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

Evidence: [13], [14], [15], [16], and [17]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

What's so complicated about finding secondary sources? He does not want to do it and he scorns at it. I have nothing against his religion, since I have warned someone seemingly atheist in precisely the same terms, see [18]. So, I warned a religious POV-pusher and an atheist POV-pusher, I am not biased for or against religion. If he would have chosen to obey Wikipedia policies after being warned, I would not have had anything against him. The matter has been settled once and for all by WP:RNPOV and all editors have to obey this policy. And even more the basic policies of WP:SOURCES and WP:PRIMARY, which apply to all articles. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David, the son of Yiḥye,[22]  may his name live forever

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This proposed solution does not appear to address an important issue. In the first diff cited by Tgeorgescu[19], Davidbena said "the Hebrew Bible, is an accurate historical record of events that transpired long ago." There needs to be evidence that Davidbena understands that is not a valid premise for making article content decisions in Wikipedia. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

• I'm not sure 1RR on the article is the restriction most called for here, considering that Davidbena hasn't edited Gospel of Matthew since 22 August. Since then, he has been writing on the talkpage only. Of course that's a better place for it; but the current problem is surely db's bloating-up the talkpage with repetitious, overlong, multitudinous posts and his certainty that he understands wikipedia policy better than experienced editors, assuring the people who explain policy to him that it is they who "misunderstand the rules of Wikipedia".[20] There's nothing quite like such confident wikilawyering from a new editor for wearing everybody out, especially when it's coupled with calls for special consideration for being new. Davidbena, please read WP:REHASH: "If your arguments are rejected, bring better arguments, don’t simply repeat the same ones. And most importantly, examine your argument carefully, in light of what others have said.". Some restriction regarding use of the talkpage seems to be called for here, since Davidbena has ignored sensible appeals like In ictu ocoli's "Now, please do not quote the Bible or the Talmud on this Talk page again" or "Please please please please stop posting WP:PRIMARYSOURCES". (Davidbena's response to that was "Why are you so antagonistic?") Nobody minds giving extra time to teaching newbies, but constructive, experienced editors should enjoy some protection from having their time and energy wasted on those who will not hear. I agree we can start by hoping that this ANI discussion has had a good effect, but if there's no improvement shown soon, we shouldn't wait long to institute a topic ban. In view of Davidbena's recent edit on Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews, perhaps it needs to be for more than just the Gospel of Matthew. Bishonen | talk 13:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sar-Shalom is mentioned upon [22], so I guess he is one of many authors who noticed this problem and perhaps he is not the most important. I suggest using First's book for rendering the gist of the problem. Do notice that Sar-Shalom's view isn't consensual, so all notable views have to be rendered. Rendering Sar-Shalom's view as WP:The Truth is WP:NPOV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

The point is not that you have used original research arguments in the talk page, but that you are not willing to desist from pushing the fringe view that the Hebrew Gospel of the real Matthew (if it ever existed) has anything to do with the Gospel wrongly attributed to Matthew. Besides, you cannot at the same time show acceptance of Duling as a reliable source and reject Duling as a reliable source, i.e. cherry pick one paragraph from his work which describes Papias' view and reject the next paragraph which manifestly states the scholarly consensus. The impression one gets is that you are pushing a fringe thesis based upon original research because you don't accept the rule that the scholarly consensus defines what Wikipedia considers fact. So, you seem to have a problem with a basic Wikipedia policy, you were repeatedly told that you have a problem with it, you have apologized for this, but you have then pushed again the fringe view which all other editors are fed up with. Why else debate it in the talk page? One debates issues in the talk page because one thinks his view will help improve the article. Wikipedia is not a forum for venting your disagreement with the academic consensus. Talk pages are meant for improving the articles. The other editors told you that you original research does not improve the article and whether you make such edits in the article or advocate making such edits in the talk page displays the same contempt for the scholarly consensus. Your knew that your edits were unacceptable, therefore you had no reason to believe that advocating unacceptable edits in the talk page would be in its turn acceptable. One's patience has a limit and you have repeated ad nauseam the same fringe arguments which you were told are in conflict with the basic Wikipedia policies. You were warned that your edits were tendentious so advocating intended tendentious edits was not a good idea. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The view that you wish to perpetuate is still a view that is contended by many. Not all of us here on Wiipedia see eye-to-eye on this issue. Fringe or not fringe; original text penned by Matthew or not the original text penned by Matthew - everything is still disputed by good men of good characters, and all of whom are learned men in their own right. Remember that the world can learn to live with our differences. The School of Hillel and the School of Shammai were divided about many issues, and, yet, they still got along with each other and respected each others views. My impression on the Talk:Gospel of Matthew is that there was mostly intolerance about the other guy's view, even though he cited sources (Primary or Secondary) to support his view. Bear in mind, Tgeorgescu, in REAL LIFE, "primary sources" are often more important and more reliable than "secondary sources." In Judaism, at least, it is. Davidbena (talk) 18:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't lecture me about "real life", since I don't need to be educated by you. As long as you realize that Wikipedia is Wikipedia and has its own rules, you are welcome to edit. However, I would like that you desist from advocating the use of primary sources. You have already apologized for doing it but you are unwilling to abide by your own apology. This shows that you have scorn for the rules of Wikipedia and that's why this ANI topic is necessary. As I have repeatedly told you Wikipedia is not a forum for spreading your own views. If you want to bash the academic consensus, you are unwelcome to edit Wikipedia. This you have to understand very well: as long as you insist on the use of primary sources in order to support fringe views, the topic ban is getting closer and closer. You are perfectly described by Wikipedia:Competence is required#Bias-based: being schooled in Judaism does not confer you special rights for editing Wikipedia articles, especially as you are unwilling to abide by the use of academic sources. Don't push your luck and desist forever from advocating original research inside religious-historical Wikipedia articles. It is of course my wish, but it is also the wish of the whole Wikipedia community, as formalized in policies, guidelines and essays. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Wow...I agree with Tgeorgescu on this. I've been over the week or so's worth of arguments back and forth with this user and I have to support. He either lacks competence or is editing in bad faith. ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 03:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indefinite topic ban, broadly construed per John Carter. Little investigation of the articles and their talk pages is required as evidence of unfamiliarity with Wikipedia's procedures is amply demonstrated above. Lack of familiarity is not itself a problem, but being unwilling or unable to learn is a show-stopper. The comment just above that 'in REAL LIFE, "primary sources" are often more important and more reliable than "secondary sources"' (with the implication that such should apply here) shows that an indefinite topic ban is required. Johnuniq (talk) 10:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting really tired of being insulted and defamed by this user. Every time he has a problem with anything he finds some cheap excuse to drag my name into it. Here's just the latest example [23]. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And here's another thread [24] from a week or two ago where he again dragged my name into a discussion that I had nothing whatsoever to do with. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) also see diff and diff of disruptive editing. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 00:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And here's a link to another edit I just found because it was revdeleted, (so, admins only, sorry) in which he tries to drag me into a discussion of a recent arbcom ruling that again, I had absolutely nothing to do with. He has also been involved in a thread on "that other website" where they have been badmouthing me on andf off for about six months. "Harrassment" would be the word i would use for that. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• For a long while, Wer900 has spent a disproportionate amount of their time on wikipedia casting aspersions on other editors. Away from their content edits on astronomy and the possibility of extraterrestial life, their project space contributions have been problematic. I first became aware of Wer900 when the wikipedia notification process picked up a series of disruptive edits they had made on behalf of an arbcom banned user on User talk:Viriditas.[25][26][27] Wer900 asserted that I had "taken ownership of Poland-related articles." That wholly false assertion—inaccurate enough to be called "stupid"— resulted in an ANI report just three months ago. Wer900's conduct during the Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds case gave further examples of that kind of editing, directed at other targets. Several of their contributions during the case were removed by arbitrators/clerks and they came close to being blocked. The current report concerns recent malicious and unjustified comments on Resolute. These disruptive personal attacks on others, delivered with great self-assurance and no self-doubt, happen too often. Mathsci (talk) 02:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  ROFL! Well, if it means anything Beeblebrox, I am honoured to be held in as low esteem by Wer900 as he does you. Tells me right away that I must be doing something right. Wer900 is pretty much WP:NOTHERE at this point and he's pretty much cruising to go down the same road KW did. Resolute 02:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And, the icing on the cake, that he is basically trolling Jimbo now as well. "Personal attacks or harrassment" ... where have I seen those words grouped together... some list of things... oh yes, it was standard reasons in the drop down menu for blocking a user. I don't think we need an arbitiration case here, this case is uncomplicated, and WP:HARRASS or WP:NOTHERE or WP:BATTLE would all do nicely as block rationales. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the club Beeblebrox. After I got an editor waging a vendetta kicked off the BLP of his target, he has followed me around WP for years using an alternate bad hand account to make disparaging comments about me on noticeboards, my talk page, and administrative forums. No one has done anything about it even though he hasn't been hiding what he is doing. It seems you administrator types only complain when it happens to you. When it happens to us non-admin schmucks, you could care less. Cla68 (talk) 05:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I was impressed by all the diffs, so I loaded them all into tabs and read them. The baloney is being sliced reaaal thin, so thin you could read a newspaper through it. Synopsis of diffs: using diffs of edits to the same paragraph, which turns one incident into three, using a diff where Beeblebrox insulted Wer900 first, using a diff from May (!), and using multiple diffs from the same discussion. All of these from editor talk pages, where discussion is supposed to be vigorous. No disruption to the job of building an encyclopedia. Pah. You made me look and it was stale cheese. →StaniStani  05:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edits making personal attacks on Resolute on a very public wikipedia page precipitated this report. As usual at ANI, if there is a wider picture, other users will comment. Stanistani's comments are not even vaguely helpful. That could be because he is editing on behalf of a site-banned editor.[28] Mathsci (talk) 07:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for the diffs I presented myself, they show a pattern of Wer mentioning my name in a series of discussions over the last several months. Not one of those discussions actually had anything to do with me, Wer just mentions me each time as an example of a horrible, corrupt admin. I defy anyone to say that's ok and we should just let users act like that. It's inexcusable and indefensible. We have dispute resolution processes for a reason. If he, or anyone else, wants to have a conversation about how horrible I am they are free to turn this link blue and we can have that discussion instead of just sniping at me from afar. If i am really so horrible, surely others will line up to endorse the validity of his concerns and whatever evidence he has of wrongdoing on my part. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I have no real complaint about Wer900's comments directed at me, other than to note my amusement at how he and his cohorts dish it out a hell of a lot better than they take it. But it is often true that those most willing to criticize/attack are least willing to accept criticism in return. Wer900 themselves has been in full conspiracy theory mode for some time now, and I take their commentary within that context. Which is to say, I was not aware that working away in the glamourous world of hockey player articles was "the right cabal". Resolute 14:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care about them much as individual remarks either and i doubt anyone gives Wer's conspiracy ranting about cabals much credence, but, what bothers me is the pattern of repeatedly bringing up my name in discussions that have noting whatsoever to do with me, as his go-to example of a terrible person and abusive admin. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathsci: I edit here, at this moment, on behalf of myself. I noticed Occam's post, but do not advocate on his behalf, any more than my response to him in other topics is on your behalf, you being a banned user there. Don't create bogus diffs. People might click on them. →StaniStani  19:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as bans go, my understanding is that Occam, who approached Wer900 on wikipediocracy in late May to start an RfAr about me, has not been successful in having his arbcom site-ban lifted. Stanistani is ignoring any problems with Wer900's edits. But in that case, why comment at all? Mathsci (talk) 06:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, quite recently, Wer900 made edits right here at ANI that were quite similar to those cited by Mathsci. At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive809#A new accusation, he announced that he and the currently-blocked Viriditas had determined the real-life identity of another editor, and it was oh so very bad. At Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Genetically Modified Food Controversies, it all turned out to be a lot of garbage. But I do note that Wer900 did apologize subsequently. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize unreservedly to jytdog for that incident. However, I have evidence on others, which I believe (in my best judgment, after the jytdog incident) to be unshakeably sound, including one self-identification. I digress, though; Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), you have gone beyond the pale with this. You have been hounding me for the better part of a year now, I think, if not more, and are slowly inching towards the proverbial topic-ban button for me (I think you know what I'm talking about, I don't want to bring it up here). You are following the classic AN/I-dweller's technique—posting a large number of "teh diffz" in order to "conclusively demonstrate" that I am a "disruptive" individual, all the while ignoring the context of one of my statements.

