Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:09, 2 August 2010

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • 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)

• Prohibiting the creation of new "T:" pseudo-namespace redirects
• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

Numerous systematic removal of Media Matters citations

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

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling has been systematically removing citations to Media Matters (a media watchdog organization) from multiple (seemingly random) articles, and replacing them with citation needed tags. (See: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and many more too numerous to list.) He continues to do so even after several users have pointed out that his interpretation of policy on this issue is incorrect, and that he should stop. (e.g. , , .)

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling argues that Media Matters is not a reliable source, and that the articles linked to violate WP:LINKVIO. Media Matters has been discussed on WP:RS/N several times (e.g. , are the last 3 discussions), and the conclusion is that while it may be a partisan news organization, but it is still a reliable source, and can be cited the same way as other partisan sources, like for example, Fox News. Also, a reading of the policy 'Linking to copyrighted works' shows that it does not apply, as WP:LINKVIO forbids the linking to external Web sites that carry a work in violation of the creator's copyright. Media Matters is a well known, established organization in the US that carries video excerpts in accordance with 'fair use' laws, if they were systematically violating copyright law, it would have been sued by now. Also, the weblink can be removed if it violates WP:LINKVIO, but the reference itself should be retained.

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling has been polite about it, but he has been ignoring opposition to his systematic actions, and reverting people who undo his removal of these citations, demanding that those who oppose his actions justify themselves on the talk page of the respective articles. (e.g. , , .)

I stumbled across his actions when he removed this perfectly good citation from an article I helped create, and reverted me when I undid his removal.

What I would like to see is LegitimateAndEvenCompelling agreeing to stop removal of links to Media Matters, and stop reverting people who undo his removals. Finally, if consensus can be reached that Media Matters is a reliable source, I would like him to undo all his removals, as he has created a huge amount of cleanup work for people to do (but this may be asking a bit much). --LK (talk) 01:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

MMFA is good for a secondary source for things already covered by the MSM. After reviewing the edits above, I would question the inclusion of a lot of the material. That being said, simply deleting MMFA while doing nothing with content is indeed disruptive and serves no purpose. This needs to stop. Soxwon (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Media Matters is extensively used by non-partisan information outlets like NPR (indeed, their On The Media show frequently uses them). They are with out a doubt a WP:RS. Removing them whole sale and placing citation needed tags is disruptive and pointy -- ۩ Mask 02:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Media Matters for America is an openly partisan source that is unfortunately used in place of journalistic sources more frequently that it proper. That being said, I agree that simply removing the citations with no apparent effort to locate other sources or otherwise mitigate the holes left by the removal is disruptive. --Allen3  02:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

LK's claims are inaccurate. I have responded here to his efforts to keep an MMfA ref that disparages someone as a means to support the claim that people burn money. As to my other MMfA, almost none of them have been reverted because they are proper. Further, I do not remove all MMfA refs. Indeed in one case I even improved the ref by adding an author. I hope people will support me in applying Misplaced Pages policy and perhaps join me.

As to removing the refs and adding Citation tags, that is not inherently evil. Am I supposed to buy a subscription to Lexis/Nexis and source everything? Am I not allowed to comply with Wiki policy? The alternative is to remove the ref and the associated text. I see people do that and I don't like that. I choose not to do that. My purpose is not to eliminate things in the text, rather it is to ensure proper RSs are used.--LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, I am aware that people are using the Citation tags to properly source the information. In one case, for example, I can't put my finger on it, someone added a NYT ref where I had removed the MMfA ref. So the Citation tag is working exactly as it was designed to work. Misplaced Pages works to allow people to work together to improve articles. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Your appeal to policy is undermined by the fact that your interpretation of policy has been challenged. Your appeal for cooperation is undermined by your use of reverts. Even if you are 100% sure that you're right, you should still be able to step back and understand these problems. Melchoir (talk) 04:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The challenges made are based on either ad hominem argument or on the irrelevant claim that other MMfA refs have been found to be RSs. No one has yet gone to the specific context as required by RS.

As to my use of reverts, you are joking, right? I make an edit and specify exactly why I made the edit and include specific Wiki rules, a very few revert me with either no comment or a comment that has nothing to do with the RS/LINKVIO concerns, so I revert that, and suddenly I'm the bad guy for reverting a revert? Where's the WP:AGF in that?

I totally understand that some people are opposed to removing MMfA refs. But WP:RS is what necessitates the removals, not me. The only reason why my ensuring compliance with WP:RS is problematic to some is that I have applied the policy on numerous pages. Nevermind that MMfA refs in the hundreds are used all over Misplaced Pages inappropriately, as Allen3 generally agreed above. Suddenly I'm the bad guy for making a small dent in the removal of the non-RSs.

Look at the specific page about which LK complained, Burning money. Look in Talk. Look at the discussion I am having there. Tell me specifically why the MMfA ref on that page is a RS. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be a perfectly clear and consistent case of subversive editing.--Wetman (talk) 07:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Wetman, on the page you reverted, explain how MMfA is a reliable source for Institute for Energy Research funding coming from the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation. Don't just ignore WP:AGF. Is MMfA a RS for anything and everything? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Unomi, I am acting in compliance with Wiki policy. Most of my edits have not been reverted, almost all, that is. Why? Likely because the other editors agreed. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Even though everyone who has commented on this thread agrees that his actions are inappropriate, LegitimateAndEvenCompelling continues to remove Media Matters citations, and to argue with and revert users who disagree with those removals. A short preventive block might be in order. LK (talk) 07:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

One guy, Badger_Drink, is reverted all my edits claiming it is "vandalism".

And LK, to this point people are saying MMfA is generally a RS but no one, not a single person, has addressed the specific issues on any page. It's as if they know they have no legitimate substantive argument so they say things ad hominem in nature like "A short preventive block might be in order."

I am beginning to sense that the MMfA supporters care more about MMfA than about WP:RS or WP:LINKVIO.

I will need to get help with this as restoring non-WP:RS en masse is a serious problem. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Another editor has just reverted Badger Drink's restoration of an MMfA ref saying, "rmv disputed statement - only "source" was a copy of the cnn show, posted on some other site, with no additional commentary. does no-one understand notability anymore? So I see WP:NOTE may be another relevant issue as edits like this one are all over Misplaced Pages. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 08:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

As a preventative measure User:Badger Drink should be blocked for disruption - that user has mass reverted all the removals of MM as a source, but has failed to examine each case, leaving some very poor "sourcing" in this encyclopedia. BDs behaviour is nothing more than edit warring that will eventually have to be undone. Weakopedia (talk) 09:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

As a proactive measure, you should soak your head. If a stopped clock was right twice in a day, we don't start getting in a self-righteous huff over a clockmaker fixing it. That's not to say the edits in question by LaEC were correct, either - see below. Badger Drink (talk) 09:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Self-application of WP:TROUT

Just want to chime in with a vicious self-scolding. Badger, edit summaries like this are not helpful. Apologies to any and all who took offense. Badger Drink (talk) 07:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I just loooked at your latest contribution, which was rubbish. If you don't understand basic policy you certainly shouldn't be going on any ill-advised reversion crusades. I've removed the passage you tried so hard to keep in, because it is poorly sourced. Weakopedia (talk) 08:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you fucking kidding me? Misplaced Pages statement which you removed: "Arthur Laffer made on CNN". Media Matters link: "Economist Laffer on CNN", complete with fucking video of him fucking saying it on fucking CNN! Honestly now, you're being beyond tendentious. Badger Drink (talk) 09:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at your second last contribution, which was rubbish. You warred to have this "source" remain despite it not supporting the statement it is there to support. Weakopedia (talk) 08:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Funny you, of all participants in this discussion, should use the word "rubbish"... Badger Drink (talk) 09:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If that is the best you can resort to, then you shouldn't be editing here, full stop. While you are adding non BLP compliant material to BLPs, you will be reverted automatically. Good day. Weakopedia (talk) 09:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Taking the "shotgun approach" to discussion in the hopes something will stick - yawn. Are you really this stupid, or do you just assume that everyone else is too stupid to see your edits here for what they are? Anyway, let me know how the air on that lofty mountain of yours is. Badger Drink (talk) 09:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Both of you stop replying please and leave the issue in question for other editors to evaluate first. It'll drop the unnecessarily high temperature of this thread a little. sonia 09:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling's participation at WP:RS/N

I have just realized that LegitimateAndEvenCompelling knew full well that he was systematically removing reliable sources against the consensus at WP:RS/N. As these links show,,,, he participated in many of the discussions about Media Matters at WP:RS/N, and so knew that consensus was against him. And yet he decided to systematically remove Media Matters citations even against consensus. This makes his behavior much less acceptable than I had previously thought it to be. I strongly support an indefinite block unless he agrees to reverse all his removals of these citations, and to not remove Media Matters citations in the future. LK (talk) 13:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

...he participated in many of the discussions about Media Matters at WP:RS/N, and so knew that consensus was against him.

What are you characterizing as "Consensus" from those RS/N discussion? JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The only concensus that I ever see from those discussions is a concensus from those in favor of MMfA saying that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid reason to treat MRC/Newsbusters and MMfA as two sides of the same coin. Until ideological editors agree that they should and must be treated equally these type of partisan battles will NEVER end. As long as one side feels that the other sides is getting preferential treatment there will continue to be edit wars. Unfortunately I don't see any give on the MMfA side. Arzel (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I've just read through the 3 (the 4th is a repeat of the 1st) diffs cited by LK, above. I see no consensus. If I can draw a mood from them considered as a whole, it is this: Cite MMfA's opinion rarely, only if their opinion is somehow relevant to the article. Cite them for facts only if the original source is unavailable. I, of course, haven't looked at each of LaEC's edits but I've examined quite a few including this sequence:

American Family Association 13 June 2009

American Family Association 11 March 2010

American Family Association 11 March 2010

American Family Association 6 April 2010

American Family Association 6 April 2010

American Family Association 25 May 2010

American Family Association 27 May 2010

and see nothing wrong with this. Or any other edits. Have I missed something? Anthony (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed indefinite block of User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling

It's clear that LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk · contribs) is engaging in disruptive editing through mass removal of citations without discussion and against consensus. This constitutes tendentious editing, disruptive cite-tagging and a rejection of community input, all classic signs of disruptive editing. He has continued to do so even after this discussion began. He has a lengthy history of previous blocks, including one indefinite block for legal threats (since rescinded). Given this continuous and lengthy pattern of disruptive behaviour, it's clear that LegitimateAndEvenCompelling hasn't learned anything from his previous blocks. I therefore propose an indefinite block of this editor. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Additional note: Since it seems to have caused some confusion, please note that I'm proposing an indefinite block here, not an infinite one. If LegitimateAndEvenCompelling is willing to agree not to continue such actions, he should be allowed to continue editing, but without such an assurance a block becomes necessary as a preventative measure. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Reject Examination of the history shows many articles where MediaMatters was being used inappropriately. Those who are blindly reverting all removals of MM as a source should be blocked, as they are in many cases simply reintroducing inadequate, or even misrepresentative sourcing to articles, just to make a point. Weakopedia (talk) 09:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Bold>Revert>Discuss doesn't work if the person being bold refuses to actually discuss. The previous discussions where consensus in re: MMfA was formed were provided to LaEC, who chose instead to ignore it and insist that somehow they were right in the face of a multitude of editors suggesting the exact opposite. Indefinite need not necessarily be infinite, but given LaEC's past history, I would suggest that he would truly need to display that he understands that he went about this in entirely the wrong fashion and is prepared to make a serious endeavour to mend his ways before the block is lifted. Badger Drink (talk) 09:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support or possibly Restrict. If LaeC had really been removing dubious sources from articles, then in examples like CIA leak scandal timeline he would also have removed all the references to WorldNetDaily, a source from the other side of the political spectrum that at RS/N has repeatedly been described as even more unreliable than MMfA. But he left all of those in. Thus, it has to be described as nothing more than political POV-pushing. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

...he would also have removed all the references to WorldNetDaily, a source from the other side of the political spectrum that at RS/N has repeatedly been described as even more unreliable than MMfA.

I don't recall that specific descriptive being used (do you have a quote or two?) nor your paraphrase summary of recent RS/N discussions related to World Net Daily. Being that as it may, MMfA is being recognized (finally I might add) for what it is...and its RS status, unfettered by any other consideration, appears to now be history in Misplaced Pages. MMfA is a hyper-partisan source and its ubiquitous presence in this Misplaced Pages medium should give ANYONE pause. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

How do you reach that conclusion? Mainstream media outlets routinely source or credit MMfA in their stories. A google news search will show you recent items by CBS, NY Times, Boston Globe, NY Dailyt times - all referencing MMfA. Please see WP:YESPOV and understand that we are to reflect what might seem to you the apparent liberal bias of reality. Unomi (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Your argument is misplaced. In the examples you cite, substantive third-party sourcing can validate MMfA content just as RS third-party can validate WND, MRC, etc etc. But you place the NPOV cart before the WP:V/WP:UNDUE horse. NPOV relates to the balanced presentation of content, not to the POV of the source itself (which you appear to wrongly suggest I'm asserting). Like all hyper-partisan content from either wing, reliable third-party sourcing is mandated by WP:V/WP:UNDUE.JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

When you take in to use language like 'hyper-partisan' I was compelled to believe that you were arguing from the context of POV. You are making a false equivalence between MMfA and WND/MRC on the basis of your notion that they are both and equally hyper-partisan. News outlets routinely reference MMfA, this is not the case with the others you mention. From the ES' of LaEC in his numerous (~50+) removals he argued from the position of an imperfect grasp of WP:RS and how MMfA can in fact be used - albeit with particular attribution in contentious areas subject to editor discretion. He had been informed of this months ago, but continued with IDHT removals, that is why we are here. Unomi (talk) 01:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The MRC is also referenced by news outlets. It's a no-brainer that the left-leaning news outlets are going to reference MMfA more often than they reference the MRC. Drrll (talk) 02:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You are making a false equivalence between MMfA and WND/MRC on the basis of your notion that they are both and equally hyper-partisan.

