Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Tag team editing on History of the race and intelligence controversy

This entire section has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/History of the race and intelligence controversy to centralize discussion and to save space on ANI. –MuZemike 01:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Point of information: 120 Volt monkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who initiated several subthreads, was a returning sockpuppet of banned user Jagz (talk · contribs), and has now been indefinitely blocked by Nishkid64. Mathsci (talk) 06:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
• Timestamp as still active: 21:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC) 69.228.170.24 (talk)
• Timestamp as still active: 00:17, 10 May 2010 A.Prock (talk) 01:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• Timestamp as still active: 05:03, 12 May 2010 A.Prock (talk) 08:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

MiszaBot keeps archiving this section despite the fact that the discussion is ongoing. Is there a standard way of dealing with this difficulty? A.Prock (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Ahmed shahi

Although another complaint against User:Ahmed shahi was submitted earlier (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive612#User:Ahmed_shahi), but this current complaint is from my own part. There has been a persistent inaccurate editing in Kabul article by User:Ahmed shahi over the urban and metropolitan population figures.

• User:Ahmed shahi insists that Kabul city's urban population is 615,000 inhabitants relying only on a SINGLE source. Here is his first un-explained edit ([1]). The only source which states that Kabul city's urban population is 615,000 is Naval Postgraduate School ([2]) which itself bases its estimation on official statistics of the government of Afghanistan (like the Central Statistics Office of Afghanistan) and those of the UN agencies operating in Afghanistan. Apart from the NPS, there is NO single other source which supports this point..
• There are numerous sources, both official statistics and secondary reliable sources, which estimate Kabul city's urban population at around 2.5 million, and the metropolitan population at 3.5 million. For example CSO (Urban: 2.8 million; Metropolitan: 3.4 million; est. 2008), CPAU (Urban: 2.4m; est. 2004), UN DATA (Metro: 3.3m, est.2007), AIMS (Urban: 2.7m ; est. 2007), Encyclopaedia Britannica (Pop. (2006 est.) city, 2,536,300; metro. area, 3,138,100.), and numerous other sources. While User:Ahmed shahi cannot provide another single source for Kabul's urban population being 615,000.
• User:Ahmed shahi uses an incorrect approach in determining Kabul's urban population. He tries to compare Kabul with other cities in the world, as he did in here, while he forgets that we cannot compare Afghanistan with other countries which have different territorial administrative division. Countries in the world differ in determining the area of urban section of the cities. In France, for example, they consider Communes, while in Afghanistan the government considers Districts.
• The Central Statistics Office of Afghanistan reported the following statistics for Kabul in its 2006 Statistical Yearbook: Rural (601,700), Urban (2,536,300), Total (3,138,000). Following that, Encyclopaedia Britannica (Pop. (2006 est.) city, 2,536,300; metro. area, 3,138,100.) considers CSO's "Urban" figure as "Kabul city's Urban population" and CSO's "Total" figure as "Kabul city's Metropolitan population". I used the same approach in updating Kabul's population as of 2009, but User:Ahmed shahi writes: "Encyclopedias are mainly used for history but when it comes to data on population we should use government sources." and then he does not even accept the government sources such as CSO and MRRD which I present, and goes for the NPS which is an American institution based in the USA.
• Instead of using the latest figures, he goes for outdated figures such as MRRD. Or instead of being specific and exact about the figures - since there are numerous sources that have provided exact population figure - he writes vague sentences like between 2 to 3 million. He is doing the same thing in Kabul Province ([3]), while there should be NO dispute over Kabul Province's population, because all the sources are clear, direct and give exact figures.
• I provided several references and sources (Talk:Kabul#Latest), and all his response was that "The reason why Kabul appears over-crowded in some images is because most of the people don't stay at home, they all come out in the day and walk around." ([4]).
• It is not only me who disagrees with User:Ahmed shahi over Kabul city's population being 615,000, but there are also User:Ketabtoon and User:Alefbe who did not agree with using the NPS as the only source (Talk:Kabul#Kabul_city.27s_population), but User:Ahmed shahi is still insisting lonely at his part against the view of three editors.
• He lacks cooperation, makes false accusation at me being an "associate" of User:Tajik (here and here) and directly makes a personal attack and insult (You're in college in Europe and you can't figure this simple thing out? [5]) which indirectly insults me of lacking enough intellectual capacity to understand the issue despite being enrolled in a European University.

I am asking for the intervention of an Administrator. User:Ahmed shahi does not show any cooperation as a member of wikipedia community in editing an article. Not only in Kabul's article, but also in Afghanistan and in Ghurid Dynasty articles which are currently Protected as a result of Edit War. Ariana (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with User:Ariana310. Despite the fact that User:Ahmed shahi is constantly violating WP:NPA (for example here), his actions are being ignored by admins. He is an extreme POV pusher, does not understand what sources to be used, and he removes authoritative academic sources from articles in order to establish his own POV and WP:OR (here is a very good example). His behavior is very disturbing. Tajik (talk) 17:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Both editors (User:Ariana310 and User:Tajik) are trouble making edit-warriors who has been blocked before for edit-warring [6] [7] They are working as a team to get me blocked so they can go back to placing false and misleading information in articles that I've corrected. Both editors are spreading Tajik or Persian-ethnocentric POVs, and, they are going after me because I'm not an ethnic Tajik and I disagree with their POVs.
I cite the most reliable undisputed sources but they still disagree with them. I discuss my corrections on the talk pages in a civil manner but they leave discussions and instead start saying bad things about me and say that I don't know anything. They are provoking me to start edit-war but I learned to ignore them. This is just one example of what Tajik has been saying about me to Ariana310 "Ahmed shahi is a waste of time..." Ariana310 and Tajik should follow the rules of Wikipedia because this is not a place to discuss content disputes. Making such baseless reports is disturbing me and is disrupting Wikipedia.Ahmed shahi (talk) 01:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that you focus on the edits, with diffs -- as they have done above, rather than non-diff comments about the editors.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

@ Ahmed shahi: which "most reliable undisputed sources" are you talking about?! As everyone can see here, you are actually removing the most authoritative sources available (Encyclopaedia Iranica and Encyclopaedia of Islam) because these sources and the countless experts and scholars cited in those works do not support your nationalistic, ethnocentric, misleading and wrong claims which are only based on your own POV and OR. Tajik (talk) 11:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Tajik, you know very well why I removed those 2 sources, I gave a good reason in the edit summary that 3 sources for Afghan is just too many in the intro of Pashtun people article. I left one source which is 16th century work explaining what Afghan is, and, the even the word is wiki-linked. You are pressing your POV in Pashtun people article that all Afghans are Pashtun people but this is false, Afghans are citizens of Afghanistan who belong to many different ethnic groups.Ahmed shahi (talk) 11:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

@ Ahmed shahi: Please don't falsify what is going on. You remove the official sources and yet you write in the summary that "Reverting Ariana301 because he/she removed properly sourced content coming from the official Afghan and US governments" [8]. You are using the figures of DIFFERENT YEARS by various sources and you write: "The population of Kabul province is any where between 2.5 million to about 3.5 million.". Such a method is totally inaccurate and false. Please refer to Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Use_of_statistical_data where it says "Misinterpretation of the material is easy and statistics are frequently reported ambiguously in the media, so any secondary reference to statistical data should be treated with considerable care.".

Please don't change your position, and please don't falsify my edits and approach. Ariana (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Ahmad shahi has once again removed authoritative sources, in order to falsify the general consensus among scholars as presented in the two most authoritative academic sources of oriental studies. Instead, he quotes a 16th century historian of Mughal India (the Persian court writer Ferishta) who is only citeable by modern scholars. Ferishta was not a modern scholar and his writings need to be evaluated and validated by modern experts. His words cannot be used as a source to propagate ethnocentric POV. The word "Afghan" is still synonymous with "Pashtun", as can be read in the aforementioned encyclopedias. Leaving that aside, he cannot even name the sentence he is pretending to quote! The meaning of the word "Afghan" is explained here: From a more limited, ethnological point of view, “Afḡān” is the term by which the Persian-speakers of Afghanistan (and the non-Paṧtō-speaking ethnic groups generally) designate the Paṧtūn. The equation Afghans = Paṧtūn has been propagated all the more, both in and beyond Afghanistan, because the Paṧtūn tribal confederation is by far the most important in the country, numerically and politically. This is an authoritative academic source which is being removed and falsified by Ahmed shahi. That's ethnocentric POV-pushing at its worse and it is a clear violation of Wikipedia rules! Tajik (talk) 12:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

"Afghan" refers to any native, citizen or national of Afghanistan. This is mentioned in all dictionaries and encyclopedias as well as in the Afghan constitutions and in books, articles and etc. Editor Tajik and Ariana310 are stating and claiming that ethnic Pashtuns should be Afghans [9] [10], which is totally wrong and misleading.

I also want to report that editor Tajik and Ariana310 are totally removing information that comes from official Afghan (Afghan Rural ministry) and US government (Naval Postgraduate School) sources. [11] [12]Ahmed shahi (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

As I said earlier, please don't falsify the things around here. This is what you did; removing the exact figure of Kabul Province's population with its official source (Central Statistics Office of Afghanistan) and which was the latest estimation (as of 2009). And you replaced it with three outdated sources (2006, 2007 and 2008) and then writing in the article "......is some where between 2.5 to around 3.5 million." This is absurd and scientifically wrong; you should be specific about the data (you should not say between this number and that number, unless the source says so).

Unlike Kabul city's urban population, there should be no dispute over Kabul Province, because there is no urban or metropolitan areas that you are confusing the definitions of. The CSO is completely direct and specific about the figure: Kabul Province's population as of 2009 : 3.4 million. That's it! Ariana (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

If the Administrators are ignoring User:Ahmed shahi's behaviour (falsifying the sources, falsely describing and portraying other editors' approaches, making a personal attack, committing 3RR violation several times, removing reliable and scholarly sources, etc.), they can at least ask a neutral editor who is qualified in statistics and demographics to look at the issue and find out who is employing the wrong approach. The issue of Kabul's population might be a minor concern, but I am afraid if User:Ahmed shahi continues like this, it will be hard for editors to contribute in Afghanistan-related articles; as he/she has made me completely irritated and impatient with his non-cooperation and disturbing behaviour. Ariana (talk) 20:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

More WP:NPA by Ahmed shahi: [13]. Tajik (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I have reasons to believe that editor Tajik and Ariana310 are stalking me, harrasing me, and making false accusations.Ahmed shahi (talk) 00:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The many links provided clearly prove your disruptive behaviour. Tajik (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment (from a non-admin): this issue has been up for a couple of days now, with no input from admins or non-involved editors. I suspect admins are finding the issue as difficult as me to decipher. Could I suggest that the various parties summarise their views in one paragraph, providing diffs to demonstrate their concerns? Otherwise this is going to continue going back-and-forth with no outcome. Cheers! TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 11:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Summaries

Ahmed shahi

Almost every page I edit, the three editors (User:Tajik, User:Ariana310 and User:Inuit18) work as a team and revert my edits. See how they keep removing the reliable sources from the Kabul article [14] [15] [16]. These three editors are ethnic Tajiks from Afghanistan who are editing mostly ethnicity of people. They don't like my edits because I provide reliable sources that go against their POVs so then they come here and make up lies against me. I believe one of them (User:Tajik) has been placed on a one revert per page per week so this explains why Ariana310 and Inuit18 come to help revert for him.Ahmed shahi (talk) 12:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Tajik

Actually, diffs have been provided above: Ahmed shahi is insulting other users as "racist" ([17]), he is removing authoritative academic sources ([18]), and (as already criticized in the previous complaint at WP:ANI) he does not understand the difference between reliability of sources ([19]). He is actively falsifying quotes and sources (see second link), and it is very obvious that he fully misunderstands the meaning of Wikipedia. He truly believes that Wikipedia is a place where national interests are to be defended, no matter if they are factually right or wrong ([20]). See also this comment by User:Eaglestorm. As for the Kabul article: see the detailed summary of User:Ariana310 above: it is in fact Ahmed shahi who is deleting official (!) data provided by the Afghan government in 2009 (!) in order to replace them with outdated numbers. So far, we have not seen any reliable sources on his side. In fact, he actually believes that websites such as www.sabawoon.com are superior to academic standard reference works such as Encyclopaedia of Islam or Encyclopaedia Iranica (he is constantly removing these 2 sources from articles; see my first diff and the comment by Eaglestorm). Please see also his disruptive, ethnocentric edits in Talk:Faisal_Shahzad#Ethnicity and the respective article. Tajik (talk) 12:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I realise that, but the thread above is very long, and I suspect people simply aren't prepared to wade through huge amounts of text just to get to the real issue. Thanks, both of you, for summarising. Note to admins/other-interested-parties who haven't trawled through the thread: another editor, Ariana310 (talk · contribs), has also participated but has not yet had an opportunity to provide a summary. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 12:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Ariana310

User:Ahmed shahi intentionally falsifies the sources, insists at his own part alone on an issue against the view of three other editors (for ex. on Kabul's population : Talk:Kabul#Kabul_city.27s_population), bases all his argument on a SINGLE source (([21]) and when is asked to present his arguments cannot provide satisfactory and coherent answers (Talk:Kabul#Latest). He removes the latest official statistics (as of 2009) for Kabul's population, and uses several outdated sources (2006, 2007 and 2008) and then writes "......is some where between 2.5 to around 3.5 million." [22]; his approach is entirely incorrect. He makes direct personal attacks ([23]) and accuses of me "helping" or working as an "associate" of User:Tajik (here and here). He is trying to deviate this current complaint and tries to show it like a situation of Wikipedia:Don't take the bait. He continuously removes scholarly sources which are in contrast with his POV and lacks cooperation as a member of wikipedia community. Ariana (talk) 14:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Moving forward

Thanks to all parties for summarising and providing diffs.

Regarding resolving this issue (and this is addressed to non-involved editors and admins) what's the best way to move forward?

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to help mediate, and I have several ideas, but I'm very keen to get input from others. Anyone? Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 11:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I really do not know how to mediate. I mean, after all, User:Ariana310 had already offered him a discussion in order to reach a consensus, but Ahmed shahi is stubbornly pushing for POV. Just check his latest edits, especially in Pashtun people and Kabul where he is once again removing and falsifying academic sources and quotes. Admins ignoring his provocations, insults, and POV pushing further motivates him to continue. After all, he accused others of "spreading racism" (only because a reference of the Encyclopaedia of Islam was used to disprove the nonsense he had copied from an unimportant website) without being sanctioned. Tajik (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think any of you should, to be honest - I think it's important a non-involved editor does. I'll give this a wee while longer; if no one steps up I'll offer to, and we can reconvene over at my user page. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Any time someone levels serious charges of "racism" and claims that any collection of editors not agreeing with their POV is a conspiracy, alarm bells sound and neon lights flash.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  17:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Faisal_Shahzad#Ethnicity where editor Tajik (talk · contribs) is wrongly labelling the latest terrorist as an ethnic Pashtun.[24] [25] Editor Tajik does similar things in many other articles, trying to make ethnic Pashtuns look bad in any way possible. I don't know what is the best description of an editor who claims to be an ethnic Tajik (User:Tajik) and is constantly editing articles of a rival ethnic group (Pashtuns) in which he is pushing negative POVs.

As for me, my every edit is properly cited by a reliable source. If you dispute my sources then I'll present more until you finally agree and give up. This is how I edit, the other editors whom I named (Tajik, Arian310, Inuit18) are removing from articles the sources that I cite because they don't like the outcome.Ahmed shahi (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Ahmed shahi, what you totally fail to understand is that nobody in here except you has an ethnocentric POV. Faisal Shahzad was not named a Pashtun because he was a terrorist (as you so wrongly comment), but because it was mentioned in various news articles, including Forbes. It is you who is calling that source "dubious", because you feel insulted in your national pride. On the other hand, you persist on your POV that the Ghurid dynasty was Pashtun, a claim that is explicitly rejected by modern scholarship. Again, you delete academic sources, present unreliable internet sites as a "counter argument" and insult your opponents as "racists". You believe that Wikipedia is a place where national interests are to be defended against the consensus of modern scholars, and THAT is the biggest problem with you. So far, we have not seen any reliable sources on your side. In fact, you are on some kind of a crusade against scholars and academics, you quote selectively. If a scholar is more or less supporting your POV, you cite that one quote 10 x on 10 different occasions. If the same scholar is totally contradicting your POV (for example Louis Dupree in the article Pashtun people, where you delete authoritative sources in order to justify the word "historical" which is not mentioned in any of the sources but is your own ethnocentric POV) you quickly delete the links and claim that "it is not needed". You alter and falsify academic sources and quotes. On the other hand, you proclaim yourself an expert who has "read 100s of books" about this or that subject, yet you are not even a student at a university and do not even know or understand the importance and validity of an academic encyclopedia such as Encyclopaedia of Islam. That is very disturbing. And when faced with these problems, you call others "racists" (see links above). Except for insults and name-callings, you have nothing else to offer. Tajik (talk) 22:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• This relates to the Pashtun discussion at Faisal Shahzad discussed above. I try to be gently with users who don't seem to "get it". They may be newbies, and therefore deserve kindness ipso facto. They may be young teenagers. They may have markedly low IQs. At some point, one reaches a conclusion as to their editing, however, and from what I have seen I can no longer conclude that Ahmed deserves special treatment due to his falling into any of those categories. He simply, despite my many discussions with him, and great patience, "refuses" to understand. That's disruptive. I would appreciate someone addressing it before he does further harm to the project.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

@User:Epeefleche, I filed a separate complaint against you down below.[26]

Ahmed shahi (talk) 12:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• In apparent retaliation to my above sharing of my point of view at this AN/I, Ahmed has just now brought a baseless AN/I against me, replete with libelous untruths, here. I'm not sure that this sort of behavior is in the best interests of the project.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Next step

I'm going to look over everyone's points and diffs, and then I'll post on your talk pages with a link to a user page I'll set up. At that point we can reconvene there, and clear some space here on ANI. It's past midnight where I am (UK: timezone is UTC+1, so it's nearly 1am for me right now) but I expect to kick this off in the next 12 hours or so.

In the meantime, could I suggest you all refrain from posting here? I realise you're all frustrated, but I don't think anything will be solved by repeating complaints in the meantime.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 23:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Busy morning, not forgotten this, thanks to everyone involved for your patience! TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

Following a recent thread at WP:ANI, I have offered to mediate in a dispute between editors.

I consider that the mediation process is open to everyone. In particular, it is open to editors who have not previously been involved in this dispute, and to editors who have never edited this article.

I will post this message at the talk pages of Kabul and Kabul Province, at WP:ANI, and on the talk pages of the editors who appear to be involved already.

You may, if you wish, re-post this message elsewhere. If you choose to do so I strongly recommend you post this message and not a new message. I would also strong recommend you read and understand WP:CANVAS before doing so!

The mediation process will take place at User:TFOWR/Kabul.

Thank you! TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Harassment by User:Cptnono

I feel I am being harassed over my attempts to preserve information, including an image, at Teabagger. -12.7.202.2 (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This IP is continuing to delete a speedy delete template from an image that does not have the appropriate FUR and has multiple problems. There is currently a review at Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:FreeRepublicTeaBag.jpg. From this review, one editor suggested opening a sockpuppet investigation (now at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JustGettingItRight) and an admin reinserted the tag with the following edit summary: "please see WP:NFCC and WP:FURG. Add a fair use rationale, per our guidelines, or this image gets deleted. if you need help formatting a FUR, then ask. but DO NOT remove tag w/o a proper FUR".

To make matter worse, the IP has reverted all recent work to the article as it looked on April 25. The biggest change was turning the page into a redirect based on a deletion discussion and more at the Tea Party movement talk page. Other issues with his mass restoration was re-adding the non-free image, several lines by other editors removed or added, and multiple non-reliable sources.