Sure, my changing of the hatnote on Jimbo's page was "disruptive". But wasn't Jimmy Wales's systematic (WARNING: SITE IZ TEH BAD) hatting and deletion of critical comments even more so, especially given that Jimbo seems to "hold court" on his talk page? Moreover, aunva6 (talk · contribs) deleted my statement against Resolute (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), which was not "disruptive", merely critical. Why was that done? If no coherent answer can be given, then I ask that that particular comment be restored to its rightful place.

I see more at work here, Beeblebrox. You are attempting to divert attention from Wikipedia's failings and channel it into cultic worship of yourself, your friends, and Jimmy Wales. If you want to take this to ArbCom for a show trial, then you will prove that that committee is nothing but the high priesthood of Wikipedia, performing sacrifice of critics and sending them to the Wikipediocracy netherworld. Wer900 • talk 04:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was tempted to reply to this, until I realized that Wer900's unadorned words were more damning to his reputation that anything I could possibly say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Wer900 has to be joking if he's hoping for this to be taken to Arbcom. There's enough here for an indefinite block without any further ado.WP:NOTHERE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I obviously agree, but in the interest of giving Wer one more chance to actually explain themselves instead of just spoutiong conspiracy theories, I wonder if he would care to comment on why he brought up my name twice in discussions of the Keifer Wolfowotz/Ironholds arbcom case and once in a discussion on Jimbo's talk page about the child protection policy? What connection is there between myself and either of those discussions? Beeblebrox (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beeblebrox (talk · contribs)—tell me what content work you have done for the encyclopedia; in your honest opinion, do you think that it is enough to qualify you for a position of power on Wikipedia? Regarding Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds, I commented on you because you were brought up as a potential party and because you are an administrator I have found, many times, to be crass, abusive, and undeserving of power, not unlike Ironholds (talk · contribs) himself. To the others, you are merely opportunists who have decided to jump on to the dogpile. Kudpung (talk · contribs), I do not wish to bring this case to the Arbitration Committee—as a word of future advice, taking the time to read a comment can lead to greater enlightenment on the issues it discusses.

    And to all, remember that my statement on Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s talk page was in response to (administrator) Resolute (talk · contribs)'s comment about "attention whores" disliking email because it does not give them the "attention hit" that they purportedly "need". Resolute's statement, like your own presentation of this AN/I, Beeblebrox, is nothing more than a perversion of the facts through the elimination of context— Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk · contribs), the clear object of Resolute's ire, used a public forum to voice his concerns about Demiurge1000 (talk · contribs) only after ArbCom tacitly made clear its laconic approach to child protection by failing to respond to his emails in any substantive fashion. Furthermore, Resolute's comment constituted blatant degradation of an individual; with that in mind, why aren't you submitting administrator Resolute to the same extraordinary tribunal you have created for an ordinary editor like me? Is Resolute beyond policy? Isn't justice supposed to be blind? Wer900 • talk 23:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • With regard to my "disruption" on Jimbo's talk page, I changed the hatnote on one of the statements in order to highlight his instinct to hide any uncomfortable comments. This is entirely incongruous with the image of a "constitutional monarch" "hold[ing] court" on his talk page. I linked a Wikipediocracy article, of my own writing, about Jimmy Wales's talk-page deletions (in the present case, of a lively, vigorous, and candid discussion), but apparently the light of truth is too bright for you. I hope that is not indeed the case. Wer900 • talk 23:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you can't even be bothered to log in anymore demonstrates (to me at least) your impatience to leave yet another TL;DR rant. You appear to possess such an antipathy for Wikipedia I suggest you go and leave your comments on your beloved Wikipediocracy because what you are doing here and over the rest of Wikipedia is purely a drain on our resources to have to read through all your screeds and personal attacks. A preventative indef block would be the best solution for Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to say something critical about Wer900's edits, but then I read this moronic statement, full of textbook smug admin bullshit, and decided that Kudpung and his ilk are probably bigger dangers to WP than Wer900. Can't do anything about it though, cloaked as he is in his admin invincibility cloak.

Wer900, stop dragging Beeblebrox's name through the mud in threads unrelated to him, or you'll be blocked. It's unfair, uncool, and unproductive. If you have a complaint, use RFC/U or ArbCom or something. Otherwise, complain about WP in general, not about one admin you're pissed at in particular. And please remember to log in, or some moron will start screaming "sockpuppet!". --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support, Floquenbeam. Regarding Beeblebrox, I'm not "dragging his name through the mud". I've taken crap from him several times in the past, and decided, by analogy, to compare him to Ironholds in the recent ArbCom case (incidentally, there was a discussion about adding Beeblebrox as a party, but that ended up in nothing). More recently, on the talk page of Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), I drew attention to his massively hypocritical User:Beeblebrox/fuck off essay, which he disingenuously tried to brush off (Canens eventually deleted the entire thread because it criticized him, too. Beeblebrox deleted his essay, though he still appears to reserve the right to tell people to fuck off).

Kudpung (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), you have no right to critique my actions. You are typical of admins, focusing only on the meta-details surrounding the post I made—the fact that I didn't log in (that was due to an incidental lack of cookies on that computer, in case you must know)—and having the audacity to state that I am WP:NOTHERETOBUILDANENCYCLOPEDIA when you yourself have only 27% of edits in article space and 19% automated edits via Huggle. Again, reading my statements and my grievances is key. It is you and your ilk who are not here to build an encyclopedia, but merely to argue, debate, and create drama. Furthermore, it is evident that you have heard nothing about loyal opposition—the (anyway moronic) assertion that Wikipedia is not a democracy does not mean that it is a dictatorship of power players. I support the aims of Wikipedia, but would like it to have nothing to do with you and your friends. Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs), you are using the same WP:ICANTHEARYOU tactics as Kudpung is using, and like him you are also feigning anger and disgust.

Floquenbeam, I suggest you get out of here. You are going to be confronted by the same persons who are confronting me, and you will systematically be mistreated and driven out of the encyclopedia you helped to build by these self-serving administrators. Wer900 • talk 01:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to do an excellent job of making yourself look foolish, in fact, ridiculous. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, in all honesty, I'm in favor of Wer900 being blocked permanently if they won't stop dragging Beeblebrox around everywhere possible. A solution might be either a Wer900 stays away from Beeblebrox in all forms, or Wer900 gets blocked. 173.55.185.222 (talk) 00:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Unsurprisingly, the answer to my direct question was more nonsense, with no supporting evidence. I don't see any reasonable way to reply to this continued defamation and harrassment other than a block of Wer, which I hope is forthcoming in the near future. Of course, if I actually was a member of an all-powerful cabal that would have happened already... Beeblebrox (talk) 01:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You are not being harassed or defamed. He brings you up because you are a high-profile admin with a reputation for being ill-tempered and domineering. Perhaps you should consider why said reputation persists and contemplate ways to improve it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how much of the the above comment was influenced by those Wikipediocracy goats. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 01:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, "goats"! Honestly, the whole "I reserve the right to say fuck off if you annoy me" thing kind of speaks for itself as to why he might have a bad reputation.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Remember that time you threatened me with a topic-ban, Beeblebrox? That also kind of speaks for itself. So does this and the "Fuck off" essay mentioned earlier. And this. And this. Wer900 • talk 03:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ahha! There it is. I was trying to figure why you had such a grudge against me, thanks for clarifying that this all goes back to that. what was the issue again? As I recall you were rapidly re-submitting proposals for some sort of formal government structure loosely based on the same seperation of powers used in the U.S. federal government, and I said if you kept doing it I would... what, uh , ask the community if it might want to topic ban you? Something like that. And.. what, you've held on to your anger over that all this time, and done research into what a jerk I am, and these links are all you've got? seriously? Well, you tried again to make this about me instead of you. Anybody convinced by those links that I am a horrible ogre and an abusive admin? Please, look at at them and behold the infernal horrors I hath wrought. It's truly terrifying. Goodbye Wer, whatever happens I don't think I shall waste my time communicating with you ever again, but it has been mildly interesting. Best of luck in your future endeavors. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, back from break and this is the first thing I see? Clearly a block would be in order on grounds of the WP: SOCKing alone, among more disturbing offenses. Before things get even uglier, I propose that Wer be blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia, per WP: TE, WP: NOTHERE and WP: IDIDNTHEARTHAT. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 01:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support As proposer. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 01:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by accused: I didn't "sock", I just forgot to log in. Nowhere in hell could my use of the IP, clearly referring to myself, have been an attempt to sway opinion unduly. I have taken ownership of the comments here under that IP, so your socking accusation is moot. Wer900 • talk 01:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clearly you can see I struck that "accusation". The other points still stand. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 01:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Der Kommisar (talk · contribs): Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has reported me for refusing to cease and desist in criticizing his demeanor as an admin. I had taken shit from him in the past, and then transformed that experience into analogies in the Ironholds case and later ones, using comparison. Beeblebrox, the abusive administrator, was used merely as an example of an administrator who had special power and protection.
        • While you're at it, why don't you just name him as a member of the Illuminati, an agente of the CIA, and the leader of the Mafia. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 05:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose as silly and excessive.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Wer900's latest rant above (in response to Floquenbeam), in which it's pretty clear Wer900 doesn't understand (or refuses to understand) why their behaviour is problematic. The WP: IDIDNTHEARTHAT is strong in this one. For what it's worth, I don't consider the IP edits to be socking, as it doesn't appear to be an attempt to imitate another user. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I believe this fracas has gone on long enough, after reading more data regarding the incidents. 173.55.185.222 (talk) 03:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

**Whoever you are, why is it that your sole two edits are to this AN/I? That *totally doesn't* look suspicious. Wer900 • talk 03:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The guy who keeps complaining that there are different rules for different users wants to discount someone's opinion because they are an IP from Verizon and probably get automatically assigned a new IP every time they log in. Nothing ironic there... Beeblebrox (talk) 03:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's three edits, and my (now three) sole edits are to AN/I because that Is all I have to say. I speak when I wish to speak, I wished to speak at this AN/I. Once what I wish to speak is spoken, I shall be silent. Simple logic. 173.55.185.222 (talk) 04:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment rescinded.

• Obvious support per WP:NOTHERE. Wer's comments are being stage-managed for him by other users at an offsite forum, and he still comes across like an angry, unreasonable troll who seems completely unwilling to even consider the possibility that it was not appropriate to harrass me in the manner he has been. If I were the only target of this nonsense I (and maybe the community) might not care all that much but pretty much all he does is deliberately agitate other users, up to and including Jimbo. This is simply not the correct approach to trying to actually solve a perceived problem, on Wikipedia or anywhere else. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • So a police officer gets to act like a juror? What is this madness? You make further disingenuous statements; my comments are not being "stage-managed" at all; other users saw my case and commented of their own accord, at least as much of their own decision as Kudpung's and Beyond my Ken's decisions to go against me. Is any criticism now considered "harassment"? Has the doctrine of loyal opposition been revoked? I would like to work with you productively, but your demeanor on this forum has not been conducive to that at all. Wer900 • talk 03:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec with below) You need to get over your terrible analogies. I am neither a police officer nor a juror, merely a member of this community who is being harassed.. by you. You get all on your high horse about my "fuck off" essay, when you are acting far more nasty and out of line than someone who just feels like sometimes, when someone is being a persistent, deliberate, pain in the ass, it is ok to tell them to fuck off. I don't know why I am even replying to you as it is obvious you are determined to stay the course, which suits me fine because, as others have noted, every time you speak you make yourself look worse, not me. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Beebs, stop claiming harassment and go learn the meaning of the term. You are insulting actual victims of harassment by continuing to count yourself among them. Some random person on the Internet mentioning your behavior several times as an example of the problems with this site is not harassment.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - When an editor under sanction consideration has significant contributions to the project, it's always a balancing act to decide if the degree of disruption is worth the improvement to the encyclopedia. In this case, Wer900's POV regarding Wikipedia is so clearly off the deep end, that the degree of disruption we've seen to this moment (which is not insignificant) is obviously only a tiny harbinger of what will come. Given this, it's not worthwhile to allow him to continue editing, as he is a net-negative right now, and will only get worse. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all due respect, Beyond My Ken, this is not the House Un-American Activities Committee. My membership at Wikipediocracy does not indicate any particular viewpoint on Wikipedia; our members run the gamut from Arbitrators to Gregory Kohs. As for me, I support Wikipedia and its goal of bringing free knowledge to the world, but do not believe that the separate-but-equal system enshrined here is beneficial for it or any of its members, and only find it to be helpful for a small group of power users. I have put up examples of Beeblebrox's abuse; this is a directory to yet more examples of his failings. I tried to refrain from posting too many diffs in order to reach concord with Beeblebrox, but if he wants to rub salt into old wounds, then I must do that.