Your opinion is simply not shared anymore by generally half of the participants in the most recent RS/N's on the subject. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean by that? Unomi (talk) 04:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Certainly not to the satisfaction of one who apparently holds MMfA as a breed apart from the hyper-partisan crowd. But you could start here.. JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I see that you misunderstood what I meant then, it is not a matter of their perceived political leanings, they could be equidistant from the center as perfectly as one could want, and they would still not be equivalent, that very archive spells that out with the citations in mainstream sources, the Columbia Review of Journalism article and the quality of the editors involved in MMaF and MRC respectively. Unomi (talk) 05:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support: Per Black Kite...can't say it any better. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support: Per Black Kite and Badger Drink, not necessarily infinite, but we need to break through the IDHT once and for all. Unomi (talk) 10:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: LaeC is looking for instances where MMfA is used inappropriately, and finding them. In some, few. instances, other editors disagree. Nothing wrong with any of that. LaeC does need to be admonished for ignoring WP:BRD. That's all. Anything else is an overreaction and smacks of "I don't like you." Anthony (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• This is not true. As the discussion on the talk pages of many of these articles show, consensus is that the removed citations were perfectly fine. LK (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Can you show me a couple of examples, please? Anthony (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: ChrisO, how far back in history do you want to go to skewer me? Don't people change? Have I done anything recently/currently to deserve a legitimate block, other than people doing what you are attempting to do, namely, use procedural means to avoid substantive discussion? Not a single person supporting the block has ever, not once, addressed any substantive issue relating to this matter. Indeed, before the en masse reverts made with ad hominem history comments without substance, most editors left my edits in place. The community accepted them. Look, here is the one and only instance where a person actually discussed substantive issues with me: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Burning_money#Media_matters and when I responded, he politely bowed out. Blocking me will not solve the problem, but I will admit it will probably make you feel really good. What will solve the problem is the proper application of WP:RS, not the blocking of the person applying it. And no one told me this was going on here? What a disgrace. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You were informed of this AN/I thread here and you've already participated in it, so you have nothing to complain about on that score. If you believe that MMFA is generally not a reliable source then you need to raise that at WP:RSN, not unilaterally attempt to purge it from Misplaced Pages against the complaints of other editors. You've caused a substantial amount of disruption and damage in the meantime, and that needs to stop. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, but I was not informed of this effort to block me, indefinitely, no less. It was you who said on my Talk page, "Please cease mass-removing citations without discussion. You are likely to find yourself being blocked if you continue. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)" By that time I had stopped. Yet here you are yourself seeking to blocking me indefinitely despite your very own words! What shameful behavior! Are you proud of your actions?

Only 13 minutes after leaving me your message, you moved to indefinitely block me. 09:24, 25 July 2010 ChrisO (talk | contribs) (307,425 bytes) (→Numerous systematic removal of Media Matters citations: - propose indefinite block of User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling) (undo) How many "mass-removing citations without discussions" could I cease doing in 13 minutes??

This is a serious witch hunt. Thanks, ChrisO, for helping to evidence it so well. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 11:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Let me add this. I see Black Kite has said I was POV pushing. That is not true. Black Kite asked me that on my Talk page. I guess he did not wait for an answer. (Now I see he make his non-WP:AGF statement here before asking me for clarification on my Talk page!) But my answer shows I was not POV pushing (as if compliance with WP:RS could ever be POV pushing). --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 10:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Well no - I said that removing sources that promote a particular POV will be seen as POV-pushing, which it does. I appreciate your explanation on your talkpage, though, and given that I have edited my comment above to include "Restrict". Black Kite (t) (c) 11:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
    • If the motivation for the removals really was not to push a POV, the much less reliable WorldNetDaily refs should have been removed first. The prima facie evidence shows a systematic biased removal of sources from one end of the political spectrum. I suggest that if LegitimateAndEvenCompelling wants to show his 'good faith', he should immediately stop removing MMfA refs and start removing the much less reliable WorldNetDaily refs; at least until he has removed as many WorldNetDaily refs as the number of MMfA refs he has removed. LK (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support See Black Kite above for a major plank of evidence. Clearly this guy does not have a clue as to the difference between a source "having a POV" and a source being basically reliable, and is blanket removing a good source of information which has a good history of quality, albeit a source which focuses on exposing problems in the right wing of the US. Weakopedia's comment (as of now) lacks substance and can therefore be discounted; same applies to Anthonychole's comment. Legitimate's own argument shown in the talk page section he references (permalink) is way off: for example, one of his arguments is that ". "E.H.H." Does that sound reliable to anyone here? MMfA articles do include full names of authors sometimes", ignoring the fact that most sources do not always include authors, and sources like the The Economist (which I consider overrated) never do. He argues that since WP:POORSRC (who keeps randomly changing these shortcuts??) includes the words "promotional in nature" and MMfA seems promotional, it is automatically questionable. Wow. He also seems to somehow think that because MMfA irrefutably displays its evidence in actual clips of video, it is less reliable. Wow, just wow. Such a tortured, ludicrous argument needs to be stopped. We should work on cleaning up this mess and restoring these sources as well. II | (t - c) 11:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support with caveat - if LAEC subsequently agrees not to engage in such behaviour, he can have another chance. It is clear that his behaviour in removing MMfA citations has been disruptive; deleting citations to what is widely enough considered a reliable source can hardly be otherwise. But as he himself noted at RSN on 16 July, " I admit MMfA is reliable for things about itself or incidents in which it has been directly involved, and I also admit its content can be useful for identifying actual reliable sources, particularly in cases where it provides links to such sources." In this case, a non-disruptive approach would at minimum put the MMfA link on the talk page with an explanation, or replace it with the sources linked to by MMfA. Rd232 11:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• • I do not see putting these citations on the talk page as an acceptable compromise, heh, and it is difficult to constantly watch over someone this extreme; also if he keeps repeating himself and calling it "discussion" while redoing the edit it is basically impossible to stop him. Perhaps a good start would be for him to self-revert his blanket removals. Replacing these with primary sources of the particular footage is also not the answer. II | (t - c) 12:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The actions being discussed here are clearly disruptive, but an indefinite block is an overreaction. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  • A permanent block is an overreaction; an indefinite block, liftable on LAEC agreeing not to continue such actions, is not. Rd232 11:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree, but the proposal does not contain any mention of such a condition. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• I wasn't aware of WP:BRD until now. I was aware of WP:3RR, so 2 reverts was my max. Now I suppose it'll just be, what, 0 reverts. And Anthony is right, it would be unfair to be blocked indef for not being aware of BRD, while pursuing RS, no less. It is also unfair that I should get blocked and no one ever (except one now) responds substantively to the RS issues at hand on the various pages. So yes, Rd232, I agree to abide by WP:BRD. And I like your Talk page idea. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 11:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The only substantive complaint about this editor is ignoring (which turned out to be ignorance of) WP:BRD. They now know about the policy, and undertake to follow it. Can this be closed now? Anthony (talk) 11:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

BRD is an essay, not policy. BRD may be at times be advisable, but I'm not sure that it is appropriate for removing what is widely seen as a reliable source, without replacing it with a better one or at least moving it to the talk page. BRD is not the issue. Rd232 12:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought they were only removing instances where it was not supporting the content, or not appropriate for some other reason. As for not replacing it with something appropriate, is it a policy violation to neglect that and just replace with "citation needed?" Anthony (talk) 12:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support a longish block and possibly a topic ban/editing restriction of some kind. The editor has been engaged in a clear and persistent pattern of POV pushing and tendentious editing. There are no excuses and no justification for that. An indef block may be a little harsh but acceptabe under the circumstances. Nsk92 (talk) 12:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Has that case (POV pushing and tendentious editing) been demonstrated somewhere? Or can you elaborate on that, with diff's maybe? (I don't want to defend a troublemaker who won't benefit from counseling - but that hasn't been demonstrated in this thread.) Anthony (talk) 12:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Updated 12:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Weak Support or Topic Ban - It is possible to argue that MMfA is not a reliable source, but that also means that Fox News and WorldNetDaily sure as shit ain't reliable sources either and should be removed from the site using napalm and agent orange. All news is canned gossip, anyway, and is either sold for a profit or proselytized for an agenda. Until more appropriate sources are found, MMfA, Fox, and WND will have to do. There is a thing in American law called "fair use," which Media Matters follows, which means that their videos do not violate WP:LINKVIO. All the articles I've seen either present a video, or present transcripts with some context. LegAEC seems to be sorta repentant, if only because of 3rr and now the threat of a block (not so much because of acknowledging any mistakes, so I guess repentant isn't the right word but compliant). Ian.thomson (talk) 12:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

No, Fox news is not the appropriate ideological opponent you are seeking; it's the Media Research Center. Fox News is the conservative equivalent of MSNBC, not MMFA.

There is little difference between the left-wing PoV pushing from MMFA and the right-wing POV pushing from MRC, and in a previous discussion on the RS/N, I suggested that neither should be allowed, because the egregious partisan spin both sources place on anything that appears on either site.

As for WND, nobody should be using it as a citation for anything, anywhere on Misplaced Pages, unless they are citing it as an opinion from WND or one of its contributors. Horologium (talk) 13:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose at this time. There needs to be a definitive consensus on the suitability of hyper-partisan "media watchdog" sources, including MMfA, FAIR, MRC, and AIM. I would support an RFC on the topic, but I don't think focusing on a single user is appropriate for this subject. Horologium (talk) 13:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that an RFC is a good idea, but this isn't about whether MMfA is a suitable source - it's about whether a single editor should make that determination himself and single-handedly attempt to purge Misplaced Pages of that source, against the opposition of other editors. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

LAEC has tacitly agreed to stop removing links to MMfA. I would support blocking him again if he continues if there is an RFC initiated on the issue. Without an RFC, I don't see a consensus at all, so a block would be inappropriate because it becomes an issue of editorial content, unless there is an edit war. When another editor with a different view follows an editor reverting every edit, there is another issue (wikihounding) which is equally disruptive, and needs to stop. Horologium (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Unless User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling agrees to undo all of his removals. If he really believes that those citations are bad, someone else will surely remove them. Also, he should agree not to remove Media Matters citations in the future. If he comes across a bad citation, he should instead raise the issue on the talk page for someone else to deal with. LK (talk) 13:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

What is even the point of being an editor then? Arzel (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose MMfA is almost univerisaly used for political purposes to promote a specific point of view. Its use should be limited to an extension of existing secondary sourcing and not a as a primary source, especially if MMfA is trying to establich a fact. MRC should be treated as the same way. To punish LAEC for attempting to maintain a basic pillar of WP is absurd to say the least. One only has to ask, do you want WP to be a better more neutral place? Arzel (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• I first noticed LegitimateAndEvenCompelling's systematic actions when he removed a citation in the Burning money article from this statement "people have publicly burned small amounts of money for political protests that were picked up by the media — Living Things at South by Southwest, Larry Kudlow on The Call". The removed reference leads to a short article on Kudlow burning a dollar bill on The Call, with a video excerpt of the act. How is this 'used for political purposes to promote a specific point of view'? How is neutrality on Misplaced Pages improved by this removal? LK (talk) 14:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• The only reason MMfA or anyone else commented on that incident is because they are trying to make a political point against Kudlow breaking the law given his apparent attempt to run against a liberal politician in the near future. MMfA could care less about the actual act of someone burning a dollar bill, they are just trying to point out a conservative breaking the letter of the law which will undoubtably be used against Kudlow in the future as political fodder. Now, granted this is a rather benign incident, but the intent is clear from MMfA when you come to grip with reality and admit that they, just like MRC, are political animals. The question I ask myself, is, "Is this editor removing partisan sourcing from one ideology and inserting partisan sourcing from another ideology?" If the anser is Yes, then they are in violation of several WP policies. If they are simply removing partisan sourcing which appears to be in violation of NPOV then they are upholding the fundamental principles of WP. You have to admit, the people putting MMfA in as a source to begin with are very likely to partisan editors to start. LegitCompelling is simply trying to go around and clean up the crap. Arzel (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps even more importantly, did the sourcing for the content removed rise to satisfy WP:UNDUE sourcing or was it just coatracking of MMfA opinion? JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Good point. This particular incident didn't warrant removal. It isn't a coatraking of MMfA opinion. The only questionable aspect is that the sourcing is being used in conjunction with a fact (ie that their is no apparent consiquence), when the conjuntion is that this would be MMfA opinion. ehh, boarderline and technical. I did some searching and there isn't much else, so I would assume that burning a dollar bill on live tv probably won't ever get you in trouble. I did look at some of the others that LAEC removed and in general they are some longstanding wars regarding the blur between opinion and fact largely criticism of conservative figures which didn't recieve much press outside of the blogs. Those clearly should be removed, but it is usually a difficult endevour because of the political nature of WP, at the very least they should be expressly attributed as opinon of MMfA. Arzel (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose If you would indefinitely block LAEC, then you would need to indefinitely block other editors who regularly and consistently remove references from the Media Research Center. I lean toward excluding both sources, but there needs to be a consistent WP policy/guideline on this. In the case where this question was widely discussed on the RSN, using RfCs, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, Media Research Center, Media Matters for America, Newsbusters, the consensus was consistency in application of both sources, and another RfC there leaned against use of MMfA entirely. Because of the results there, the lack of a policy/guideline on the use of such ideologically-charged sources, and because of the regular and consistent removal of MRC sources by other editors, I strongly oppose an indefinite block on LAEC. As someone else has noted, there is going to be continued warfare on this front unless a policy, guideline, or decisive RSN ruling has been made to treat these two sources consistently. Drrll (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• This is not a good argument, per WP:OTHERSTUFF, just because there are other people doing unacceptable things, does not mean that we have to accept this one person doing unacceptable things. LK (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• So I take it that you would support indefinitely blocking--and will start ANI items seeking to indefinitely block--those who regularly remove references to the Media Research Center? Or does that not matter? Drrll (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