The IP has received multiple warnings and refuses to discuss most of the issues. It is more than likely a sockpuppet but at the best it is just a disruptive editor. Reporting this as harassment is also an abuse of process.Cptnono (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Administrator intervention is now needed. IP 74.162.147.17 just reverted another editor at the page.[27] It is very likely the same editor. Evidence is submitted at the SPI. He is skirting 3rr by using a different IP. He is making edits although there was ample discussion and has a history of abusing alternate IPs and edit warring. I believe User:Mbhiii should be indefinitely blocked for continued disruptive behavior.Cptnono (talk) 04:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a talk page consensus for keeping this as a separate page from the main article. It looks like a POV-fork to me. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Completely looks like a fork to me (as tagged). The problem here is not the content but a continuous abuse of IPs over a few years with a splash of edit warring over and over and over again.Cptnono (talk) 07:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - First, the IP editor failed to give any evidence to back up their accusations, which seem unfounded to me. Second, having no knowledge of the dispute or article itself, why isn't it just a disambiguation page with links to the two groups of people called teabaggers? ← George ^talk 07:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for saying something George. Just for transparency: George and I have similar off Wikipedia interests. We don't always agree on here though. This really is a case of an editor abusing IPs and continuously getting away with it. Something should be done since it has been the cause of several disputes after looking at the history. People are free to not agree but flagrant disregard for the standards is a concern. I am surprised it has gone on this long.Cptnono (talk) 11:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

And he is still doing it. Now under a different IP in the same range. He has added a fact tag to the article even though there are plenty of sources. I think the article should be redirected completely so don;t really are how much he botches it but it is certainly inappropriate to be editing like that. Can an administrator intervene?Cptnono (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Since an administrator has not intervened here or at SPI I am going to make the changes again. This is based on people here, at the deletion discussion, in the edit history, and at the merger discussion leaning that way. I would appreciate if the disruptive nature of the editor was addressed but enough days have passed without him opening up a discussion on the talk page on something that has already been discussed.Cptnono (talk) 19:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Time allotted and nothing.Cptnono (talk) 13:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

For the record I'd like to say I've never known Cptnono to harass an editor. We've had our own disagreements about content but I believe he has the best interest of the project in mind. In fact he usually steps in to referee when other editors (including myself) have been less than cordial. Sorry if this testimonial is inappropriate here. PrBeacon (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks PrBeacon.

So I made it a redirect again. He reverted Two others have reverted him but he keeps on going. There were discussions on this. If he doesn't like the outcome he can open up another but until then it is clear that it needs to be a redirect. His continuous reverting and abuse of IPs is still a problem.Cptnono (talk) 22:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

So everyday another editor or I change it and everyday he reverts. He did not participate in the discussions and is not opening up a new one. He is an obvious sockpuppet who is being disruptive. So since an admin is not doing anything I am just going to edit war. Cool?Cptnono (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Eric144

Eric144 (talk · contribs · block log) is adding defamatory content from a tabloid's opinion piece to the article of a politician elected today. It was removed. A short while later, he simply undid the removal.

He'd already tried inserting it in March, but it was removed by another editor. He readded it today with "[author] reminds us of the dark legacy of the Goldsmith family", which says it all.

I've reluctantly brought it here as a large proportion of the user's edits have been to pages on members of this environmentalist/politician's family:

1. He creates a section titled "Nazism" on the talkpage of one linking to a homepage.ntlworld.com webspace page [28]
2. Later he added a further unsubstantiated related allegation [29] (even though AN/I isn't indexed, I'm not even going to repeat what he said in his last paragraph).
3. Again he restores removed content about it saying "I put the ... information back where it belongs in the middle of what looks like a hagiography to me. Any attempt to remove it will see its immediate return." [30] Again in a subsequent month [31] saying "It reads like a nazi hagiography", with remark "would help if you were to reveal your identity" [32]. The edits to the accompanying article mirror the talkpage edits.

He's long made personal attacks against specific editors. [33] His past block history is for "making personal attacks and for reverting against consensus" with multiple unblock declines due to WP:NOTTHEM.[34]

Despite the edit summary explaining his addition was reverted because it was pov pushing and pointing him to the undue weight NPOV policy, as the article already covered the matter from all points of view using reliable sources including The Times, he simply undid it saying "vandalism".

It seems clear from their editing history the user is not here to collaborate, is unwilling to listen, and for whatever reason is especially focused on members of a particular family making non reliably sourced allegations they are nazis or "human chocolate bars".

I removed the poorly sourced pov material again [35], and placed a warning template on their talkpage. They responded with this screed referring to a completely different statement as "pathetic, laughable, and execrable"—the statement's sourced to The Observer and has been present in the article since 2008. They restored their defamatory material saying "vandalism" as before. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

some of the article on Edward Goldsmith at present does read like a hagiography: altogether too many adjectives of praise and an inappropriate separate list of links to "associates" and influences" . DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I've not edited that article myself nor even read it all, so you may be right; glancing, I do see a few peacock terms in its lead. What I am saying is that the unsupported nazi allegations and defamatory tabloid namecalling insertions about the living politician are inappropriate. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 05:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

While that could be true (did not take the time to investigate), the IP editor who began this thread is also correct. I have notified Eric1444 about the inappropriateness of his edits, and I have left a reminder for him to reread the BLP and NPOV policies. NW (Talk) 05:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate it. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 05:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

DGG, that is a true text. I have removed some laundry lists from the article and would encourage better copyeditors than I to "edit mercilessly". Guy (Help!) 15:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I really don't have the patience to deal with wikipedia troublemakers like 92.30.111.99 who don't even have a Wikipedia account. No one has addressed the pathetic and utterly crass "Young, gifted and Zac" article which remains untouched as "Goldsmith is described by his mother and reporters to be of a gentle disposition" in the article. That is an obvious bias by 92.30.111.99 . The Edward Goldsmith article was a very slimy hagiography by someone almost certainly connected to the family. The Goldsmith family are well known to everyone with the tiniest historical knowledge as being on the very extreme right of British politics. According to a Guardian article, they initiated a fascist coup against Harold Wilson, who subsequently resigned (see BBC documentary The Plot Against Harold Wilson ). It is relevant that a Guardian and NYT journalist uses Nazi symbolism against him. George Monbiot wrote an article called 'Black Shirts in Green Trousers' about Zac's favourite Uncle Edward. Could both of you please stop threatening me. It really isn't nice.

--Eric144 (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, this idiot seems to think the Guardian is a tabloid. He is no more than semi literate. Why are you backing him up ?

--Eric144 (talk) 19:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

You don't help your case with Personal attacks. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

As the diffs show, they've been warned for personal attacks before. They've been blocked for different ones and disruption.
After being warned by NW their actions related to the article were 'completely inappropriate', their very next edit was to comment here without accepting why their article/talkpages actions were unacceptable (as before), with bad faith accusations and claims both of us are "threatening him". His next edit removed longstanding RS-cited content from the article he disliked by misrepresenting the full length newspaper interview article as a "daft opinion piece" article. The edit after that was to make further personal attacks here on ANI as you can see.

The unsourced alleging of implication of a living person in what're among the worst crimes against humanity in history, in the 2nd diff, are exactly the sort of blp violation we don't need. The namecalling insertions on the article from a pov/attack piece are also unacceptable, as are the personal attacks. It's hard to see much else in order but a block. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 02:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the whole history, but on one thing at least Eric is certainly right. The IP and other editors have repeatedly insisted on the inclusion of an assertion that Goldsmith "is described by his mother and reporters to be of a gentle disposition", Eric has removed this. Even if the statement were in the source cited (it isn't), this would be a ridiculous piece of puffery. Some of the claims against Goldsmith may be inappropriate (I haven't yet checked), but this sort of statement has no place in any WP biography. RolandR (talk) 08:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

That's somewhat incorrect, RolandR. No editors myself included have "repeatedly insisted" on anything regarding that statement. It was inserted by a registered user in August 2008 during their partial rewrite, copyedited as part of the article by others since then, and unchallenged. The only time I've done anything related to it directly was to correct it to adhere to the reliable-source yesterday (per verifiability), removing the words 'his mother and', as the original user had confused it. Eric most certainly did not remove it as you say. He removed the fixed version while misrepresenting the full-length interview article source as an opinion piece. The statement is in the source: <quote>There is nothing flash or aggressive about the editor of The Ecologist. The first thing you notice is how gentle he seems.</unquote>. For whatever reason many interviews describe him as 'genteel', 'soft spoken' etc. That's probably why it remained. I've never suggested it Has to stay. If I had to guess (OR) it might be because he speaks in RP or similar; regardless, even if it sounds silly to us it's what reliable sources say. The claims and names the user's tried to insert are inappropriate, as is their conduct, and the user's been told by multiple people they're unsuitable in any WP biography. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The user has just posted the following WP:NOTTHEM/MPOV-style conspiracy tirade, acting exactly like they did in their previous declined unblock requests:

"the Goldsmith family are multi billionaires who can afford many servants ... all it takes is for one or two servants to gang up on a human being ... These people are well versed in Wiki robo language and can bully their way to success ... subterfuge"

including yet more smoke and mirrors talking about the wholly different Edward Goldsmith article, failing to accept -- choosing instead to talk about a statement a registered user added in Aug 2008 -- why adding "human chocolate bar" sourced to a pov/attack piece into the Zac Goldsmith article having made wholly unsourced accusations suggesting that person (of Jewish ancestry no less) is a nazi on a talkpage is unacceptable. They continue their personal attacks. This has to stop. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

^{Timestamp as still active: 92.30.111.99 (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)}

By the way, Eric144 (talk · contribs), you shouldn't treat IPs differently from users. Some people have their reasons not to register for an account, and they should be given the same amount of trust and politeness as someone with an account. After all, it's not only IPs that vandalize—many users do as well. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 00:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Some people have their reasons not to register for an account What reasons could those be? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack

Resolved

 – No admin intervention required —DoRD (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

A removed personal attack against me has been restored. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Because it wasn't a personal attack. It was a statement of fact. -DJSasso (talk) 11:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Not so. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Not a personal attack. Not entirely supported in fact, but trying to hide your history by referring to just criticism as personal attacks isn't on. Stifle (talk) 12:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

A personal attack, a lie, and entirely unsupported in fact. I have nothing to hide. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

You have not tried to discuss this with the other user. You have not notified him of this discussion. And even if you had done those things, this still wouldn't be the proper venue for this, WP:WQA would probably be better. But in general, when you get comments referring to past behaviour, ask for diffs. If the other can't provide such diffs, then it may be considered a removable personal attack. If he can, on the other hand, it becomes a rather pertinent remark which has its place there. Anyway, please follow WP:DR. Fram (talk) 12:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The only reason I didn't notify the other editor is because we edit-conflicted here while I was still entering my initial comment; thereby confirming that he was already aware of it (as you can see, there's a one-minute difference in the time-stamps of the first two post, above). He'd be welcome to provide diffs proving his claim, were there any. Also, I am following WP:DR. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Certainly will provide diffs once I get home from work and can dig through edits. Easy enough to do since I have stumbled onto many occasions where you have made claims that weren't substantiated. -DJSasso (talk) 13:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I note that no such diffs have been provided. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Andy, what was so urgent about this personal attack that it couldn't be resolved with a discussion on his talk page, a note that you don't agree with that characterization at all, a request for diffs, and/or a wikiquette post? Fram (talk) 13:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The other editor's determination to edit war in order to repeat it. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, one revert is an edit war? I think you have now passed into attacking. -DJSasso (talk) 13:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

One revert on such a checkable attack, without further discussion attempts, is not an urgent matter requiring the attention of ANI. On the other hand, Djsasso, calling a back-and-forth edit an "edit war" is not an attack either. Fram (talk) 13:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not a personal attack, and its restoral was justified and in no way an edit-war. Stop inflaming the situation. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 14:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Falsely calling someone a liar is not a personal attack? Since when? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess since before this diff. 91.106.39.154 (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Note my use of the word "falsely". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Your use. Not Wikipedia's. Unless you'd care to link to the page where it says "personal attacks are OK if the accusing party believes them to be true" (notwithstanding the fact that your accusation towards Thatcher on that occasion was demonstrably incorrect). 83.244.229.222 (talk) 11:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The irony of the situations is he did it twice to me a month ago here and here (and was prooven wrong). Yet you don't see me crying about his "personal attacks" on me. Seems he has no problem "attacking". -DJSasso (talk) 11:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't call you a liar, nor attack you in any way, in either of those edits. And no such proof was offered. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Leonard Horowitz: edits and legal language claimed to be from article subject

Someone might want to take a look at Leonard Horowitz, particularly in light of these edits by DrLenHorowitz (talk · contribs). MastCell ^Talk 22:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I have made a slightly WP:BOLD use of WP:NLT here, considering that the notice placed at the top of the article makes threats of "civil or criminal" charges to any Wikipedia editor that does not conform with the user's concept of what the article should say. I've also reverted the changes to the article itself. I'll explain carefully on the account talk. SGGH ^ping! 22:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Nothing bold at all. Good call. Toddst1 (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I was about to say the same thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I've left a {welcome-auto} and an expanded message explaining the problem. Since it was a legal threat not directed at a specific editor (just all editors of the article that might disagree with the user) I would appreciate another admin reviewing my actions. SGGH ^ping! 22:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Endorse block a perfectly valid application of WP:NLT in my opinion. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, people have. Crackin' SGGH ^ping! 22:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

He's now posted a reply on his talk page, if anyone wants to look at it and take action. I've also removed the resolved tag (because while the block issue may be resolved, the overall issue isn't), and also removed a potential BLP violation from this thread. Buddy431 (talk) 06:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently I am an agent of the CIA, or something. I have left a message reiterating that editors who operate within policy are fine, but step outside and you risk editing restrictions, and I have assured him that - since I've never heard of a Leonard Horowitz, I don't have any kind of CIA-bias. SGGH ^ping! 11:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

If you're an agent of the CIA, how come I never see you at any of the meetings? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and you need to pay up $10 for the coffee fund. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikidemon, WP:V and WP:BLP

Despite a strong consensus at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#List of Jewish American entertainers/List of Jewish actors, Wikidemon is insisting that entries in lists do not need to be sourced, and that the onus for removing material lies in the editor who wishes to remove it, despite WP:BLP saying the exact opposite. As a result, he's restored a bunch of unsourced and/or improperly sourced names to List of Jewish actors. For example, he's restored Scott Caan with this link as a source, despite the source itself nowhere actually stating Caan is Jewish. He includes Jerry Orbach, without a source, despite the fact that Orbach had a Catholic mother and was raised Catholic. But more important that any specific item, given the complete repudiation of his views at WP:BLP/N, is it appropriate for him to be doing this? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the argument is whether or not list articles need an inline citation verifying each item's justification for inclusion in the list, or if sources contained in the linked article are enough. I'd say Wikidemon is correct -- either do the work to carry over the citations to the list article, if you'd prefer they all be cited, or leave them be. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed and decided a thousand times in the past with these lists, and the policies are clear. Items need reliable sources if challenged or likely to be challenged, and they need them on the page in question, not on some related page. That's true of anything, but even more so with living persons. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not exactly the question. The question is, if it's know that sources exist, should chunks of items nevertheless be removed on the grounds that they're unsourced? I don't see that benefiting the encyclopedia. With some effort one could carry over the citations into the list article; and if one isn't willing to do that, one shouldn't be removing those items instead. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

One that was deleted was Ron Silver. Someone read that article and tell me he's not Jewish. Also, he's not living. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Should be easy enough for the person adding the name to source then, wouldn't you think? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It seems to be established, so this may not be the appropriate venue. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 02:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

What "seems to be established"? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Equaczion you appear to have the onus exactly backwards: WP:V is says quite clearly that any that if material challenged must "be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question". Or, to use your words, with some effort one could carry over the citations into the list article; and if one isn't willing to do that, one shouldn't be adding those items. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

That's too much policy wank for me. We're faced with a situation where we have a list of items that we know are verifiable, but you want to remove them anyway, based on the letter of the policy. We've got polices that guard against that sort of staunch interpretation, too. What would be best for the encyclopedia would be to allow the list to remain complete. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

How do we know these claims are verifiable? Actually following policy is not "policy wank", and there are no policies that "guard against" enforcing policy. What would quite obviously be best for the encyclopedia would be to have the list comply with WP:BLP and WP:V. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It occurs to me that in the amount of time you're taking to delete something that you're "challenging", you could be getting the citation from the other article. And if there isn't one, then removing it would be justified. There is one list that I can think of where its primary watchdog is death on anything unverified, but that's a little different, as List of U.S. Presidential nicknames is an OR magnet. The question is, what exactly is being "challenged"? Is it the assertion that something is factual? Or is it simply because of the lack of a citation? It's not the same thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

This seems obvious to me. If someone challenges something in regards to our living subjects, we only reintroduce it with a source. Unless Wikidemon has managed to definitively answer the question "Who is a Jew?" we should probably only reintroduce subjects with good sourcing. AniMate 03:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, to begin with, there are important principles at stake here. One is the principle that all items in Wikipedia articles must be cited, per WP:V. For some reason some editors claim there is an exemption for lists, despite policy actually explicitly repudiating that notion. Another is the principle that it is incumbent on the person adding material to ensure it is properly cited; again, that's basic policy, but for reasons that escape me some editors fight the notion that they should actually have to cite claims they add to articles, or imagine they have another "exemption" if they add the material by way of reversion.

In addition, many of the items are or were erroneous, or had citations that did not support the claims being made. This is unsurprising; my experience with these lists is that they are often filled with dubious or erroneous material, which is a good reason to demand that all items in them comply with policy. And finally, the lists are filled with dozens of items like this, and there are many lists; if it were just one item, then yes, it would be easier to try to source it (assuming a source could be found, which is not a given). However, as there are hundreds of items like this, it's better to re-iterate policy here, rather than having to fight this battle again and again. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

If you were actually just fixing errors, that would be one thing. But you're apparently not even bothering to see if the items are factual or not. Your deletion of the Ron Silver item is a dead giveaway of that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Baseball raises an important point, as to which a response would be helpful. Jayjg -- when you deleted those items, did you have an informed good faith reason to believe they were untrue? Or were you deleting them just because they lacked sources? Lacking either: a) a good faith reason to believe they were untrue; and b) info as to whether they were untrue?--Epeefleche (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:V does not require a determination of the state of mind. It requires content to be sourced. Period. Active Banana (talk) 20:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

We have ways of handling unsourced material. One way we handle an unsourced article is to tag it. Another is to AfD it. For what I assume are self-evident reasons, when AfD'ing an article (which obviously is short of any deletion, the step taken here) we in implementing our policy of sourcing implement another policy -- that of not willy nilly deleting, without a good faith effort by the nom to search both in the article and on the internet for other sources that would support the entry. Even if they are not in the article. Many policies support that, but I daresay the objective is the same as it should be here -- especially for a sysop. We don't want to delete good content, and we require to that end the person proposing deletion to do a search to makes sure that they can make an informed suggestion of deletion. Those policy considerations should have been applied here -- Jay should have first done a wp:before search, and then he should have, as to any entries for which he felt there was not RS support, either a) moved them to the talk page; or b) tagged them as such. Mass deletions were POINTy and disruptive.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the same battle that happens all the time. One side removes an unreferenced statement. The other side demands that the statement be returned, and then demands that the deleters should reference the statement rather than delete it. Let me refer the entire cadre of combatants in this little skirmish to WP:BURDEN. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." If someone wants any article, including a list article, to say anything then THEY need to add the reference. It isn't the responsibility of anyone except the person who wants the statement to remain in the article to provide the reference. The person who objects to the statement is well justified in a) referencing it themselves b) adding the "cn" tag or c) removing the statement altogether. They may choose any of these. Choice a) would be nice, but choice c is fully justified for any contentious statement. If its easy to reference, rather than coming here to complain about someone removing it, return the statement with the reference. Ultimately, the person who wants to say something must provide the backing for what they want to say. It isn't the responsibility person who doubts the veracity of a statement to find proof that the statement is true, if they doubt its truth to begin, then why would they believe that a reference even exists?!? --Jayron32 06:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted Jayjg's latest edit here as apparent disruption. I hope that it was a simple mistake, but this is starting to look like a WP:POINT problem. I'll answer in more detail shortly. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

So now you are restoring unsourced content and calling its removal disruptive and pointy? Quantpole (talk) 08:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

No. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

[36]. I count 10 unsourced entries that you restored. You are acting completely against policy and all the advice from others both here and at the BLP noticeboard. Quantpole (talk) 08:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Look a little harder. The correct count is zero. I did not restore any uncited claims about living people. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Where is the source on that page to say that Ron Silver is Jewish, or Susan Strasberg? Are you being deliberately obtuse? Quantpole (talk) 09:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Quantpole, these people are dead, so his claim that "I did not restore any uncited claims about living people" is correct (although a link to Amazon is hardly sufficient for one that is living). I have no idea why he just doesn't source those eight entries though, but then again, I have no idea why we even have such a list. It's not as if most of these people are being notable for being an actor and a Jew, they are actors who happen to be Jewish. We don't have a list of blue-eyed actors either. This should be a category, not a list, just like many similar categories. Fram (talk) 09:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I didn't specify that it was living people. All I asked was whether he had restored unsourced content, to which he said 'No'. So he was just lying then. Quantpole (talk) 09:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Jayjg is correct. WP:V requires that any editors trying to add or re-insert unsourced material, even to a list, do so citing reliable sources. I don't think policy can be much clearer on the subject. If it's obvious that someone is Jewish, then there should be no problem finding reliable sources to support their inclusion in the list. If no such sources exist, then maybe it's not so obvious after all. ← George ^talk 08:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not what the policy says. As I mentioned in the last forum, before Jayjg shopped it here, we've been through this drill a number of times here, at RfC, and before ArbCom. There is no policy basis that permits blind mass deletions of verifiable content for being uncited, without more - and WP:BURDEN does not give those making such deletions an end-run around by prohibiting good faith reversion of their disputed edits. Anyway, that's not at issue here. Jayjg reported me not for adding unsourced claims that living Jewish people are in fact Jewish, but for adding carefully considered sourced claims to that effect. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me quote it for you: "The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. The policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, and sections of articles—without exception, and in particular to information about living persons: unsourced contentious or negative material about living persons must be removed immediately." You claim that Jayjg removed verifiable content, and he claims that he removed unsourced or poorly sourced content. Above, he gave Jerry Orbach as an example, which is indeed unsourced in the current version of the List of Jewish actors. While not a living person, his Catholic upbringing makes the label questionable. Where is the reliable source that Orbach is Jewish, that makes his entry "verifiable content," as you claim? ← George ^talk 08:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

A clue for you - Jerry Orbach is dead. BLP does not apply to non-living people. If you want to claim that all Wikipedia content needs a citation and can be mass-deleted otherwise, you've got an uphill battle policy-wise. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

To quote Jimbo, "There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information..." And did I claim that all Wikipedia content needs a citation? No, just contentious material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. This material was challenged, and someone's religion is often an inherently contentious issue. These entries should be cited to reliable sources; failure to do so - or worse, reinserting the entries unsourced - is a clear violation of Wikipedia policies. ← George ^talk 09:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty random. Jayjg's twisted account of the edit history notwithstanding, it's sourced[37] that Orbach's father was Jewish, and that's apparently the reason why some editor (not me) decided to include him in this list article. It's not a policy violation to include deceased Jewish entertainers in a list of links to Jewish entertainers. If you think it is, you're welcome to lobby to change the policy on verifiability, or a guideline for when we call people of Jewish ancestry Jewish, but this is not the place. This is a notice-board to handle behavioral problems that necessitate administrative intervention, not a place to complain about editors who oppose mass deletion sprees. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

And the ten other actors you re-added without sources? Where are the sources that they are Jewish? It is indeed a policy violation to add entertainers to this list after their inclusion has been challenged, without providing the proper sources for their inclusion. ← George ^talk 09:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome to search for and add sources to the list article with respect to those non-living people, or to any of English Wikipedia's several million articles articles, as you see fit. That's not a behavioral issue and it is not the source of this complaint. Are we done here? - Wikidemon (talk) 10:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

If you're confirming that the ten challenged, unsourced entries you re-added in violation of Wikipedia's policies about citing reliable sources was the underlying behavioral issue behind the content dispute, then yes, I believe we're done here. ← George ^talk 10:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Please don't confuse content policy with behavioral policy. There's no behavioral violation in answering an editor's stated content objections without meeting their unstated objections, but you're free to lobby for me to be blocked for not bringing every deleted sentence to featured article standards before reinserting. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to see you blocked, though it would be nice if you added citations when re-adding contentious material. And I don't think asking for citations for ten uncited entries in a list is quite the same as asking you to bring the article up to FA status. ← George ^talk 11:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Ron Silver's father was Irving Silver, which ain't exactly Irish, and he worked in the garment district. That's the deletionist's first clue. Then I googled ["ron silver" jewish] and found quite a few references to his passing in Jewish publications, and about the fourth or fifth line down there was this[38] in which Silver makes reference to himself being Jewish. In a fraction of the time the deletionist has spent arguing about this issue, he could have found this. If he's got doubts about an entry, he should apply a citation tag to it rather than a meataxe. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my personal tact would have been to tag the entries rather than remove them, though removing them is fully in compliance with Wikipolicy. ← George ^talk 10:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

If it said George M. Cohan was Jewish, that would likely be somebody's idea of a joke. A guy named Silver, with a father named Irving, is likely to be Jewish, and should be tagged rather than deleted. I would also submit that since the deletionist obviously doesn't know a Jewish name when he sees one, he should go work on something else. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

This is very dangerous ground. We shouldn't try to interpret someone's religion from their name. There are plenty of people born into a religion, or given a religious name, who are not religious, or oppose religion, and would object to being labelled as a member of a religion. ← George ^talk 11:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Especially in this case, since a person's surname is (usually) that of his or her father, whereas "Jewishness" depends on the mother′s being Jewish (or on conversion to Judaism). Deor (talk) 11:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you even so much as looked at the article about Ron Silver? And by the way, a Jew who becomes an atheist is still a Jew. It's not just about religion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Did I mention Ron Silver? Is there some reason you're ignoring the dozen other unsourced names that were re-added? And if someone doesn't consider them self Jewish, it doesn't matter, because an editor decided that they should be labeled as Jewish anyways? We rely on reliable sources for a reason. ← George ^talk 11:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The Silver point is well taken. It stands for the proposition that no wp:before check was done here, which would have reflected good faith and been in keeping w/wikipedia safeguards against careless deletions of RS-supportable-material. That was one problem with what was done.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Who is a Jew? Fram (talk) 11:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I have looked at the first four people removed by Jayjg's most recent edits: Two without article, one about whom we only know that his father is of mixed Mexican Catholic and Hungarian Jewish descent, and a Latter-day Saint. I think it's fair to say that it's not just about Ron Silver. Hans Adler 11:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Right. It has to be taken case-by-case. Jayjg's blind deletion of someone who's obviously Jewish disqualifies him from this subject on the grounds of incompetence, ignorance, whatever you want to call it. There are plenty of other subjects eagerly awaiting his meataxe. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

My point being if he's that ignorant about Ron Silver, he shouldn't be working on that subject at all. Maybe the other ones have problems, but he's just meataxing with no thought behind it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Or let's take Fred Astaire, restored in this edit: "Astaire's mother was born in the United States to Lutheran German immigrants from East Prussia and Alsace, while Astaire's father was born in Linz, Austria, to Jewish parents who had converted to Catholicism." WTF? I guess he is one of those people who just have to be Jews because, somehow, you know, it's obvious. Right?

Now the following is a serious question: Do we have editors here who are simply copying stuff from sites such as http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-entertainment-folder.html ? Hans Adler 11:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Take it case by case rather than blindly deleting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Next one from the same edit, Bob Einstein. Nothing about his religion or ethnicity in his article, but his parents are both categorised as Jews (without relevant sources, of course). That makes him a Jew, right? No, it doesn't. My parents are both Protestants, I am not, and neither is my brother. Hans Adler 11:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Judaism is more than just a religion, and if you don't know that, you're not competent to be editing this subject either. Also, why is this being debated on two different pages? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

We don't categorise someone as a Jew if he doesn't think of himself as a Jew. This is still Wikipedia, not "Jew Watch". I have started making my comments here rather than at BLP/N when I realised that this does in fact require administrator attention. In my opinion those who edit warred to keep that crap on the list need to be blocked.

Listen, mate, it's not OK to just copy a crappy list from a crackpot site such as "Jew Watch" into Wikipedia and then claim that those who want to clean up have to justify every single case, one by one. That's a racist denial of service attack against the project which we can't permit to work, whether that's what actually happened here or not. (And apart from that it's time that you do something about your editing statistics. >10% on ANI doesn't look good for a non-admin, especially one who doesn't usually make insightful comments.) Hans Adler 11:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's more than a religion, yes, but that doesn't mean that having Jewish parents and a Jewish name makes you Jewish. I linked to it above already: Who is a Jew?. If you want to lecture people on their lack of competence, it would be better if you didn't use such an oversimplification to judge them by. Fram (talk) 11:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Listen, "mates", Ron Silver identified very strongly with being Jewish and supporting Israel, which you all would know had you bothered to look into it. I know it crimps a deletionist's style to be asked to look into something before deleting it, but if he had bothered to do that, we might not be seeing this case argued - on 2 different pages, yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I suppose when your mother accidentally breaks a glass when washing your dishes she has to listen to your complaints for the next few months, right? Hans Adler 11:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You're funny. FYI, she agrees with my argument here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Since my reply was not about Ron Silver but about your incorrect generalisations and overestimation of your own competence, your reply to it is quite irrelevant. Fram (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

And since you won't address the point about blindly deleting, your reply is also irrelevant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You make an incorrect statement (at least twice), I answer that, and you start about something completely different, one specific example which had nothing to do with the generalizations about Jews you made, but everything with the state of that singular article. Why should I reply to statements you want to make which are not a reply to what I was saying? And why won't you reply to questions or remarks about your statements? Fram (talk) 12:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the one who's so ignorant he doesn't know Ron Silver was a Jew, and a Jewish activist at that. If Jay had bothered to look before swinging the meataxe, we wouldn't have lengthy debates going on on at least two different pages. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression "It's so obvious" is an appropriate substitute for a citation, and that anyone who doesn't realize this is ignorant and disqualified from editing this list. I think you're oversimplifying the issue and wouldn't mind you addressing concerns raised here rather than hammering the Ron Silver point home ad nauseam.--Atlan (talk) 12:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you miss Baseball's point. Let's say we have a list of black people, and Muhammad Ali is on it. But there is no footnote. To just delete because of the absence of a footnote is disruptive. It hurts the project. A simple google search will yield the fact that there is RS support. That's what should have been done here.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Next one from the same edit [39], Ray Ellin. I could find no indication anywhere that he is Jewish. Perhaps he has a Jewish name? I did in fact find some indications on the web that he might be Jewish, but so far nothing reliable. Note that this is the first reasonable case under all those that I have examined, and I simply started from the top. Hans Adler 11:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Stand-up comic Ray Ellin was performing at a New York comedy club a few days after Rosh HaShanah. It was his usual act — some family stories, some bantering with the audience. As usual, he asked people in the crowd where they came from. “Germany,” said one couple. That’s raw meat for a Jewish comic. “I wish you,” Ellin said, “a year of health and happiness — and reparations.”

10 seconds research... Rich Farmbrough, 15:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC).

I have now removed a few actors from List of Jewish actors. I have observed that in some cases when I google for name + jewish I find some reasonable information, and in others I find Wikipedia, followed by a mixture of irrelevant stuff and Jewish conspiracy crap. This is a typical example of what I mean. Real life is calling now, but I am sure the list needs further purging. Hans Adler 13:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• Considering the discussion and that editors are aware there is a request to cite the names and that all such claims about living people require quality supporting citations, take all the uncited names to the talkpage where interested editors can find reliable citations and replace the names to the list. Off2riorob (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

If we're going to get into the "who is a Jew" question that's a different content matter that cannot be decided here at AN/I. I'm not terribly familiar with the Judaism-related articles here but in larger society, identification as a Jew is an overlapping matter of ethnicity, heritage, culture, and religion, and can a matter of self-definition, external definition, context / circumstance, and designation by an authoritative or official person. Matters such as ethnic identification are best dealt with editors in the relevant content area who are famiiar with the subject, rather than newbies imposing their personal beliefs or analysis on first impression in a drive-by manner. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me make this clearer since everyone seems to have ignored it last time. Statements which people, in good faith, believe to be untrue do not need to remain in articles. The existance of the statement in WP:BLP that contentious statements must be removed immediately from living person-related articles does not mean that the converse is policy, that is it does not mean that in non-BLP articles contentious statements must remain indefinately unsourced. If someone believes something to be blatantly false, they should remove that statement. Period. If someone else has reliable evidence that the statement is true, it is their responsibility to provide the source in order to return the information. If people want a persons name to remain on a list, regardless of whether the person is alive or not, then it is THEIR responsibility to place a proper, unambiguous, reliable inline cite into the article in question. It is not the responsibility of anyone who believes a statement to be incorrect to do that research. If you want a name to remain on the list, find the source. Period. --Jayron32 18:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

That's true where an editor has a good faith believe that there is something wrong with a specific piece of content. However, it is not the way things work in cases of content deleted for being verifiable but unsourced. There, I would not agree to a procedure that permits deletionists to blank swaths of article content in a way that is indiscriminate with respect to its verifiability, yet imposes a heightened sourcing burden on any who would disagree with what they are doing. In any event, that's not what happened here. I wasn't the one Jayjg was originally edit warring with or threatening - I stepped in and was the one editor who actually did something constructive, which was to source the BLP content Jayjg said they were objecting to. I also admonished Jayjg not to threaten adminsitrative tool use in a content dispute. For my efforts Jayjg simply deleted me with a rude edit summary and filed a report here, that looks like retaliation and forum shopping given that this was my first edit to the article and we were all engaged in an active discussion at another noticeboard on this issue. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

There was a lot of crappy entries among those he removed on one of the pages, and quite a bit on the other. These entries were added without any discussion, many of them in a single bulk edit a long time ago. I can see no reason why they can't also be removed in bulk. Perhaps the best approach would be to move them to the talk page for discussion. It's a pity Jayjg didn't do that, but you could have done it too. Hans Adler 21:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The entire list article is of modest quality - weakly sourced, poor formatting, incomplete, without clear inclusion criteria, and an imperfect repeat of material already in the articles the list points to. It may be that the whole list should be deleted, merged, or reorganized - perhaps the existing categories already cover it. That would take some time. You've also raised a valid, but very difficult, question of when we can call someone a Jew even assuming solid sourcing. The serious business of improving articles time and comes from content edits... not edit warring, complaints against others, or policy discussion. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• Moving the info to the talkpage, rather than tagging as dubious, would be reasonable as it would have the same effect of saving the info for other editors, who have not watchlisted the article, to review and restore as clean. Simply deleting it, when there is not a good faith reason -- based on a good review of the article and a good google search -- to believe it untrue, is simply disruptive. We don't allow people to delete articles without a wp:before search. And if there is a basis for the info either in the article or in sources unearthed in a google search, the article survives AfD. To not use a similar approach, and simply mass delete without having done a wp:before-type check is simply disruptive, and does not reflect good faith editing. For a sysop to do so is especially troubling. I think it's time to close this string, as the consensus appears to be that Jay would have been better off doing something other than mass deleting the sort of info that is routinely reflected in cats and templates without footnotes.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? The consensus here is that the material should be removed, and not restored without proper sourcing, and that Wikidemon acted improperly. SlimVirgin, AniMate, Active Banana, George, Fram, Jayron32, Deor, Hans Adler, Quantpole, Atlan, and Off2riorob all objected to Wikidemon's actions. You, Baseball Bugs, and Equazcion agree with Wikidemon's actions. Eleven editors disagree with Wikidemon, three agree with Wikidemon. Please make more accurate statements in the future; people here can read the discussion, you know. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Please cut it out. We've dealt with this again and again in this forum and others, and there is absolutely no consensus for your position, and clear admonition by Arbcom not to use tools to support it. As an administrator in an administrative forum you ought to have a little more decorum than systematically misrepresenting the edit history to harass good faith content editors like myself. A single edit you don't like after being cautioned about that and you bring it straight to AN/I? You are truly creating disruption here to prove your point. Drop the stick. Just let this thread go, and please don't do it again. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Make that twelve in support of Jayjg. --John (talk) 02:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikidemon, we're up to twelve in support of me, Wikidemon, 3 in support of you. And on the related BLP/N thread, Sean.Hoyland, Good Ol’factory, CarolMooreDC, and Crum375 agree with me. That's 16 editors who support my position, 3 who support yours. That's a pretty strong consensus, actually. As a Wikipedia editor, you need to stop misrepresenting the discussion here, and start listening to what editors here are saying. You've been duly cautioned, and are truly creating disruption here to prove your point. Drop the stick. Just let this thread go, and please don't do it again. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, I'll do you the favor of ignoring that nonsense. Other editors support you because you've systematically misrepresented the situation here. I added reliable sources per your request and you played sour grapes. But please take a look in the mirror, administrator-wise. Don't file any more bogus retaliatory AN/I threads for matters that don't conceivably merit adminsitrative attention, don't edit war, and don't threaten tool use in self-involved editing situations. Please take a deep breath and get on to some productive editing, if you can - or at least sleep on it. If you can't do that you'll be arguing that again at RfC or ArbCom, but surely you're better than that. If there is any uninvolved person watching, can we please close this as a no action? We've made our statements and I don't see how anything good or actionable is going to come from Jayjg continuing to berate me, and me trying to set the record straight. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Please review the previous discussion. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The good that could come of this is that editors simply follow mandatory policy in future. Imagine that. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Jay -- of the 12, how many of them responded to the following points made above:

1) no footnotes in similar cats;

2) no footnotes in similar templates;

3) it would be less disruptive to dubious-tag, unless the point is to be disruptive;

4) it would be less disruptive to move to talkpage, unless the point is to be disruptive;

5) shouldn't the concerned person do a wp:before search, much as when deleting an article at AfD, and has one been done here?; and

6) will you support (or yourself handle) the deletion in toto of the lists I set forth above, all of which are completely bereft of footnotes?

And how compelling and complete have your responses been to those point? Or have you not even satisfied your WP:ADMIN obligation of replying?

Furthermore -- you keep on throwing around the phrase "three editors" as though it is the holy trinity. Which of the below do you count as the "three", and which were you leaving out (other than, of course, the last one)?

1. Wikidemon (a number of comments)
2. "The question is, if it's know that sources exist, should chunks of items nevertheless be removed on the grounds that they're unsourced? I don't see that benefiting the encyclopedia. With some effort one could carry over the citations into the list article; and if one isn't willing to do that, one shouldn't be removing those items instead." and "we have a list of items that we know are verifiable, but you want to remove them anyway, based on the letter of the policy. We've got polices that guard against that sort of staunch interpretation, too. What would be best for the encyclopedia would be to allow the list to remain complete."←Equazcion
3. "It occurs to me that in the amount of time you're taking to delete something that you're "challenging", you could be getting the citation from the other article." and "If you were actually just fixing errors, that would be one thing. But you're apparently not even bothering to see if the items are factual or not. Your deletion of the Ron Silver item is a dead giveaway of that."←Baseball Bugs
4. "Jewish ... 10 seconds research"... Rich Farmbrough
5. "take all the uncited names to the talkpage where interested editors can find reliable citations and replace the names to the list." Off2riorob
6. Epeefleche (a number of comments)
7. Plus assorted "supporters" of yours who say they themselves would not have deleted, but rather would have either tagged the items or moved them to the talk page.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Near as I can tell, the point is to either be disruptive or lazy. The fact he deleted a Jewish activist from the list, and hid behind the letter of policy rather than using his brain, indicates he's incompetent to be doing this work. I may have said that already. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Sixteen, Eepefleche, not 12. And Baseball Bugs, your personal attacks aren't really relevant to the discussion, and I doubt they're winning over any of the 16 editors who disagree with you. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• Let me say (although I know you were directing your comment at Baseball) that I do not think you are lazy. Nor do I think you personally are a disruptive person. But I do think that your mini-Katrina deletions are highly disruptive, interfere needlessly with the goals of the project, and that you would do well to commit to a) answer my above questions; and b) desist in such practice in the future in lieu of one of the assorted alternatives mentioned above.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Eeepefleche, in answer to your question, I started this thread because Wikidemon inserted unsourced or improperly sourced items into the list, reverting my removal of them. That was the action I objected to. Why don't you name the editors here who supported Wikidemon's re-inserting uncited names in the list? That certainly wouldn't include Off2riorob or Rich Farmbrough. In fact, as far as I can tell, only 3 editors support Wikidemon in insisting that uncited entries are allowed on lists, contradicting the plain words of WP:V and WP:BLP - you, Equazcion, and Baseball Bugs, who actually made the arguments "Ron Silver's father was Irving Silver, which ain't exactly Irish, and he worked in the garment district" and "A guy named Silver, with a father named Irving, is likely to be Jewish, and should be tagged rather than deleted." If it wasn't right here on the page, people would think I was making it up. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Jay -- as when you bring a matter to arbitration, when you bring a matter here your behavior as well as the behavior of the subject of the "action" is subject to being reviewed. Indeed, it's often, as here, difficult to separate the two. As to where you did respond, I would urge you to consider whether Off2riorob's suggestion, for example -- which was not what you did -- would have been less disruptive editing on your part, and more in keeping of the goal of the project. And if Rich's suggestion -- that 10 seconds of research -- which was not what you did, apparently -- could have avoided needless deletions of RS-supportable material, which is in the interests of the project. You may have missed it, but both of those editors, which you left off your list of "three", were suggesting things that you might have done that you failed to do.