    Moreover, why hasn't a tribunal of this sort been set up for Resolute (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)? His comment about "attention whores" is merely the tip of the iceberg of his incivility. If you want to try me here, then you must try Resolute. Heck, why don't you try Jimmy Wales for a blatant misrepresentation of his "open door" policy that I pointed out earlier? Is he now above policy too?

    I came here to write about astrophysics and astrobiology, and found the governance of this site lacking. I made some comments and proposals here and there about it, but you have decided to drag me into the depths of Wikipedia drama. If you don't want me to be "harassing" you, then stop bringing me into frivolous cases like this one. Wer900 • talk 04:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Wer900, I have only ever read one article on Wikipediocracy, and it wasn't by you, so I don't know what you're on about with that remark. My conclusions about your behavior and attitude are fueled entirely by your behavior right here on Wikipedia, and what I see is not "respect" for the project, but complete disdain for everything except your own very warped POV about it. (And, BTW, I'm not "feigning" my opinions, which you accused me of above, I honestly think that you are a danger to the project and should be indef blocked.) That's the last response I'll make to anything you post here, so please enjoy your free bite of the apple: make it good and cranky, please, so it'll be obvious to even more people why we don't need you here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support some type of block or sanction until Wer900 develops a modicum of WP:CLUE and shows some recognition of the problems he has been causing. His project space/public pronouncements are out of control at the moment. One editor removed his hatting and attacks on Resolute and Beeblebrox on User talk:Jimbo Wales. Before that, AGK removed Wer900's finding about Flutternutter and Ironholds from the workshop page of the Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds arbcom case. It is this kind of highly inflammatory stirring, usually irrelevant and often offensive and highly inappropriate, that is the problem. His content contributions to astronomy and extraterrestial life-forms (a topic not in urgent need of editors) do not outweigh this disruption. Mathsci (talk) 05:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Pretty clearly yet another attempt to sacrifice a victim for a bountiful corn harvest. What ever happened to the good old fashioned interaction ban? The topic ban? Nope, straight to crazy-eyed lynch mob howling for blood... Glorious. This is a productive editor (astronomy) who has dipped his toe in the drama tank rather too frequently in the past month. Measured response, please. Carrite (talk) 06:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interaction ban with who? Beeblebrox? Jimbo? Resolute? Kupdung? All admins except the chosen few? The "cabal"? Anyone he decides is against him or whose "governance" of Wikipedia is lacking? Topic ban from what? Jimbo's talk page? All talk pages? Wikipedia space? Everything except astronomy and exobiology? Practical solutions, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See below. Jimmy Wales can take care of his own page. Carrite (talk) 06:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Unless Wer900 were to repeatedly present false evidence at AN, AN/I (or ArbCom but then ArbCom can handle that themselves). Quite a few editors (including myself) have experienced far worse things than what Beeblebrox is experiencing and when that happened were told that we should just get used to it. This despite that this typically did have consequences (like being blocked because of false rumors or otherwise restricted). In this case, given the balance of power, whatever Wer900 is saying can be ignored by Beeblebrox. He just has to say once that Wer900 is talking nonsense and he doesn't have to bother anymore. Count Iblis (talk) 15:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Complaints should be brought to the appropriate venue. This isn't a complaint, this is a campaign of harassment. Gamaliel (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Not close to being necessary, at least yet. Also, going from a clean block log to an indefinite block is a pretty drastic escalation. However, Wer900 does need to calm down. If he continues like this he might soon merit a short block, like 24 hours, for disruptive editing or personal attacks. Cardamon (talk) 19:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of a block is to prevent disruption. If a user refuses to acknowledge that there are problems with their behavior, which you seem to concede is the case, a 24 hour block is only going to prevent that behavior for 24 hours. An indef block does not mean blocked forever, just until such time as they can manage to own up to their own problems and give some indication of how they would prevent similar issues in the future. Escalating blocks are appropriate for other issues such as edit warring, but I don't think they are the right remedy for a problem like this. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this approach is that it leads to crazy situations. E.g. You asked Coren to block me because of a dispute about a proposal which is now an essay. Just because I didn't see things your way, you called that continued disruption and you asked for intervention. Count Iblis (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Sure Wer900 can be a bit strident, and he tends to stay focused on a perceived imperfection a bit too long, but looking at the parade of personalities on this very page, I'm not convinced he's any more block-worthy than the rest of us. Wer900, lay off mentioning Beeblebrox. Holster your towel. Relax and have a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster. For the rest of youse: If Wer900 is blocked over apparently being a misguided crusader, it won't look good that some of the case (see above) is cooked up from low-quality evidence. →StaniStani  02:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  As Newyorkbrad pointed out,[29] this edit of Wer900[30] criticized Timotheus Canens' arbcom voting using the language of racial segregation. Without evidence, Wer900 also accused Timotheus Canens of operating meatpuppets to rig arbcom elections. Those kinds of statement are unacceptable. Warped or evasive arguments will not alter that. Harassment and bullying (including outing or threats of outing) might be part of the ethos of wikipediocracy, but please, Stanistani, don't try to import it over here on wikipedia. There is no need for references to crusaders/martyrs/whistleblowers, when this is just a question of trolling edits. The diffs of Wer900's edits speak for themselves: they cannot be dismissed as "low-quality evidence". Mathsci (talk) 06:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  While I do think that Wer900 has gone a bit overboard with some of these accusation, ArbCom and some Admins have in the past engaged in underhand dealings. It's a bit similar to e.g. the US making accusations about Iran's nuclear program, this is also not all supported by evidence. But then according to the US, Iran cannot be trusted because of its past behavior leading to Iran not getting the benefit of the doubt. ArbCom and some high profile Admins who have been involved in AE will similarly not always get the benefit of the doubt from all editors here because of a similar cloud hanging over this system. Count Iblis (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd just like to note that it is the last holiday weekend of the summer season here in the states and it may be easier to see a consensus one way or the other once it is over. And on that note I am opening a delicious bottle of locally-made mead and checking out for a day or two. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• support, but perhaps an indef is a bit extreme. I say a month to a year, and then let WP:noose handle the rest. per WP:TE, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:Harassment, and WP:BATTLE . the user has had several troublesome iteraction issues previouslly. however, NOTHERE doesn't appear to me to apply to this. wer has made quite a few good contributions to articles, from waht I can see of his contribs. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 07:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC) indef after all, indelfinite isn't permanent, just undefined. the standard offer and noose cover unblocks well. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 18:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing is, an indef block doesn't necessarily have to be for even as long as a month or a year. I think that Wer900 just needs to get hold of himself, calm down, and gain a little perspective of how he's been behaving. Once that happens, and he can say to the community "I shouldn't have done that, and I'll try my best not to do it again" he can be unblocked -- and how long that takes is totally up to him. It could take a week or less, or a month or something in between - that's the beauty of the indef block, it allows for a response to the specific situation, and doesn't set a hard and fast totally artificial number. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know and I know and we all know that indefs of perceived "enemies of the people" (vragi naroda, a Stalinist term) are permanent. Once indef blocked there will be a ready chorus to keep blocked, and that's the way that story ends. No, not quite. What this does in the long run is create embittered "to the death" style warriors out of disaffected, sometimes-productive editors. Some of the inner core of The Site That Can Not Be Mentioned have received just this sort of treatment. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. Of course, the drama fans on both sides love this because it assures perpetual new chapters in the soap opera so they can play instead of working on an encyclopedia... Carrite (talk) 00:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your lack of AGF is ... astounding, and the assumptions you are making about editors' motivations show a disconcertingly battlegroundish orientation. Not everything is about Wikipediocracy, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - for some sort of limited block or ban, pretty much per MathSci. The behavior of this editor is clearly problematic and unacceptable. But we have a history of being a bit lenient on such matters, whether I really like that or not. Should the problematic conduct continue after the block ends, of course, then sterner steps, probably including at least consideration of a site ban, would be reasonable and called for. John Carter (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - There doesn't seem to be enough evidence, some of the evidence is speculation, from the earliest accusations there were clearly two or three people involved with personal attacks, there is evidence of warlike behaviour from some accusers and there is evidence of possible long term history between the users. If anything, all three of them are guilty. The accuser, the accused and the "witness" who bared testimony. Greengrounds (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Cardamon and Stanistani. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 02:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As per ~  TUXLIE  11:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per Carrite and others. Frankly I find the whole rush to silence any discussion of issues with Wikipedia disturbing. Very disturbing. Intothatdarkness 14:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If all Wer was doing was discussing general issues with WP we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. What he is doing is repeatedly insulting specific users in multiple threads without actually attempting to resolve whatever issues he has with them. Not the same thing at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's your view, of course, which is fine. I see it somewhat differently, hence my oppose. Intothatdarkness 15:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So picking another user and deciding to mention their name in every discussion of what is wrong with Wikipedia without ever attempting to actually address the perceived problem directly is how we are going to do things now? You wouldn't mind if every time a disruptive editor was under discussion I chimed in with "that remonds me of Intothatdarkness, another useless user who needs to just leave"? That would seem ok to you? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My governance models, and now my membership and work for Wikipediocracy, are meant to "actually address the perceived problem directly"; don't accuse me of not doing that. And frankly, Beebs, I wouldn't care if I was spoken about negatively a few times here and there—for all I know, Teh IRC™ hates me with a vengeance. What I really don't like is the numerous false accusations put out by your side on this AN/I; you know what you've done. Wer900 • talk 03:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain more carefully what your "work for Wikipediocracy" entails? How exactly does editing in project space on behalf of site-banned editors like Captain Occam figure in your plans? It is you that are offending others by unjustified finger-pointing, not the other way round. Mathsci (talk) 07:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as unnecessary, especially now that an involved party undid a close by an uninvolved party; shameless. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I closed the above discussion as no consensus; despite the fact that there had not been a new supporter of the block in nearly 3 days, Mathsci, having already expressed support for the proposed block, reverted the close stating premature conclusion. Monty₈₄₅ 14:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a private request to arbitrators to clarify the claim of Wer900 on-wiki and Captain Occam off-wiki that AGK gave permission to Wer900 to initiate an arbcom case on behalf of Captain Occam. I understand that this is being discussed at the moment. My feeling is that Wer900 has been misled and lacks the experience to see matters clearly. I was and still am ambivalent about an indefinite block, since my view is that Wer900's edits at the moment seem to be confused. In the circumstances, it does no harm to wait for informal clarification from arbitrators. Mathsci (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Close by non-involved admin restored. NE Ent 01:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• NE Ent attempted to close the above discussion. NE Ent, however, is involved and has a serious conflict of interest regarding WP:ARBR&I-related processes. Earlier in the year he acted on multiple occasions as apologist for the disruption-only account Akuri (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). NE Ent did this pesistently when it was clear that there were problems with IP hopping before the account Akuri was registered. (There were two range blocks by Future Perfect at Sunrise and Timotheus Canens.) After a while, it became clear that that account's only purpose was to continue a campaign of disruption through arbcom processes, indistinguishable from that of Captain Occam. The account was blocked indefinitely by arbitrators with user talk page access revoked. In this case Captain Occam actively lobbied Wer900 concerning his campaign and is doing so now. Please could NE Ent not intervene in what are very similar circumatances, while a response is being awaited from arbitrators? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 02:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do us all a favor and let it go. Carrite (talk) 05:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since an arbitrator is apparently consulting arbcom over whether Wer900 was given permission to start an arbcom case on Captain Occam's behalf (an unbelievable claim), it seems sensible to wait for a response, rather than stifling discussion. Most wikipedians had the good fortune not to be dragged into an endless chain of meritless arbcom requests in the second half of 2012: most of them could be traced back to Captain Occam. So this is a good opportunity to nip things in the bud.