From your lack of response, LK, it looks like you are only interested in indefinitely blocking those who remove ideological sources that you like. Drrll (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Treatment of MMfA as something more than a hyper-partisan source is a "sacred cow consensus" that no longer stands up to RS/N scrutiny. Just like its peers (Media Research Center, Fairness and Accuracy In Media, Newsbusters etc. etc.), WP:UNDUE should require third-party RS to support any content solely attributable to MMfA. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - indef block for a first time offense? Seriously? He has been warned, he is responding to this discussion, he has been civil, and he seems willing to learn how his actions were inappropriate and adjust his behavior accordingly. He has a few blocks in his bast for edit warring, but most are in 2007 and he seems to have learned from those experiences. At most an appropriate length block (3 days to a week) IF he continued removing the MMfA stuff before a discussion at WP:RSN confirms it is non-reliable. Otherwise, blocks supposedly aren't punitive but preventative and thus far, the disruption appears to have stopped. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 16:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support per Black Kite. There's far too many one-sided ideologues who game the rules on Misplaced Pages. Strong action against them would hopefully curb this sort of behavior. Gamaliel (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I could make an argument that such a statement and other actions by you Gamaliel would get you blocked by this rule. Ideologues exist on both sides, it's a part of the site, deal with it. Soxwon (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• This sort of trolling is inaccurate, inappropriate, and irrelevant to this discussion. If you think any of my actions are inappropriate, take it to my talk page or to the relevant article discussion page. Gamaliel (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Hey, you were the one railing against one-sided ideologues, not I. Soxwon (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose – An indefinite block is taking this too far. How about a ban from removing references from the Media Research Center, enforceable by blocks if necessary? The use of MMfA and MRC sources has already been decided on elsewhere. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't know that. Can you please supply the diff? Anthony (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose give him a WP:WHALE, but i have seen enough good work out him to think it would be a waste to indef. I may support a Topic Ban from Editing Citations and Artilces closesly linked with MMFA Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support per Black Kite. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support per diffs provided by Black Kite. Note that it would be indef, not permanent, and lifted after assurances by LaEC that he would cease disruption. -- ۩ Mask 21:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Black Kite didn't provide any diffs. Anthony (talk) 21:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't need to. The example I gave, and many other of LaeC's edits, show clearly the removal of one source whilst not removing those referring to WND, right-wing blogs, etc. Thus his claim of removing unreliable sources is clearly false. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, your differences don't show much. If LAEC was using the linksearch function to find MMFA links (as I have done for Free Republic and Democratic Underground links), it shows that he was looking for links from that source, not links from other, even less reliable sources. When I go on one of my most populated->most populous tears (see my contribution history for examples) I don't look for other problems, and when people go through with AWB and fix specific issues, they will overlook things other than the specific issue on which they are working. It doesn't mean that they are shitty editors, and it doesn't mean that they have a partisan agenda, it means that they are focused on a single task. Horologium (talk) 23:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Are you kidding? - I haven't reviewed the consensus on this, but assuming consensus is clear that MM references shouldn't be removed as such, and/or that LAEC is persistently overstepping the bounds, can't we just make that consensus clear for the record and ask LAEC to honor it? No need to get any broader than that, and it's only a blockworthy thing if they get that firm message and won't abide by it. I know that an indef. block could be overturned if they only make that promise, but wouldn't it be simpler and less disruptive on all sides to take the administrative sanction step out, and go immediately to the end result? - Wikidemon (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I don't see that failure to remove other, more unreliable, references is a reasonable argument here. Either there's consensus or not to remove MMfA links, and either LAEC is being disruptive or not doing so. Nobody has an obligation to to anything around here, so I don't think it's fair or practical for anyone accused of POV disruption to show good faith by doing the same edits for the other side as well. It's not as if this is a single-purpose POV editor, they're just caught up in this particular issue at this time. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has any obligation to do anything here ... except not be disruptive. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose LAEC's actions are mostly correct in this matter. Jtrainor (talk) 02:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per AmnaFinotera. If he's here, discussing the appropriateness of the edits, and has ceased making such edits for the duration of this discussion, there's no ongoing disruption to be solved by such a block. Blocks are not punitive; they're to protect the encyclopedia from harm. When and if LAEC disregards an established consensus or becomes incivil in presenting his viewpoint, then we can appropriately talk about disruptive editing. Jclemens (talk) 02:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the last post by this user, it does not seem to indicate that he recognizes that there is an established consensus. Your suggestion to lay off MMfA refs sounds like you are asking me to self-censor. .. Now I have a demand for you, since you started this. You address yourself to the MMfA non-RS ref you reverted and you explain, for the first time, why that ref is a RS, and you do so without ad hominem argument or general statements about how MMfA has been shown to be reliable elsewhere. Unomi (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This particular case is this edit to Burning money - the MMfA page in question used as source is here complete with a transcript and a video of Kudlow setting fire to a dollar bill. LaEK's claim that he was unaware of BRD is frankly ludicrous when you consider that this particular account was created in 2006. His block for legal threats also came on the heels of idht regarding WP:LEGAL. Unomi (talk) 03:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That's 4 years ago! Be reasonable. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose LAEC and I are on opposite sides of the fence when it comes to MMfA links and whether or not they constitute WP:LINKVIOs, having had a very lengthy discussion on the matter. We still disagree on the LINKVIO issue (and I still hold out hope he'll concede someday, LOL). But for those editors here who support an indefinite block, please take a look at that discussion and also how it got started. Use this link and look at the edit history for July 13th. LAEC removed an MMfA link from a page I watch; I reverted, requesting clarification on the Talk Page. He did not revert my revert; instead, he went to the Talk Page and proceeded to patiently lay out his position and perspective on the matter, a conversation that went on for quite some time that you can see here. The conversation was undeniably civil and respectful. Hence, after my own personal run-in with him on an MMfA dispute, I am skeptical of the claim that he systematically steamrolls over people's objections without taking the time to stop and discuss the issue in a civil fashion. If he did revert someone who reverted his edit, please take the time to carefully examine the incident and see if an edit summary or reason was provided by the offended editor rather than just assuming so. Also, reading some of the comments in this thread, it's apparent there are strong feelings in play for some folks here. I would ask that each of you consider what level of examination and scrutiny you would want your peers to apply before voting to block yourself in a similar situation. LAEC has thousands upon thousands of constructive edits, so please do him that courtesy before you make up your mind.--AzureCitizen (talk) 05:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose It's hard to believe that anyone would oppose the removal of such viciously hyperpartisan sources as MMfA. Yes, they do often (but not always) link to reliable sources. But no, they are not a WP:RS because of the high-velocity partisan spin, editing out of context, selective presentation of facts, and general propagandizing in which they constantly engage. We need to amend WP:RS to clarify Misplaced Pages's policy on hyperpartisan sources such as MMfA and, at the other end of the rainbow, such right-wing trash as World Net Daily. Until that occurs, any suggestion that LAEC should be indef blocked raises my suspicions about any editor who would even suggest such an oppressive remedy, where there is no clear policy. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 09:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Relentless POV-pushing and IDHT over a long period of time. Xanthoxyl 14:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support Misplaced Pages is far too lenient with disruptive editors. Ban and move on. Dlabtot (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose There is no ongoing disruption; the user in question is engaging in civil discussions about the disputed edits. There is nothing to be gained from a block. —Torchiest /_contribs 16:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

LEAC proposal

This is LegitimateAndEvenCompelling. Let me suggest what I have learned here and how I will respond, then people can comment and eventually agree that those actions will be acceptable. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I will continue to examine MMfA refs for compliance with all Wiki policy, most typically WP:RS. If I determine that the ref fails the test, I will take the following action:

1. Create a Talk page section entitled "MMfA refs".
2. On the Talk page, add the MMfA link(s) and associated text.
3. On the Talk page, briefly state why the ref(s) is(are) non-RS.
4. On the Main page, remove the MMfA ref(s), and typically leave the remaining text, though other policy may require removal, in which case I will briefly state why I removed the text in the Talk page. I have not done this much at all.
5. On the Main page, insert a Citation tag, but only if the MMfA ref removed is not duplicative of existing links or is not in the External Links section.
6. On the Main page, leave a history comment similar to the full disclosure I currently provide, including that an MMfA link is involved, but also adding See Talk:MMfA refs.

If I determine that the MMfA ref is Wiki compliant, as it is from time to time, I will take no action, except perhaps to improve the link, as I have done in at least one instance.

If I am reverted, I will take the following action:

1. If the history comment claims the MMfA ref is a RS, I will not revert but I go to the Talk page. I will take no action on the Main page until consensus is reached or if a week goes by and discussion on the Talk page has ceased without consensus. This raises a problem. What if all the folks here seeking to block me indefinitely create a consensus that a non-RS is a RS. What do I do then? RS Noticeboard, I guess. But what if the same thing happens there?
2. If the history comment is blank, I will revert, but only once, and thereafter return to Talk.
3. If the history comment contains ad hominem comments, I will revert, but only twice, and thereafter return to Talk.

I note that before this issue was raised and Badger did his mass reverts of all my edits, very few were reverted, and of those, even fewer stayed reverted. I say this to point out that I do not expect a lot of reverts, except if it is by the people here seeking the indef block. If those people revert me just because of what is going on here, that is a problem, and I am asking now how to address that, as that will clearly be for reasons having nothing to do with the RS issue.

The edits that Badger mass reverted, he should revert them all. Have any of you seen the personal attacks that guy made in the history comments? His actions went beyond the pale and he should revert himself--he has already trouted himself, but that's only of jovial consequence. Note well that I have not and likely will not take the route of using procedural means to intimidate him, such as this huge matter that has been filed against me to silence me for complying with WP:RS, though perhaps not complying with WP:BRD, although I was unaware of that until now and will now comply. No, I won't make official complaints against him, or against ChrisO for his move to block me 13 minutes after his comment on my Talk page saying I needed to stop something or someone might block me, or against Black Kite for his projection about POV editing (as if RS compliance is ever POV editting) made minutes before he too went to my Talk page to determine the veracity of what he just claimed was true. Given what has happened to me here and how I have responded in the positive manner I have and how many editors have supported me here and how the vast majority of my edits made over months were not reverted until Badger acted as he did, I ask that Badger be required to revert his mass edits of what I have done over the months, particularly since they were good edits never reverted for months until he came along and made his ad hominem attacks, and because the RS rule goes to the heart of Misplaced Pages.

Let me add this. In all this time, only one editor, and only once, has ever addressed the RS issue on a substantive basis. Everyone else every single time skipped over that and jumped to ad hominem argument or general statements that MMfA has been proven to be reliable. Then they move to block me indefinitely. Clearly they have no substantive argument or they would have made it. So here is the question. What happens if on the Talk page the discussion and resulting consensus never addresses the substantive RS issues? What happens if, like what has been happening 99 44/100% of the time so far, people choose to attack me or to make blanket statements about how MMfA is a RS on other pages? What is the means to prevent Misplaced Pages from being subverted in such a manner? What recourse do I have to get attention to that problem?

Okay, what do you all think of the above?

Thank you all very much. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Based on the persistent efforts to use ad hominem efforts to sway opinion, such as the raising of 4 year old disciplinary matters, among other things, and in light of the persistent avoidance of substantive RS issues in the context RS rules require, I think it might be reasonable to ask the editors seeking the indef block if they would be willing to volunteer whether they are MMfA members or MMfA supporters. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This thread is about your behaviour, and whether you're going to be indefinitely blocked. Do you mind if we focus on that now? The other important questions can be addressed on a new thread, here or at an appropriate forum. But, for now, can we just see how everybody feels about what you have proposed regarding your future conduct? Anthony (talk) 04:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it might be reasonable to ask the editors seeking the indef block if they would be willing to volunteer whether they are MMfA members or MMfA supporters. This betrays a completely inappropriate battlegound mentality, as well as being an egregious violation of WP:AGF. LAEC does not seem to fathom the possibility that someone may find his actions disruptive without being his political opposite -- and by his comment reveals the probability that his own actions have been ideologically motivated and not based on Wikipedian principles. Serious consideration has to be given to the question of whether this editor is capable of acting based strictly on grounds of policy, without guidance from his political views. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Eh, it was an after thought after all I've been through. Cut me some slack, even though you moved to block me indefinitely. I'll withdraw the question and strike it out. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok let's look at your proposal: it amounts to codified edit warring ("I will revert twice..."), and is therefore totally unaacceptable. What you need to do is wait until there is some consensus regarding whether the source is reliable or not, and then act. The lack of consensus is not license to do whatever you wish, the lack of consensus is merely an indication that the community has not yet made up its collective mind, and in that circumstance, one needs to act carefully and with due consideration for specific circumstances. Mass reversions when Misplaced Pages is still thinking about what to do is not being bold, it's being disruptive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless I am the one being mass reverted. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Those reversions returned the articles to the status quo ante. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to do in the case of disruptive editing such as your. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I made those edits over months, and a very tiny percentage were ever reverted, only a few, actually. They were not "disruptive" if you judge by the reverts you get or don't get. They were not reverted until Badger Drink did so en masse as a result of this AN/I, and with the ad hominem history comments for which he trouted himself.