Furthermore, you still have not responded to most of my questions above. I've made a number of arguments. WP:ADMIN requires a response. Yet all you've done is tally others who -- like you -- did not respond to them.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Epeefleche, your arguments were responded to and rejected, either here or in the BLP/N thread. I'm under no obligation to respond to each one personally and individually, nor is anyone else. There has been a collective response, and a collective rejection of the notion that one can insert uncited items on lists. This is the primary, fundamental issue at hand here, and must be dealt with first. All else is secondary. When I see you telling Wikidemon he was wrong for doing that, then I'll re-examine your other suggestions. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not worth the pixels to refute that mischaracterization of consensus or misrepresentation of the single edit I made that lead you to retaliate with this report. If you're addressing Epeefleche could you please do that without making yet more accusations against me? I've explained again and again exactly what I edited and why, and your choosing to ignore my explanation in favor of a continued insistence that I'm promoting unsourced content is truly vexatious at this point. You made your report. There will be no administrative action. The article is now sourced so the point is moot. Now please give it up. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing

This reversion[40] wasn't exactly constructive or in good faith given the above discussion. Spot checking Jayjg's edit history I see a pattern of contentious sloppy deletions of notable Jews from lists of Jewish people, and think we may need a broader review. I'll be checking some others from the past few days and selectively restating some that are easy to verifyh. I'll be providing citations so nobody can accuse me of policy violations - not honestly anyway - but I do think we need to visit in a mature, collegial, productive way the question of how we deal with list articles reflecting the intersection of ethnicity and occupation. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikidemon, you inserted a claim using a dubious source, as I explained on the article Talk: page. Your re-reversion, however, was neither constructive nor in good faith, nor was your following me to the RS/N noticeboard to expand your conflict with me. None of my deletions have been "contentious" or "sloppy"; I've never deleted a properly cited name from a list of Jewish people. The way "we deal with list articles reflecting the intersection of ethnicity and occupation" is by adhering to WP:BLP and WP:V, as in any other article; a novel concept, perhaps, but one you should strongly consider for the future. And if you continue on this path of following me all over Wikipedia to revert me and/or insult me on various message boards, we may indeed need a "broader review" here, but it will rather be of a pattern of personal attacks and harassment. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is that Jayjg is 100% correct. The source didn't say he was Jewish. AniMate 05:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It did - read it. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's the source you inserted. Quote it saying Mays is Jewish. Give the direct quote. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The source says he had a bar mitzvah. You're arguing a different point that has nothing to do with this thread, perhaps that non-Jews are having bar mitzvahs these days. I would ask you to stay on topic, but the topic isn't too good either. Do you have a good faith belief as an editor that Mays is not Jewish? If so you're wrong but please bring that up on the appropriate talk page. If not, give it up, seriously. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The guy had a bar mitzvah, and Jay thinks that doesn't indicate he's Jewish. Jay continues to demonstrate that he is unqualified to be doing this kind of work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's an interesting source called "Jew or not Jew".[41] Of course, it's written by Jews, so what do they know about the subject? Well, more than Jay does, for sure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, that certainly looks like a website that Wikipedia would classify as reliable for the purposes of WP:BLP. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Good, glad you agree. Then we can start using it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Good luck with that. BTW, who publishes that "Jew or not Jew" website? Well, no doubt it has that sterling reputation for accuracy and editorial oversight that Wikipedia requires for BLPs. Can you describe its editorial process to us? Jayjg ^(talk) 12:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Bassball Bugs, if you are being serious about this, then it is even worse than I thought, and I would suggest that you withdraw from every discussion of including people in lists based on reliable sources, or from any discussion related to reliable sources in general. I have the feeling that Jayjg's answer was rather sarcastic, as it should have been. That source is terrible. Fram (talk) 12:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course my response was sarcastic, as Baseball Bugs knows (or should have). Perhaps I shouldn't have resorted to sarcasm, but really, after all the insults, denial of plain policy statements, insistence that we should judge who is a Jew based on their names (or their father's name and occupation), his bringing this site was just a bit too much. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, on first sight it looks as if they are using precisely the same criteria that we should be using. That doesn't mean we can use it, but we can compare what we are saying with what they are saying for consistency. Any discrepancy is a reason to look closer. But I find it hard to believe that so many here are sufficiently obsessed with who is a Jew and who isn't to create these silly lists. Hans Adler 12:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I knew Jay was being sarcastic, while Jay couldn't tell that my comment was also sarcastic. But since he clearly knows nothing about the subject, doesn't know a Jew from a Gentile, and has spawned arguments on at least 3 different pages due to his bull-in-a-china-shop approach to this in the first place, nothing should come as a surprise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It's odd you would claim that I "clearly know[] nothing about the subject". I've essentially single-handedly written 5 of the 12 Featured Articles in Wikiproject Judaism, and another 6 Good Articles in Wikiproject Judaism. How many Featured and/or Good articles have you written in Wikiproject Judaism? Jayjg ^(talk) 13:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) I can sympathize with the frustration of being called out on weak edits. But please don't lower yourself to edit warring to preserve the mistakes or tit-for-tat accusations of bad faith. As I noted elsewhere the parroting of my comments is not helpful and suggests you're getting too hot about this. A preliminary review suggests that a number of your other content deletions in this area are indeed sloppy and haphazard - as disputed mass deletions often are. It's indeed proper when encountering a pattern of bad edits to check out how far it extends. Bad mass deletions merit careful selective mass reversions, but as I think I said I am looking these over one by one, and only restoring things that can be verified, and adding citations for anything unsourced. I doubt that's going to be Wikipedia's final answer for list articles but I'm being extra careful given the scrutiny and lack of resolution here on the policy / style question. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If you don't like being called out on weak edits, then please stop making them. Also, if you can't stop posting to threads in which you've been refuted and admonished by over a dozen editors, then maybe it's time to back away and cool down. Seriously, for your own good. And pretending to "undo" my edits as you do here, when in fact you are actually adding material that was never there before - specifically, adding citations that were never in the article before - is both misleading and needlessly provocative. And finally, harassment is a really bad way of dealing with your feelings, so I strongly counsel you against it. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't too swift, and it's not worth a response. However, I will note that you've misrepresented my newest edits. You can do what you want, but stepping back would be a very good idea. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, stepping back would be a very good idea, which is why I suggested you do it. What I wouldn't suggest is showing up to revert me at even more articles that you've never edited before. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, please stop it with the bogus accusations. I'm fixing some bad edits you made on the disputed and largely discredited minority position that otherwise verifiable content should be deleted merely for being uncited. The community has been to AN/I, RfC, and ArbCom several times recently on this, so please don't try to pretend this ridiculous complaint can establish consensus for what you're doing. I've added cites in the BLP cases so that my editing is beyond reproach - yet you still reproach me for fixing your mess. Best to pause the edit warring and retaliatory behavioral complaints, while we can clean this up as a content matter. You're best bet is to find something else to do for the moment. There's no shame in that. Surely there are some other things to edit. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

How do you not understand that one of Wikipedia's most fundamental policies "requires anything challenged or likely to be challenged... be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question"? Your allegation that the things you refuse to cite are "verifiable" comes across as disingenuous when you keep repeating it in spite of the multiple editors who have explained to you that Wikipedia's policies on verifiability explicitly state that you must cite sources for them. ← George ^talk 06:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's verifiability policy does not support mass deletion of verifiable content merely for being uncited, nor is WP:BURDEN a secret tactical weapon for those who want to do that. Instead of accusing me of being disingenuous on this, I ask that you give me the credit of acknowledging that I am sincere when I say the community has considered this matter before and rejected mass deletion campaigns. If you won't give me that credit I don't really have much to say other than that I heard you and I disagree. Anyway, as I mentioned at the start of the above subheading, there have been some bad content edits that need to be fixed. The removal of Jews from lists of Jewish people seems to have a false positive rate of at least 80%. I'm fixing that 80%, with citationss. I might make a few mistakes here and there but the ongoing sour grapes accusations and edit warring to undo my fixes are just annoying at this point. Nobody is going to protect an article or block me over this, so I truly hope people can pipe down and get on with things. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you please identify where WP:V says that the amount of challenged, unsourced material that can be removed is limited? A quote would be great. I would also accept a link to a discussion in which "the community... rejected mass deletion campaigns" of challenged, unsourced material. ← George ^talk 07:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I will not spend time belaboring that obvious point. Edits made individually for specific content concerns are clearly different than mass edits made to enforce formal compliance with rules. If you want to explore Wikipedia history on mass deletions, one good starting point is the search bar. There is also an archive index and several hundred pages of discussion for this notice board, and some indexing system over at Arbcom. Deletionists come and go around here, and they cause a lot of trouble, but they tend not to last long as deletionists. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know whether this is the right place, to say this. I hold that unsourced information should only be removed if it is likely to be challenged (seriously, not for the sake of it). Otherwise we should keep it. This should apply to particular information, as well as whole articles. Debresser (talk) 07:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • At last, a voice of reason. The deletionists have gone nuts here. They're invoking the "challenged or likely to be challenged" in a circular argument. They're not challenging the facts, they're challenging the lack of a citation. Hence they end up deleting Jewish activist Ron Silver from the list. Using their heads for a hatrack, as my mother would say. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
    • It's great that your psychic abilities allow you to vet out who is an isn't Jewish at the mention of their name, but we mere mortals sometimes have to rely on reliable sources for such things. I'm glad I'm not on any Wikipedia lists, because you would no doubt be jumping to (wrong) conclusions about my religion based on my name as well. ← George ^talk 07:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
      • • Or you could look at the bloody article. Stop justifying deletionist laziness. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Not nuts enough in my view. I dream of the day that an unstoppable smart bot (without a talk page for people to complain on) does this automatically, removing instances of non-compliance, issuing templated warnings to users the first time they add someone to a list without adding a ref (that the bot can read and understand) within a fixed time period, blocking them if they do it again in a completely merciless, 'boot stamping on a human face— forever' way and possibly arranging for their deportation to Camp 22 in North Korea if they come back as a sockpuppet. Just my view though. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Good idea. Then you can screw things up at lightning speed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
          • Technically it would be the unstoppable 'Ron Silver Memorial' bot screwing things if you want to see it that way but I prefer to think of it as tough love. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
            • I prefer to think of it as putting pedantic, narrow-minded rules ahead of the interests of the readers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
              • Yep, I support that approach, putting pedantic, narrow-minded rules ahead of the interests of readers who are satified with being supplied with any old tat by editors who can't be arsed to follow policies there to ensure that readers are supplied with accurate and verifiable information. Sounds good to me. Having said that, until recently I wasn't aware of the potentially devastating consequences of implementing wiki policies like NPOV but this editor put me right on that. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
                • Taking Jews off the lists because they lack citations within the list, despite having them in their articles, is either stupid or lazy, or both. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
                  • More importantly, insisting that items in a list do not require citations within the list is a direct violation of the plain language of WP:V and/or WP:BLP (if the person is alive). Also, continually calling those who explain policy to you and enforce it as "stupid", "lazy", "pedantic", "deletionists", etc. violates another policy, WP:CIVIL, and does nothing whatsoever to bolster your case. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
                    • You need to read WP:Competence is required, as you have demonstrated that you are not qualified to work in this subject area. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
                      • Baseball Bugs, WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:CIVIL are actually policy, unlike WP:Competence is required, which is an essay. It is imperative that you read and become familiar with their contents, as soon as possible. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• I note that SlimVirgin wrote This has been discussed and decided a thousand times in the past with these lists, and the policies are clear. Items need reliable sources if challenged or likely to be challenged. That policy appears to be a big invitation for conflict. If Woody Allen didn’t have a citation in that list, one editor’s “likely to be challenged” (a young person, or an older person who crawled out from under a rock) would differ from another’s.

  It also seems to me that the common-sense interpretation of what SlimVirgin quoted is at-least partially being overlooked in its practical application on those lists. If one simply clicks on a link to Woody Allen, the lead states he is an actor. An in-page search turns up eleven incidences of “Jewish”. So it seems clear to me that Woody Allen’s inclusion in the list A) would not be deserving of being encumbranced with a presumption that it is “likely to be challenged”, and B) would eventually be deleted by some editor for any variety of reasons. Why?

  …Because List of Jewish actors 1) provides a column for citations and then doesn’t specify anywhere on the page that 2) Items need reliable sources if challenged or likely to be challenged nor does it state that Items must be cited here on this page; not the target page. This is a prescription for conflict and needless wikidrama. Editors can get into edit wars with another editor and simply revert what another did. Many editors are too lazy to click the link to Woody Allen and read what’s there; they might be too offended that another editor added some links that were uncited on the list page. Or editors may simply not be aware of what SlimVirgin is exceedingly familiar with (“This has been discussed and decided a thousand times”).

  I personally couldn’t care if something has been discussed a thousand times if clear and unambiguous guidance governing what to do isn’t provided in a venue for mere-mortal editors of common capability. It does no good to have someone say “This was discussed on Villiage Pump on Archive 5189 ad nauseam”. Gee, I’m sorry; wasn’t there.

  Now, I do note that the page has stated “You can help by expanding it with reliably sourced additions.” And then there is that column that stands out like a sore thumb with citations in it. Given those circumstances, I wouldn’t personally have dreamed of adding a bunch of actors to such a page and not added the citations; I would have felt lazy, at the least, and in violation of the implied requirement of the tag across the top of the page. The solution is blindingly simple: abandon the “…if challenged or likely to be challenged”-bit, because wikipedians are a diverse lot with lots of conflict and we’re not mind readers. And follow the common-sense implications of having a tag at the top of the page that talks about “reliably sourced additions” and that column where so many other editors took the time to add citations. To do otherwise, IMHO, smacks of an editor who fancies him/herself as the *creative* type who leaves the busy-body clean-up for others (IMHO).

  My suggestion is simple: Revise the adviso tag at the top of the page to state Items must be cited here on this page and not rely upon those at the target article. Someone could have done that in 30 seconds instead of the four man-hours that have been wasted here with back & forth finger pointing and wikidrama. Greg L (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

  
  P.S. And, FWIW, I wouldn’t have personally bothered to have included the column for citations. It’s far too easy to just click on a target link and read the article. The litmus test (“Jewish” and “actor”) isn’t complex or controversial enough to warrant the redundant effort. Greg L (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No and no. Consensus is soundly against these proposals. —DoRD (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Resolved

 – No consensus to do so. And, as you can see, I'm not Baseball Bugs. Ta. HalfShadow 16:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Can someone uninvolved step in and guide Baseball Bugs away from this topic? His comments are defnitely not helping, and are only intended as attacks on Jayjg. Only from today, we have[42][43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51]

In this edit, he introduces a new source, with another arrack on Jayjg of course[52]. The fact that that source is completely unreliable only reinforces the idea that it would be a lot better if he didn't continue in this and related discussions anymore, as he isn't contributing anything constructive, and his endless attacks are getting very disruptive. Fram (talk) 13:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the one that started arguments on at least 3 separate pages. If he had bothered to deal with that list in a more intelligent way in the first place, he could have avoided all this brouhaha. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You are closinga section on your own actions as resolved? Are you begging to get blocked, or is there another reason for such blatant behaviour? Fram (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment—I have removed the "resolved" tag, because the editor against whom a claim was made has no right to put such a tag. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

ANI page ban proposal for Baseball Bugs

Some editing statistics for this user, over the last 10,000 edits (per WikiChecker):

• 39.5% various reference desks
• 17.8% user talk
• 12.0% other project space
• 11.4% article space
• 9.6% ANI
• 8.8% article talk

The problem is not these statistics. They would be perfectly fine in the case of an editor who is making insightful comments on ANI in order to facilitate discussions. But these statistics are a problem in the case of an editor who is very transparently commenting on ANI only for fun and for expressing superficially formed opinions. Therefore I am proposing the following:

For the remainder of the year 2010, Baseball Bugs is banned from all ANI and AN discussions to which he has not been invited by another editor.

How do others think about this? Is this an eccentric idea? Hans Adler 15:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• My 2¢? If he’s not disruptive, let him post. We don’t need 8 man-hours of wikidrama to discuss Bugs. I find it hard to believe that his posts on ANIs serve no purpose. If his posts have a common theme of sounding utterly ridiculous and he is often at odds with the thrust of your arguments, then take comfort in the amazing good fortune of your having an opponent who shoots himself in the foot without your having to lift a finger. Greg L (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll just invite him every time I see a new thread :) DuncanHill (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• Bugs is pretty much the reason I post here. He serves to advertise that ANI isn't a private members club, and that ordinary editors (such as moi) can contribute. I'd like to think ANI benefits from my presence here; I certainly think ANI benefits from Bugs' presence here. (Disclaimer: I've previously supported Bugs' (unsuccessful) RFA - my views on what constitutes a good editor or a good admin may not be mainstream...) TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 16:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• Let the people post. --hippo43 (talk) 16:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I have yet to see Bugs make an intelligent comment at ANI, let alone a positive overall contribution to the Wiki. Others may feel differently. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair observation; though you failed to append a big fat “IMHO” at the end. The only solution that I am aware of would be Wikipedia-style eugenics: strip someone of their ability (I’m not sure it’s a “right”) to speak here at this German beer garden because they seem incapable of making an “intelligent comment.” Greg L (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• Please close this - it's a collateral attack arising from another active dispute here and on other pages. Let it rest, guys. Please put the stick down and start editing articles. Thx, - Wikidemon (talk) 16:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

  Wikidemon, whatever your views, it is in no way an attack. It is a good-faith attempt to improve the situation. If you feel it is misguided, so be it, but please don't intentionally inflame the situation further. (I make no comment on the issue itself.) ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 16:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

  I agree with Wikidemon. A collateral attack is exactly what this looks like to me. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

  Agree with Wikidemon. An attack need not get into personalities, as we used to say, it can be by an unwarranted request for a restriction, which is surely an attempt to damage Bugs' reputation.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

  As a term of art, a "collateral attack" is a type of argumentative flanking maneuver: in addition to your substantive argument against a debating opponent's position, question their right to present it. You see that sometimes on this page - as here, where this thread continues a content dispute that has now sprawled across several pages. In law it's a jurisdictional challenge. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• • Agree that it should be closed; not sure I agree with "attack" - it seems to me to be a legitimate concern - albeit one I don't share. TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 16:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I've yet to see Bugs make a disruptive comment at ANI. It's up to users where they spend their time. I don't really care about the stats. ANI can constitute 100% of your edits for all I care, so long as you're not a disruptive presence. Bugs is often helpful, sometimes humorous, and rarely totally useless in his participation here, IMO. And also IMO, Hans is only proposing this because he generally disagrees with Bugs -- which is no reason to do anything. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• Bugs is rather pointed with criticisms (as am I), but there is a gulf of difference between sharp and disruptive. To be banned from AN/I is ChildofMidnight territory, and this in no way reaches that. This was an extremely petty proposal. Tarc (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • “Petty proposal” seems unjustly harsh. Hans wrote “who is very transparently commenting on ANI only for fun and for expressing superficially formed opinions.” Hans seems to have been expressing a heartfelt and sincere observation and was advancing a proposed solution and wanted to run it up the flagpole for others. I suspect you are spot-on correct that Bugs’ situation doesn’t rise to the level of “ChildofMidnight territory”. You had a great post there, in my opinion, until you added those last six words. “Misguided proposal” might have been a better choice. Greg L (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
• I wouldn't call for an ANI ban, but I would advise BB to step away from the Jew list topic, as he's starting to sound like a broken record. I mean, how many times does he need to say Ron Silver is a Jew and everyone who doesn't instantly realize that is ignorant? An unhelpful point that's been repeated at least 8 times in the thread above alone.--Atlan (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I'll have a word with Bugs about that. I think we've all heard that drum bang by now, but I don't think he's going to stop unless you ask nicely. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Every serious (i.e. non-vandalism) edit to WP is as useful as any other and just because Bugs chooses to make a lot of his contributions here and employs a degree of humour while making really very valid points is no reason to ban him from here. There's countless other users that are technically on the right side of the rules but could do with being kicked off of WP altogether before we get to Bugs. If the community once again practices a bit of self-harm and decides to impose restrictions on Bugs I'll side with Duncan and make it my purpose in life to invite Bugs to every discussion raised. raseaC^{talk to me} 16:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• (e/c) Unless there has been repeated and widespread concern expressed about BB's participation on this page and he has shown a lack of acknowledgement of those concerns and he has continued participation in a manner "very transparently commenting on ANI only for fun and for expressing superficially formed opinions"; this particular proposal seems out of place and other remedies should be attempted first. Active Banana (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
• My thoughts on the matter pretty much mirror those of Equazicon above- he's not disruptive and sometimes he brings much-needed comic relief to a heated thread. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
• I read AN/I fairly frequently but don't post here. IMO Bugs is funny. Also, IMO, this proposal has a chilling effect on editors. The message is that it's fine to read, but not fine to post, unless you're an admin. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
• Agree as above, Bugs has every right to continue to post here. His edits have been mischaracterized. Dayewalker (talk) 17:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose and this should be closed. This is not how to win your other arguments. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose ban proposal for Bugs. I don't see where or how his comments are disruptive.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Philippine presidential election, 2010

• Hi guys. This page needs to be semi-protected now. Rage from presidential candidate fans leads to vandalism specially the ones with just IP addresses. The election is stil ongoing and the page is being updated from time to time, and having vandalism from IP addresses just doesn't help.--TwelveOz (talk) 08:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I've semi-protected for three days, based on the edits I saw in the history tab your observation concerning isp edits appears to be accurate. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the immediate action!--TwelveOz (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Epeefleche

Resolved

 – no action required - minor content dispute that should be resolved at the talk page. Ronnotel (talk) 13:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Epeefleche (talk · contribs) has been blocked 2 or 3 times for serious violations since September 2009 [53] and is now attacking me for no reason. [54] He is very disruptive and calling me all sorts of names, even threatening me. [55] He removes "dispute" tags while there is a running discussion over and leaves bizaar messages in the edit summary [56] [57]. He is forcing us to believe that Faisal Shahzad is an ethnic Pashtun even when US and Pakistan government officials have clearly stated in the media that he is Kashmiri. See Talk:Faisal_Shahzad#Ethnicity

• He keeps adding over and over the word "Muslim" right at the start of every terrorist's article. [58] [59] Wikipedia articles are not suppose to start with someon'e religion first, Epeefleche is breaking that rule.
• I have reasons to believe that Epeefleche may be prejudice against Muslims or certain ethnic groups, and the reason why he's attacking me is probably because of my first name which is Islamic.
• Wikipedia should not allow disruptive editors such as Epeefleche to push his prejudice POVs.