Concerning the original complaint of Beeblebrox, I agree that there is consensus neither for an indefinite block nor for a one-way IBAN + stern warning. (Personally at this point I think a very stern warning might be all that is needed.) The previous section can be archived; but this subthread should be left open. Mathsci (talk) 14:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mathsci, there's no consensus, and there's never going to be. Personally, I don't think Wer900 is being constructive at all, with their constant on-wiki abuse (they've got WO to vent, after all, so there's no need to constantly do so on-wiki) but I've refrained from voting as I don't know what the best solution would be. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, those who keep reverting the close also seem to be involved. That smacks of "keep it open until we get the result we want." That's not a constructive solution, either. Intothatdarkness 13:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wer900 is hereby warned in no uncertain terms that the community's patience is wearing very thin and that future accusatory disruption or battleground behavior is apt to be dealt with harshly. In addition, User:Wer900 is hereby subjected to an interaction ban with User:Beeblebrox: he is not to refer to Beeblebrox directly or indirectly in any thread on Wikipedia, to respond to comments made by Bebblebrox in any thread on Wikipedia, to communicate with Beeblebrox directly or indirectly on Wikipedia or by email, or to link to off-Wiki comments about Beeblebrox made by Wer900 or any other person. Violation of this unidirectional interaction ban shall bring a block of no less than 30 days. Carrite (talk) 06:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - As proposer. Carrite (talk) 06:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  What about Kudpung and Resolute? What about Timotheus Canens? Wer900 made a prolonged and unprovoked attack on him.[31] These are problems Wer900 has with mutliple users, many of them administrators. Your solution does not address these problems. Mathsci (talk) 07:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it you read it again slowly, it does address these things. Carrite (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Wer900 does not seem to have acknowledged that there are problems. So your proposal—a warning and a one-way IBAN with one particular administrator—does not seem to go far enough. Perhaps he might develop a little more self-awareness: that would certainly change things. Mathsci (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No real need to include me I was offended neither by his comments on Jimbo's talk page, nor by his obsession with me here. Though I did find it amusing that I kept getting pinged in this thread by him when I had long since moved on and was, you know, writing articles. Resolute 20:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If i thought an interaction ban would solve anything I would support it. And perhaps it would solve the problem with Wer harassing me, but in order to make it broad enough to stop all his unacceptable behaviors he would pretty much have to be banned from doing anything besides editing articles as everything else he does is disruptive. Of course I also strongly object to the proposer's comments in the above section, this is not a crazy-eyed lynch mob looking for a victim, Wer brought this upon himself entirely through his own actions. Only he has the capacity to demonstrate that he has some modicum of self control and can attempt to resolve whatever disputes he may feel he has in a more acceptable manner and he has shown absolutely no indication that he even believes there is a problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are not being harassed. Bringing you up a few times as an example of an admin who can be seriously uncivil without consequences as contrasted with regular editors who are dealt with harshly for even minor acts of incivility is not harassment.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Try to look at it from the recieving end. Let's say every week or so when you logged in you got an echo notification saying I mentioned you somewhere. Curious, you click on it only to discover that in the middle of a discussion of an issue in which you have zero involvement or interest there is a comment from me saying "TDA is the perfect example of a terrible contributor to Wikipedia and he should just leave." You might ignore that if it only happened once, but what if it was happening about once a week, yet I was not pursuing any sort of direct conversation with you or trying to engage in dispute resolution, just bringing you up once in a while to let everyone know that I think you are an asshole. (I don't think that actually, but just for purposes of this discussion let's say that's what it is) How would you feel? Remember now, you are not involved in these discussions. You are not even aware of them. Your name has not previously come up. We are not currently engaged in any sort of dispute or other discussion whatsoever. I did not invite you to participate, you just get an echo notification letting you know I am insulting you without provocation again. How would you feel? Like I was trying to solve a problem, or like I just wanted to let everyone, including you, get a once-a-week reminder that I think you are an asshole? That my friend, is indeed harassment. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually it is not. Even if the complaints were not legitimate as they are here, someone talking shit about you every now and then to other people is not the same as harassment. You are cheapening the meaning of the term "harassment" by using it to describe this situation.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We believe in escalating blocks at Wikipedia, do we not? Carrite (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After writing that I checked. Wer has a completely clean block log. Carrite (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Gamaliel (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sufficient per my comments above, and per Mathsci's comment in this section. When a single user has consistent difficulties interacting civilly with multiple editors, an I-Ban concerning only one of those editors is logically not the best response, as it only addresses one portion of the problem, and, further, assumes that the interaction problems are mutual and not originating primarily from one side. Wer900's comments in this very report are more than enough to establish that he is the locus of the problem, and therefore the solution needs to be more general, and focused on that user only. I might support a "reverse topic ban" which restricts Wer900 to editing only in the astronomy and exobiology areas, since his disruption to the project seems to be occurring only on talk pages and in Wikipedia space, but that's as far as I'm willing to go away from an indef block, so my !vote in the section above stands for the moment, and I favor an indef block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support broad IBAN: Support unidirectional interaction ban in interacting with Beeblebrox, Jimbo Wales, Resolute, Kudpung, Beyond my Ken. Or at least a strongly worded suggestion that he ceases to engage them. For reasons of WP:ROPE this effort seems prudent rather than a straight out block. I would suggest that if a further unidirectional interaction ban is required at some future time that it would indicate that it is time to cut our losses. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such a unidirectional ban would merely allow these editors to continue to torment me in the same way that I have (purportedly) "harassed" Beeblebrox. All editors involved in this dispute should be placed under a mutual probation, whereby their interactions are monitored by an outside administrator. As for the citation of the essay "Give 'em enough rope", are you serious? You have no right to embellish its citation to make it look like policy, because it is an essay and especially because one of the primary writers is none other than Beeblebrox himself.

    In response to Beeblebrox's comment on my evidence—I do not hold a "grudge" against you. I am not following the usual psychology of AN/I dwellers. More than once have I seen your gross incompetence with the tools, and hence I have identified you several times as an example of a bad administrator.

    On my "obsession with Resolute", why is the AN/I madhouse not submitting him to a show trial for his not-so-veiled branding of Kiefer.Wolfowitz as an "attention whore", while I am receiving one for comments in response? Why does an administrator party to the dispute get special treatment?

    There isn't much more I have to say. Wer900 • talk 19:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • I see no need for Wer900 to have a unidirectional interaction ban in regard to myself. I cannot recall ever interacting with him in the past, and the give and take in this discussion is hardly sufficient to justify an i-ban. I continue to see the value in an indef block of his account, until he learns that framing discussions with other editors in terms of "show trials" and throwing around phrases like "gross incompetency" while simultaneously refusing to use the mechanism we have in place to address such alleged behaviorial problems (i.e. RFC/U and then ArbCom) is disruptive and not condoned here. His argument that his harrassment of Beeblebrox (yes, TDA, "harrassment" is indeed the correct word, stop being so unnecessarily pedantic) should be answered by a "probation" of everyone who has called him on his behavior is totally ridiculous, and a pretty good indication that W900 has absolutely no perspective on what he is doing. Such perspective can frequently be regained through an enforced time-out, which is why an indef block (which can be as short as it takes for W900 to regain his equilibrium) is the best option here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing pedantic about it. You have no understanding of "harassment" if you think someone saying bad things about another person behind the person's back is harassment. When the girls at the salon gossip about Miss Susan and her promiscuous ways, they are not harassing her any more than any person talking shit behind your back is harassing you. This is just another instance of a long line of controlling egocentric personalities on Wikipedia feeling that any repeated criticism of them is harassment and said personalities tend to be the most malicious harassers in the bunch.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Interesting, Wer900. Given it was the anon IP that I was calling an attention whore, should I take your statement as an admission that it was KW evading his ban? Resolute 02:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • You know the broader context in which your comment was made, Resolute; yours was a thinly veiled attack against Kiefer.Wolfowitz, even if the anon was not Kiefer. Nobody thinks that your comment was not directed toward the most recently banned prominent child-protection whistleblower. Your ridiculous assertion that the anon is Kiefer is truly Kafkaesque™. Wer900 • talk 16:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • These statements about Resolute are not based on evidence (one edit about an anonymous IP posting on a highly visited WP page). Nobody has so far agreed with your hunches, which are just prejudiced personal attacks. An RfAr is certainly not the way forward.[32] Mathsci (talk) 02:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • The arbcom banned user Captain Occam has given Wer900 more advice over on wikipediocracy.[33] As Wer900 disclosed on-wiki, Captain Occam asked him in May 2013 to start an RfAr about me. Since 2010 Captain Occam has engaged in editing through others to continue a campaign of harassment, which included his request to Wer900 and later included outing. Captain Occam has now suggested that an RfAr is advisable to handle Beeblebrox and "the other problematic users who are involved" ... There are no prizes for guessing what that might mean. It is a much better idea for Wer900 to follow Carrite's advice and to ignore Captain Occam and his enablers. Mathsci (talk) 07:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC) As predicted Captain Occam has now suggested that Wer900 should start an arbcom case with me as a party.[34] Occam writes, " you and I both know that ArbCom (and more specifically AGK) has given you explicit permission to do that, and permission to do it on my behalf." Occam's going cranky in his old age. Mathsci (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, since you claim to know what everyone else is thinking, I'm not certain what you need the rest of us for. You seem happier having conversations with yourself anyway. Resolute 14:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose one, it's double jeopardy. Original motion likely opposed. 2, if he was in fact guilty, he should have had the original punishment. 3 If he's not guilty he's not guilty and there should be no reprimand. There were other people here that were attacking users battleground mentality allows us to pick favourites and eliminate editors we don't like. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Recommend mediation.Greengrounds (talk) 02:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sadly, there is no "mediation" procedure. It's not "double jeopardy," it's an alternative proposal. Nobody questions that Wer has been over the line, the question is whether he will wake up and what should be done about it if he doesn't... Carrite (talk) 02:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose  TUXLIE  11:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wer9000 is formally warned to "comment on content, not on the contributor". Any complaints or negative remarks aimed at another editor's motives, qualities, or behavior are to be limited to the following two types of venue: formal Wikipedia dispute resolution venues (but only when that editor is the subject of discussion); and/or direct dialogue with the other editor initiated at that editor's talk page (but only so long as that editor is willing to continue dialogue). Wer9000 is also prohibited from casting aspersions on any group of Wikipedia editors, whether or not any individual editors are identifiable members of the group. An uninvolved administrator may block Wer9000 without further warning for violations of this restriction.