I'm going to sleep now. Sweet dreams. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

With the striking of the offensive section, I whole-heartedly support this proposal. It accomplishes the goal of ending disruption and allows LaEC to voice his concerns without detriment to the project (it may even improve sources where there's consensus Media Matters is not the appropriate citation). All in all a better outcome then either extreme. Blocks are meant to be preventive, not punitive. We have mitigated potential damage, so none is needed. -- ۩ Mask 05:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is that you are still seeking to make the determination on a global scale of whether MMfA is a reliable source or not. It should be obvious from the discussion on this issue that there is substantial disagreement on that point. I see nothing in your proposal about getting the consensus of editors beforehand about whether MMfA is a reliable source. What needs to happen is a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard, followed by an RFC if necessary. Only then and only if the consensus is that MMfA is reliable should you attempt to carry out a systematic removal or replacement of MMfA citations. As it is, you're still pursuing the approach that got you into trouble - i.e. imposing your own view of MMfA on the whole encyclopedia without attempting to obtain any consensus for your actions beforehand. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

" discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard, followed by an RFC if necessary" for each of the hundreds of edits I make would be a huge roadblock that would essentially end my efforts to apply WP:RS, and it would be overburdensome to everyone involved were I to decide to do that. As ChrisO is the person who waited 13 minutes to move to block me indefinitely after advising me not to edit in a certain way that I did not, is it not surprising he would suggest such an onerous requirement. Recall that I made those edits over months, and a very tiny percentage were ever reverted, only a few, actually. Focusing on MMfA is not what got me in trouble with Wiki policy nonadherence, rather that was failure to comply with WP:BRD, although admittedly it was the MMfA that got me in trouble from the viewpoint of editors such as ChrisO who oppose removing MMfA refs even when they violate WP:RS, etc. So I am not "imposing own view of MMfA on the whole encyclopedia without attempting to obtain any consensus for your actions beforehand". My "view of MMfA" is irrelevant. The point is compliance with[REDACTED] policy and that I have found an easy way to quickly identify hundreds of refs that may violate that policy. To the extent that I have removed the MMfA refs and not provided a means to mine the refs for RSs or to allow for consensus, I have proposed a means to correct that. That is what is being decided now. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 11:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You are right ChrisO, there is substantial disagreement on under what circumstances MMfA is a reliable source. It is unreasonable to expect any editor to be guided by one particular contentious interpretation and not another. LAeC will follow WP:BRD, and preserve the MMfA ref's so others may use them to find RSs if they wish. That should deal with the disruption, from his side. Anthony (talk) 13:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

@LAEC - No not a RfC for every edit. There is so far no consensus that MMfA is NOT (that's NOT) a reliable source. Opinion is split. Until you have consensus that MMfA is NOT a reliable source, you may not systematically remove it from the encyclopaedia. That is WP:DISRUPTIVE. Either start at the RS noticeboard, or start a RfC to confirm that MMfA is not a reliable source. In the absence of that, you may only remove it where you can show that it is not a reliable source. This would involve demonstrating that it is the only source saying something, or that other sources contradict it, and cannot be done by mass removal, but must be done on a case by case basis. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree - Elen of the Roads is 100% correct. I will "only remove where can show that it is not a reliable source". Indeed, that is exactly what I have proposed doing. I have also proposed doing it "on a case by case basis." I will not do "mass removals".

On the issue of whether MMfA is a RS generally, I have no opinion on that. Further, I do not think is it constructive to raise the issue. WP:RS states, emphasis in original, "Proper sourcing always depends on context...." Also, "Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context." To me, that means each instance of a ref needs to be seen in context. I do not understand, given that Wiki policy, how any source, no matter how reliable or not, can be given blanket approval or opposition. Oh sure, refs from one source are usually RSs and refs from another are usually not, but a blanket policy cannot possibly apply where WP:RS requires that each ref be viewed in context. In other words, MMfA refs cannot be given blanket approval. They must be reviewed in context, like any other ref. My proposal does exactly that.

Someone made the suggestion that WP:RS needs to be updated to, basically, record what is being decided here so as to minimize the need to redo this kind of thing over and over, this being just the latest effort by so many people. I fully support that effort, should anyone actually carry it out. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears that none of the proposals are going anywhere, so this agreed to self-restriction by LEAC will likely be the only resolution. I think that on the whole, the community is fine with this outcome. However, I would like to remind LEAC to keep in mind that when removing sources that he deems unreliable, he should do so even-handedly, removing all unreliable sources and not just target those from a particular source. If he does this, people will not object to his actions. LK (talk) 04:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

That amounts to a variation on the topic ban proposal Lawrencekhoo also launched and also lost in the section immediately below. We all know Misplaced Pages is for people to do what they like within the rules, not to do as other people direct them to do. Besides, others have already discussed here that I am not required to do as Lawrencekhoo is yet again demanding.

People have also suggested Lawrencekhoo has wandering into WP:WIKIHOUNDING territory. At this point, I do feel Lawrencekhoo "is disrupti another user's (LAEC's) own enjoyment of editing, or the project generally, for no overriding reason." I'll assume the hounding has continued since I have acted again to remove the MMfA ref from the article that caused Lawrencekhoo to launch this AN/I in the first place, this time ensuring compliance with that to which I agreed regarding Talk page attention.

To the majority of people who have supported me, I thank you. To those who did not, I thank you for your input as well. I think this particular AN/I proves once and for all that no reference is deemed automatically reliable, not even MMfA, not even if MMfA has been proven reliable on other Wiki pages. So that should stop the tired, false argument that MMfA has been proven reliable again and again, therefore there is no need to consider context as required by WP:RS.

Most of all I would like to thank Jimbo Wales for creating a system that works to create fair rules for all. I know Misplaced Pages gets blamed for a lot of things that is not Misplaced Pages's doing. It is not Misplaced Pages's doing, for example, that MMfA refs/links/main page mentions are inserted by the hundreds whereever possible whether or not they satisfy WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, WP:LINKVIO, or any other policy. But, now that I have become aware that has happened, I will work within Wiki rules to bring about compliance with Wiki rules, and this AN/I proves anyone has a green light to do so, as long as Wiki expectations are met and/or exceeded. Happy editing, all. Here's a link I use to find MMfA refs that, in my experience, frequently violate one Wiki rule or another.

If anyone is wondering why I wrote this, it's because I am reacting to being wikihounded by Lawrencekhoo and he needs to know it is time to stop. I would not have written this otherwise. It really does feel good to have Wiki rules and a Wiki community to support me and others when we try to apply those rules. Really, thanks Jim. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It's likely that few are still paying attention to this, but I would like to point out that I suggested:

• When removing sources that he deems unreliable, he should do so even-handedly, removing all unreliable sources
• He should not just target a particular source

By rejecting this, LegitimateAndEvenCompelling has essentially said that he will remove sources in a partisan way, and target particular sources.

As for the wikihounding, I invite all to look at my edit history to see if this is even remotely true. Apparently, LEAC interprets my trying to get him to stop systematically removing a particular source from multiple articles as wikhounding, since it is interfering with his "own enjoyment of editing". LK (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

LEAC Topic Ban Proposal

Given that LEAC still doesn't get that it is inappropriate to systematically remove something from the encyclopedia without community consensus, I think its better if he were to leave the issue of MMfA references to others, and to make productive contributions elsewhere, I suggest a topic ban whereby:
LegitimateAndEvenCompelling is forbidden to remove any MMfA references from Misplaced Pages, or to systematically tag them as unreliable.

If he sees any violations of policy involving a MMfA link, he is free to raise the issue on the talk page of the article or any of the relevant noticeboards. If there really is a violation of policy, someone else will surely take care of it. LEAC needs to concentrate his energies elsewhere as he doesn't seem to understand that his actions are disruptive and not supported by the community. LK (talk) 15:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Can I suggest we wait for LEaC's response to Elen's very sensible post, above? Persuasion and education take a little longer than coercion, but create a nicer work environment. Anthony (talk) 16:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. See above section. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• I oppose this outright. There is no consensus that MMFA is a reliable source, so there is no community consensus that his removals are a bad thing. An RFC can make a determination, which will settle this once and for all. However, I think that LAEC should wait at least a week, to see if an RFC is drafted. If so, he should not remove any MMFA links until the RFC concludes. Removing links while an RFC is in progress is unquestionably disruptive, but this attempt to hold him hostage over links of disputed appropriateness is not acceptable either. Horologium (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You've got it exactly backwards. Please see Elen's post above, which gets it right. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with that interpretation. A lot of the difference in our positions may be attributed to differences in our interpretation of BLP; I favor a wide scope on that policy, which would result in more sources being disallowed when discussing living people. YMMV, of course. Horologium (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with BeyondMyKen and Elen. We need consensus on the question of appropriate use of MMfA and other such sites, and the polite thing for LAEC to do, who has been extended considerable patience here, would be to hold off on further MMfA edits until that is achieved. I have started a discussion at Anthony (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. I have heard the contention that LaeC has been "systematically removing all references to MMfA" echoed around but so far have not seen it proven. It seems LaeC has been removing them on a case by case example and on at least one instance improved the citation and kept it there. Until it can actually be shown that his edits are blindly "systematic" and that a majority have indeed been disruptive I completely disagree with attempts here to block him.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 05:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. The proposed solution offered by LEAC himself seems best. And we need to amend WP:RS to discuss hyperpartisan sources such as MMfA and WND. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block on LK LAEC already sort of said he was sorry and anymore more on this post is violating AGF and harrassment. LK has not backed down so he should be blocked. Let's get back to writing, not bickering, after LK is blocked (unless he says sorry). RIPGC (talk) 04:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support indefinite ANI topic ban on LK This entire thread has been a gigantic drama-stirrin' waste of time. Jtrainor (talk) 13:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
• Close this thread Despite claims to the contrary, there is no consensus concerning under what circumstances, if any, it is appropriate to report MMfA's conclusions and opinions. There have been 7 recent lengthy discussions on the topic at RSN and Talk:RSN, all ending with no agreement – – and there is currently an RFC on the issue at Talk:RS. Until consensus is achieved, LEaC's understanding of this issue is no more incorrect than LK's.

  Despite claims to the contrary, LEaC has not been "blanket" deleting MMfA citations, but has been working case by case, and engaging in polite debate with those who contest a deletion.

  This thread has addressed LEaC's failure to follow BRD, and not saving the MMfA citation so others can easily track down the sources MMfA used. LEaC has learned about BRD and agrees to be guided by it, and has agreed to preserve, on the article talk page, any deleted MMfA citations. I think this is a good result. Anthony (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion moved

An RfC has been started on partisan news organizations like the MMfA on the WP:Identifying reliable sources talk page. Please continue any discussion on this issue there. LK (talk) 00:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Pagemove consensus formed on Wikiproject page

Perhaps there is nothing wrong with this, but I think the normal procedures have been circumvented. A page about something connected to Judaism (but also to classical antiquity and Christianity) being moved to a more Jew-centric article title with a discussion on Wikiproject:Judaism (Here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#Building_and_destroying_the_Beit_Hamikdash) instead of on the talkpage through the normal "requested moves" process.

I left a comment here: Talk:Second_Temple_(Judaism)#Page_move and notified the mover, but would appreciate some admin feedback.

This appears to affect multiple pages.

Cheers. --FormerIP (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why they did that, WikiProjects don't own article or decide their names. Feel free to list it at WP:RM to get a discussion beyond a single WikiProject. Fences&Windows 23:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Is that the only way to handle it? It would reverse the burden of proof, so that if there is no consensus it stays at the new address. --FormerIP (talk) 23:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the page move should be undone, and proper discussion to take place. The discussion and a vote was started at pretty much the same time, and the person who started the discussion decided the outcome. Apart from the temple articles, it was only judaism related pages that were notified, and I do not know why this wasn't listed at WP:RM. Quantpole (talk) 08:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Quantpole: It is only logical and correct to assume that a subject that primarily concerns Judaism and is critically important to it should be centralized at that subject's main project talk page as was done. Every religion's project talk page need not have been notified. Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc etc etc do not identify Judaism editors when holding serious discussions about topics that are central to their religions. Otherwise it would have become a real spam fest to notify dozens of pages when already ten had been. WP:RM need also not have been notified because at the outset the redirects and page moves could have been done by anyone in any case because at the time First Temple (Judaism), Second Temple (Judaism), Third Temple (Judaism) were all empty red links. (They have now been trimmed to the more neutral sounding, but still objectively correct First Temple, Second Temple, Third Temple.) "Proper discussion" as you call it did take place starting over two weeks ago and it was quite comprehensive. The outcome was decided by the consensus and the votes were a clear-cut and precise way of measuring and recording the outcome as each user either commented or voted or both. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 11:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, there's no point really going repeatedly over what should or shouldn't have been done (apart from that I encourage you to read WP:VOTE). However, now that there are concerns, the correct thing to do should be to reopen discussion to properly achieve consensus. To avoid a fait accompli in case consensus is not achieved, the old titles should be kept for now. Quantpole (talk) 13:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi again Quantpole: So far you and user FormerIP have that position that flies in the face of legitimate discussions and a clarifying vote that reached consensus and that even admin Fram (see below) has not done what you think based it seems more on WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT than anything else, which is not good enough. Admin Fram has been more reasonable and made the most neutral changes that everyone can agree to at this time. User FormerIP expressed some concerns and at that he mis-stated them when he said that there had been "no discussion" which has been proven to be false. Not only were there lengthy discussions but it was also proven and cited in the discussions that based on Google hits the terms First Temple, Second Temple and Third Temple are the most commonly and frequently used, and that one lone user's weak and unfounded complaint cannot be a basis for overturning the learned opinions of multiple users who supported and agreed to the changes, namely:

1. Slrubenstein,
2. Yoninah,
3. Mzk1,
4. Avraham,
5. Chesdovi,
6. Malik Shabazz,
7. ACogloc,
8. AMuseo

The above provided more than adequate consensus and it would be horrendous to call their votes into question. IZAK (talk) 01:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• All I am saying is now that the process you used has been called into question, the discussion should be reopened so that users outside of judaism related topics have the opportunity to comment. I am not calling anyone's opinion into question, and have not even expressed an opinion on the subject matter (I'd have to do some research first). Quantpole (talk) 07:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Quantpole: I have gone to great lengths to explain the background to these moves, something that the one complaining was not even aware of when he started his complaint. While at least eight users have agreed to the moves, only one has raised some questions now. We have gone back and forth and an admin has already made a useful decision, (see Fram's decision below) with good changes that are certainly very agreeable, reasonable and meet all aspects of WP:NPOV. That seems like a good way to end the matter for now. You are standing on the sidelines, admitting that you need to do more research, so why not go and do the research first and then come back when you are ready and your views will be gladly welcomed, but for now it serves no purpose. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 08:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
    • This is going nowhere, and you are not getting the point at all. The next step will be to list them at WP:RM. Quantpole (talk) 10:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
      • No it won't because an admin (Fram, below) has already reviewed the entire case and made the requisite WP:NPOV adjustments already. You are veering into WP:POINT territory and as far as I am concerned you are violating WP:AGF with me. IZAK (talk) 04:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
        • My moves were just a correction of the most basic errors with your moves. They do not mean that discussion has to end, and I have no objection whatsoever to a discussion at RM, or to the re-moval of these pages to other titles (as long as they follow the basics of the MoS, like no disambiguation when none is needed). If people prefer these pages at Second Temple of Jerusalem, Second Jewish Temple, Temple of Jerusalem (date build - date destroyed), or whatever is the most common name in the English literature about them, that's all fine by me. Please don't use my moves as a reason to end all discussion on this. Fram (talk) 07:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
          • • Hi Fram, my moves were not "in error" they followed a lenghthy discussion to attain WP:CONSENSUS. Obviously the discussion is not over, it's been going on for 3,000 years. For some odd reason the Jewish temples seem to be subject to undue attention from non-Jewish sources as to what they should be, even if they should be built, exist or be destroyed, or what their names are or should be. It is logical to assume that the terms used in Judaism and by Jews should be the preferred ones for Jewish topics. Until now you had not clarified yourself, thanks for doing so now. In fact your moves were perfect and are supported by the research using Google that uses the terms "First Temple", "Second Temple", "Third Temple", more than any others. IZAK (talk) 09:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
              • Apart from the fact that you did a copy-paste move instead of an actual move, that you didn't follow the Manual of style in your names, and that it is debated whether the method and location of the move suggestion debate was correct, you are right, your moves were not in error... And please don't bring in utterly irrelevant things like "it's been going on for 3,000 years". We are discussing the page names of some pages on Misplaced Pages, not the actual buildings and locations. You are incorrect in your assumption that the terms used by Jews or Judaism should be preferred. The most common terms in English should be used, no more, no less. Whether these names coincide with the preferences of Jews, Christians, atheist scholars of Antiquity, or any other group is not important and should not be taken into consideration. Please don't drag the religion of editors or the actual history of the buildings into this debate any longer, it is not helpful at all and only works to antagonize editors (by e.g. giving the impression that the opinion of non-Jews is irrelevant for this discussion). Fram (talk) 09:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Fram: As you can see from the very comprehensive discussions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Judaism#Building and destroying the Beit Hamikdash you will see that it was proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that the terms "First Temple", "Second Temple", "Third Temple" are the more frequent terms based on hundreds of thousands of Google hits, so it is not just about choosing some marginal Jewish terms. In any case, this is a subject central to Judaism so there is no way really to "split hairs" and say that it should be kept out of WP:JUDAISM discussions where everything is up for discussion and very often editorial, naming and move decisions, actually nothing is excluded in the many years the Wikiproject has been in existence. In any case, anyone monitoring those pages could read the notices about the centralized discussion I placed on each one of them and was free to join the discussion so that no one was excluded on any grounds. The objections only started after the open-ended lengthy discussions, and after WP:CONSENSUS was clearly reached, and only after moves were made without any prior involvement in the discussions themselves by subsequent objectors. IZAK (talk) 23:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

All talk pages, and more, were notified about the discussions and proposed moves

Hi: The above depiction by User:Former IP is not correct. Firstly, there most definitely was a very lengthy centralized discussion open to all users for the sake of orderliness and reaching consensus was at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Judaism#Building and destroying the Beit Hamikdash since 14 July 2010. Secondly, all users, no matter what "projects" they do or don't belong to, were notified on the relevant talk pages as well as a few other talk pages of effected articles were notified about the proposed redirect, also on 14 July 2010, (at a cost of being accused of "spamming" which it was not for this purpose), see:

1. Talk:Temple in Jerusalem#Correct names for the First and Second Temples
2. Talk:First_Temple,
3. Talk:Second_Temple,
4. Talk:Herod's_Temple,
5. Talk:Third_Temple,
6. Talk:Jerusalem, as well as at
7. Talk:Judaism,
8. Talk:The_Three_Weeks,
9. Talk:The_Nine_Days,
10. Talk:Tisha_B'Av

So relevant talk pages were fully notified and editors were given enough time to respond, as a decent amount did, but now with the "corrected" redirects for some pages, some of these older displaced histories may be not showing up for some odd reason, even though I have located them and they are still there in their original places. Therefore, users who still have or had (for the four articles moved) these pages on their watch lists had more than two weeks to partake, share their views and make comments and suggestions. Those editors who did were mostly reliable Judaic editors who are trustworthy and responsible. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I moved the three Temple pages to the undisambiguated version (i.e. without (Judaism) added to it). Pages shouldn't be at a disambiguated title when there is no need to disambiguate at all. The page move discussion was indeed mentioned on the talk page of the article, but it was very unclear that this was actually a discussion about a page move. Looking at the move discussion, there was clear support for having the pages at first temple and second temple, but much less support for moving them to the (Judaism) disambiguation as well. Fram (talk) 08:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Fram: This is very fair and equatable move by you and will lead to more coherence and result in less confusion stemming from conflicting names. IZAK (talk) 11:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

IMO, there isn't validity to the discussion at Wikiproject:Judaism, because it isn't an appropriate forum for discussion of a page move. As IZAK points out, it is technically true that this was open to all editors, but I think it is also clear that any discussion on the talk page of a Wikiproject is likely to be slanted towards the views of its members. Plus, WP has a process for page moves which was not followed. So I think, strictly speaking, the page should be moved back to where it was and a new discussion launched if needed. I think "Second Temple" even without the bracketed "Judaism" still reflects a Jewish POV and is insufficiently descriptive (v. recent porposal to move Second Amendment to the United States Constitution to Second Amendment).

Thanks, though, Fram. I should probably mention that you forgot to move the talk page. --FormerIP (talk) 11:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Think the views of a few admins as to what is best in the circumstance outlined would be useful. If admins would prefer to leave things as they are, I won't start a campaign over it, but I don't think it would set a good precedent. --FormerIP (talk) 11:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Former IP: You go too far when you allege and complain that "Second Temple" is a "Jewish POV" when the subject itself is part and parcel of Judaism and was for its entire history. The Two past destroyed Temples and the desire for a rebuilt Third Temple are central to Judaism and the Hebrew Bible and to the spiritual goals of all Jews throughout the millennia. To set the record straight the discussion was not just about a mere few page moves, as anyone can clearly see, it was about creating cohesiveness and uniformity in the entire subject starting with the names of the First, Second and Third Temples, even though they have alternate names, but the discussions showed that there are more Google hits from a number of directions for the First Temple, Second Temple and Third Temple names, and also starting discussions how to subsequently streamline this entire subject of the Three Jewish Temples and hopefully you do agree that they were and are Jewish Temples and that it is logical and reasonable to expect that they should be known by their Jewish names (in any case there is no problem with calling them First, Second, Third in English directly translated from Hebrew usages over the ages) and not by subsequent names thrust on them albeit in usage in some circles. As for your point that "Second Temple" alone is "insufficiently descriptive" that is precisely why naming it Second Temple (Judaism) is the perfect and accurate name for it that would take care of those kind of concerns, but evidently you feel that the Jewish Temples must be "de-Judaized" and detached and reformulated as entities not belonging to either the Jews or to Judaism, as implied in the criticism not to take it to the Judaism project talk page and your grumbling about the Temples' basic names. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean, IZAK. How does the word "Jerusalem" constitute "de-Judaizing"? In any event, the main issue here is process. --FormerIP (talk) 12:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

FormerIP: Not sure what you're talking about. While the first two Temples may have been physically located in Jerusalem as will the third one according to Judaism, their real over-arching and fundamental importance and position within Judaism are immeasurably far greater than any mere finite geographic locale or structural building, even if it is in as important a place as Jerusalem. Judaism and Jews have remained attached at the hip through their beliefs, prayers and studies to both the notions of the Temples and to Jerusalem as spiritual holy centers for millennia even though they have had neither a temple nor access to Jerusalem for (most of) the last 2,000 years. IZAK (talk) 01:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

That's probably nice for them, but I don't understand why you think it means you don't have to follow the normal WP procedure for moving a page. --FormerIP (talk) 02:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

FormerIP: As I have clarified, once the discussions reached a consensus I could have easily moved the pages to "First Temple (Judaism)", "Second Temple (Judaism)", "Third Temple (Judaism)" which were empty, open unused red link pages that I had created. There would have been no problem with that. I made a technical error by not moving the pages with the move buttons on "Solomon's Temple", "Second Temple in Jerusalem" and "Third Temple" without any problems. My mistake, and it was only a mistake, was to cut and paste instead of making the easier moves (the reason I did that is that I was working quickly and I was a little rusty about making pages moves), but I then asked User Avraham to iron out my oversight, which he did do. So please do not make a mountain out of a mole hill when nothing untoward has happened. Thank you for your understanding. IZAK (talk) 02:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem isn't to do with the actual mechanics of the page moves (I'm not aware you did anything wrong there), it is that the move requests were not listed at WP:RM and the discussions about moving the page was held in a forum where a particular POV was likely to prevail. You even opened the disucssion by talking about "confusion...stemming from opposing secular and religious scholarly outlooks" and suggesting that certain articles should be renames on the basis that they "belong" to Judaism. This, I think, is out of line with the normal spirit of inclusiveness and NPOV on WP. --FormerIP (talk) 09:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The topic is about the Jewish temples not about Christian or another religion's ones. Jewish articles carry far more secular content than would be allowed or accepted in regular topics. There is and will always be room for lots of different views in the Jewish Temple articles, in fact there is not a huge amount in them from a purely Jewish POV in them and all I was proposing, or requesting, was to create the correct balance but so far absolutely nothing has happened. You are misunderstanding and misusing the policies of POV by claiming the absurd, that a key subject that is inherent to a project should "not" be discussed there. That would like saying that no discussions or decisions about medical topics should be made at WP:MEDICINE unless they are first discussed somewhere else where they don't deal with medicine. Nothing wrong happened. I should hope you understand the analogy. IZAK (talk) 04:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it would be like saying that no pages relating to medical topics should be moved solely on the basis of a discussion at WP:MEDICINE, which AFAICT is the case. --FormerIP (talk) 11:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The most important thing is discussions at the article talk page. It seems to me that notification was placed on all the relevant talk pages, so anyone watching the article knew about the discussion. That is our standard. That said, calling it "the Second Temple" seems to me to follow the conventions among historians and is the most common name for it, so it ought to be the title. If people call it other names, and I have no doubt that they do, we handle that through redirects, so there is never any fear of someone not finding the article. But this is the most common name. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that the standard is listing at RM, templating the pages and holding a discussion about each one individually, normally on their respective talk pages, Sluberstein. The notice on the Second Temple page disappeared (though I am not saying this is IZAK's fault). In any event, launching the discussion (that you were involved in) on the Judaism project talkpage with an intro effectively saying "let's do something about the non-Jewish bias on these articles" is not an appropraite way to go about it. --FormerIP (talk) 14:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It makes no sense to say that the articles had a "non-Jewish bias" (your words) and then oppose the discussion from taking place at WP:JUDAISM. IZAK (talk) 09:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake! Note where the quote-marks are in the last sentence of my post. I am not saying that the article has a non-Jewish bias, by any means. --FormerIP (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

@FormerIP: You write, "My understanding is that the standard is listing at RM," and I have no idea how this could be your interpretation of the following clause taken from the intro to the policy: "There is no obligation to list such move requests here;" you are right that there should be notification on the article talk page - but IZAK did just that, he left a message on the talk page, so anyone watching it new about the proposal and had an opportunity to weigh in.

Why is is inappropriate to discuss an article of central importance to Judaism on the project Judaism talk page? It is not like anyone is banned from contributing to that discussion - did you post a comment which someone deleted? Isn't this article categorized under Wikiproject:Judaism? Slrubenstein | Talk 09:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