Ahmed shahi (talk) 11:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Suggesting that he has been blocked 3 times without mentioning that all the blocks were reversed is poisoning the well. You have a content dispute, there are multiple outlets available to resolve that. There are no conduct issues of any actionable seriousness. Stifle (talk) 11:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Ahmed was also blocked recently, and also released before the time was up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

@Stifle, Epeefleche's first block was "indefinite" which was reduced to 1 month, and then he violated Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. He is putting "Muslim" right at the start of every terrorist's article even though many others complained about this. I find this very unusual especially when the biography is of a person who is from a Muslim nation.

As for me, my block occurred as a result of Wikipedia:BAIT, I unintentionally made 3rrs.Ahmed shahi (talk) 12:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

First step, have you earnestly tried talking to the user on their talk page seeking resolution?--scuro (talk) 12:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I talked with him at Talk:Faisal_Shahzad#Kashmiri_descend, in which I presented evidence/proof that both US and Pakistan's government has confirmed Faisal Shahzad being an ethnic Kashmiri but Epeefleche refuses to accept that. Instead, Epeefleche looks for anywhere someone mistakenly labelled Shahzad as an ethnic Pashtun and present that as his proof.Ahmed shahi (talk) 13:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

There are better places for what seems to be a minor content dispute of questionable relevance. Ronnotel (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Where can I address this issue about Epeefleche persistently placing the word "Muslim" after the names of terrorists in the intro of their articles? Many of us find this as an act of racism or religious war, and Wikipedia should not allow editors who do things like this.Ahmed shahi (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Tarc (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• I see this is already resolved, but just want to clear up some mistruths stated above. I was not blocked three times. I was not blocked indefinitely. When I was blocked (twice--not three times; seasoned editors will note the absence of diffs supporting his charges), the blocks were quickly lifted because in the first instance it was realized that the suspected charge of sockpuppetry was incorrect, per checkuser, and in the second it was lifted within hours as "highly inappropriate". Ahmed also states I was blocked for violating BLP; as he looked carefully enough to see the specific charge in that block, he no doubt saw the specific reason that it was lifted, and knows that his statement is an untrue accusation -- he doesn't just say I was blocked, but states that I actually violated BLP. As to attacking Ahmed shahi "for no reason", there are also untruths there. First, I've attacked his edits, and his mode of editing. And for good reason. I've also just most recently weighed in at an AN/I re his disruptive editing, brought by another editor (with a Muslim name -- so much for Ahmed's world view), pointing out my disappointment in his editing. Perhaps he thinks that bringing this baseless AN/I is the proper rejoinder. AfF doesn't require that I immediately assume that the two, hours apart, are unrelated, especially when it turns out that his statements replete with full of untruths. I'll not get into the specifics of the content disputes here, as this is the wrong place.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

user:BruceGrubb and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on talk:Christ myth theory

BruceGrubb has been editting the Christ myth theory article (I.e. the view that Jesus simply never existed) for a long time. Sadly, his contributions at this point are little more than a never-ending parade of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on the talk page.

Bruce objects that the article is poorly defined, that the definition used in the article is synthetic and the product of original research and that it therefore violates WP:NPOV. To support his claim he refers to a few books, notably The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, editted by Geoffrey W. Bromiley.

This book, which was published in 1982, states: "Over the last two hundred years or so, some skeptics have sought to explain the New Testament witness to Jesus and the rise of Christianity in terms of the Christ-myth theory." It then goes on to describe how advocates of the Christ myth theory argue that Jesus' miracles depicted in the gospels can be explained as early Christians just copying from other works available at the time, an argument anticipated by Lucian, a second century writer who accepted Jesus' historical existence but felt that the gospels exagerated his biography. The Bromiley text goes on to discuss more of the theory's history and then moves on to mention that other thinkers, such as Bertrand Russell thought Jesus' historical existence was an open question.

Bruce, however, has misunderstood this source and thinks that Lucian and Russell are both classed as examples of Chrst myth theory advocates proper though they accept that Jesus existed. On this basis, Bruce claims that the definition Bromiley uses differs from that found in the Wikipedia article (which is currently supported with three different sources all written by university professors and published through major universities). He's raised this objection over [60] and over [61] and over [62] and over [63] and over [64] and over [65] and over [66] again--for more than a year. He's been corrected every time (I can get diffs if needed), by a variety of editors, but he presses on regardless, refusing to drop the WP:STICK.

I've recently informed Bruce that if he didn't stop this nonsense I'd submit a report to the ANI seeking some sort of censure for disruptive editting as WP:DISRUPT mentions this sort of tedious, time-wasting, consensus obstructing talk-page behavior [67], [68]. Not only did he not stop [69], but he then said my statement that I was coming here [70] constituted a "personal attack" [71]. Please, do something about this so the Christ myth theory page--which is contentious enough without Bruce's shenanigans--can have a better shot at making progress. Eugene (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not involved in this article directly, but I participated in its good article reassessment which has just ended by removing that status and delisting it. The majority of the GAR comments were that the article is not NPOV, that CMT is poorly defined, that it appears to be a POV fork of Historicity of Jesus, and that a couple of editors appear to be behaving in violation of WP:OWN on that article. It seems to me that these issues need to be addressed before anyone is reprimanded for insisting that the article become more NPOV and policy compliant, which appears to be a majority view, as is clearly seen on its GAR page. Crum375 (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Could we have some evidence that you (Eugene) has listened to those who feel that the article needs POV attention? Looking at the GAR review and the talkpage it doesn't seem as if the consensus is in fact behind your interpretation of what is neutral POV and that Bruce's concerns have not been duly adressed. That might be why he feels he needs to repeat himself.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I've been willing to make a number of concessions to those who've cried "POV!": the most obvious example is that in mediation I agreed to a compromise in which certain material was removed from the lead and a few marginal quality sources were removed [72].

But the issue here isn't the article's POV/NPOV status; it's that Bruce is factually misrepresenting a source over and over and over again on the talk page despite numerous attempts to correct him and that this sort of thing is prohibited by WP:DISRUPT. As for Crum's concerns, it's precisely Bruce's sort of disruptive talk page obstructionism and obscurantism that impeeds more meanignful conversations which could potentially resolve the questions concerning neutrality and so on. Please help us. Eugene (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not just Bromiley (who as I pointed out before requires some WP:OR to shoehorn his definition in the the Jesus wasn't a historical person position the article has taken) but also Dodd, Richard Dawkins ("The only difference between the Da Vinci Code and the gospel is that the gospels are ancient fiction while The Da Vinci Code is modern fiction." (The God Delusion pg 97)); Price, Doherty AND Boyd, Gregory A. (2007) all regard Wells' post Jesus Myth position as Christ-Jesus Myth one which agrees with the first part Welsh's definition ("The theory that Jesus was originally a myth is called the Christ-myth theory, and the theory that he was an historical individual is called the historical Jesus theory"); and I could go on with the many sources some of which are just notable (like John Remsburg that show the definition the Christ Myth Theory the article mainly uses is the product of WP:SYN as well as WP:OR and by excluding those definitions that don't support the one the article present there are always going to be major WP:NPOV issues (which it has been tagged with yet again).

I once agreed with Akhilleus that there was a definitive non-historical hypothesis that we could form an article on but after reading much of the material I honestly can't see any real support for that position. Dodd is so vague as not to exclude a historical Jesus, Bromiley's story of as well as his use of Lucian and Bertrand Russell without one single mention of Drews or any other 'great' of the "formal" non historical position seems to leans more toward a 'gospel are accurate history' position definition than the man never existed at all. Price, Doherty AND Boyd all calling Wells with his mythical Paul+historical Q Jesus = Gospel Jesus a Christ-Jesus Myth position only adds to the mess.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

This probably isn't the place to do this, but perhaps correcting you here (yet again) will show the adminstrators what exactly the problem is. Bruce lists a number of works that he thinks undermine the very clear definition of the "Christ myth theory" that the article currently sources with university publications; here are a few of Bruce's ostensible counter-examples: (1) Bromiley's ''The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, (2) Dodd's History and the Gospel, (3) Dawkins' The God Delusion, and some inspecific references to (4) Price and (5) Doherty. It's like deja vu all over again.

1. As I've already indicated, Bromiley (or an anonymous contributor to his volume) doesn't say what Bruce wishes he said. Bromiley states on page 1034 of The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia that the Christ myth theory has only been argued for "the last two hundred years or so" and that the advocates of the thesis employ an argument similar to that used by the 2nd century Lucian. Also, Bromiley deals with Russell's Jesus agnosticism only after wrapping up his overview of the Christ myth theory proper.
2. Dodd never actually defines the Christ myth theory so there's simply no way to set his non-definition against the actual definition currently used in the article. Dodd's book simply includes little superscripts at the top of each page to help roughly orient the reader, such as "occurence and meaning" and "historical and supra-historical"--they aren't section headings or anything, the text just flows from one page to the next with no breaks. At the top of page 17 the superscript reads "The Christ myth theory" and on that page Dood speaks of the theory that some people just made Jesus up as the symbolic representation of a mythic god. He then goes on to say, "Or alternatively", and then sketches out a different view that Jesus may have been some totally obscure person dressed up in a ready-made myth. Does Dodd think that this "Or alternatively" information is part of the Christ myth proper or does he think that he's moved on to a totally different option? To what material does the superscription apply? We don't know; as I said, he never actually defines the phrase.
3. Dawkins never even uses the phrase "Christ myth theory" in his book at all!
4. Price writes of Wells on the back cover of The Jesus Myth, "Wells has now abandoned the pure Christ Myth theory for which he is famous..." If Price contradicts himself later on, that doesn't undermine the article's definition, it only undermine's Price's reliability.
5. Doherty is an online self-publishing amatuer who's statements are manifestly inadmissable as reliable sources.

This is precisely the sort of nonsense that Bruce has been burdening the page with and while a few editors have tried time and again to correct his mistakes, he just keeps on posting the same references over and over and over, confusing the new comers and forcing us to have the same arguments time and again. Please, stop him. Eugene (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Since you didn't, I notified BruceGrubb for you. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I had thought the talk-page notice would be sufficient; but you're right. Eugene (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Sadly part of the problem is the source material is a mess. Before the GAR (which really surprised me) there were no less than four attempts across two noticeboards even even define what the Christ myth theory even was:

• Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_8#Jesus_myth_hypothesis.2C_part_7295
• Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_11#Jesus_myth_hypothesis
• Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_15#Christ_myth_theory_and_Historicity_of_Jesus
• Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_7#Christ_Myth_Theory_definition

and none of them answered the concerns much less formed a consensus. I should mention that before I called him on it User:Eugeneacurry was calling editor Kuratowski a liar [User:Eugeneacurry&diff=357101602&oldid=357101430] and given his statement of pastor being a First Baptist Church of Granada Hills so there are possible WP:COI issues here.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Please take Bruce's claims of COI with a very large grain of salt; he once made the same accusation against books published by Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press at the page in question [73] [74]. This only further illustrates the problems with Bruce's editing here. Eugene (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

As I pointed out Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press both have exclusive contracts to print the Authorized KJV and it is in their best interest to kept the head of the Anglican Church (ie the King or Queen) happy which means supporting the idea Jesus was a historical person by default. As I said later on it would be akin to expecting a totally unbiased paper out of BYU regarding historical accuracy of the Book of Morman, the Pontificia Università Lateranense to put out an unbiased study on abortion or the viability of having married priests, or any US university putting out an unbiased study on Communism c1951-1960. To believe university presses are totally immune to pressures is to live in a fantasy world. Even the most respectable of medical journals are not immune to this--why else do you think Lancet put out an article in support of homeopathy in 1997? Also going over the delist of the GA I seen several charges against Eugene for POV issues providing independent support for my WP:COI concerns.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I find Bruce polite and extremely patient, indulgent even, towards those who don't share his view. I share his view about the inadequacy of the definition, but am concentrating on the article's comment that the scholars who argue for this decidedly fringe theory are pseudoscholars, and haven't had time to concentrate on the definition issue. But I occasionally read the discussion on that issue and am amazed at the pure unkindness of Bruce's opponents towards him, their inability to see there is a problem, and his perennial humanity in return. 17:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Anthony (talk)'=

There are times I have lost it (if you go though the talks pages I do make a few first class blunders but as the Japanese say 'even a Buddhist priest will get angry if you smack him in the face three times') and I actual left the article for a while because the constant POVing was driving my blood pressure through the roof (sadly I had similar issues with the Multi-level marketing article but at least there I was able to pull one reliable source after another to clearly make the points I was making.) I came back and while I didn't like where the article had gone I thought it was going somewhere and stayed out of it for a while until it became clear the somewhere it was going was off the NPOV cliff (again). The only peer reviewed journal that I could find that even tangentially touched on this issue (and was thrown out because it was felt to be outside the journal's expertise) was Fischer, Roland (1994) "On The Story-Telling Imperative That We Have In Mind" Anthropology of Consciousness) Dec 1994, Vol. 5, No. 4: 16 which said "There is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived, to give an example, and Christianity is based on narrative fiction of high literary and cathartic quality. On the other hand Christianity is concerned with the narration of things that actually take place in human life." (abstract) "It is not possible to compare the above with what we have, namely, that there is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived."(body text).--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

This misdirection only further illustrates the problems with Bruce's edits to the talk page. I never complained about civility issues. The talk page has often become heated and I'm in no position to pretend to be "Mr. Manners" here. This has always only been about Bruce's disruptive editing. Further, Bruce has now reverted, as he often does, to using the discussion of the article per se as a forum for discussing the subject of the article. Please, admins, take some of the distraction out of this article's existence by taking Bruce out of it, at least for a little while. Eugene (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Eugeneacurry, you are the one doing misdirection with the "The Christ myth theory is..." or "The Christ myth theory, namely the belief that..." word games you are trying to use to ignore what Dodd is saying. You have called another editor a liar (removing it only when it was point out to another administrator), verbally smacked down Crum375 who chastised you for it, Sophia and SlimVirgin both claimed you were POV pushing the article in the GA delisting, and were pushing for calling Drews an Anti-Semitism even though editor Paul B indicated that the term meant a totally different thing than it does now (ie not a hater of the Jewish people) and yet the term links to the hater of the Jewish people article. While were at it there seems to be a problem with the New Testament Introduction: The College Press Niv Commentary reference used to back this up as the 1994, 1997, 2008 version that is searchable via google books doesn't have Drews in it at all So why did this reference only appear in the hardcover version?--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Admins, please not that Bruce is trying to obscure this report through a number of pointless diversions; this is precisely the sort of thing he continually does on the talk page. If Bruce would like to complain about my supposed POV issues let him do so, but that's not the subject here. And as for David Fiensy' NT intro book, it's simply one more attempted distraction. The book appears once in the article and isn't connected to Arthur Drews at all but to another person, Bruno Bauer. Bruce is attempting to draw a false equvalency here. Please don't be distracted by it. Please block him. Eugene (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

No, him. —^

Seriously, are we in kindergarten here? I always thought Wikipedia was a community of late teens living in basements. Hans Adler 20:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

That was a little harsh, Adler. I have to admit, I did confused by the stuff on Drews' own page with what was on the Christ myth theory but he is called a "religious anti-Semite" on his page without really explaining what that means; I through the previous reference Arthur Drews (1865 – 1935) Professor der Philosophie an der Technischen Hochschule Karlsruhe, Vortrag von Dr. Bernhard Hoffers, Lehrte, im Geschichtssalon Karlsruhe, 24. April 2003 at google translator and found out that was a majorly bad idea as trying to pull any sense out of "First you should in fairness, after I one of Drews and Nazism had made allusion just say that Drew's publicly against tremendous growing anti-Semitism in the twenties has pronounced itself." gives me headaches though I can see who ever put it there thought it demonstrated Drews was not an anti-Semite (unless they knew German then they knew exactly what it meant). It still seems off to use terms that have certain meanings in 2010 that may have had totally different from those in 1927 based on one and only one reference that really doesn't explain what those terms even meant.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

In such cases just ask a German for a better translation, such as: "For justice' sake [I] should first, after I have made these hints about Drews and Nazism, also say that Drews has spoken out publicly against the enormous rise of antisemitism in the 20s." You should generally be careful with what German scholars say about Nazi era scholars. Most are their academic descendants and are either uncritical or hypercritical. – Unsurprisingly, the term "religious anti-Semite" was added by Eugeneacurry. [75]

Here is something more detailed translated from elsewhere: "To understand Drews' own position during this time more clearly, it is necessary to draw on his convictions which he voiced publicly at the time in the journal Freie Religion. On one hand Drews positioned himself unambiguously against antisemitic stereotypes. On the other hand he also expressed thoughts that correspond to a racial religiosity. For example Drews asserted that Christianity was the expression of a 'sunken time and the mindset of a race foreign to us'. He stressed that 'Christianity [had] absolutely nothing to do with Germanhood' and therefore a 'German Christianity'would represent 'nonsense'." [76]. Hans Adler 22:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the translation. My late mother knew German fluently and I still remember one of her examples of just how awkward translating the language was: 'I throw myself down the stairs a bucket.' Conan-Doyle even had his creation say "only a German is so discourteous to his verbs." Back to the point at hand:

"Wells has now abandoned the pure Christ Myth theory for which he is famous, moving closer to the recent theories of Burton Mack." (please note the part pf Price's that was left out)

Back in Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Archive_18 there was a lot said on this matter and going over Price's Deconstructing Jesus on page 228 he actually defines the pure "Christ Myth Theory" and states "According to the Christ-Mtyh theorists "Jesus had first been regarded in the manner of an ancient Olympian god" which does not exclude Wells mythic Paul Jesus concept. In the conclusion Price states "The gospels Jesuses are each complete syntheses of various other, earlier, Jesus characters." and there there may have been a historical Jesus behind any one of these versions or none at all.