• Support as proposer. Allows Wer9000 to continue constructive editing and to seek actual resolution of concerns with other editors' behavior; but addresses the concerns expressed above by other editors, and has broader effect than interaction bans with individual editors might. Note: "may" in last sentence of proposal is deliberate; borderline remarks might merit a warning/clarification by an admin rather than a block, so I wanted to leave room for discretion. alanyst 16:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I regret feeling the need to come here re a user,Greengrounds, who has in the last couple of days, turned his attention to various articles on Jesus and has made it quite clear in numerous talk page postings that he is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but to fight for the truth. He started off by altering the lead of Historicity of Jesus, [35], and when this was reverted he reverted it straight back again with no discussion. He has appeared on the talkpage of the user who did that asking him if he does not realise that the source for information about Jesus, the Bible, says "he flew in the air like a zombie spaghetti monster" [36]. He removed a whole properly sourced section of the article "Historicity of Jesus" because he didn't like the subject header, with no discussion on the talk page [37]. He changed the opening sentence of the second paragraph of the lead of Historicity of Jesus, a sentence that has been arrived at after years of discussion from "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed" to "Apart from fundamentalist Christians, all experts agree the Jesus of the Bible is buried in myth and legend", [38],ignoring an edit notice requesting that changes not be made to the lead without discussion on the talkpage and consensus achieved first. He insists on inserting a tendentious and ungrammatical section at the beginning of the article - Ehrman lays out a the framework that historians can only establish what probably,and that miracles by their very nature are the least likely explanation for what happened [39] explaining that miracles cannot happen when the article does not discuss miracles. Just in the last few minutes, he reverted another article Christ Myth Theory,to a version from some time ago, with the edit summary "reverted to older version before apologists erased the whole article. It is for showing the theories, not for showing mainstream scholarly opinion" [40] undoing the entire, painstaking, excellent revision of the article undertaken only a few days ago by User PiCo and has slapped neutrality tags all over both articles. There is much, much more, I will supply further diffs if requested, this is only a little taste of his activities altering articles over the last two days. On talk pages, he has repeatedly made it clear that he is on a mission to proclaim the truth that the Bible states that Jesus was a "flying space zombie" [41], an expression he is very fond of and uses over and over, and accuses any one who challenges him about anything of being a Christian apologist [42]. Once again, this is a mere sampling of his talk page activities and he has made it quite clear that he is only just beginning [43] [44]. I have tried to staunch the flow of his frenzied tendentious editing of these articles to some extent but have not got the time or energy to keep doing it, something needs to be done to put at least a temporary halt, or slowing down, of this, it is turning these articles into disaster areas. I am not necessarily requesting blocks or bans right now, I would at least like an admin to explain WP policies and guidelines to him (I assume it is a him) and I feel we need to undo the damage he has done to these articles and prevent any more.Smeat75 (talk) 04:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Smeat, you do not regret coming here to plaster me. This is not the first time you have done this to an editor you don't get along with.Greengrounds (talk) 11:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The wiki on the christ myth theory was decimated by Pico, a move he did right befre he ritired that user name. sMeat has undone my previous edits on that article where I restored some of the 60,000 letters pico erased without discussion. So I restored to an edit from before retired user Pico erased most of the article. The material removed by pico and smeat (by way of her own reversions) was well referenced and remvoed without discussion or good reason.

The lead on wiki on the historicity of jesus was not changed in a way that changed the citation, but was a citation from the same author which presents the undisputable fact (amongst scholarly historians) that jesus life is infact enshrouded by myth. No historian beleives the resurrection actually took place, and that is why it was worth mentioning. To my own credit I have made some bad edits that have been reverted with good reason, and those I left alone. But please while your looking at my edits, please look at Smeat's edits as well. Since her own style of bullying and POV pushing is quite evident in her lack of gathering consensus or using the talk page, and right down to this very article she brought up here. She is not getting her way, and she's mad. That's all this is. Please see the talk page on Historicity of Jesus you will see how I have been engaging and discussing with other users, some of them agree with me, and there has already been posts on that page pertaining to the POV. I discussed the NPOV tags before I put them in. See this post on the talk page: Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#Obnoxiously_point_of_view. Smeat had many opportunity to object, and as you can see, I am not the one who started the discussion, nor am I the only one who has an issue with the article as is. Also, this user Smeat seems out to get me. She has already started grievances with other senior editors. Seems more like the behavour of someone who is mad because there are people on Wikipedia who have different evidence to present than what she is used to seeing. But every edit I have made has been from scholarly peer reviewed sources, sources already being used and accepted by smeat with no problem... that is, until she doesn't like what they have to say. Other than the one edit on Tacitus, which smeat was actually right about, and I backed off on that one. As you can see, I am not being unreasonable, it is just a case where one user is being a squeaky wheel trying to save face and get her way. --Greengrounds (talk) 05:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the further information of administrators, Editor Greengrounds entered similar conflicts with longstanding editors in relation to Religious views of Adolf Hitler and to a lesser extent Catholic Church and Nazi Germany a few months ago, leading to this request for comment by User:Hcc01. Ozhistory (talk) 05:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Since her own style of bullying and POV pushing is quite evident in her lack of gathering consensus or using the talk page"[45][46][47] Talk pages where I have had many discussion with Greengrounds over the last two days.Smeat75 (talk) 05:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Greengrounds is actually an anti-religious POV pusher. I think he is merely trying to counter what he perceives as bias, not trying to impose his own view on others. And though he makes some good points, he is making them badly and ignoring normal Wikipedia procedures and guidelines. That does qualify his edits as disruptive and it needs to stop. I think a warning and an offer of coaching would be appropriate. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GG said, I thought that was common knowledge. Well it is, but not amongst Wikipedia's christian apologetics community. I'd say that rather than being anti-religious, he would seem to be more anti-Christian. That's my $0.02. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are preposterous accusations to make against Smeat75. We need as a community to find a better way to deal with these kinds of situations before they become cesspools that drain time and energy. Greengrounds may or may not have the capacity to contribute constructively, but the first step would be to willingly stop crusading and proceed with more encyclopedic detachment. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Cynwolfe. Some of Greengrounds edits are proper, correct, and needed. I've personnally seen many edits (and he and I seem to follow the same Christian Wiki pages) that I agreed with a thought "now why didn't I see that..."

That being said, his actions and words all speak to having a huge axe to grind against some editors (I specifically remember him calling out PiCo as a problem which I thought was laughable considering I always saw him as a middle of the road voice for reason) and against Christianity in general. He does this by sometimes wholesale changes and then challenges all desenters as "Christian Apologists". At the very least he needs to tone down his clear bias & non-NPOV against Christianity and instead focus on gaining concensus for his revisions. Because right now there is NONE - he comes in, ticks everyone off, and then claims to be the injured party on Talk. You don't get anything done that way. Another point is that Smeat75 only captured a few of the pages this is simultaneously happening on - there are others with Miracles of Jesus & Tacitus on Christ‎ being just two of them. Ckruschke (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

His conduct certainly indicates some serious problems being able to contribute in a non-disruptive way. I'm not sure I would necessarily support an edit restriction yet, neither am I sure I would oppose it. But at the very least I believe an extremely strong warning is called for. The recent, rather ridiculous, claims against PiCo, one of the few editors I personally trust to deal with contentious material regarding Christianity, speaks volumes to me about Greengrounds' possible very problematic views, and his ability to conduct himself in accord with policies and guidelines. John Carter (talk) 22:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A fairly unimportant point about the thread title - there was already a thread "Religious POV-pusher engaged in disruptive edits" so rather than trying to think up a section header I just put "Anti-" in front of that one.I don't know if he is really anti-religious, I do know that he is not editing from a neutral point of view and is causing disruption, and as Ckruschke says, to more articles than I mentioned in my first post here, I did not want to produce a wall of text.17:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I had already warned him once and the second time told him to read the ANI notice about User:Davidbena, saying that if he does not take heed from it I will begin an ANI notice as "Atheistic POV-pusher engaged in disruptive edits". User:Greengrounds and User:Davidbena are mirror images of each other, one thinks that the Bible is totally worthless and the other thinks the Bible is infallible and they both push such POVs. User:Davidbena said he understood that his behavior was problematic, and I hope he tries to better his ways. If we get User:Greengrounds to admit that much, it would be a progress. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Watching the debates with User:Greengrounds has become hilarious. He displays the sort of nonchalance like that displayed by William Foster from Falling Down who only when getting close to his demise is considering the possibility that he was the bad guy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Topic ban. Without prejudice to any issues that may have been raised here about Smeat75 I suggest a topic ban for Greengrounds to start with Religious views of Adolf Hitler, Catholic Church and Nazi Germany, Historicity of Jesus and their talk pages. Your inability to respond in a rational manner on this subject indicates your own clear bias, and the manner in which Greengrounds frequently expresses himself is a clear indication of carrying on ideological battles (a policy) and an inability to attempt to work together in the spirit of a collaborative environment. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Um, the quote you linked to is from me, not him. John Carter (talk) 01:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know. Sorry if it wasn't clear - must have been an error in my punctuation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support; I think a topic ban on the above listed articles is Religious views of Adolf Hitler, Catholic Church and Nazi Germany, Historicity of Jesus is more than justified, though Greengrounds has also been actively seeking to revise Jesus, Historical Jesus, Miracles of Jesus, and Christ myth theory among others. As other editors have said across different talk pages, not every point Greengrounds raises is invalid, but the frantic rate of his interventions is not conducive to good editing, and the disrespect he is showing to multiple editors, and disregard for multiple wikipedia policies is highly disruptive.Ozhistory (talk) 06:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now, I think a stern warning, preferably combined with an offer of coaching, should be given first. The warning should spell out that the next step would indeed be a topic ban. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, what was irrational about providing a Bart Ehrman reference saying that historians don't actually think the resurrection of Jesus happened? That is as rational of a response to support a claim as I could get, no? Ehrman is an expert, a scholar and is already being used widely to set the tone of the article which states a quote from ehrman that All scholars of antiquity think jesus existed. The other half of that statement really is that no scholars of antiquity think jesus was resurrected from the dead. So who is exhibiting the POV bias here? Is me or you and the two or three other editors that seem to have a problem? Secondly, two users have already come out saying that I am not POV pushing. I have modified my behaviour already in regards to using people's talk pages the wrong way. Just because I think that Jesus is no more than a mortal man, and I'm trying to introduce scholarly opinion (which overwhelmingly supports this.)into the articles which reflects this. It seems to me there are only two or three people (smeat being the main one) who are taking Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and who are undoing people's edits without using the talk page. Smeat has been involved in getting other users banned who disagree with her, on the same articles, and she undoes their edits without using the talk page just putting in the comments undoing so and so's "disruptive edits" here's an example of her past behaviour with other editors:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus&diff=569079678&oldid=569036514

Here are some examples of her comments: Greengrounds, you are making very contentious changes, it is unacceptable to say "the Jesus of the Bible is buried in myth and legend", that is totally non neutral POV and is not supported by the sources cited. You ignored the edit notice that comes up whenever anyone tries to alter that section,which is not to say that no one must ever alter it, but it does need to be discussed on this talk page and consensus arrived at first. I have changed it back to a neutral statement (which was arrived at after years of discussion).Smeat75 (talk)