That same page, WP:RM, goes on to say that "Discussions about retitling of an article (page move) can always be carried out at the article's talk page without adding an entry here." It doesn't mention project pages. However, in general, I don't think there is a problem with discussing page moves on a project page, certainly not when (like here) multiple pages are involved and some consistency between them is wanted. The problem arises when the project is chosen to give one particular point of view preference. Even if it is a relevant PoV like here, this violates WP:NPOV and is a form of canvassing. See the comments by IZAK (who proposed the move, determined the consensus and performed the move) above: "It is logical to assume that the terms used in Judaism and by Jews should be the preferred ones for Jewish topics." This is incorrect: we don't use the terms preferred by the involved groups. Myanmar is here described in the article Burma, because that is the term most used in the English literature. Another incorrect factor in that statement, that the temple (certainly the second one) is not only a Jewish topic but also a Christian one (and all of them are general historical and archaeological ones) is therefor not relevant for a naming discussion. Fram (talk) 10:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that the title of the article should follow the conventions of 1st century historians. And the most common designation is "the Second Temple." That is why I think he article should be named "the Second Temple." Slrubenstein | Talk 11:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? The conventions of 1st century historians? Why should we follow those? Fram (talk) 11:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Fram: Everything was done in conformity with WP:NPOV -- you are dealing with highly experienced editors here and if you can show me where I have ever edited in violation of WP:NPOV I will eat my proverbial hat. PLEASE re-read every word at the very comprehensive discussions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Judaism#Building and destroying the Beit Hamikdash where I WP:CITE beyond any shadow of a doubt that the terms "First Temple", "Second Temple", "Third Temple" are the more frequent terms based on hundreds of thousands of Google hits, so you need to WP:AGF. This is a subject central to Judaism so there is no way really to "split hairs" and say that it should be kept out of WP:JUDAISM discussions where everything relating to Jews and Judaism is up for discussion and very often editorial, naming and move decisions are made and this helps Misplaced Pages grow and move along. Many admins have belonged to and participated in WP:JUDAISM discussions and they are fully aware of WP policies. Nothing related to Jews or Judaism even marginally is excluded in the many years the Wikiproject has been in existence and it has only helped Misplaced Pages. In any case, as User Slrubenstein points out anyone monitoring those pages could read the notices about the centralized discussion I placed on each one of them and was free to join the discussion so that no one was excluded on any grounds. The objections only started after the open-ended lengthy discussions, and after WP:CONSENSUS was clearly reached, and only after moves were made without any prior involvement in the discussions themselves by subsequent objectors. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 23:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You posted the same text twice for some reason, I'll reply only once. Your POV ic very clear, when you state in that discussion: "But not according to Judaism to which it belongs. It's about the Jewish First Temple not about how or what it's called according to an English or non-Jewish or secular POV." You are totally wrong here, what it's called from an English language PoV is the only thing that matters, not what it is called in the Torah (like your other comment there: "With more articles like this from non-Torah sources each with their own POV of course."). You are also incorrect that "The objections only started after the open-ended lengthy discussions, and after WP:CONSENSUS was clearly reached,", as Debresser objected from the very start, and Chesdovi also said "(It's common name in Hebrew does not dictate its common name in English...?)" So you have shown a clear POV based reason for your moves, and have ignored Misplaced Pages policies and the oposition that was stated from the very start of the discussion. Whether that is standard practive at the Project, or only your standard practice, I don't know, but it has to change in either case. Subjects related to Jews or Judaism will not be named or treated in accordance with the Torah, but in acordance with reliable independent sources (and for the naming in accordance with English language reliable independent sources). The argument (not by you) that ""Solomon's Temple" is probably more used in academia, but it is certainly Bayis Rishon and Bayis Sheini for believing Jews." is irrelevant and if an independent editor had reviewed the move discussion, instead of you, he would have discounted said argument as being not policy based. Oh, and replying to an opposer with among other comments the utterly irrelevant "you do agree that the destruction of the two temples and the butchery and exile of the Jewish people by the Babylonians and then by the Romans was proportionally and quantitatively on a par with the Nazis or perhaps even worse don't you?" is a very poor tactic as well. The majority of your replies and arguments on that page are religion based, which is the completely wrong argument to defend or oppose any article name, even for a subject that is central to a religion. Fram (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Which is why we have WP:Article title. We don't use 'this group uses this name' as a reason to ignore our guidlines. NPOV is often a red herring in discussion of article titles. Dougweller (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Earlier, I said that the title should be "Snd Temple" because that is the convention among 1st century historians. Fram asks why. What can I say? I think that the title of an article should refelect two things: the contents of the title and the nomenclature most common in academe. The second Temple period is the subjust of a great deal of scholarly research. Four about five hundred years, it is the object of research of almost exclusively historians of Jews and Judaism. During some of this time Judea was Persian Occupied, the Greek Occupied, and then independent (Jewish) but under Hellenic influcence. For the last 120 years or so it continued unbder Roman Occupation. So there is lots of scholarship about it it is not just of interest to Jews. And those historians - of Persian and Greek and Hasmonean and Roman occupied Judea, 70 years of the Temple's history extending into the first century, the convention is to call it the Second Temple. Why not follow standard current academic practice? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I think this was just a simple misunderstanding. When you mentioend "1st century historians", I thought you meant people like Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian. I now realise that you probably meant 20th and 21st century historians specialized in the first century. If that is the case, my reply was obviously not correct, and I agree that we should follow the current name as used by the scientific literature in English. Fram (talk) 08:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• Hi Fram: The following is an inter-linear response to your above response, my responses start with "IZAK": "You posted the same text twice for some reason, I'll reply only once." IZAK: There were similarities but they were different (read them for yourself), so let's keep one thread here. "Your POV ic very clear, when you state in that discussion: "But not according to Judaism to which it belongs. It's about the Jewish First Temple not about how or what it's called according to an English or non-Jewish or secular POV." IZAK: Sorry, but the subject is about the Jewish First, Second and Third Temples and they are central notions to Judaism. That is not a "POV" it's a fact. So it is therefore logical to deal with the Temples as Jewish topics in a NPOV manner and then add on how other POVs and perspectives view them. "You are totally wrong here, what it's called from an English language PoV is the only thing that matters, not what it is called in the Torah (like your other comment there: "With more articles like this from non-Torah sources each with their own POV of course.")." IZAK: Where have I ever said what the Torah says is "NPOV" please do not bring in or attribute to me things I never said. NPOV is a WP policy that I have always followed. One can quote Torah or anything else as long as it's factual and NPOV because WP is not anti-Torah either. It is how the articles are written in NPOV style that is important for WP and not what we believe in our private lives that WP does not care about. An editor may be secular, etheist and anti-religious but WP does not care about privately-held views as long as editing and writing is done in a NPOV manner. "You are also incorrect that "The objections only started after the open-ended lengthy discussions, and after WP:CONSENSUS was clearly reached,", as Debresser objected from the very start, and Chesdovi also said "(It's common name in Hebrew does not dictate its common name in English...?)" So you have shown a clear POV based reason for your moves, and have ignored Misplaced Pages policies and the oposition that was stated from the very start of the discussion." IZAK: You are focusing on one lone objector who was outvoted. At the time of the discussions there was only one objector who was outvoted by 9 others (including me), how else to get consensus, that is more than sufficient for WP:CONSENSUS. The articles need help to become accurate. That's obvious to any reader who knows this subject. My suggestion was to strive for clarity and specificity, to clarify that these were temples related to Judaism. That is a fact that no one can deny. "Whether that is standard practive at the Project, or only your standard practice, I don't know, but it has to change in either case. Subjects related to Jews or Judaism will not be named or treated in accordance with the Torah, but in acordance with reliable independent sources (and for the naming in accordance with English language reliable independent sources)." IZAK: All editors work in accordance with WP policies. In fact it is time to call in some of the main editors some admins who can have their say, and we can hear what they have to say. "The argument (not by you) that ""Solomon's Temple" is probably more used in academia, but it is certainly Bayis Rishon and Bayis Sheini for believing Jews." is irrelevant and if an independent editor had reviewed the move discussion, instead of you, he would have discounted said argument as being not policy based." IZAK: Every single one of my arguments was based on neutral Google hits that prove beyond a doubt that the most common terms are First Temple, Second Temple and Third Temple that has nothing to do with any POV. That is why I had to clarify it to you in my second post above. I agree with you and I thank you again for making the corrections that reflect that. "Oh, and replying to an opposer with among other comments the utterly irrelevant "you do agree that the destruction of the two temples and the butchery and exile of the Jewish people by the Babylonians and then by the Romans was proportionally and quantitatively on a par with the Nazis or perhaps even worse don't you?" is a very poor tactic as well." IZAK: The destruction of the two temples is considered a tragedy on the par of the Nazi Holocaust among serious Jewish and secular scholars, historians and theologians, that's a matter of fact and it's legitimate to point that out in a discussion about that subject. There is absolutely no question about that. "The majority of your replies and arguments on that page are religion based, which is the completely wrong argument to defend or oppose any article name, even for a subject that is central to a religion." IZAK: It is illogical and irrational to claim that a subject related to and central to a religion cannot be presented from that religion's perspectives that are not "POV" since they are part and parcel of that religion that cannot be understood or described or explained with recourse to that religion first followed by other POVs and explanations. That does not mean that other views are excluded either. WP is not in the business of being anti-religion either it includes all POVs and that's not a red herring argument either, WP is after all NPOV. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 07:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I can only conclude from this reply taht you don't understand what POV and NPOV mean. Just one example: "The destruction of the two temples is considered a tragedy on the par of the Nazi Holocaust among serious Jewish and secular scholars, historians and theologians, that's a matter of fact and it's legitimate to point that out in a discussion about that subject. There is absolutely no question about that." The "subject" being the name of the temple articles, not the history of the temples or the tragedies of the Jewish people. Could you please clarify why you felt that this argument had any relevance whatsoever to the naming debate? How does the history of the temple and whether it is comparable to the Holocaust have any link to what this article should be called on the English Misplaced Pages? Fram (talk) 08:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• Hi again Fram: In reference to your comment above i.e. "Whether that is standard practive at the Project, or only your standard practice, I don't know, but it has to change in either case. Subjects related to Jews or Judaism will not be named or treated in accordance with the Torah, but in acordance with reliable independent sources (and for the naming in accordance with English language reliable independent sources)" which I regard as a serious false allegation that clearly violates WP:AGF, and definitely borders on WP:NPA, I have asked 5 admins (Users Avraham (talk · contribs); Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs); Jfdwolff (talk · contribs); Jayjg (talk · contribs); TShilo12 (talk · contribs)), who also have had experience with WP:JUDAISM for their input, hopefully they will have time to respond, in addition to User:Slrubenstein who is both an admin and long-time participant in the Judaism WikiProject. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

IZAK asked me to comment here. When we discussed the question of page names at WT:JUDAISM, IZAK had posted notices on the Talk pages of the affected articles. I thought using WT:JUDAISM for a centralized discussion of the subject seemed appropriate. I felt, and still feel, disappointed that the discussion didn't attract many contributors who aren't WP:JUDAISM "regulars".

While a few contributors may have made their decisions based on the Hebrew terms used by "believing Jews", my impression is that most arguments were based on WP:COMMONNAME.

In short, I don't think there was anything inappropriate about using WT:JUDAISM as a forum for a centralized discussion concerning three articles within the WikiProject's purview. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 14:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I only noticed this while making an edit at Malik's page. I don't intend to get into the discussion, which I have only heard of now. But millions of Christians visit what they call the Holy Land, take the Old Testament as an article of faith, and customarily refer to Solomon's Temple. 'First Temple' as opposed to Second Temple, simply, as far as my ear goes from 6 decades of hearing religious Christians speak (I'm not a Christian), does not ring a bell, unless one is a specialist. I think from what I have read that a very simple mistake is being made here, that looks, as phrased by Izak, highly appropriative. It's as as Nazareth were soon to be shifted to Natzrat , the name privileged in Israel, much to the confusion of visiting Christian pilgrims. This kind of thing deserves very wide input and discussion on pages most editors visit.Nishidani (talk) 14:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

IZAK asked me to comment here. I'm not keen on seeing discussions like these take place on wikiprojects, because it excludes people who don't have the project pages on their watchlists. A link to the page-move discussion on the article's talk page can be added to the wikiproject to inform people, if done neutrally and if posted elsewhere too.

As for the title, we should use whichever is more common in English—not in Judaism, Christianity, or Islam, but in English—because this is the English Misplaced Pages. That's likely to be the name more common in one of the religions, but that should be a byproduct of our decision, not the reason for it. The article was at Solomon's Temple from its creation in 2002 until the recent move, so perhaps the thing to do is move it back temporarily, then hold a requested-move discussion on the article's talk page. I should add that I hope no one will support the old title just to make the point that it shouldn't have been moved. I also want to add that IZAK's motivation here is to produce a set of consistently titled articles that people can find easily and that are easy to cross-reference, and he should be applauded for that, so whether we agree or disagree with the page move, he's clearly acting in good faith. SlimVirgin 16:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to stress again and again that I supported my proposals at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Judaism#Building and destroying the Beit Hamikdash on the English-language names of "First Temple", "Second Temple", Third Temple" on the fact that they receive more Google hits than any other names. In addition, I would also like to point out that in any case, the English Misplaced Pages does allow and even welcomes, the use of naming from other languages, cultures and nationalities in the way those languages, cultures and nationalities use terms and concepts and they are NEVER unjustly accused of being in "violation" of "POVs", see the scope of what goes on in Category:Words and phrases by language with 73 sub-categories, with Category:Hebrew words and phrases being one of the biggest that include thousands of names for articles using Hebrew words and phrases. Nevertheless, I had not proposed using Hebrew names at all in this case, just the commonly used English-language terms "First Temple", "Second Temple", Third Temple". Thank you, IZAK (talk) 18:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

IZAK. I checked 13 of the other wikis whose languages I can read with varying degrees of comprehension. The preferred title is the one each language recognizes most readily. Only the Russian wiki gives 'First Temple' (Первый Храм) glossed however by 'First Jerusalem temple' (Первый Иерусалимский храм), The Temple of Solomon (Храм Соломона) and lastly 'The Jerusalem Temple (Иерусали́мский Храм). The rest, Greek, Latin, Italian, French, Catalan, Dutch, Danish, Norwegian, Czech, Portuguese, Romanian and Chinese give their 'Solomon's Temple', and provide the 'First Temple' as a gloss as often as not, to explain Hebraic usage (Latin adds 'in religione Iudaica appellatione "Primum Templum") and the Chinese glosses 所羅門聖殿, where the first three characters spell out Solomon and the last two mean 'Temple', with the first temple 第一聖殿. There is no Japanese article but the Japanese usually refer to it as the 'Jerusalem Temple' (エルサレム神殿) Curious that German is lacking, but, as a recent German guide to it remarks, 'Salomons Tempel ist ein Zauberwort,' (Othmar Keel, Ernst Axel Knauf, Thomas Staubli, Salomons Tempel, Saint-Paul, 2004 p.6)i.e. 'Solomon's Temple is a magical word', which, I suggest 'First Temple' to most Western ears, and certainly anglophone ears, is not. I asked my wife, and my uncle, respectively in their mother tongues, Italian and French, what 'first temple' meant to them, and it meant nothing, until I rephrased it mentioning Solomon, which immediately woke their recognition. I don't think this is coincidental, and the reason why it is thus known is evidently due to Christianity, which has determined in most cases, the way each language thinks of the first temple. It is the historic bias of a culture inflecting standard speech, and in English the standard idiom is 'Solomon's temple'.Nishidani (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nishidani. Nice work but somewhat not to the point because they are behind the information curve. Let me re-iterate again, that it's about consistent naming. And it's not just about the outward names and labels "Solomon's Temple" versus "First Temple" alone because there are many connecting topics here that bolster the usage of "First Temple" over "Solomon's Temple". Let's look at Google. While there seems to be near parity between 336,000 hits for Solomons Temple (bolstered by the fact that many sites are using Misplaced Pages's article!) there are 283,000 hits for First Temple making them almost equal on this scale. Now, if you look at the subject in its proper context, not just as a "Solomonic production" but as the core and symbol of an entire era, then the name of "First Temple" is bolstered and backed up by the fact that the predominant term used is by far "First Temple" over anything else: 144,000 hits for First Temple Era (with only 5 hits for Solomon's Temple era I kid thee not!) and while there are 23,100 hits for First Temple period there are just 5 hits for Solomon's Temple period!; there are an astounding 453,000 hits for Destruction of the First Temple and more such as 44,800 hits for Destruction of the First Temple in Jerusalem, (while in comparison there are only 36,700 hits for Destruction of Solomon's Temple); and there are 144,000 hits for Building of the First Temple while there are 179,000 hits for Building King Solomon's Temple many that dwell on secular perspectives such as the Masons and whatnot and nothing to do with Judaism. Bottom line, these few example show that while on a few occasions there is parity, especially when talking about the structure itself, but when the focus is on the broader symbolic. religious and historical role then First Temple is the leading term not just in Judaism but has a broader acceptance. IZAK (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Just an interim query, IZAK. You are, if I understand your arguments for the change correctly, setting a precedent in Misplaced Pages. On the premises you have given, the Cave of the Patriarchs article should be retitled 'The cave of the double tombs' or 'the Cave of Machpelah', the term which is standard in Hebrew, with a redirect for the term that is standard in English. That site plays a larger role in the traditions of Judaism than it does in Christian thought, which however customarily refers to it as 'Cave of the Patriarchs'. Am I correct? Nishidani (talk) 12:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