"Christ-myth theorists like George A. Wells have argued that, if we ignore the Gospels, which were not yet written at the time of the Epistles of Paul, we can detect in the latter a prior, more transparently mythic concept of Jesus,[...] The Gospels, Wells argued, have left this raw-mythic Jesus behind, making him a half-plausible historical figure of a recent era." [...] Is it, after all this, possible that beneath and behind the stained-glass curtain of Christian legend stands the dim figure of a historical founder of Christianity? Yes, it is possible, perhaps just a tad more likely than that there was a historical Moses, about as likely as there having been a historical Apollonius of Tyana. But it becomes almost arbitrary to think so. For after one removes everything that is more readily accounted for as simple hero-mythology or borrowing from other contemporary sources, what is left? (Price, Robert M (!999) "Of Myth and Men A closer look at the originators of the major religions-what did they really say and do?" Free Inquiry magazine Winter, 1999/ 2000 Volume 20, Number 1)

"G.A Wells is the eminently worthy successor to radical 'Christ myth' theorists..." and after about three sentences a direct reference to Can we Trust the New Testament? is made. (Robert M Price back cover of Can we Trust the New Testament?)

The entire "Review of Can We Trust the New Testament? (2005)" article which in part says "But there is nothing arcane about Wells's suggestion that two different sects with "Jesus" figureheads found it advantageous to merge, and so merged their Jesuses, reasoning that each sect had part of the truth." [...] "Wells specifically addresses the parallel cases made by Earl Doherty and myself to the effect that the Q source need not go back to a single teacher at all, much less one named Jesus." In short Wells' current idea is that the Gospel Jesus is a composite character made of at least a preexisting Christ Myth (accounted by Paul) plus one or more historical teachers whos actions were record in the Q Gospel. Last time I checked a composite character was by definition non historical as no one person did all the the things the composite character.

"Far from being a radical, Wells is simply mainline scholarship taken to its ultimate limit, engaged in dialogue with his critics, and with copious references to topical writings. He accepts much that is normative in NT historical scholarship, and but for his "radical" view that Jesus is a composite figure, could easily be mistaken for another conservative apologist drone, grinding out defenses of the position that Paul's companion Luke authored Acts, or that the Tomb was really empty. Wells is the last in a long line of men like Robinson, Loisy, and Drews, scholars who trod the mainstream paths to show where the mainstream had gone wrong." (Turton, Michael (May 16, 2003) The Jesus Myth and Deconstructing Jesus)

These are the true WP:IDIDNTHEARTHATs that tend to happen in the Christ Myth Theory article--anytime you get one of these examples which present even the possibly that the "Christ Myth Theory" could include a historical person you get a kind of hat over the eyes, fingers in ears, la la la I can't hear you tap dance and it has really gotten old.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

As I've said before, at most this just means that Price, the non-professor extremist self-publishing here, is inconsistent and thus not a reliable source on living 3rd parties according to WP:IRS on three different counts. We've been over this before--many times. Eugene (talk) 03:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Eugeneacurry, you clearly are missing (or ignoring) the "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." As I have pointed out several times by publishing articles in Journal for the Study of the New Testament ("one of the leading academic journals in New Testament Studies"), Perspectives on Science & Christian Faith ("The peer-reviewed journal of the ASA"), Themelios ("international evangelical theological journal that expounds and defends the historic Christian faith"), Journal of Ecumenical Studies ("The premiere academic publication for interreligious scholarship since 1964"), Evangelical Quarterly, Journal of Psychology and Theology, Journal of Unification Studies, etc. Price fits the "work in the relevant field" requirement (Please note this does NOT say on the topic of the article and wouldn't make sense if it did so don't even waste our time going there). Also Price's position on Wells is independently supported by other sources like Boyd, Turton, and Doherty so it is not like he is the only one saying this. Per the order presented on the WP:RS it would seem Boyd being published through Baker Academic is of a higher 'rank' than Wells' Open Court book. Wells may not consider himself a part of the "Christ Myth theory" but Boyd does and as the more reliable source we would have to go with Boyd for how "Christ Myth theory" is defined especially as it is independently supported by Price.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I've said all this before: WP:IRS says "Questionable sources ... include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist ... Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties." Price's views are widely considered extremist so his self-published stuff can't be used to define other people. Further, WP:IRS goes on to say that "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer;" Given that Wells is still alive, this further indicates that Price's blog articles cannot be used to categorize him. Ditto wth Doherty, only more forcefully since he's not an academic at all. Double ditto with Turton, another non-scholar whose self-published web review article you yourself once said was "somewhat useless" [77]. These absurd attempts to grasp at straws perfectly illustrates Bruce's disruptive editing on the talk page.

It's nice to see that you finally concede that Wells doesn't see himself as part of the club any longer; I'll save the diff. It's also nice to see that you now feel that Christian scholars publishing through real publishers are more authoritative sources for this article than even the Christ myth advocates themselves; I'll save that diff too. But I note for the admins here that both these points represent major shift on Bruce's part; he's argued the exact opposite on the article's talk page (E.g. re: Wells [78]) and seems to have only reversed himself here as he's been progressively backed into a corner.

The book by Boyd and Eddy would be worth considering, but they clearly support the definition of the "Christ myth theory" currently used in the article:

"As we have noted, some legendary-Jesus theorists argue that, while it is at least possible, if not likely, an actual historical person named Jesus existed, he is so shrouded in legendary material that we can know very little about him. Others (i.e, Christ myth theorists) argue that we have no good reason to believe there ever was an actual historical person behind the legend."

Paul R. Eddy & Gregory A. Boyd, The Jesus Legend: a Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007) p. 165

Please admins, don't allow this thread to go stale or become nothing more than one more go-around on Bruce's tendentious carousel; please intervene. Eugene (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the fifth thread Eugene has started at ANI in two months. ^^James^^ (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

edit warring on boards of canada page

there seems to be some dispute as to whether the tag "IDM" should be attached to BOC and it constantly is placed by one editor then removed by another. i put it back with a dubious tag hoping to find some middle ground but of course it disappeared a couple of days later and even when i refer people to the talk board where it was discussed years ago and i´ve opened a fresh discussion people seem to ignore and just carry on edit warring. what can be done?--Lotsofmagnets (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

just adding that several of the latest edits were done by SPAs --Lotsofmagnets (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment: the IPs seem to want to have "Intelligent Music [dubious]", as opposed to "Intelligent Dance Music [dubious]". I suspect the IPs simply don't understand what the dubious tag signifies... I've left a message on the most recent IP's talk page. I suspect the best course of action may be semi-protection - it'll force the IPs to discuss it on the talk page - or leave well alone... TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 16:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The IP has replied: if I understand them correctly it was partly a joke, and partly to make a point ("music can't be intelligent"). I've left a note explaining what the dubious tag signifies.

I'd still suggest that if this continues semi-protection would be a good idea. It's incredible how communicative some editors become once their preferred strategy stops working...

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 09:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Copy and paste of Isavia

Resolved

 – History merge complete. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Bjarkith has made a good faith move of Flugstoðir to Isavia. While this is a good interpretation of WP:UE, they have unfortunately cut and pasted content into the new article, thus breaking the article history. As the moving will require a temporary deletion, could an admin please do this. Thanks, Arsenikk ^(talk) 16:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• Noting just for reference that if you encounter similar cases, you could also either tag them with {{db-histmerge}} or bring these directly to WP:SPLICE, which is inhabited by one of the most dedicated history mergers of the site :) MLauba ^(Talk) 16:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Not sure how to approach this

I am not sure how to convey to a new editor (that i believe is old with a new account) that blanking pages and making them redirects at will is not constructive to wikipidia. I am not sure what can be done a few editors have tried to explain that this is not how its done but the persons keeps doing it. i.e 1 i.e 2 and so on...posting here to find out how we can stop this disruptive edits by User:Active Banana.....all the best.Moxy (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not necessarily disruptive. If the albums are indeed not notable, then there is no need for an article - but a redirect is fine. However, s/he should stop and discuss now that someone with a differing opinion has reverted. Aiken ♫ 17:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the problem it is being do without warning, causing may to get upset as see on the users talk page..I agree most are not notible but should be given a chance to improveMoxy (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)...

As a redirect, there is clearly the ability for anyone, including an IP, to make improvements and add sourced content. Active Banana (talk) 17:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You just dont get it....your not doing right by editors here...how many more people have to post to your talk page and explain that your actions need much more tough to them before you implement them!! Moxy (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

"your not doing right by editors here" - please explain. There is no "right" to post unsourced content to Wikipedia. Leaving unsourced articles is harmful to new Wikipedia editors who may believe that "because some other album or single has its own article, then my favorite bands albums and singles deserve one too." Active Banana (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

According to your account you been here for a few months and in that time you have been brought here 2 times and have had noless then 8 editors explain to you that your not going about things right. What more explanation do you need about "not doing right by editors here". I will move on and can only hope oneday you will see the errors of your ways....Moxy (talk) 18:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Though it may be a bit of a hassle to interested editors, Active Banana can go ahead and redirect such articles per WP:BOLD. However, per WP:Deletion policy#Redirection, once the redirection is contested, it should be taken to discussion (rather than continually reverted). -M.Nelson (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The deletion policy and the verification policy appear to be in conflict. Active Banana (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

If you believe so, there are venues for such a discussion. Don't make your own personal interpretation of policy and take it to battle in articles. -M.Nelson (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

A redirection is not a delete. Active Banana can redirect an article at will, per WP:BOLD. If the redirection is reverted, then discussion should ensue. However, it is equally contingent upon the person reverting to discuss -- "You're doing it wrong" is neither convincing nor productive. If lack of sources is the indicated issue, then those in favor of keeping the page as an article rather than a redirect should be able to indicate that sources are available and that those sources will be added to the article reasonably promptly. It seems to me that Active Banana is mostly in the right here, although perhaps a bit overzealous. Shimeru (talk) 20:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

OK you are all correct about the redirection, but it is a delete if the proper redirection process is not followed, that is the page content should be move to the page that the redirect is going to. Blanking the page and making a redirect to a parent article that does not mention what has just been blanked is not the way it should be done. I am not one to point to rules as common sense should apply here. However at Wikipedia:Editing policy it clearly states that content should be merged.

• merging the entire article into another article with the original article turned into a redirect as described at performing a merge

The main concern here is that the work of editors is simply being deleted/ignored and not merged to were the redirects are going to. WP:BOLD is great but Wikipedia:MERGETEXT is the proper way to go about it. The average new or novices editor will take this redirect he does as some sort of consensus that the article has no merit, were in fact this sort of thing is decided by the community has a whole.....Moxy (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

When the original article is unsourced, there is no sourced content TO move. Placing the unsourced content into a new article is not supported by WP:V. And a redirect is NOT a merge. Active Banana (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You are one hundred percent right!!! but this is not what your doing realy is it [79] do i think this guy should have an article no but.... Anyways this is going nowhere i wish you all the best of luck...Moxy (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia:Editing policy: "However, it is Wikipedia policy that information in Wikipedia should be verifiable and must not be original research. Please show that information is verifiable and not original research by referencing reliable sources. Unsourced information may be challenged and removed[...]" If an article isn't founded on reliable sources, then removal of unsourced information would leave... nothing. In that case, a redirect (as a potential search term) to a related article is appropriate. Shimeru (talk) 22:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

re:Moxy and the edit [[80]. As an article about a living person the requirements for sourced content are even higher than a random article about a non-notable single. And there is nothing at all to indicate this individual is in anyway notable outside of his participation in the band. Therefore a redirect to the band is called for. WP:ONEEVENT WP:ENT . Active Banana (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Threats to a BLP

User : 173.15.85.13 made today three times a threat to kill a BLP. I've blocked this user for a month, as a precautionary measure. It would be wise to look into this to assess the seriousness of such a threat. JoJan (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Uh, a "BLP" refers to an article, not a person. One cannot "kill" an article, although one can delete it. One can kill a person, but in this case it's unclear whether this is an actual threat -- or vandalism. And if it is a threat, why announce it with edits to an unrelated article? I think this is a case best handled by the established policy of "revert, block, & ignore." -- llywrch (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention "Kill (name)" (which they said) is entirely different from "I'm going to kill (name)". One is a request and one states intent. --Smashville^talk 20:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Issue about Gymnasium Quefurt article - Hans Adler and other users attack our school and delete content

Somethin' happened here; what it is, I'm not exactly sure... — Preceding unsigned comment added by HalfShadow (talk • contribs) 21:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

We need help urgently. Users like Hans Adler always delete the content we add to the article about our school, the Gymnasium Querfurt (High School). They keep removing our CEEB Code, coordinates, class information, recent projects and programs, etc. These people are Germans and because our school is in Germany they think we may not be affiliated with the American College Board and it would be advertisement to name our International Website GQBC in the article. We are a very American high school and I believe these users want to discriminate us on account of nationality and political opinion. Please help. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.234.101.152 (talk) 17:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC) The above posting sounds to me a lot like what User:Gqhs was saying on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Spyro02/Archive and on his talk page shortly before he was indefinitely blocked. Could I ask if you have edited Wikipedia before, or have talked with User:Gqhs? Even if you are not the same person it would help us to know how you became involved in this conflict. —Soap— 17:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Please help us! 74.106.205.48 (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Not too surprisingly there is nobody in the office of Gymnasium Querenburgfurt [I mistyped the name of the town, but the telephone number was correct] at this hour. Hans Adler 17:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Facepalm It was trivial to find this brainiac's complete name, village of residence (1,200 inhabitants), date of birth and photograph. I think I will have to call his parents to tell them they need to take better care that he doesn't expose so much about himself on the internet. Hans Adler 18:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Facepalm Turns out he has become a bit of an internet celebrity through fraud against RIPE – which already got him a phone call to his principal Dr. Hans-Jörg Däumer, who in a letter promised disciplinary action. Hans Adler 18:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC) That letter was faked by some Joe Baptista, Canadian Internet terrorist, because I and the computer science department corporate with an organization known as INAIC. And why I publish the information about myself on the Internet: I am a member of the Democratic Party (right, the one founded by Andrew Jackson in 1828, successor party of the Democratic-Republican Party founded by Thomas Jefferson) and every party member is required to publish his or her activities online on Facebook and MySpace. What you are just trying to do, Adler, is called harassment, which is not tolerated by US law. If you found a "village of residence", you are wrong, by the way. This is a town where I live, because all settlements in the US are towns or cities. Back off!! or it will have irreversible consequences for you, you stalker. 130.242.7.253 (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC) By the way, I have endless IP numbers: the grandma of my fiancé wrote the Internet Protocol and thanks to this nice laptop from the 1990s and the files on it, I have free access to all Internet resources. 88.161.176.20 (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC) It's your choice. Tell me which of the three first names in the telephone book is your father's, so that I can call your parents. Or I can call your school if you prefer that. Or, even better, just forget about Wikipedia, and I can spend my time with better things. Hans Adler 19:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Dude. You didn't seriously threaten to tell his Mom on him, did you? Oh, this is priceless. HalfShadow 19:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Not long after I was sysopped, I received an abusive email from a vandal I'd blocked. I replied, which of course copied in the original email. Thing was, he'd set up his Wikipedia account using his parents' email address. To cut a long story short, I got a very nice email from his mother a while later apologising profusely and telling me that she'd grounded him until Christmas (it was September).... Black Kite (t) (c) 21:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC) 'Joe Baptista: Internet Terrorist' *cue musical sting* And a Canadian terrorist too. Ooh, that's cute. HalfShadow 19:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC) It would appear that neither this child up here, nor that Baptista person, nor the guy spreading stuff about the Baptista person are entirely sane. I guess it's not a good sign about myself either that I am trying to deal with this nonsense. Hans Adler 19:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC) I emailed a kid's mom once. It was hilarious. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Dads sometimes do a better job. Just saying ... --Epeefleche (talk) 21:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC) The problem is, there are three numbers listed under his last name in the phone book of his village, and he won't tell me which one is the right one. Thus I have the choice between randomly calling one of the numbers and probably talking to an aunt or something first, and calling his school. I think I will try his school first, since he is creating a bad reputation for them. Hans Adler 21:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing by HairyWombat

I regret to see that HairyWombat (talk · contribs) has been selectively notifying people involved in a particular image deletion discussion about its deletion review. Specifically, different but equally strongly-worded messages (one identified me as "seeking to change the WP:DPR#FFD policy" – a false accusation) to EncycloPetey and J Greb (both editors who expressed opinions on the same 'side' as HaryWombat in the discussion) but to none of those who were on the opposing side. In my opinion, this is a clear case of votestacking and campaigning, both violations of the behavioural guideline WP:CANVASS—which has a convenient table at the top identifying the various factors.

HairyWombat has not been notified of this discussion because they have instructed me not to post on their talkpage. If someone else wouldn't mind? ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 18:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Notified. Deor (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I have made a note at the DRV. However, since I had already commented there, another admin should be the one to warn or sanction HairyWombat. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Reply. On reflection, I accept that I was guilty of canvassing. I will accept whatever sanctions administrators choose to impose. What else can I say; it was dumb and I should not have done it. As for User:TreasuryTag "seeking to change the WP:DPR#FFD policy", I stand by that and explained it here. It is not just User:TreasuryTag seeking this, but this user did initiate the Deletion Review. Finally, on my Talk page I request all users not to clutter it up. HairyWombat (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I had never ready WP:DPR#FFD until Mkativerata (talk · contribs) linked to it on the DRV. I had only read the (admittedly contradictory) sentence on WP:FFD which I quoted in my DRV statement. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 19:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

As User:TreasuryTag had not read WP:DPR#FFD then the user was unaware that they were seeking to change it. But they were still seeking to change it. HairyWombat (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:RFC

My original RFC at the top of the page here was changed somehow to this. Could an administrator change it back to what it was? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You're asking an admin to ratify your change of the RfC that you made here, at WT:NOR. Since option C, that you wish to remove from consideration in the RfC, was originally added by Crum375, consider writing to him directly. If you expect the result of the RfC to carry any weight, you should probably try to find supporters for the exact version of the RfC that you prefer, instead of just reverting what Crum375 added. EdJohnston (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently the Bot does it automatically and also got rid of that glitchy stuff. Anyhow, thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Possible death threat?

Resolved

 – Probably just a schoolkid being silly.

I initally just thought it was vandalism but it may be something more serious than that. See this diff. Following diffs included "rachel curses" and "she's a bad boy". Vandalism? Or something more sinister? Could an admin please take a look?--John Chestpack (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

And, yes, I have notified KevinV2 of this thread.--John Chestpack (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a schoolkid with too much time on his hands. Blocked as a vandalism only account, nothing more really needs done. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough.--John Chestpack (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Insert joke here

Resolved

 – Article semi protected for 1 year.

Jonah Falcon reportedly has the largest penis in the world. If you think that makes his article a target for vandalism - you're right! Can some forward-thinking admin please permanently semi-protect it? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The vandalism isn't absurdly frequent, but it's pretty regular and contributions by unregistered users are exclusively vandalism of the most unimaginative and stupid type. Semi-protected for 1 year - this has indeed been going on for a while. ~ mazca ^talk 19:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You could also report to WP:RFPP for any other page protection requests. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 00:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Your average elephant easily has him beat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Review of actions

I have just protected Bishop Hill (blog) following my reverting of a merge redirect of the article to that of the blog's author. There is an ongoing merger discussion, which was formalised a couple of days ago by the creation of a RfC. This is the second time in 24 hours that consensus for the move has been "declared" by one of the proponents, and in this instance the action had the following edit summary "The RfC can keep running for 30 days. It does not override current consensus for a merger in any way". I have been attempting to admin this Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation related article these last couple of weeks, and had previously protected the article upon reviewing the editing history and determining that there was a slow edit war. I had lifted the protection upon request, and had then blocked three editors who then made major edits without apparent consensus. As well as protecting the article, I have also banned the editor who redirected the article last from editing the page until the RfC has concluded. I invite review of my actions, and suggestions on how to proceed further - I am assuming a redirect is the likely outcome of the RfC, and would appreciate pointers as to how to ensure the determination that there is consensus after a reasonable period (and how long should that period be). LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
There is also related discussion at my talkpage, particularly Talk:LHvU#Blog again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You are not permitted to edit a page back to your favoured version and then protect that - this is a clear abuse. Nor are you permitted to "ban" PG - he has as much right to "ban" you William M. Connolley (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Its not his favored version, his action was as an administrator not as an editor. He has also not banned User:Polargeo only temporarily restricted him to the talkpage of the article after Polargeo attempted to merge the article in what looks like an out of process edit. Off2riorob (talk) 20:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

With any block under this regime a key question is about uninvolvement:

• ...an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions...