The reference she is referring to is one supported by Ehrman, and the citation showed this. This is Ehrman's opinion, the same guy who's opinion is being used to say "all scholars agree jesus existed". Her exception to this comment is because of her own Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. From a neutral, secular, non christian POV Jesus' life is buried in myth in legend. This is the view supported by mainstream scholarly opinion from a historical view. The view that jesus is not surrounded in myth, is the view of fundamentalist Christians, is encyclopedic, and is NON NEUTRAL POV pushing. Greengrounds (talk) 04:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I did not mean "it is unacceptable to say "the Jesus of the Bible is buried in myth and legend" in conversation, or in other "real life" context, or on wikipedia as a direct quote, but that it was unacceptable for the article to say that instead of what Greengrounds changed it from - altering "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed" to "Apart from fundamentalist Christians, all experts agree the Jesus of the Bible is buried in myth and legend", [48], with no discussion first, when an edit notice actually appears whenever anyone starts to edit that sentence specifically asking any change to it to be discussed on the talk page first.Smeat75 (talk) 13:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must clarify and apologise to a certain extent as I see that he did not delete "virtually all modern scholars agree that Jesus existed", he added the "buried in myth and legend" sentence before that one but the sources cited still do not say "buried in myth and legend".Smeat75 (talk) 13:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out here, but I was not aware of, Greengrounds has been engaged in very combative conflicts with editors on other pages, including Religious views of Adolf Hitler, where another editor left this comment back in May : "perhaps you should steer clear from articles which touch on religion. Your hatred of Christians is palpable, and bringing out your animosity towards any religious group is not appropriate here. Assigning your opponents to that religious group is also not appropriate."[49]Smeat75 (talk) 04:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greengrounds is now attempting to portray Smeat75 as a "lone ranger" objecting to his behaviour. This not the case, and though I am not overly familiar with Smeat75's record, he/she deserves to be defended against this false portrayal. Far from Smeat and "one or two others" complaining, I personally have never seen such a storm of editors challenging one editor's behaviour across multiple articles in such a small space of time. Greengrounds ran a similar "persecution" line of defence when challenged by multiple users for his interventions on Religious views of Adolf Hitler, where he started an edit war in April (wanting to lead that article with "Adolf Hitler was devout Catholic") and was soon after warned by user:Deadbeef: "stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Religious views of Adolf Hitler. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Deadbeef (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)" As editor User:Hcc01 submitted in his Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Greengrounds of 1 June "Greengrounds' entire talk page is awash with attempts to resolve" disputes. That comment still holds - only more so. Ozhistory (talk) 06:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, but he began to hatch down another decent article, see [50] and [51], the later edit with the preposterous reason that reliable sources are not allowed to do OR:Synthesis. I think the world has been warned enough about religious fundamentalism, now we should consider warning it of atheistic fundamentalism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, rather than slowing down his hectic pace of contentious changes to a whole range of articles, Greengrounds is expanding to new articles, including Josephus on Jesus where he has said on the talk page that he wants to remove any material cited to any theologian because theology is Pseudo-scholarship[52]. Greengrounds has already received a warning from an admin, now I think some intervention by an admin is needed, so as others above have called for a topic ban, I support a topic ban for Greengrounds to cover Christianity, broadly construed. If there is not consensus for that, I think he should be blocked for twenty-four or forty-eight hours to prevent further disruption to a whole range of articles and see if he can return in a more collaborative frame of mind.Smeat75 (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have to agree with Smeat75 - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greengrounds, moving on to Historicity of Jesus with the demand that anything sourced to a theologian must be removed [53] "We can't use John Painter as a source here. He is a theologian not a historian" and deleting material from the article Relationship between religion and science for no other reason than that it quotes an archbishop [54], edit summary "removed soap boxing statement by Habgood. This is not a place for preaching. Habgood should be removed entirely. He's an archbishop, not a scholar". I note that on this thread there has not been a single comment from any editor except Greengrounds attempting to defend his edits or behaviour and three editors,including me, have supported Kudpung, an admin I believe, in calling for a topic ban. Time for action in my opinion, what's the point of not dealing with this disruption and letting it continue?Smeat75 (talk) 03:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ozhistory is guilty of Wikipedia:Harassment#wikihounding. He has followed me from another dispute. He follows me from talk page to talk page, denouncing my edits, good faith and ethics and posts links to this board He has also been guilty of Wikipedia:Edit warring in the past, as witnessed by User:Deadbeef and is not a good member of Wikipedia he has also been accused of Christian POV pushing. User:Smeat75 has a history of bringing other non religious editors to trial here on this noticeboard. She is warlike in her reverts, comments and talk page contributions. To a lesser extent than Ozhistory, she has been guilty of wikipedia:harassment#wikihounding having followed me to more than one talk page and posting links to this board. Not only that, user:Smeat75 is guilty of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles with a small group of others especially on JesusHistorical JesusHistoricity of JesusChrist myth theory. Just my two bits on them. And for my part, I am not a revert king or queen like others, I make my edits, provide sourcing and reasons, and use the talk pages. I do not personally attack users, though I have been guilty of it twice. Since this post was made about me, I have not had any complaints other than from Ozhistory who has been wikihounding me. It't time for you to take this down and everyone go about their Wikipedia editing. Use those talk pages, people. And "Reverted disruptive edit by greengrounds won't cut it." And Smeat's and others getting offended because I don't hold the never take thy lord's name in vain stuff literally has nothing to do with Wiki policy. It has more to do with Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEYOU

And you know what else, I'm a NEUTRAL POV PUSHER, not an Atheist POV pusher. If I see something that is non-neutral POV, like so many religious articles are, I will flag it, and I will make edits to try and fix it. AFIK that's what NPOV tags are for.Greengrounds (talk) 11:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I honestly don't think anyone other than you would come to the same conclusion. Your previous comments indicate a rather amusing statement that because students of early Christianity are often Christian, that they can't be counted as neutral reliable sources, I am aware of no policy or guideline which supports such a contention. John Carter (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[User:Smeat75]] has a history of bringing other non religious editors to trial here on this noticeboard. This is the first AN/I discussion I have ever initiated though I have participated others.Smeat75 (talk) 11:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greengrounds above says I have "been guilty of Wikipedia:Edit warring". The solitary occasion where I was linked to an edit war in four years was over Greedngrounds attempt to rewrite the Religious views of Adolf Hitler page to describe Adolf Hitler as a "devout Catholic" and delete extensive sourced material, leading to this request for comment by another user. His statement above that I have been accused of Christian POV presumably again refers to his own interactions with me, where he has called me a "Christian apologist" (but then this is an accusation he has directed against most every editor involved in the above discussion). His claim that he has "not had any complaints other than from Ozhistory" is bizarre in light of the lengthy dissertations from multiple editors above and on every talk page on which he has been active over the last week. A quick viewing oh his talk page reveals that user:John Carter; user: Tgeorgescu and user:Smeat75 have all complained directly to him since 29 August. This is not to begin to count those who have complained above, or complained on the talk pages of the articles he is attempting to re-write. His accusation that I have been "wikihounding" him apparently refers to my participation on this thread, and advice to the editors at Talk:Relationship between religion and science that this thread existed, following contentious edits by him on that page. Ozhistory (talk) 12:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I note that this thread has already had two !votes for and 1 !vote against a topic ban. If there is an intention of using this thread to discuss such issues, I think creating a separate subsection to specifically deal with it is probably a good idea. John Carter (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ozhistory (talk) Funny you should bring up the Hitler article, the one that you had rewritten so that the opening line is "Hitler was an Atheist". But your wikihounding is a little more rampant than you'd care to show, isn't it? And your previous edit warring, justify it however you want, but It is still edit warring, and an admin did warn you about it, remember? He warned both of us.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Relationship_between_religion_and_science&diff=prev&oldid=571040206 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Relationship_between_religion_and_science&diff=prev&oldid=571026956 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus&diff=prev&oldid=570470133

wikipedia:harassment#wikihounding Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors,CHECK and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contributeCHECK, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their workCHECK. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor.Only for virtuos reasons, not to annoy or distress, right? Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.CheckGreengrounds (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC) Martijn Meijering (talk) I'd be open to coaching if you know someone or have your own regimenGreengrounds (talk) 00:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(e-c with Martijn Meijering) Please read WP:HA#NOT, as well. It is generally considered acceptable, and in some cases even encouraged, for one editor who sees a consistent pattern of misconduct in a group of articles they watch to see if the same problematic conduct is exhibited elsewhere. While, to the editor engaging in the problematic edits that might appear to be harassing, WP:AGF also has to be considered. Basically, Greengrounds, for the almost paranoic insinuation you give above, and I quote, "Only for virtuos reasons, not to annoy or distress, right? it would be more or less incumbent of you to present some real evidence, which you have to date not presented. That being the case, the comment above could perhaps reasonably be seen as being itself a form of personal attack as per WP:NPA, and it really does not help your case in any way for you to engage in such unsupported insinuations or attacks. John Carter (talk) 00:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to return to a comment Cynwolfe made earlier in this thread - "We need as a community to find a better way to deal with these kinds of situations before they become cesspools that drain time and energy." Somebody who goes barging into several different pages almost simultaneously proclaiming that the Bible says Jesus was a zombie spaghetti monster [[55] or became a space zombie [56] and whose response to anyone who challenges him about anything is "let me guess, you're a Christian, right?"[57] is clearly, clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. It is so juvenile, so presumptuous, is it any wonder that serious actual scholars do not spend their time on wikipedia, who wants to deal with that sort of childishness all the time? User History 2007 and User PiCo, invaluable editors in this area, recently both retired for the specific reason, so I am told,[58], that they got fed up with constant POV pushers. This is a terrible loss to the project. The procedures you have to go through to try to do something about these kinds of editors are time consuming, drag out for weeks or months or years, and wear patience to the bone. I don't see any reason why it should be tolerated at all past one warning, which Greengrounds has already had.Smeat75 ( talk) 00:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you John Carter. Greengrounds is in breach of multiple policies. Greengrounds has repeatedly attacked me personally for challenging his contentious edits, and you have correctly identified his accusation against myself and two other editors of wikipedia as a personal attack per WP:HA#NOT. I propose to list a few of the worst examples of Greengrounds' breaches below, and if other editors could add to the list with edits they have noted so that we have a maximum clarity and evidence, and then return then place there comments on the proposed topic ban against Greengrounds in the next subsection. The following list is not exhaustive. Please expand as appropriate (but keep it brief and support with link):

Personal attacks

• Calling an editor 'truly retarded' @19:10, 22 April 2013 for querying an edit
• He received an admin warning and ban threat for personal attacks [[59]] @ 21:22, 22 April 2013.
• But a month later he called an editor a [Holocaust Denier] because the editor requested that he provide "good sources that have survived peer review". This one may well take the cake: " If you can't handle reality (which you can't if you deny the Christian link to the killing of 6 million Jews), then of course you will be offended when reality bites you in the butt. You go around acting like a hypocrite, from time to time you will get called one." @ 09:29, 29 May 2013
• [60]]
• [[61]]
• Another admin warning 29 August [62]
• Left an edit summary calling me "lazy and disruptive" [63]5 September 2013
• He keeps calling me "meat" - see edit summaries [64],[65], just two examples, he does it all the time, even though I pointed out to him days ago that my user name is not meat [66], a trivial point, but I believe he does it to be insulting.Smeat75 (talk) 03:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use of unreliable sources

• see here
• here.

Breaking up comments on talk pages (ie an action that could be considered vandalism

• here

Deletion of reliably sourced content

• [[67]]
• [[68]
• [[69]
• [[70]]

NPOV

• Greengrounds is embarking on a campaign to remove any material in two different articles sourced to a book published by an academic press, "Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition", published by University of South Carolina, by NT scholar and theologian John Painter because, Greengrounds says, theologians are liars [71] -" Theologians are good at "Painting portraits" of lies, myths, misconceptions, and forgeries in scripture. That's where their use is done." - an argument about on the same level as the Bible says that Jesus was a "zombie spaghetti monster." He hasn't made any changes to the article texts yet, to give him credit, he does appear to be discussing proposed contentious changes on talk pages first, but his bias and pov could not be more obvious.Smeat75 (talk) 12:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I realised that what I said about Greengrounds not removing material based on Painter from articles is not true, he did just that on the Historicity of Jesus article [72] with the edit summary "Removed "John Painter" references. A theologian is not a historian please see Wikipedia FRINGE sourcing" but it was restored by other editors (not me). Smeat75 (talk) 12:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • • Four editors have told him on the talk page of the Josephus on Jesus article [73] that there is no reason to remove material sourced to the theologian John Painter, just for the reason that Painter is a theologian, but he has just once again removed material from the article sourced to Painter [74] with an edit summary "Removed Painter on "what Josephus meant" Painter is not qualified to make that assessment' and left a comment on the talk page rejecting what four editors said -"Actually, I think I was right the first time. He really adds nothing to the article, and as for what I said that he can be used to compare historicity of Jesus to bible gibberish may be true, but it adds nothing to the analysis of historicity."[75] It is really contemptuous of other editors and WP policy.Smeat75 (talk) 02:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • So I put back the material Greengrounds deleted from Josephus on Jesus, and of course, he just took it straight out again, with further ravings on the talk page about how theologians are only qualified to discuss "zombies, apocalypses, winged angels, demons, monsters" .[76]WP guidelines say not to edit war but seek consensus on the talk page, what are you supposed to do in a case like this where rational discussion is impossible? I wish I didn't think it was important, but Josephus on Jesus is a crucial subject for study of historical Jesus, and wikipedia comes up first on most searches for information, unfortunately (I am starting to think).Smeat75 (talk) 05:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the entire content of an article

Greengrounds tonight removed the entire content of an article, references and all, and blanked the whole page except for the sentence "Removed article. See Wikipedia Policies on Sourcing. A German website is not proper sourcing. Also please see Wikipedia policy on Notability. An obscure christian group is not notable." [77]Smeat75 (talk) 05:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment of editors, deletion of articles and general disruption

Greengrounds has now become a wikihound: see here. Surely, in view of his long record, this is a final straw?

