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 00:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is that because I've now extended it and locked his talkpage for further violations of NPA while blocked? the panda ₯’ 00:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is because I believe your blocking of BBB is excessive, punitive and unwarranted. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 00:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've never issued a punitive block in my life. But hey, if you think personal attacks and disruption are ok, then go ahead the panda ₯’ 00:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Good block appropriate length, eliminates the source of disruption as it runs for the length of the AFD in question, exactly what the situation called for. Once the AFD is done, the locus of the problem goes away. Well thought out and executed. Good call. --Jayron32 05:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jayron for your review. BBB is blocked for far longer than the duration of the AfD though, and it isn't clear that you are aware of that. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 09:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The original block, for the duration of the AFD, was appropriate. The revocation of talk page access was a judgment call, although it probably should have been made by a different admin than the original blocking admin. I don't see why the block was extended, and would ask that an uninvolved admin shorten the block to the original time. The original block was needed. I don't see why an off-by-two incident (disruption of an AFD, followed by quarreling about that block) requires a two-week block. Two-week blocks are usually reserved for repeat offenders. Please consider shortening the block. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good original block. The personal attacks are tame but I suppose justify removal of talk page access, probably not what I would have done.

I think the removal of talk page access obviates the preventative nature of the block increase, thus I recommend the original duration or allow talk page access(prefer former given behavior). Both together seem excessive.

Rather than another admin do this lets give DangerousPanda time to respond. Chillum 14:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done Based on the above discussion, there appeared to be 2 themes: by extending the block AND removing talkpage access, it was less preventative. However, by retaining the original block length (for the AFD disruption) and removing talkpage access (for the continued attacks), it was acceptable prevention for both disruption and NPA. Based on this I have returned the block to its original length while retaining the lock of the talkpage. To be honest, if Roxy had approached me with this argument, rather than simply say "this needs to be reviewed" (reviewed for what purpose?) and instead of "I believe the block was punitive and unwarranted" (which block, and why?), it likely would have been amended earlier the panda ₯’ 14:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your fast and reasonable response. Chillum 14:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I first interacted with the user NorthBySouthBaranof when I began defending reliably sourced content at the article Wisconsin State Fair. Since then the author has removed several reliable sources from the article, rather than coming up with a compromise content solution in the talk page, and have began to exhibit signs of ownership over that portion of the article. Then I edited an article, that I had never edited before Cult of personality; this edit was than removed by NorthBySouthBaranof. This appears to be the early stages of WP:WIKIHOUNDING, and before it becomes serious, I ask that it stop.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]