Nobody is commenting on this so I assume that LessHeard vanU qualifies. Another requirement is that the user be warned:

• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to these provisions;...

Was such a warning issued?  Will Beback  talk  21:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Rather busy just now, but would note that LHvU blocked me without warning after my only edit to the article, which I made in response to talk page discussion of content which in my opinion was (and, as now restored, is again) a coatrack based on a passing mentions in news reports, giving credence to blog claims involving a living person. While I did note my action on the talk page, giving reasons, the proposal that I follow 0RR on the article to be unblocked was no big deal, and I agreed accordingly. LHvU is evidently giving priority to stopping an edit war which I wasn't really part of, which is a judgement call. My concern about the paragraph remains, and I note that the current version as reverted by LHvU claims that the radio "interview was first posted on the Bishop Hill blog" – the "first" appears to be unsupported by the reference, which merely refers to "The interview, posted on the Bishop Hill blog" without saying that this was the first posting. Others may care to review that wording. . . dave souza, talk 22:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

(resp to Will Beback) All editors are under a general warning, given when I noted the lifting of the previous indefinite protection on the article talkpage. I subsequently blocked 3 editors for making unilateral removals and redirects following the lifting of the protection, and then declined to do so when WMC again redirected the article in a merge attempt - citing consensus on an RfC he inappropriately closed - per AGF and also Cla68 for undoing same. I gave my rationale at my talkpage, of which PolarGeo was a participant. To consider that PolarGeo would not be aware of the consequences of reverting the undoing of the redirect would be a great stretch of imagination. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The revert was apparently to remove a page blanking that was improperly done. It's not like LHVD chose specific content; he simply restored the content that was previously there. I see no problem with his actions here. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 22:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The ban would appear to be out of process. Per the banning policy, "Users may be banned as an outcome of the dispute resolution process, or by uninvolved administrators enforcing Arbitration Committee rulings." Perhaps I've missed it -- I'll admit just doing a quick scan -- but I don't see any cases involving Polargeo and this article. Shimeru (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The general sanction is linked above, here it is again. Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation.--Cube lurker (talk) 22:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, can't imagine how I missed that. I'm not sure I'd agree it was a disruptive edit, but I won't fault LessHeard's judgement on the matter. Shimeru (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Notwithstanding LHvU's spin on the issue (which I find misleading), you don't revert and then protect. Sure, there are a few exceptions to the rule, like obvious BLP violations. But as an admin you have to choices - either revert or protect. You can't do both. Especially over something as trivial as whether an article should be split or merged. Guettarda (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Not true. "Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists." Arkon (talk) 22:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

As people are pointing out elsewhere, it's standard practice to revert and protect when there's been an abuse of process or inappropriate editing. William Connolley and Polargeo have both tried to pre-empt the results of an RfC that was posted only a few days ago and where comments continue to arrive about whether to merge the pages, and if so in which direction. It's too early to close the RfC, and neither of them should be involved in doing that anyway. Therefore LhVU reverted their merge and protected the page so they can't do it again. It's unfortunate that he had to do that, but that was their fault not his. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 22:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The real abuse of process here (IMHO) is that a merge discussion that had started on April 21 and had pretty much reached consensus was unilaterally turned into an RfC at the last minute, and now certain editors insist that the RfC run a full 30 days before any action is taken. Some editors (myself included) consider this an unnecessary delay, perhaps even a deliberate stalling tactic. This is discussed at Talk:Bishop_Hill_(blog)#Slapping_an_RfC_on_top_of_a_merger_discussion and Talk:Bishop_Hill_(blog)#Done. Yilloslime ^T_C 23:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

An RfC is a formal, established, and accepted step in the content dispute resolution process. One important element in an RfC is that it invites participation by previously uninvolved editors because the RfC is listed on the "open RfCs" page. I think we should welcome input from previously uninvolved editors as they could very well provide new ideas or suggestions about the dispute or examine it with unprejudiced opinion. Cla68 (talk) 23:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

That all sounds good in principal, and that's why I've initiated RfCs myself in the past, but is this case, for the reasons enumerated immediately above and in the linked takepage threads, the RfC was used improperly. Yilloslime ^T_C 00:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

YS, I started the RfC, and I've not been involved in the discussion for weeks, so your arguments don't apply. I started it because it looked as though a small number of editors were being unnecessarily aggressive about the issue, so I felt fresh input might help. That page has the appearance of having certain editors assume control of it, with any new person arriving at the article (who doesn't agree with them) being attacked and undermined, told they must read and adhere to previous discussions, told they're not allowed to open a new RfC because discussion is already taking place among the people who matter. That's exactly the atmosphere that calls for an RfC. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

RfC does not override consensus. Also the RfC tag was slapped on to merge discussions that had been going on for weeks and had reached what I judged to be a fairly clear consensus (at least as clear as it is ever going to be). I didn't realise that peoples' comments could suddenly be made part of an RfC. I had not edited the article itself before this. I was simply trying to enforce consensus. LHvU has banned me from editing the article, when I had no previous warnings what so ever. I would like clarification on why he feels he can do this and whether it has any weight. I have no intention of reverting any of his edits myself and he could simply have asked me not to and I would have of course complied, he does not need to be heavy handed with me although I can see that he probably needs dealing with heavy handedly himself (because his view of others appears to be based on himself). Also I would keenly like to know what offwiki contact brought SlimVirgin into editing this because the conversations I have seen that she occasionally is mentioned in, or comments on, are very one sided rants indeed. Polargeo (talk) 09:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyway LessHeard appears to be using his admin tools and powers in any way that he can to stagnate an article at his favoured version and against consensus and is using the fact that a belated RfC was slapped on the talkpage when those wishing to avoid a merge found they were losing the argument. RfC is an informal request for outside comment, it is not a policy that can be used to stagnate development of an article or wikipedia against consensus. Polargeo (talk) 10:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

There is some remarkably poor behavior from all parties on this one. Reverting to a previous version and protecting is a red flag and should not be done lightly. Unprotecting an article one has edited is a red flag and should not be done lightly. Perhaps very long topic bans for lots of parties should be handed out liberally - but then, who am I to suggest that admins actually step up to solve the problems as opposed to just push them down the road. If any admin has the courage to step up and deal with this, please contact me and I can give you various sized balanced lists of people whose substantial absence from this topic area would help. Hipocrite (talk) 14:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I unprotected the article but my only ever edit on the article was reverted and the article was then immediately protected by LessHeard. I did not undo his edit, only his protection, because he claimed that the protection was against me. There was no need for this as I would never undo his edit. When LessHeard then explained the protection was for other reasons I immediately reinstated it. I don't understand how Less Heard is acting as an admin when he is enforcing content decisions of a minority whilst I am simply trying to enforce consensus as an editor. Polargeo (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It does appear that Less heard is reverting the article to a POV he agrees with (which is against consensus) and then protecting it at his prefered version. This is based on the fact that someone started an RfC when there was already consensus to merge. He is then "banning" me from editing the article after I have made a single edit which I thought was enforcing consensus. He not only undoes my edit but bans me and protects the article. This appears to be based on nothing more than the fact that someone started an RfC. I have yet to find the rule that an RfC underway in any way prevents editors from following consensus. Polargeo (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Votestacking / Sockpuppetry?

I'm not sure about this, or whether it's actually allowed or not - it just seems out of order to me. I'm not mentioning any names because I just want to know what the principle is, and I do not want to antagonise anyone unnecessarily or unfairly. I've had a lengthy and lively, but fair, discussion with another editor - a discussion I am relatively happy with. I started a discussion on a WikiProject page and he joined in. After he stopped discussing, another editor voiced an opinion in his favour. This second editor has never edited on an article on the subject before now, and is an infrequent editor, having not edited since February 28. Both editors are from the same country and in the past there has been some cross-editing between them, particularly one editor editing a few years ago on articles related to the specialist subject of the other. I want to retain an open mind on this, but I have a feeling that these two editors are close, and one has asked the other to participate in the discussion in his favour, or possibly used the other's account himself to do it. I feel this to be somewhat disingenuous, though I understand that it may not be forbidden, as such. Your thoughts would be much appreciated. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

See WP:MEAT; "meatpuppet" is considered a pejorative term, but is frequently used here to describe this situation. I think the key element is good faith. I believe the policy suggests that if User 1 requests User 2 to voice an opinion, and, importantly, that User 1 is attempting to do something which is less than above-board, then User 2 can be subject to any penalties appropriate for User 1; in this case, as I understand it, meatpuppet = sockpuppet. However, I've certainly seen situations where one editor asks another to comment because of his/her obvious expertise in the subject area, and the fact that they happen to agree is largely irrelevant. So, (a) do you think this is happening in good faith, and (b) is the article in question being improved? Have a look at the policies and see what you think. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Aha, I knew there must be a term for this, thank you. I have to say I don't think this is happening in good faith. User 1 was clearly losing the debate, since no other editor was agreeing with him at that point, and five were against him. Suddenly User 2 appears, with zero experience in the relevant field, not having edited at all for 2½ months, and supports him with a short comment. I believe it was a crude attempt to bolster support for his argument in order to build a consensus in his favour. I also believe the change he wishes to make to be no kind of improvement. However, I am sure that this extra voice won't actually make any difference to his case anyway - current consensus is still clearly against his idea - so I am not tempted to make a big deal of it, unless people here consider it serious enough. Maybe I will see if he attempts to use User 2 any further and make a judgement then. Thanks very much for your help, I appreciate it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Bali ultimate

Bali ultimate (talk · contribs) This user has in the past affronted me with his contemptuous tone. On this very WP:ANI even, if memory serves me. If I remember correctly he had some problem with the fact that I am a rabbi. But this post is unacceptable. Please also note that it comes after this post, which clearly shows that he is either irrational, or unwilling to abide by Wikipedia policy of reliable sources because of some personal prejudice (I guess). I kindly ask you block this user, perhaps even indefinitely. Debresser (talk) 21:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. The Menachem Mendel Schneerson page is about a deceased Chabad rabbi, many of whose disciples believed he was the Messiah (some still do, or think he didn't really die or something). Chabad is a controversial movement, Schneerson was a controversial person, the article is an unbalanced mess. Why? A number of Schneerson disciples guard the article. (No where is it mentioned, for instance, that many scholars and other Jewish groups believe that a cult of personality revolved around Schneerson). Chabad is also of course an organization that seeks to aggressively expand (like a lot of religious organizations, nothing wrong with that per se) and is having an outsized influence on the wikipedia article about Schneerson to suppress criticism. More people with both an interest in accurate research and history and no connections to chabad would be useful. I must admit, absent the Chabad pov-editors the article would probably end up badly skewed the other way (lots of people hate/hated Schneerson). Perhaps this is just a classic case of systemic wikipedia fail.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere in your reply, or in any Wikipedia policy, do I see justification for saying "what are you fucking on about"! Debresser (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't fucking care. I'm done here. Have fun.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It's uncivil but I don't think it warrants a block, much less indefinite. See WP:WQA perhaps, or WP:RFC/U (if it is a recurring pattern as per your comment). –xeno^talk 21:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything deserving of a ban. Little bit incivil, maybe, but he appears to be right on the merits. We really do need more than hearsay to remove a reliably-sourced addition from an article. If anything, it would seem to be the opposing side that is unwilling to abide by WP:RS. Shimeru (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

That is precisely what that discussion is about, and is best discussed there. This post is about WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. When did we start to allow such language on Wikipedia? Debresser (talk) 21:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

We don't typically block people for an expletive or two, much less indef-block them. If you feel there's some established pattern of harassment of you, then you could try WP:RFC/U (not WP:RFCU, that's something else). I would suggest, however, that you might be making a mountain out of a molehill, here. Shimeru (talk) 22:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I've been the target of Bali Ultimate's ire before, but per Shimeru, he does appear to be right on the merits. Wikipedia's action over incivility is irregular at best, and I doubt you'll see any action taken against an editor who is correct on the merits of his argument but incivil in doing so. I suggest the reporting party grow a thicker skin and take comfort in the fact that when another editor resorts to profanity it reflects badly on himself. Jclemens (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I am severely disappointed. I thought better of Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere in your reply, or in any Wikipedia policy, do I see justification for saying "what are you fucking on about"! Or "I don't fucking care". Nor is that last statement evidence of a good Wikipedia attitude. And no reason to make an effort to sound sophisticated here now. If you are capable of writing such sentences, and of the other insults you inflicted upon me in the past, you can not be a part of the Wikipedia commmunity. Such is my conviction. Debresser (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement

Debresser was a party to the above case, which I admittedly did not follow. Bali ultimate may have used a few naughty words, but I believe he's right on the facts here; I *know* he knows his stuff. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 23:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the only site that I'm a member on where being incivil (hmmm...WP:CIVIL doesn't mean much, does it?) is allowed. Joe Chill (talk) 01:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Tell me this JCelemens. I was right about the Online Quran Project. If I said "what the FUCK are you saying JC, the article needs sources or it WILL be deleted", I would have been blocked in 0.5 seconds indefinitely. The fact is that Wikipedia gives "established" editors extra room for breaking the rules because hey, you cant piss off the big editors, right, otherwise who's going to do the editing? Anyone remember Giano II as well? Yea. Sorry Dresser, its unfortunate that things are like this and its just not right. What some people dont understand is that if you let abusive editors stay, they spoil the whole experience for everyone else. And now Bali ultimate will become even more abusive as he learns that he's give free reign because he has a lot of edits. (hey if he cant be blocked or warned for using abusive language, the rules should fucking apply equally for us). Why dont we CHANGE the WP:NPA to say "Four letter words can be used if you are you right". Tolerating language like "what are you fucking on about" is 100% wrong. Debresser, you can use it too from now on really. The best thing to do? Leave Jimbo a message. Jimbo will not say its ok, trust me and he'll tell everyone else here that its wrong, sorry. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anyone saying it's right... just that it's not grounds for a block. And incidentally, speaking as the admin who closed that debate you linked... no, I wouldn't have blocked you for that, much less indefinitely. Shimeru (talk) 02:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If no one can be blocked for incivility like that, then how will it stop? If no one goes to jail for robbing a bank, the robbers are going to keep coming. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's time we put an end to this type of abuse. As i see it , this term is used rightly in 3 types of situations only: in the literal sense as the appropriate English noun or verb, as an rare expressions of extreme anger or frustration indicating the last stage of verbal as distinct from physical violence, or--when used routinely-- to indicate one's membership in a group who is living or like to pretend they're living in a perpetual state of imminent physical violence. The only other use of it is the wrong one, of desire to offend other people who do not use the word routinely. The tolerance of it here dates from the RPG days when even ordinarily good people as a convention adopted the manner of violence-dedicate game characters of the loutish variety. Anyone who thinks the current WP is or ought to be such an environment does not belong here. If not this, it's the desire to be obnoxious. Bali is often right, as he in the issue here, but that makes it worse, because he could establish his position without any extreme language--especially because he had calm solid support on that talk page. I think we need to actually establish and enforce a rule that such language if repeated after a warning will get you blocked. If any of the old-time players here feel uncomfortable with that, they should remember that they are making everyone else here uncomfortable. I'll make a deal with Bali , though, in consideration of our long-term relationship here-- , he may use fuck or any other abusive words he pleases to me, on my talk page where it will disturb nobody else and where I've learned not to mind it, but not to anybody else. It does not hurt me, and it may amuse him. DGG ( talk ) 03:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

DGG, I find your position reassuringly normal. Like in civilised world. I for a second thought I was in the jungle. I also thank Matt57 and Joe Chill who wrote me some moral support by email and on my talk page. I still hope something normal and civilised will come out of all this. I am really shocked by the matter-of-fact acceptance of what I soundly believe is not accepted in the real world. I think and hope that if a coleague on work would speak to me like this repeatedly, he would get reprimanded at least. Luckily, I have not met such verbal violence in real life, and that in itself might teach you something. Debresser (talk) 04:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, is nobody affronted by the contempt inherent in this edit above, which basically says that he doesn't care what editors on WP:ANI will say in this thread. Or this edit on the discussion page, which boils down to a complete rejection of Wikipedia reliable sources policy. Debresser (talk) 05:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

No more so than by the contempt inherent in, say, telling somebody they should not edit Wikipedia. Or using AN/I as a threat. Or declaring that reliably sourced information cannot be added to an article without your permission. (Okay, that one is more OWN than CIVIL.) Or questioning the motives of admins attempting to mediate. I wouldn't say you're exactly innocent, here.

That doesn't excuse Bali's words. But if you feel your injury is grievous enough to pursue further action, a few potential paths have been sketched out for you in previous responses. My advice would be to step away for a while and cool down, but it's your call. Shimeru (talk) 08:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You may not worry about me being "cool". After last evenings cold shower, I am as cool as can be. I refer off course to the unexpected reaction of admins condoning offensive language and personal attacks. I will indeed consider the options laid out above, but at the same time think I should persue the present one as much a s possible. And I was happy to see that at least some editors and admins agree with me generally. Debresser (talk) 08:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

What is wrong with reminding editors that there exists a WP:ANI in order to help them stick to Wikipedia policies and guidelines? No reason to call that a threat. Also, stating my opinion is not the same as declaring that reliably sourced information cannot be added to an article without my permission. You should be more careful when assessing edits. Debresser (talk) 08:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You wrote "As long as these issues have not been addressed to [my] satisfaction, the information can not be restored." That seems like a declaration to me. But then, that's one of the limitations of plain text -- lacking body language and tone, it's sometimes difficult to divine what someone's intent was based on what they wrote. We can but use our judgement.

Incidentally, there is a difference between refusing to block a user for writing something and condoning it. You should be more careful when assessing edits. ^_- Shimeru (talk) 09:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You are right. :) I did notice the note you dropped Bali ultimate, and I appreciate it. Debresser (talk) 09:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Many editors use strong language to indicate that as far as they are concerned a line has been crossed and they are really, really furious. They shouldn't use strong language to express that, but let's think about why they shouldn't use it for a moment. — It's because saying "Your post is unreasonable and made me irate" would express the same thing as "What are you fucking on about?" and is more constructive because it's marginally less likely to invoke a symmetric response.

Now if that's the main reason why we can't use expletives, then surely similarly unconstructive posts that could easily be phrased constructively are just as bad. Such as "you[r] post above shows that you should stop editing on Wikipedia", which is straight from Debresser's post which triggered Bali ultimate's explosion. That's just as bad. In fact it's slightly worse because (1) Debresser is obviously wrong in the underlying content conflict and using fallacious arguments, and (2) it appears that Debresser may have been tweaking Bali ultimate in cold blood, while clearly Bali ultimate was genuinely (and justifiably) irate. Hans Adler 09:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

What appears to you has no connection to reality. Perhaps review WP:AGF again. Debresser (talk) 09:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't need to assume bad faith to see that "you[r] post above shows that you should stop editing on Wikipedia" is not a constructive comment. Sometimes I say such things myself, but I shouldn't, I am not proud of doing it, and it's not constructive. And it is not better than using expletives. Hans Adler 10:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

We disagree here. I think an editor who feels he may insult other editors, is not an asset to Wikipedia. If they show they piss on Wikipedia, including WP:ANI and WP:RS, then they should be blocked. Debresser (talk) 11:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I think an editor who declares publicly on ANI that it's OK for them to tell others that they should "stop editing on Wikipedia" is not an asset to Wikipedia. If they show they, um, actively ignore Wikipedia's processes, including WP:ANI and WP:RS, then they should be blocked. Hans Adler 12:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Debresser is the instigator here, and while decorum is always a nice goal to shoot for, a burst of frustration on Bali's part when faced with such circular arguments is not entirely unexpected. Before this becomes a boomerang moment, let's move on. Tarc (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Hans Adler, being told to "stop editing" is not an excuse to use four letter words and is also not grossly uncivil as using 4 letter words. I'd say that people who justify abuse are not an asset to Wikipedia and should be blocked, what do you say?