Presumably because of my involvement on this wikithread, and under the misapprehension that I had written them all, Greengrounds is attempting to delete a series of articles related to Christian resistance to Nazi Germany: German Catholics’ Peace Association‎ (which also appears on the German and French wikis, but which Greenground completely deleted without any discussion - a move which was fortunately reverted by Admin user:Wtmitchell); Max Josef Metzger (an article which has existed since 2007 and appears on 4 other language wikis); Gabriel Piguet (3 other languages); Johannes Prassek (also appearing in 3 other languages); Gerhard Hirschfelder‎ (4 other languages); and Giuseppe Girotti (3 other languages). These are mostly start class or early stage articles needing further improvement. Apparently unaware of its meaning, Greengrounds has also repeatedly deleted the clearly defined honorific term "The Blessed" from these articles on the basis that it is Weaslewording!

He also appears to think the style "the venerable" is "weasel wording" and removed it from the article on Girotti.[78] I noticed a query on the talk page of Saint Sebastian "Do athletes really regularly carry his relics?...I think the word relic is being misued in the article."[79] referring to an unsourced statement in the lead of the article that athletes "often wear Sebastian's relics", so I removed it, but Greengrounds put it back in, I am sure only because it was me who had amended the lead, with the edit summary "Undid disruptive edit by Smeat75 (talk) easily varifiable uncited material need not be deleted. Try helping. Find a source. It was soooo easy" [80]. I am not sure if he really does not know what the terms "relics", "the Blessed" and "the Venerable" mean, or if he is just undoing edits ozhistory and I have made out of a battleground mentality.Smeat75 (talk) 12:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please vote here so that we can all keep track of the state of play. Please be brief.

Hmm, the people taking part in discussion here are the same people as on the Talk pages of the articles in question. I don't know what the rules say, but it doesn't seem right that we should have a vote of just involved editors. Maybe the involved editors (myself included) shouldn't even be voting at all. Martijn Meijering (talk) 08:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the MO of wiki article owners, and it is the reason that WIKI is loosing editors en masse. A little group doesn't like what I'm doing, and since I have been able to get consensus for my propositions, (which they write off as fringe editors of they don't value their opinions because it's a new editor), and their attempts at blocking all of my edits have been unsuccessful, since as I said I have been able to get some consensus. There are 1800 Watchers of the jesus pagewatcher, 228 wathers of "historical Jesus, and 311 watchers, the list goes on and this small group is offended because they can't get consensus to block all of my edits, so they'd rather try and slander and ban users. This is the behaviour that makes Wikipedia lose editors, and turns Wikipedia into a battleground. "If you don't agree with us, we'll kick you out, we won't allow you to edit, and if you take the lord's name in vain, this is heresy and you will be apostatized."Greengrounds (talk) 01:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is meaningless to suggest that the number of people watching an article equates to a number of editors with a particular bias. There are 1,114 people watching the Cat article too. What motive are you assigning to them? Many editors use the setting to automatically add a page to their watch list whenever they edit a page, without necessarily having any intention of ever actually returning to edit the page. The claim that Wikipedia is 'losing editors en masse', or that they are doing so for the reason you've suggested, is also unfounded.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty straightforward that if thousands of people are watching an article and an editor is making edits, and only two or three people are having issues, that those two or three people don't necessarily reflect the majority view of the watchers.Greengrounds (talk) 02:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban

• Support Kudpung
• Support Ozhistory
• Support Smeat75
• Support Ret.Prof
• Support Bill the Cat 7

• Oppose for now, I think a stern warning, preferably combined with an offer of coaching, should be given first. The warning should spell out that the next step would indeed be a topic ban. Martijn Meijering
• Oppose agree with what Martijn Meijering says and more generally, in my experience, anyone who tries to contest a strong pro-Christian pov on articles gets a rough time - ozhistory slagged me off as a negative editor and told a friend he/she would support 'any action' to get me banned or blocked for ages, - I don't think greengrounds methods or arguments are always sound by any means , but then who is without sin. Cerainly not Ozhistory imo. Sayerslle (talk) 14:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The source says he flew in the sky like a zombie spaghetti monster"[81]- this is your idea of contesting a strong Christian pov? Accept that the Bible says Jesus "became a space zombie", or you must be a Christian pov pusher, it is ridiculous.Smeat75 (talk) 16:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well said Smeat75. As to what Sayerslle says of me, the precise quote from me to user:Integrityandhonesty was that Sayerslle was: "generally not constructive. I will support any further action by way of referring him to administrators, as it is clear from his talk page that he is a serial offender, who has been banned often." So the accusation that I said I would support "any action to get him banned or blocked for ages" is quite inaccurate. But this is a digression. Ozhistory (talk) 00:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see why you'd try and smear another user because of his talk page. I guess that's why you really see the importance of keeping your talk page clean by Removing ADMIN warnings from your own talk page. Anyone can edit their talk page, but it's really un-wiki like. Remember when we agreed not to edit the lead, but you went ahead and did it anyway? Your holier than thou attitude is not appropriate.Greengrounds (talk) 01:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Greengrounds, you are making more false allegations and topping these off with further personal attack! Disgraceful conduct. Firstly: " Remember when we agreed not to edit the lead, but you went ahead and did it anyway". No such agreement was reached, proof of this is confirmed by admin Deadbeef's explanation at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard of [6 June 2013], wherein he says: "I attempted to mediate this issue myself by crafting a draft... However, it was never fully agreed upon...". I demand an apology and retraction. Furthermore, you again insinuate that I have been involved in more than one edit war, when in fact there was only one - and that was over your conduct on Religious views of Adolf Hitler. Finally - you are again responding to questioning of your conduct with a personal attack: "Your holier than thou attitude is not appropriate". At which point in this process will you modify your behaviour?" Editors please note, despite the good efforts here to encourage him to modify his behaviour, this editor continues to employ personal attack. Ozhistory (talk) 02:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ozhistory, you erased your history of edit warring with me from your talk page, and then accused another user for having too many complaints on his talk page. As for me apologizing to you... here goes. I'm sorry that you don't understand that when an admin writes a paragraph and says if you disagree with this, please speak up about it. And then I said no, I agree it's good. And you said nothing. And then continued to edit the lead unilaterally without discussion on the talk page. I'm sorry that you don't get what's wrong with all of that.Greengrounds (talk) 02:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I am completely uninvolved, not a Christian, and agree this user has a serious problem playing well with others. Ultra Venia (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose From what I've seen of him he is open to reasoning and sources when approached in discussion. I think he should perhaps be reminded not to break WP:POINT, to stick to reliable sources and not to describe editors (or the rest of the world) as divided into "pro" and "anti" religion, but give a nuanced and fair descrition of the relation between science and religion. I think he is able to follow that if given a chance.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose pretty much as per Martijn Meijering above, particularly if he shows a willingness to take part in coaching, and maybe told rather clearly to tone down the rhetoric a little. The topic of "science and religion" is a pretty complex one, with, if I remember right, a two volume encyclopedia about it, and several journals. If we had someone willing to work on developing content related to this topic, and this editor seems to maybe be interested in that broad field, I could see him becoming a very valuable editor. John Carter (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Carter, could you clarify, are you opposing a topic ban for Greengrounds on any topic, or just on Science and Religion?Smeat75 (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the proposed topic ban on religion, while noting that, as Manus said above, he may be particularly useful in the field of science and religion, which is honestly, hard to differentiate clearly from the broader religion field. But, like I implied, if he doesn't take part in coaching, or tone down the rhetoric, I think there is a very real chance he will be back shortly, and I am far from convinced that I would not be less lenient then. John Carter (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support it unless User:Greengrounds apologizes for his behavior and abides by his apology. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I've been slowly working through copyediting one of the affected articles (Historicity of Jesus), and observed a degree of 'pro-Christian' bias in the article content. Articles such as these benefit from having editors with varying views. However, Greengrounds should tone down some of his comments that are needlessly offensive, and also needs to keep within the scope of individual articles rather than trying to make broader points.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diversity of views is not an excuse for disruptive editing. The needlessly offensive comments are the issue here. Martijn Meijering (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support echo Martijn Meijering's thoughts. Considering all but one of his edits have been in the past 4 months and more than half were made in the last 10 days, seems to me he has a serious axe to grind which is "brand new" to him or something else is going on. Ckruschke (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]
• Support. Greengrounds seems to think that anyone who disagrees with him does so on religious grounds--what else is "If you don't agree with us, we'll kick you out, we won't allow you to edit, and if you take the lord's name in vain, this is heresy and you will be apostatized." supposed to mean? (And why is that in quotes, anyway--who's he quoting?) That attitude is bad for talk page dynamics. But this anti-religious attitude extends to sources, also--on Talk:Josephus on Jesus, Greengrounds is arguing that one of the sources needs to be removed from the article on the grounds that the author is a theologian, so he can't be an authority on history (although first Greengrounds said that theology is pseudoscholarship). Of course, one thing that theologians do is study the history of religions, so it's entirely appropriate, and indeed necessary, to use them as sources in articles on religious history. So my suggestion is that Greengrounds avoid editing articles about Christianity until he gets a better grasp of how Wikipedia works, and until he has better familiarity with academic work on the topics he's interested in. --Akhilleus (talk) 10:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support; had been going to support this or similar a few days ago, but maybe thought it might be a bit much, but now i have to, if based on nothing other than today's disruptive editing. This is a collaborative project; an editor more interested in being insulting and childish than cooperative needs some help, and staying away from this particular area may help him learn. We can but hope. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 10:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I have to agree with Ahkilleus's assessment above. Either G lacks the competence to weigh sources, or G is pushing a POV. If there's another explanation, I'm open to hearing it, but even after the concerns raised on this page, today G has called Smeat75 a "lazy, disruptive editor"[82] and "Meat"[83] [84](edit summary and post, so not a typo). I consider that level of deliberate incivility worth a short-term block. Editors who want to give G other options should point to diffs where G has given any indication that a second chance would be used constructively: I certainly don't find that in the shrieking about apostasy at the top of this section, the obsession with characterizing other editors' motives, the choice of a narrow set of articles to edit, the desire to arbitrarily exclude the views of scholars who meet RS standards, and the agenda of debunking (neutrality is not achieved through a cacophony of POVs). All together, it quacks like a personal truth quest. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I know, we're tired of reading these. However, over the past two days Tony has not only edited another user's talk page comments (diff), which fortunately he has not repeated, but implicitly accused editors who disagree with him with be racists (i.e. personal attacks). He uses the term five times in describing a proposed closure with which he disagrees, implying that the editor who formulated the suggested closure (Cdtew) is racist. One of the most telling quotes from this is

"Item 1 of the above closure goes way beyond any non-racist interpretation "Should this project's criteria (and the eligibility of articles for those criteria) be determined by community consensus or by an elected project director?" Yes there is consensus not to have the director determine the criteria, but how racist do you have to be to say that means there is consensus that the director/leader will be relieved of all other responsibilities.

When challenged to support his PAs with diffs, his reply was "Racism in this case is like pornography. I know it when I see it.", with a lengthy diatribe against the proposed closure which seems to imply other editors are likewise racists: "They have cleverly waited until after the traffic from the less involved participants has died down before making their outlandish suggestions." When given a final warning, his reply was "I don't know what else to call it. I could say that everybody is playing dumb if you want". Though Tony may be right that the proposed closure is irregular, he has yet to provide any support for his claims that the opposition he faces is racism.