IZAK, I also looked up "First Temple" on Google with a view to posting the results here, but there are too many not about that first temple, so the results are meaningless. SlimVirgin 21:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Slim: It's actually a two-way street because then the larger number of hits for Solomon's Temple would also be discounted. But such is the nature of the beast when using Google, it's a general prognostication and a start, and it's definitely not "meaningless" when one considers the clear disparity between 144,000 hits for "First Temple Era" versus only 5 hits for "Solomon's Temple era" or 23,100 hits for "First Temple period" versus 5 hits for "Solomon's Temple period" as well as 47,000+ hits for "Destruction of the First Temple in Jerusalem" versus 33,000+ hits for "Destruction of Solomon's Temple" none of which can be dismissed off the cuff as "meaningless". IZAK (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Slim: In addition, add in the fact that the article about the Second Temple was originally called Second Temple of Jerusalem and not Ezra's Temple or "Zerubabel's Temple" as it's also referred to, and the Third Temple article was named just that and not Ezekiel's Temple as it's sometimes referred to. So the naming was not consistent. As you correctly noted above one of my chief objectives is to create uniformity in the naming that also fits with history and the best and most clear-cut way is to go by the First Temple, Second Temple, Third Temple names that just so happens to be the way that classical Jewish as well as many secular scholars and not just Christian POV theology also names them. IZAK (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting but, for ANI (ahem!), off-topic discussions like this are the exact reason why there should be a proper inclusive debate before deciding what the best names for the pages are. --FormerIP (talk) 22:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi FormerIP: It was because you had incorrectly claimed that there wasn't enough of a discussion that the discussions here have grown retroactively. But the fact of the matter remains that it was held at as good a place as any at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Judaism#Building and destroying the Beit Hamikdash that anyone was welcome to join. You came along later and complained "#Pagemove consensus formed on Wikiproject page" about the location of the fair and square discussions that you admit reached consensus, but have not contributed to the substance of the topic or the discussions. So let's stop going around in circles. IZAK (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

We may be going round in circles, IZAK, but have you noticed that this is happening without me saying very much? --FormerIP (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That's because the Jewish Temples are a fascinating topic and everyone thinks they are "experts" when it comes to Judaism. This never happens when it comes to Christian or Islamic topics where users are much too cautious and afraid to pipe in, and Judaic editors would never do this to a topic central to Christianity or Islam such as the Vatican or Mecca even though Judaism is the mother-religion of those two religions and there is lots of scholarship from a Jewish perspective on those topics. Nothing to gloat about I would say. The bottom line from my end, is that (a) a proper, full and thorough discussion was held with an attendant vote to clarify. (b) Google hits support my position. (c) Nine users agreed that the pages should be moved, with one objection. (d) There was therefore adequate WP:CONSENSUS. (e) All effected pages were notified on their talk pages about the centralized discussion. (f) Admin Fram, albeit conditionally, actually moved the pages to acceptable streamlined and consistent neutral English-language titles of First Temple; Second Temple, Third Temple, minus their qualifying (Judaism) suffixes in their titles. This was a wise move and I agree with it. (g) Several users, including so far, admins Slrubenstein and Malik Shabaz have concurred with me in this discussion, they together with admin Avraham agreed with the logic and reasonableness for the proposed moves as well, and they are very knowledgeable Judaic editors with long experience who would not do anything against NPOV. (h) The names First Temple, Second Temple and Third Temple are fully NPOV because in any case two out of the three articles in question originally used this "naming by numbers" of "Second" and "Third", namely: Second Temple of Jerusalem and Third Temple the last requires no change and is not even in question and bolsters my case. (i) You were a jonny-come-lately who arrived after the discussions who did not even have his facts right at the beginning, falsely alleging that notification was not given, and claiming that WP:JUDAISM was not a suitable venue, even though this is about a major topic central to Judaism. (j) Nothing has been "proven" whether there is an absolute requirement of any kind that this sort of discussion "must" be held at only WP:RM. IZAK (talk) 05:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

IZAK asked me to comment here, but I'm sorry, I don't understand what the current issue is. There apparently was some discussion of the page moves prior to discussion, and there is no (and there never has been a) requirement that editors post all proposed page moves at WP:RM. Do people object to the current names, First Temple, Second Temple, and Third Temple, which apparently were not the names IZAK moved them to, but to which he has no objection? If so, wouldn't the correct place to discuss this be on the article Talk: pages, or perhaps at WP:RM? What is this issue still doing here? Jayjg 07:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The principle objection I have is that when questioned about it, the response has been to defend the moves rather than say, "OK, lets discuss it further". I have concerns with how the discussion was phrased and advertised but that has been discussed in much depth above already. Quantpole (talk) 08:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, how the pages should be named should be discussed through WP:RM, if anyone feels the need. This discussion is more about how the previous move discussion was handled. Everyone's actions and positions are quite clear by now, and while some people feel that some things were handled badly (and others disagree), nothing actionable has happened in the end, and this discussion has probably come to an end. Fram (talk) 08:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is clear whether or not there is anything actionable, and a consensus about that it what's needed to bring the dicussion to a close. AFAICT, there is a consensus (excepting the views of involved editors) that the page move was wrongly done. I think the next question is whether we say "ok, but no harm done" or whether it is appropriate to move the page back to where it was. --FormerIP (talk) 12:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• Hi all. It seems like there is a mishmash of procedural and nomenclature issues being discussed here. I am not so familiar with Wiki procedures, so I will leave that to others. Regarding the nomenclature issue, I think the terms "First Temple" and "Second Temple" are perfectly acceptable as article titles, as these are the most common terms used both popularly and academically (just check any Jewish History text). Placement of a parenthetical clarifying term such as "Judaism" would also be helpful. Regarding "Third Temple", I am not as familiar with the sources that discuss it, but certainly the discussion exists, and I cannot think of a more neutral term than "Third Temple". Are there any competing suggestions? —Dfass (talk) 13:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not about 'Jewish history text' usage. It is about English usage, where it is almost certainly not 'the most common term popularly or academically'. Perhaps, the repetition of this confusion on this page, based on a false premise that the world of the OT is somehow peculiar to Judaism and not a foundational text also for Western civilization generally, is sufficient evidence that the whole question requires far wider discussion by wiki editors, including a notice at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Christianity, to begin with. As admins have said, nothing actionable here. But the move creates a strong precedent (see above) for changing names in a good many articles into forms quite familiar in Judaism, but unfamiliar, or less recognizable for hundreds of millions of English readers of wiki.Nishidani (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Focusing on the listing at Wikiproject Judaism

After looking over things in this discussion and over at the vote at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Judaism#Building and destroying the Beit Hamikdash, I personally feel that it was the wrong decision to list it there, because it certainly seems to have gotten voters that were focused more on the "what do believing Jews call it" angle, rather than "what do most English-speaking people call it", which is what all of the names on English Misplaced Pages should be based on. There is a distinct difference between the two.

Additionally, while the talk pages for the related articles, like Solomon's Temple, were indeed notified, they were just told that a discussion was taking place over on the Wikiproject page which, once again, is not the proper place to have such a discussion. I am quite perplexed why, conversely, this discussion was not had on the article talk page and the Wikiproject wasn't just being notified about it? This seems to have all been done rather backwards.

Going back to my initial point, while there should indeed be people involved who are able to vote and explain the Jewish viewpoint on the subject, it seems to me that no non-Wikiproject members were involved at all in the discussion. If we are going to be trying to figure out what the most common name is for English-speaking peoples, then, at least a few, of the voters involved should be un-involved (non-members of the Wikiproject) English-speaking users. With such users, the viewpoint of what they have heard as the most common term is given, so it is known, outside Jewish people, what the commonly recognized term is and whether this syncs with what the common name within Judaism is. It appears, in this case, the common name is not the same, wherein lies the problem.

And, thus, listing such a page move discussion at the Jewish wikiproject is, inevitably, going to focus only on one viewpoint and not consider outside viewpoints on the subject.

I feel that this discussion should be held once more and involve outside users as well. Silverseren 09:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for focussing back on the actual issue at hand. Silverseren hits the nail on the head. It is not the debate or reasoning that matters here (WP:ANI is not WP:RM), it is the decision to decide this move at a WikiProject that was mistaken. So please take that into account when discussing future moves. Fences&Windows 13:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

In agreement with F&W, but I'm unclear why administrator intervention is being called for. I will also say that Silver seren should probably refactor his comment to strike the word "(non-Jewish)" and insert "(non-members of that Wikiproject)" I am not a member of any WikiProject, but I rather doubt that membership in that WikiProject is limited to those of a certain religion, therefore term "Jewish Wikiproject" reads oddly and might be misinterpreted to indicate that it is entirely Jewish or limited to those who are Jewish. That should probably be refactored as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Intervention is being asked for because I am claiming that a number of pages were moved without propoer "full community" discussion, outside of normal WP processes. I'm asking that these pages be moved back to where they were (and the discussion re-run if editors wish to do that). --FormerIP (talk) 13:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Just remember that, if administrators do not take any action from this discussion, you yourself can always start a new discussion on the appropriate talk page and notify others users to make sure a discussion takes place that involves a more widespread Wiki population. Silverseren 15:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but that would put the onus the other way around, so that the old page names will not be able to re-establish themselves in the event of no consensus. --FormerIP (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Silverseren 15:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

3 mobile blocked

I am semi-retired, but have made a very few edits logged out. Today I tried to make an edit and got a blocked message. Today's IP (it changes every time I reconnect) had made no edits prior to this, and nothing appears in the block log for this. I have asked the blocking admin to reconsider, but she hasn't been active for about 12 hours. Her talk page is also semi-protected, so IPs and non-autoconfirmed editors cannot contact her. DuncanHill (talk) 12:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand. Will you explain more? AboundingHinata (talk) 12:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Why are you editing when logged out? Oh, I see: "to avoid being drawn into disputes with admins." Sorry, no sympathy. You're socking using an IP to avoid scrutiny, and then complaining when you're not able to do so due to a checkuser rangeblock. If you want to retire your account and switch to IP editing, go right ahead, but being "semi-retired" and editing with IP addresses is not on. WP:BOOMERANG. Fences&Windows 13:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually it more or less is, since CU refuses to connect specific IPs to accounts now. Unless it is a duck block there is nothing the community can do about it.--Crossmr (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Erm, this is the third new thread on this. The others are here and here. Can we close this one down please in favour of one of the others?  Roger Davies 13:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Not until Fences and Windows withdraws his comment. This thread was started first. I'm not socking, just editing anonymously, and until this had done nothing more than to restore some redirects and try to add a single valid wikilink. As an IP I don't comment on other editors, or get involved on WP-space or talk pages. I am unable to follow Fences suggestion of only editing with IP addresses because of the block of several thousand IP addresses from my IP provider which is what I am complaining about. DuncanHill (talk) 13:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The answer I suppose to that is that most editors prefer to edit in an environment which is not being continually disrupted by vandalism. IP block ranges may be a blunt weapon but they're the only tool we've got for the moment against widespread vandalism from random IPs coming from the same network. It's a question of which is the lesser of the two evils.  Roger Davies 14:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You're (trying to) edit logged out to avoid scrutiny. If you want to retire that account fully then go ahead and do it, but a halfway house of sometimes editing via IPs and sometimes via an account is hardly acceptable. Fences&Windows 17:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to avoid scrutiny, I'm trying to avoid scrutinising the likes of you. I only want to edit by IP, and only in article space, and only correcting/adding wikilinks, but am prevented from doing so by this rangeblock. The instructions given to IPs caught in a rangeblock are to log in - you are attacking me for following the instructions. The only reason I logged in was to raise the problem of the crappy instructions in the template. I fully appreciate that you want the template to be obscure, confusing and unhelpful, but having a go at someone who follows the instructions in it is just idiotic. Sterling representative of the admin class you are. I can't remember and don't care what your grudge against me is, but try to express it in a more intelligent way please. I hate the inevitable kicking that admins like you dish out to anyone who raises a problem. Just fix the fucking notice IPs get when innocently caught in a checkuser block. That and exercise a bit more care when blocking the largest 3G network in the UK. DuncanHill (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep your hair on. "The likes of me", eh? I'm all upset now. I have no grudge against you, as far as I know I've never ever come across you before (which was my good fortune, it seems). Swearing won't make anyone listen to you. Where's this template then? Fences&Windows 20:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

"The likes of you" = "admins who berate editors for doing exactly as they were told". The template is whatever generates the incomprehensible instructions for IP editors caught in a checkuser rangeblock, as you will already know because you read this thread and those Roger linked to above, instead of commenting from utter ignorance, as I'm sure you would never do. If you bait someone enough, they'll start swearing at you. Nice sly dig with the "good fortune" comment - well done. DuncanHill (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Blockedtext. – iridescent 20:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Ta, I just found it too. I think the thread at Misplaced Pages:AN#Updating Checkuserblock template is where this is best continued. Fences&Windows 20:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Noticed this because I'm on the same network, and recently got caught by the same rangeblock. (Logging on to Misplaced Pages via a phone is fiddly; if it's just a case of correcting a noncontroversial typo, I don't generally bother.) With no comments on the merits of this case, how does this differ from User:Brucejenner, who is one of our most disruptive long-term vandals but in which the checkusers refuse to rangeblock his phone provider because of the collateral damage it would cause? Seems inconsistent. – iridescent 17:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'm a little concerned that the second sentence of this complaint reads "I have asked the blocking admin to reconsider, but she hasn't been active for about 12 hours." (emphasis mine) No editor, administrator, checkuser or other person in any role on Misplaced Pages is expected to be logged in and available for immediate response 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. A 12-hour absence is hardly outrageous, and shouldn't be the subject of an ANI discussion at the best of times.