Tarc, you've instigated me (dont ask why, you just did). Can I now abuse you using 4 letter words? When will people start learning that abuse is wrong no matter what? If you are told "stop editing", you can either be rational and say (1) "I have as much a right to edit as you do and needless to say, will ignore further demands to stop editing", or (2) get mad and use 4 letter words. #2 is an abusive response to something that isnt really abusive and is not even a personal attack. Debresser, its sad that commonsense isnt common at all as we can see. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Use whatever words you feel you need to get your point across, bro. Now if a line is crossed where you start f-bombing descriptions of another user (e.g. "so-and-so is a fucking moron"), then there may be problems. But this wasn't that. Tarc (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to block Bali ultimate for 24 hours

If abusive behavior is left unpunished it will continue and this is not consistent with WP:NPA. I recommend a 24 hour block for Bali ultimate (talk · contribs) for using abusive language ("what are you fucking on about") and refusing to accept responsibility for his abuse. This is not escalating this issue but doing justice where it needs to be done. Getting mad and using 4 letter words in reply to someone else is not acceptable on Wikipedia. If Bali is not blocked I may use 4 letter words myself at times and will cite this incident to justify what I did. Please help stop abusive editors on Wikipedia:

• Support. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Blocks should not be punitive. If the community has issues with the use of the f word by BaliUltimate, a warning is appropriate. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
• Fuck that bad idea. What is more incivil? Agressively turning a wikipedia article into a worthless propiganda piece or saying fuck? Hipocrite (talk) 15:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as fucking ridiculous. :) We're many hours after the fact now, and this was not even a remotely egregious f-bomb usage, all it really meant was "what's your problem?" Tarc (talk) 15:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Unclear on exactly who is proposing this, and who is therefore suggesting WP:POINT violations. Syrthiss (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

  It was proposed by the first supporter [81]. –xeno^talk 15:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Alright. I am now allowed to say things like these to admins: "what the fuck are you on about", "what fucking nonsense", "dont fucking bullshit", "why did you fucking revert me", "what kind of pussy faced edit was that?", "what kind of asshole would put in a reference like that?" and so on. I always wanted to but the WP:NPA stopped me. Now I know it cant and it wont. thank you. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Do you really feel that would be an appropriate way for a rabbi to behave? Malleus Fatuorum 15:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• My understanding of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA is:
  • "what the fuck are you on about" - fine (legitimate question, requesting clarification).
  • "what fucking nonsense" - borderline (stating you disagree, OK. Suggesting the other editor is speaking nonsense - not OK).
  • "dont fucking bullshit" - unacceptable (suggesting other editor is lying).
  • "why did you fucking revert me", - fine (legitimate question).
  • "what kind of pussy faced edit was that?" - borderline/unacceptable (commenting on content, not a contributor - but very likely to be misconstrued as an attack on an editor).
  • "what kind of asshole would put in a reference like that?" - unacceptable (describing a fellow editor as an "asshole").
• ...but the easiest approach is simply to avoid language like this, and tolerate it from others. TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• In the real world there are no restrictions on using such words either. Yet, the lack of a "decent language police", does not lead to everyone using such words all the time. How do you explain that? Count Iblis (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

TFO, "why did you fucking revert me" is 'fine'? I'm done. Its called incivility. Look it up.

Count Iblis, "In the real world there are no restrictions on using such words either", wrong. You cant use 4 letter words in a meeting room for example and if you keep doing that you'll likely be fired. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The proper analogue would be a prison sentence, as that amounts to being blocked for participating in society. It is common knowledge that in board room meetings F-words are frequently exchanged when things are not going well, just ask Alan Sugar. Count Iblis (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me - "why did you fucking revert me" is fine in the context of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. The word "fucking" is little more than a modifier, it's not directed at the recipient per se. That said, I thought the salient point of my comment was the "Don't swear; expect others to swear" line. Incidentally, pretty much the only time I swear in real life is in the meeting room, or other environments where the folk around me are swearing. TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 16:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Need more evidence of wrongdoing. There's nothing wrong with the word fuck, especially as an adverb, so long as it isn't used in one of its adjective forms to describe an editor. I think the best course of action here is for the bigger of the two editors to go edit other subjects and stop breathing down each others throats. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The correct course of action is give a 24 hour block (and longer the next, 3 months and so on) so next time he thinks twice before talking to another editor in an abusive tone. Sadly everyone here with a few exceptions is making a joke out of it. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The use of such profanity and vulgarity really detracts from the professionalism of this encyclopedia. I would be happy to support a policy that would entirely ban vulgarity being used by editors. Basket of Puppies 16:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I have started an essay about this topic here. Basket of Puppies 16:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

That essay is rather ridiculous. This isn't Sunday School. Tarc (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

No longer. Since it's in project space I have taken the liberty of adding some neglected aspects. I have taken care to reference all potentially surprising statements contained in the improved version. [82] Hans Adler 17:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• Is it really necessary to oppose this nonsense? Use of expletives as modifiers etc. is, and should be, in the grey zone in which motivations and causes are examined and at least a warning is given before even thinking about a block. Hans Adler 16:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Honestly. This is Wikipedia, not a primary school. Sometimes expletives are unnecessary, sometimes they're unexceptionable. Lots of grey in between. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's prove Bali ultimate wrong by tolerating his use of the F-word

I have run into Bali ultimate a few times in discussions about the way Wikipedia covers sexuality, ranging from child porn, homosexuality, images of a sexual nature, sado masochism, etc. etc. I take an extreme liberal POV in these matters and Bali an extreme conservative POV. Just yesterday on the AN page when I asked clarification about what was going on with Jimbo Wales, Bali wrote about his view that Wikipedia is far too liberal. If it were up to him, Wikipedia would be patrolled by an Islamic religious police :) .

So, we should be careful not to move even a femtometer in that direction. Instead of blocking him for something some of us feel strongly about, let's prove Bali Ultimate wrong by tolerating his use of the F-word as long as he doesn't launch personal attacks. Count Iblis (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

"far too liberal" is not correct and is actually his way of justifying what he did. Lets delete the whole WP:NPA then if its liberal or "polocing". It is possible for someone to be polite and not be rude or aggressive. There are tonnes of examples of those kinds of editors. Its not like I'm asking to find water on the moon. Tolerating the F-word, hello, come on, you cant be serious. What the fuck is wrong with you? See my point? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

What is more offensive? Allegations of racial/religious bias and irrationality or saying What the fuck are you on about in response to a circular, logic free argument that has been continuously spun for weeks? For instance, the complainer wrote: If I remember correctly he had some problem with the fact that I am a rabbi. (Nope. I have no problem with that and no diff will be found to support that allegation). Why was this written? To imply some sort of bias without any evidence for it. This post... clearly shows that he is either irrational, or unwilling to abide by Wikipedia policy of reliable sources because of some personal prejudice (I guess). Wow, what a happy choice -- I'm clearly either crazy ("irrational") or acting out of "personal prejudice" when i insist that the word of an anonymous wikipedia editor (and a committed partisan) shouldn't trump a reliable source. I don't really care about the insinuations. Standard practice here. But someone with a grasp of what the actual word "civility" means (rather than the bastardized wikispeak version of the word) would appreciate that the larger civility issue is the loaded language, the insinuations, the game-playing (again -- a group of editors with a single-minded point of view still effectively control content of the article on a man they view as infallible and holy), and ultimately the reason we're here. Someone pushing skewed content wants to be rid of someone they don't agree with. And some of you are enabling him. That this thread remains open is equal parts funny and sad. Back to lurking.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

YOU are enabling abuse here get it. Now you know - dont do it again because if I see it I'll make sure its noticed and talked about. And why did you remove my comment from your talk page? Let people see it. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, there's a difference between using the word "fuck" and a personal attack. "What the fuck is wrong with you?" is a personal attack (as is "You're not right in the head"). "That edit is fucking great" is not a personal attack. TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 16:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

No sorry, abuse is abuse and I made my point clear. "What the fuck is wrong with you" is equivalent to "what the fuck are you on about", hello?? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Then we'll have to agree to disagree. The former is an attack; the latter is a (vulgarly phrased) question. TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Explain to me the difference between "what are you on about" and "what is wrong with you". Why would adding word "fuck" in this specific case make one phrase less offensive than the other? Answer that question. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Adding "fuck" would make no difference. "what is wrong with you?" contains no vulgarity, but is an attack (it implies there's something wrong with the target). "what are you on about?" contains no vulgarity, and is not an attack. TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

This is getting silly. Wikipedia is a place where people should strive for a collegial atmosphere that fosters rational and intelligent discussions. Cursing rarely helps achieve this end so adding "fuck" in either sentence, or anywhere else, is inappropriate at best. For what it's worth, I don't think anybody should be blocked just for uttering a curse word in isolation, but as part of a pattern of disruptive discussions, blocking should absolutely be considered. It's distracting and unnecessary (this thread as case in point). — e. ripley\^talk 17:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

"inappropriate at best", exactly. I'm done with this topic and have said enough. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I was blocked for >B>one week for the following response I gave at my talk page:[83]

"Lessons on civility"

"I will take lessons on civility from you when hell freezes over". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

"Your incivility knows no bounds; you are a master at it. Keep up the good work. Cheers." Duke53 | ^Talk 17:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's get some consistency for blocks is all I'm saying (though it doesn't help matters when admin 'friends help friends'). Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 16:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

"admin 'friends help friends'" - thats whats happening here, it looks like. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Home

I noticed we had an offline glitch a little while ago -- when I signed in again, instead of being taken to the main page, I was taken to Home. I suspect this is a small coding problem but I'm certainly not able to fix it; I hope someone can have a look at this quickly. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It was indeed a small coding problem - a misplaced dollar-sign in an update, as I understand it. (We need more $!) - It was fixed within a few minutes. If you are still seeing the problem, you need to clear your DNS entries - a reboot will probably sort things out. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  21:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Does wikipedia not have a test site? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Accounting4Taste, the page: [84] links to en.wikipedia.org however the redirect from en.wikipedia.org to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_page must have been corrupted in your cache following wikipedia's downtime.

I had this problem and fixed it by typing CMD into the run box (opening command prompt) and typing ipconfig /purgedns

Let me know how you get on with that fix! Regards, Captain n00dle\^Talk 22:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Should that be: ipconfig /flushdns ? Begoon (talk) 03:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

My mistake yes that should be ipconfig /flushdns. Note that a lot of people had this problem. I will check these page view statistics tomorrow (they are updated daily) to make sure the problem has reverted. Captain n00dle\^Talk 06:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

And for future reference, WP:VPT is the best place to post this. Stifle (talk) 13:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Today's edits by RiceCholo

Could any administrator with a minute of free time please take a look at today's edits by RiceCholo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? He's been inactive for approximately seven months, and his edits today all appear to be attempts to associate the name of a minor with terrorism. I would have put this on AIV, but I wasn't certain it would be acted on with no warnings prior my having noticed him. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done Blocked as a vandalism-only account. Warnings or not, I suspect that the account would've been blocked at AIV as well. —DoRD (talk) 23:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks bunches. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Confused about image removal

Resolved

I cannot understand why the following image File:Gettin' over You - Single cover.JPG has been removed. It had legitmate use in the article Gettin' Over which i've been patrolling and working on for a few days. It was never to my knowledge tagged in article itself stating it was up for deletion via discussion and as of yesterday i checked the image's license/summary and everything appeared to be in order. Can someone find out the following please:

1. Why was it deleted?
2. By whom?
3. Can it be restored please?

Please note I am NOT the uploading user i simply edit on the image's parent article.Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment, and now its suddenly been restored? not be rude but what was going on there? Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Don't know what happened, but the image has a valid WP:FUR, has not been deleted, and I've restored it to the article. Please trust me to just get on and fix things. Rodhullandemu 23:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The existing file is File:Gettin' Over You - Single cover.JPG, the difference being the case of the "O" in "Over". —DoRD (talk) 23:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Would explain it then. SGGH ^ping! 23:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Not to point fingers, but it appears that someone introduced a typo in the file name. :P —DoRD (talk) 23:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

And to my eye, that same person seems a little too quick on the trigger placing speedy delete tags. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Just note that file names are case sensitive. NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 03:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

To note i was told that prepositions less than fives letters should be small case according to WP:MOS therefore Gettin' Over You should be named Gettin' over You. I did not place the speedy deletion tag as being suggested above.Lil-unique1 (talk) 09:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I did not say, or mean to imply, that you speedied that article, rather that I looked over the list of a dozen or so articles that you did tag for speedy deletion, and thought that some of them were clearly notable and worthy of keeping. That was the meaning of my comment that you were "quick on the trigger" with SD tags. Please be sure that the articles you tag are of no value to the enecyclopedia before you tag them for deletion. Sure, an admin has to agree and delete them, and sure there's always deletion review, but it's really better for everyone if the process isn't even started if the article is worthwhile. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Odd editing pattern (high edit rate, extremely low content changes with no edit summary (User:Git2010)

Regarding this editor: Git2010 (talk · contribs · count): Anyone know what to make of this behavioral pattern? A comment to their talk page went unanswered. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me like an unauthorized bot account - I could make trivial edits at that rate if I wanted to, but there's no way I could sustain it, and in any case making edits like [85] at high speed smells like AWB genfixes to me. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I'm assuming you mean the user Git2010 (talk · contribs · count), as linked in the header, and not Gitmo2010 (which doesn't seem to be a registered account)? — Gavia immer (talk) 03:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, fixed it. User recently created a User page (albeit an enigmatic one). Probably harmless, though edit summaries would be nice. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that we need to see an explanation though. I've notified the editor of this discussion. Dougweller (talk) 05:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

User:AhmadiLover92 and User:Firelightcorvett Userspace Trouble

Resolved

 – blocked by Dougweller (talk) 10:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

AhmadiLover92 (talk · contribs · count)
Firelightcorvett (talk · contribs · count)
I have no idea on how to handle this. Could someone checkout what's going on seems to be lots of nonsense and attacks on each other. --[[::User:Sidonuke|Sidonuke]] ([[::User talk:Sidonuke|talk]] :: [[::Special:Contributions/Sidonuke|contribs]]) 07:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

edit More non sense and on my own page. --[[::User:Sidonuke|Sidonuke]] ([[::User talk:Sidonuke|talk]] :: [[::Special:Contributions/Sidonuke|contribs]]) 07:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like two kids messing around. I'd say that Firelightrcorvett is an account someone's lost control of; both should be blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Done, both blocked. Dougweller (talk) 10:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

User talk:A. B.#Cut/paste offender

As an admin alphabetically near the top of the list (A. B.), I've been asked to help as an admin with the following problem:

I need your assistance (I found you via the list of admins). Back on May 3, Jerzey jon moved Elizabeth High School (New Jersey) to Elizabeth High School (1979-2009) (which the automatic redirect was subsequently undone by another user), and then Jerzey jon simply cut/pasted much of the content from the original EHS article into his newly created Elizabeth High School (2009-). Please take note that Jerzey jon did not bother gaining consensus on the page split, nor did he bother with any of the necessary page moving steps that an administrator has to take in order to preserve the article's edit history. Can you please fix these mistakes and then explain to him all of the minutia that he did wrong? I'd really appreciate it. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm tied up with other issues -- can someone else help this person out? Thanks, --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

xkcd phenomenon, Malamanteau deleted thrice by User:UtherSRG

I've proposed on Talk:Malamanteau that we make the article a redirect to xkcd. The page is protected, but I can find neither discussion nor consensus for the deletion or protection. In any event, I feel that a redirect to the xkcd article would be a more appropriate way to quell the xkcd fans' attempts to remake the article. Normally I wouldn't bring this trivial sort of thing to ANI, but quick action would be ideal, before we anger too many xkcd fans with a non-existant article. ...comments? ~BFizz 14:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

This is already being discussed at WP:DRV. Feel free to comment there. decltype (talk) 14:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Taken to Redirects for Discussion since it's now been overturned. You can participate in the discussions here: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#Malamanteau. Regards, --Taelus (Talk) 14:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Tendentious editor on Apple TV

Awhile back, I answered a 3O on Apple TV. AshtonBenson (talk · contribs) was inserting text that used Apple forums, Apple FAQs and other sources to synthesize a section together, and the other editor disagreed with it. I sided with the latter, saying that it was inappropriate. A fourth editor came to the page and agreed with me and the other guy. AshtonBenson accused the three of us of meatpuppetry (side note - first time I've ever seen a 3O accused of meatpuppetry), and there were heated words. After several reversions, AshtonBenson was reported for a 3RR violation, but the page was fully protected. Benson then counter-reported the three of us for meatpuppetry, but that was declined.

Fast forward a week, and the page's protection expired. AshtonBenson is, once again, reinserting the text. I don't think this is an issue for dispute resolution; there's a fairly clear consensus that the text is wholly inappropriate, and it just seems that we have one particularly tendentious editor. As I'd rather not see this escalate any more, I've brought the issue here. It seems to me that AshtonBenson is particularly combative; he has reverted multiple warnings from his talk page, and he's repeatedly changedheaders on the talk page to reflect his beliefs about us being meatpuppets. Further, he created Digital Monitor Power Management, a one-line article about the same text that he's trying to add to the Apple TV, which seems to be a step towards WP:POVFORK. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The additional section is clearly WP:OR "sourced" to forum posts, so I have removed it. In addition, the accusation of meat puppetry is completely baseless, so I have warned the editor against making personal attacks. Whether admin intervention becomes necessary is entirely up to AshtonBenson. —DoRD (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Hm2k WP:POINT disruption.

A few months ago Hm2k was in a truly horrific display of Tendentious editing. This invovled several admin and users reasoning with him about why his list didn't meet notability or wuality standards. He is now deleting every redlink he finds. I've tried to explain that not all redlinks need to go as there are several pages like this [[86]] that use those as a way of writing articles and maintaining organization. He has ignored this and has reverted the edits. I would suggest another user or admin discuss this issue with him and have at least a short round of good faith for him. Right now in my opinion he is disrupting wikipedia to prove a point. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I've linked the user in the section title for convenience. SGGH ^ping! 15:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I've given him a carefully worded message. His "removal of redlinks" on one article simply removed an entry, not just the redlink, which is obviously a no-no. Just because the article doesn't exist is no justification (WP:WTAF or otherwise) for deleting content. Outside this one, I've just advised him of all the benefits of redlinks. I don't know the history of this user so am unaware of any point he might be making. SGGH ^ping! 15:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

His AFD was at [[87]]. If you can see the afd for that you'll see what I mean. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Do we need to pull out the bucket-o-trout and give all involved a good trout whacking? ;P
The List of shell providers AfD was related to things which were happening on Talk:Shell account (as well as Talk:List of shell providers) and while User:Hm2k certainly played a role in it, he was also being baited by someone who had originally followed me to Talk:Shell account during an earlier, somewhat heated discussion. For the record, I don't find myself in agreement with Hm2k in removing the majority of these red links, although after some of the heated discussion on Talk:Shell account was well over with, he and I discussed a number of things and came to mutual understandings. I've been avoiding editing many of these articles in an attempt to avoid getting into an argument regarding the red link removals as I have too much on my plate already. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

AIV

WP:AIV is backlogged, or the helperbot is having a fit again, or both. Whichever may be the case, your attention would be appreciated. DuncanHill (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Helperbot is having a problem. Toddst1 (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Helperbot is indeed having a problem- at the time of writing, all actionable reports are dealt with and the others are tagged. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Ownership Issues with Michael Jackson and Bubbles

Resolved

 – both editors warned about edit warring Toddst1 (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I doing a bit of clean up and clarification editing at this article and have run into an editor with ownership issues. I am accused of making edits without preapproval while the "owner" User:Pyrrhus16 freely and without consensus does the same. He/she recently changed the title without consensus. This editor has been accused of ownership issues in the past. Owner is now threatening me with blocking if I don't seek preapproval for every edit. Help. SoniaSyle (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I have never said that I "owned" the page, and have welcomed your helpful edits. However, you are drastically overhauling the article without any discussion or consensus, in order for it to suit your own view of Michael Jackson as being (in your words) a "warped, drug-fueled" and "selfish" individual. You are intentionally trying to make Jackson out to be an evil person who used his chimpanzees as slaves and then threw them out when they became too old. Stop pushing this agenda, and maintain a neutral point of view. The article is not perfect, but was largely put together through consensus and discussion with other editors. You cannot just come and reword everything without also waiting for discussion and consensus. Pyrrhus16 16:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Given the difficulties of trying to maintain the MJ articles over the upheavals of the past year, when they were getting five million page views a day,and large numbers of unhelpful edits. I applaud Pyrrhus16 and am inclined to cut him some slack. By the way, SoniaStyle edited the page a minute ago now.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Creation of WikiProjects by User:Kingjeff

In the last couple of weeks, I have noticed that User:Kingjeff has created two full-blown WikiProjects without the approval of the WikiProjects Council. As I understand it, consultation with the Council is required before the creation of a WikiProject. Is there anything that should be done about this? – PeeJay 17:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)