Could we please have a non-involved admin deal out the necessary reprimanding? I'm too involved with the WP:FOUR issues to do any blocking or otherwise use the admin tools. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who said this "Though Tony may be right that the proposed closure is irregular"?---TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That was me. Don't split up my post. Irregular here should be read as "not according to current consensus on the process", not as "there is ill-dealings going on", and "may" is "perhaps". You raise a fairly decent point, but immediately render it moot by playing the race card. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me or does Tony appear to have a complete lack of clue as to the use of the term "racist"? I remember a thread some years ago where Tony made the same accusations of racism again using his complete misinterpretation of the word. However, when challenged on it, he'd obfuscate as to his definition of it thus leaving participants unwilling/unable to sanction him for what is a personal attack in every way, shape or form. Quite frankly, regardless of his interpretation, the litany of racism accusations should be grounds for a block of some sort. Blackmane (talk) 09:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Crisco, like I said. You can read the RFC, it asks two questions. You want to expand it to grant you permission to change the administration of WP:FOUR around in all other ways. It was an RFC about one element of my claimed director role and you want to use it to usurp all other roles. You have been playing games for a month trying all kinds of administrative actions to put pressure on me for this and that. You have failed at several MFDs and now you have baited me into actions at the current RFC by pretending not to understand what it was about and pretending not to know what an appropriate close is based on the questions put up for discussion. If you act as a racist, I will call you one whether I can prove it or not. No amount of reprimanding will ever silence this portion of my personality. Stop pretending not to know how to read in an attempt to bait my into another ANI.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

?!? How in the world is he acting as a racist? Please, illuminate us to your thought process here. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, you need to define your meaning of "racist". Are you saying that Crisco is making some sort of biased judgement against based on your ethnicity? Blackmane (talk) 09:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm assuming that's what he means. Odd, being called a racist after all the articles I've written on non-white subjects (significantly more than articles I've written on white subjects). Seriously, is that not a blatant enough PA for Tony to be blocked to calm down? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Racism isn't limited to "non-whites".--v/r - TP 12:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm - I have seen some stupidity over at WP:FOUR but this just has to be by far the most stupid remark from TTT that I have EVER seen! They seem to be trying to play EVERY card and cling to EVERY straw to stay in "power" as director of WP:FOUR but it's just not working. If anyone wants to revive a topic ban discussion then go right ahead... I just looked in the mirror and my face is probably going to bruise! PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 09:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who acknowledged that the suggested close at FOUR was irregular?---TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who keeps on trying to FORCE editors to stick to a "my way or the highway" mentality? PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 10:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PantherLeapord, here is something for you to think about: Who has done more to maintain the Four Award? You or Tony? I'm guessing it is Tony. That leads me to another question: Why did you take it upon yourself to rip the project away from the user who has done so much of the maintenance work there? AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 17:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's a question for you, AS. What's with assuming bad faith? Panther and Cdtew only began to be involved with the discussion after Tony's last trip to ANI, and neither seem to be specifically targetting Tony. They want to reach a community consensus, as required by policy, and not have any individual with ownership issues abuse other editors for sport. I don't think either have a personal grudge against Tony, and if (for instance) I were in Tony's position and acting as Tony has acted they would still act the same. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here I am, waking up and reading the news and Wikipedia, and I find that I've been accused five times of being a racist. I'm not quite sure where the accusation stems from (unless "self-appointed Four Award director" is a race, in which case I suppose I'm guilty). TTT, I don't know if you're white, black, asian, Native American, Pacific Islander, hispanic, time lord, Dalek, dog, cat, or a who from Whoville. Nothing that's I'm aware of wold even suggest to me what your race is. I have never made a single comment that casts aspersions on anyone due to their race, and I am personally deeply offended at your accusation. It appears to me that you are yet again resorting to senseless distractions because you're clearly losing the RfC. I ask an Administrator to take some form of action against Toney because I simply won't stand him slandering my name further. (FYI, I warned him about altering my comments on his talk several days ago). This occurred thereafter. Cdtew (talk) 11:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me also add, I was a completely uninvolved editor until I (perhaps stupidly) tried to come up with what I thought was a common sense resolution. I've never had more than a sentence of interaction with TTT before this, and have never made a personal attack on him. In fact, I've defended him from personal attacks! . Cdtew (talk) 12:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I second the request to have sanctions brought against Tony for this series of egregious personal attacks. I do not take false accusations of racism lightly, and view it as no less a personal attack than any of the words filtered on most talk boards. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• When I read the latest changes on the RFC myself, I wondered what to do about it. I agree TTT is completely overboard with his accusations. He is also stonewalling the discussion about closing the RFC. Tony is absolutely welcome to hold any position in any RFC. But vehemently opposing any close that does not agree with his reading is crossing the line. I support a topic ban for editing anything related to the FOUR award for at least the duration of the current AfC. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support topic ban for FOUR award. Last time I argued that TTT should be given a third chance despite his previous block for edit-warring and then his massive canvassing and accusations of bad-faith. Only days ago after he tried to ping me back into the discussion, I urged him again to disengage for a while. It seems clear at this point, though, that he's either unwilling or unable to behave himself in basic ways, and is going to continue to keep finding new ways to cause drama the situation until banned from the page. There was no reason for a user page icon to turn into WWIII; we need to start de-escalating. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Disruptive behaviour / personal attacks by TTT again, throwing around the word "racist" completely inappropriately, as he did in June 2012, which led to a block for 48 hours. AN link, TTT talk page link. Instead of backing down when the matter is brought to ANI, TTT keeps going: "If you act as a racist, I will call you one whether I can prove it or not." This is well over the line and I am blocking TTT for a further 48 hours. Bencherlite^Talk 12:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse block I was actually about to do it myself, but indefinite. I would have blocked TTT until he either identified which remarks were racist, what his definition of racism is, or retracted the remarks.--v/r - TP 12:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse block I've been thinking about indefinitely blocking Tony too. I'd support the block being extended if no progress is made in resolving this clusterfuck in the next 48 hours. The behaviour over WP:FOUR is getting to the stage where it's going to deter editors from creating content if they feel they're going to be dragged into messy drama about awards when they're quite content editing, making good content and avoiding the usual drama areas (i.e here). Nick (talk) 12:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Observation – the only reason I know TTT's race is because Crisco has chosen to nominate for deletion a page about Tony in his user space whilst also in conflict with him at WT:FOUR. Tony's racism comments were over the top and likely reflect that he has been subject to racism offline, but I think Crisco has contributed to Tony feeling that he is being attacked. Tony has been treated badly in the FOUR discussion, which does not excuse or justify his comments, but it does explain his frustration. Maybe some genuinely unbiased and dispassionate eyes on the FOUR discussion might lead to some of Tony's valid points being recognised and separated from the unreasonable posts. EdChem (talk) 13:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• @EdChem: First, the racism comment was directed at me. Second -- "some genuinely unbiased and dispassionate eyes on the FOUR discussion" -- begs that you review my contributions to the discussion, which I believe were entirely fair and neutral. I've never had a cross word with Tony or Crisco, and Tony awarded me the Four Award for Fort Dobbs (North Carolina), while I've had limited interaction with Crisco, but all very positive (off the top of my head) -- so I thought highly of both prior hereto. I called out other users for attacking Tony, I recognized that he was right about the first proposal and my first alternate proposal being a little off-base (hence the striking-through), and then I get my comments edited and called a racist. That sort of capricious nonsensical battleground behavior is why Tony has no excuse for what he's done, regardless of his race, color, creed, or gender. Cdtew (talk) 13:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• @Cdtew:: I have no reason to believe anyone has actually been racist, Tony's claim in that regard was over the top and I will not attempt to justify or excuse his actions. Your contribution has been much better than most and I was not seeking to criticise you. Unfortunately, most contributors have declined to recognise the validity of anything Tony has written, which has not helped to produce a reasonable outcome. EdChem (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• @EdChem:: I had no knowledge of Tony's race until I stumbled across that user page (after looking through his user space, piqued by his comments about racism), and the MFD came not long after that for reasons that I've outlined there. I think Cdtew has been dispassionate here — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• @Crisco 1492:: I have no reason to believe anyone has actually been racist, Tony's claim in that regard was over the top, unjustified and more than a little bizarre. Your decision to nominate his userspace page was unwise given the surrounding conflict and I am disappointed that you did not recognise it as likely to be provocative. As far as dispassionate goes, I've watched the debate at WT:FOUR since before I was invited by Tony to participate and I think your "side" has behaved poorly and not taken on board some of Tony's reasonable points. EdChem (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• @EdChem:: Re: MFD: Perhaps, but I was concerned that if I let it be I would forget (I'm somewhat notorious for that). Re: Behaviour: I was not speaking about any "side", and admit that there were transgressions on both "sides". I was saying that Cdtew has been acting quite dispassionately. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Crisco: I maintain that your decision to nominate was poor, having come after the racism accusation just makes it worse. Regarding behaviour, I did not refer to Cdtew, I referred to you - and your actions have not seemed dispassionate to me, they have seemed partisan and TTT is far from the only one who looks bad. TTT has acted foolishly and made an unjustifed accusation and deserves sanction, but it is sad to see that his actions are concealing from notice the poor behaviour of others. EdChem (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support block - I also note from his block log and talk page this isn't the first time, he has been blocked previously for making accusations of racism against other users and warned a few times. If he isn't learning this lesson then perhaps we should consider longer than a 48 hour block. Canterbury Tail talk 13:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Block for quite a while This isn't the first time I've seen TonytheTiger here. Y'all need to be thwapping him for flagrant WP:CIVIL violations too; falsely accusing users of racism is something that needs to be seriously discouraged. Jtrainor (talk) 13:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of racism don't need to be discouraged, they need to be treated much more seriously; especially by those making the accusations. When accusations are flagerantly thrown around, it desensitizes us to real racism. Discouraging it is an effect of that desensitization and the effect of discouraging it will be that legitimate cases will go unheard. We need to step up our responsibility to both be non-discriminatory and treat racism very seriously. Those making the accusations need to realize how serious the accusation is and provide serious evidence so those of us reviewing the accusations can also treat it seriously.--v/r - TP 13:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI: He was blocked about an hour ago for 48 hours by User: Bencherlite. Rgrds. --64.85.215.190 (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Up block to a week 48hrs for the first block makes sense, a repeat of the same behaviour should be met with the obvioius escalation. Thanks to Bencherlite for finding the AN link. That was the one I was referring to in my original comment. Randomly throwing out accusations of racism have the same chilling effect as legal threats and should not be tolerated at all. @IP Bencherlite posted notification of their block above. Blackmane (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hunh, must of skipped over that somehow in all the text and clicking on the diffs, etc., sorry. --64.85.215.190 (talk) 14:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - since he's blocked, it really needs extending. He was blocked for this exact offense just over a year ago, and clearly hasn't learned, so I think the block should go up to a week, just like Blackmane says. I would support an indefinite topic ban from WP:FOUR (as I've said a few times) but not an indef block this time - however, if he ever repeated the unfounded, abusive accusations, then I would definitely support an indef block. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Topic Ban If memory serves me right, something like this happened with Featured Sounds as well. Ban and hand over FOUR to someone else  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  16:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Topic Ban It is disappointing that TTT restored to accusations of racism. It is also disappointing that some people felt it necessary to try and wrest WP:FOUR away from TTT, basically pushing him to the side and acting like his years of contributions didn't matter. This was handled brutally and not just by TTT. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 16:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Levineps knows quite well, from experience and from the editing restriction express terms, that the ban will remain in place indefinitely until he demonstrates he has earned its removal through formal petition. His excuse the last time he was blocked was that he claimed he thought the ban was over.[89]

And you've continued making category edits (and nothing but category edits) even after participating here in this thread! Incredible. You've illustrated quite well why you were topic banned in the first place, continuing to chug along without regard to the community. I strongly urge an indef block. postdlf (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Does this conversation look familiar? It took place back in May 2011:

How many times is he going to use the "I forgot" excuse? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC) [reply]