  Alison's talk page has been pretty well permanently semi-protected due to massive, near constant inappropriate editing by a wide range of abusive accounts and IPs, including harassment, abuse, outing, and other private or non-public information about a large number of editors; trying to keep it free from such abuse when it is unprotected consumes the time and energy of multiple administrators, and the same thing has happened in the past on "IP editable" pages. Misplaced Pages is not a suicide pact, and the inconvenience for a legitimate IP editor to post on that specific page really doesn't balance out against the widespread abuse that has happened every time protection is lifted from the page.

  I think it is agreed that there can be some improvements made in the blocking notice. As well, the range block will be reviewed by other checkusers, as is standard when we receive such requests. I personally do not see a "socking" issue here, as there is no reason to think that DuncanHill has logged out to comment on talk pages or in project space. The desire for a registered user to edit without logging in while using his/her mobile phone does not constitute an emergency that requires immediate checkuser attention, however. One-week range blocks are unfortunate but sometimes necessary to try to reduce harm to the project as a whole; the problem user being addressed here has been harassing and disruptive on multiple projects throughout the WMF, and editors from multiple projects have been periodically caught in rangeblocks including global ones. Risker (talk) 06:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

  • I don't understand why you object to me coming here when the admin who made the block is unavailable. I never suggested that a 12 hour absence was outrageous or improper, just explaining why I had come here, as it was clear that she wasn't currently available to deal with the query. Kindly try to avoid misrepresenting what I have said and done. Also, I'm not editing from a mobile phone, my internet access for my computer is on 3 pay as you go - it is the only way I can afford to have internet access. I was unaware of the policy change that allowed admins to make themselves unavailable to IP/autoconfirmed editors. DuncanHill (talk) 08:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Facepalm The objection is that ANI isn't necessary for an issue like this. It's not an "incident" that needs immediate attention, and 12 hours is hardly unusual for a person to be offline. And Talk pages can be semi-protected after repeated harassment, whether the editor is an admin or not. See WP:SILVERLOCK. — The Hand That Feeds You: 12:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I had forgotten that people caught in rangeblocks should be grateful and never complain. Maybe the template could include a message "Please do not try to communicate with anybody about this matter, as that will be regarded as troublemaking. The last thing we want to do is to help people like you. Please wait a few weeks at least, as nobody regards anything you have to say or may want to contribute as being nearly as important as protecting the Admin noticeboards from being sullied by matters which relate to admins". DuncanHill (talk) 13:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I'll add that next time you refer me to a page like SILVErLOCK, you would do well to read on first - "User pages

User pages and subpages are protected at the user's request if there is evidence of vandalism or disruption. User talk pages are rarely protected, and are semi-protected for short durations only in the most severe cases of vandalism from IP users.

Users whose talk page is semi-protected for lengthy or indefinite periods of time should have an unprotected user talk subpage linked conspicuously from their main talk page to allow good faith comments from non-autoconfirmed users." DuncanHill (talk) 13:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• • • • • Again, in practice that isn't always possible. Any alternate talk page for Alison would almost instantly be crammed with the same drek Risker describes above. —Jeremy 17:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
        • It would help if you dropped the snark. You're not exactly making me want to help you here.Your post to ANI is the equivalent of calling 911 to complain that you didn't get your fries at the drive-thru. It's understandable that you're frustrated you couldn't contact the blocking admin, but you could have posted an unblock request at the IP's page, or gone to another admin to request help. — The Hand That Feeds You: 14:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I see your point on the talk page. But a rangeblock on a whole mobile phone provider seems inappropriate. Especially if there is no notice on those users talk pages to explain what is happening. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It would require 65,000 edits to place a notice on the talk pages, but even after that users on shared IPs don't normally see talk page notices. When they try to edit they are presented with the single block message which says that the network has been used abusively. The message has since been updated to provide a bit more instruction to unregistered users. -- zzuuzz 19:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Odokee

Earlier this month (and even though this is still somewhat being discussed on various guideline talk pages), I had found that several articles on video games and related topics were missing the romanizations of their Japanese titles. Odokee (talk · contribs) has for the past two months seen fit to revert me on several articles and on multiple occasions on the same article. The following are every single instance where he has removed romanized Japanese from articles, despite my requests on his talk page, and others' requests, not to.

The instance on Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars listed above is not the only instance of his reverts on that page. His previous edit was falsely listed as an undo, giving the false impression that the content being removed in that edit was vandalism by that IP when he was undoing this edit and my own from ten days prior.

In addition to all of this, he has been flat out ignoring any comments left on his talk page, citing every removal as "rm spam" when it is most certainly not the case:

As it can be seen from my last comment to him, I requested that he change his disruptive editing behavior on articles and on his talk page, or else I would bring his behavior to the attention of the community. Well here I am. Such disruptive editing on articles, putting blatantly false information in edit summaries to hide what he is doing, and flat out ignoring the comments of other editors should not be condoned any further.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

And he saw fit to remove my notification of this thread as spam as well.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this related to your continued attempts to present a fait accompli for your position on the discussion at WT:MOS-J, despite the fact that your position clearly does not have consensus and you should by now be well aware of that? (To summarize the 167K discussion for uninvolved editors: There is a dispute over whether a romanji transliteration is necessary or just needless clutter in the lead when the katakana is itself a transliteration of the English title, e.g. "Final Fantasy VI" → "ファイナルファンタジーVI" → "Fainaru Fantajī Shikkusu") Anomie⚔ 16:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with promoting or trying to enforce my views on the disparity between WP:VG and WP:MOS-JA or WP:ENGLISH. This is about Odokee's behavior, most of which just happens to involve romanicized Japanese loanwords/cognates from English.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Administrator: Philip Baird Shearer

I have received a message on my talk page from the administrator Philip Baird Shearer, which is basically a "cease and desist" notice backed up a threat to block over the issue of the archiving of what was an on going discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Article titles#Descriptive & segmented article titles. I do not believe this message to represent an appropriate use of admin powers, and I don't think gagging a discussion is any way appropriate. If Philip has an objection to the discussion, he is free to say so, and ideally spell out why he objects. Alternatively, he can drop out of the discussion at any time. What is not appropriate is to halt, impede or generally inhibit constructive and detailed discussions about complex issues just because he can. As an ordinary editor, I do not think low level bullying of this nature is acceptable anywhere, let alone on Misplaced Pages. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

As an involved editor in the debate in question, I was not only pleased that it was originally closed and archived, that the closure was supported by this ANI, but equally pleased in Philip's conscientious decision to keep it closed after Gavin reverted it. Gavin has a knack of finding a multitude of methods for Flogging a Dead Horse and this is just another example. Philip's actions and notice to Gavin on his talk page IMO are on the mark.--Mike Cline (talk) 08:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The collapsing and archiving of talk page discussions is not the subject of this discussion: that has been dealt with at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts/archive89#Erachima. The issue being discussed here is whether or not admins have the power to halt, impede or generally inhibit talk page discussions. The is no policy or guideline that suggests to me that admins are a superior caste with the right to do so, nor threaten editors with whom they disagree. Philip's actions are not on the mark, they are Beyond the Pale. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm involved. Gavin Collins reverted an admin close of a stale debate - a debate that he had already reverted the close on once before. I think a warning from PBS over this is reasonable, as Gavin Collins is refusing to let the matter drop despite his proposal having clearly failed. This is a recurring problem with Gavin Collins during guideline and policy discussions. Fences&Windows 13:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Gavin as I said in my posting to your talk page "My revert was done as an administrators revert based on the ANI, Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts/archive89#Erachima does not trump the ANI"

Gavin. If in future you start a new section on an editor on this page, please be so good as to inform them on their talk page that you have done so. -- PBS (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

As an involved administrator, I would not have closed the debate, however when it went to an ANI and User:Fences and windows as an uninvolved administrator endorsed the closure but reverted the collapse box, I support that decision (as I would have, one to keep it open). You Gavin should have accepted that compromise. I have mealy reverted you reverts to the status quo left by User:Fences and windows. The section in HUGE and will be auto archived in due course, in the meantime the 60 pages can sit on the talk page for anyone who wants to read them. (Gavin if you look at the talk page history you will see I reverted a change to archive them more quickly). As I said on your talk page "If the consensus among other administrators at another ANI is that my edit should be reversed then I will revert it, or not object if another administrator does so". As of yet I see no such consensus. -- PBS (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Gavin why have you placed a comment above the warning I placed on you talk page? The time stamp that appeared on the at the end of that posting is not the same as that in the edit history. The time of the edit recorded in the history of your user page is "07:31, 1 August 2010" (11 minutes after my posting which was at 07:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC) and 16 minutes before your reply to my posting) but the date you have given the posting on your talk page is 11:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC).

I am concerned that this mistake by you means that, because the link you gave at the start of this ANI section, was to talk page and included the entry with the incorrect time stamp, it gives the impression that I was replying to a notification you have placed there, when in fact it was placed there after my posting of a WARNING and before the opening of this ANI. To the best of my knowledge you did not inform me on my talk page, or mention on your talk page, that you had made a revert of my revert until after I placed the WARNING on your talk page. (if I am mistaken please show me the entry in the edit history to prove it).

If it were not for the fact that we assume good faith, I would assume that this edit was an attempt to deceive with a false time stamp, but now that I have pointed this out to you, as I am sure that as you are acting in good faith, as it is clearly a mistake and not a forgery, you will of course amend the section by moving you posting down below mine and altering the time stamp to the correct one, or alternatively just removing your pre-dated post. If not them we can discuss it further. -- PBS (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

PBS, it seems to have been a straight copy of the note he placed on your talk page at that timestamp, as can be seen here. While it would have been clearer if he had added a small text indicating that he copied this from your talk page, I don't believe any attempt to deceive you or anyone else was made with this edit. Fram (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That is indeed the case; keeping the discussion together makes sense. In fairness to me, I have tried to keep this matter to Wikiquette alerts to avoid exactly this scenario. I don't know why collapsing or archiving discussions should be allowed to be used in this way, for there must be fifty ways to end an ongoing discussion that don't fall foul of WP:RRULE. We all want the discussion to end, but that point can only be reached by consensus. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what your point is, Gavin. What action, exactly, are you seeking for admins to take here? If you want a general discussion on when discussions should be closed, WP:VPP is a more appropriate venue. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism from Hiberniantears

There is one among you who is engaging in blatant vandalism. I posted the following complaint on their user page:

I am astounded that an administrator can stoop to this level of vandalism. You are removing large chunks of an article, amply referenced sections, because you happen to think they are nonsense. That is what IP users do who are completely unfamiliar with how Misplaced Pages works. And to top that off, you even remove the bio infobox with the utterly mindless edit summary "getting rid of the bio box as well. Doesn't serve a purpose in this case". Have you considered resigning from you administrator position? You should. You really should.

I leave it to this admin's community of peers to consider how to deal with this type of behaviour which clearly compromises the authority of the adminship. __meco (talk) 08:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• You are mistaken. The edit you link is NOT vandalism. Meaning that it is a well meaning edit with an informative edit summary which places the article in some normal state. You and Hiberniantears might disagree on whether or not that end state is best, but the edit itself is most definitely not vandalism. Protonk (talk) 08:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Removing the bio infobox? Come one! __meco (talk) 08:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

With no comment as to who's right (I've never heard of Richard Hoagland, nor do I care) I imagine the issue isn't the removal of the infobox, but the removal of about 75% of the article text with "getting rid of the bio box" as the edit summary. – iridescent 08:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That's only part of the edit summary. Look at the edit immediately preceding it for context. Protonk (talk) 08:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The first paragraph under "Blanking" should be carefully considered here. Many would see this as possible vandalism, naturally. Doc9871 (talk) 09:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Or appropriate action under WP:UNDUE. We need to be careful that we aren't promoting nonsense. I haven't looked at it in detail, but I do know that Hoagland's stuff fringe/not reliable - what hasn't been ignored by the mainstream has been rejected. Dougweller (talk) 09:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I've no knowledge of either editor (or this article). Totally neutral. I'm just agreeing that if 75% of an article is suddenly blanked, some people are going to think it's vandalism. Whether it is or isn't... it will all be worked out shortly, I'm sure. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 09:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

There are actually two edits, I just gave the link to the combined diff. This is the first edit removing everything but the infobox with this summary: "reducing the sections - No need to detail all of his views given that none of them withstand credible peer review". Obviously peer review is not our standard for inclusion, but reliable sources. In the second edit only the biography infobox is removed. __meco (talk) 09:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the edit summaries, it's clear that the intent wasn't vandalism, but improving the article. The two of you appear not to agree about how to improve the article, so the next step would normally be to discuss it like reasonable adults on the article talk page- you skipped that step, and went straight to accusing him of vandalism and demanding he be desysopped. That might make it harder to talk about it with him and others and work out how much detail this article needs- I can't quite picture any path to that which doesn't include you apologizing to him for the accusation and the demand, and reaching out to him for the discussion. But maybe I'm wrong, and you'll be able to think of a different way to talk about this. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Am I reading this? Meco was right. While yes, not technically "vandalism", but to remove half the article like that is definitely unbecoming of an administrator. Absolutely not. There's this thing called copyediting that we usually do to improve- not delete half the article. Tommy! 12:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

But the message he left was entirely useless to the purpose that needs to be accomplished, which is working out how much detail really should be in the article. The ultimate consensus, once they start talking, will probably be something more than Hiberniantears's cuts, and less than the sumptuous buffet of misinformation that was there before. But they can't get to that consensus without discussion, and Meco's bringing it here, calling Hiberniantears a vandal, and demanding his desysopping doesn't get them to that discussion. Being 'right' doesn't do him any good if it doesn't make the article better. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You obviously have misapprehended the intent of my posting the complaint against Hiberniantears. I did not post here in order to have the article appear in one way or the other. If that was my intention you are right, this is not the place to start that process. I have made this motion for the sole purpose of drawing attention to an administrator who behaves in a manner which, if quietly or overtly accepted, would undermine the respect for the admin community. __meco (talk) 12:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why you keep saying 'administrator' - he doesn't seem to have acted in an admin capacity here, or used any admin buttons. What would you have done in this situation if you hadn't noticed he was an admin? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly what I did minus the report to WP:ANI; I would have censured the user for completely unacceptable editing practices. I'm a little puzzled at your apparent total disinterest in the matter I am complaining about. __meco (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Clearly you and Hiberniantears have very different views as to how large that article should be. However the first thing to do when you disagree with someone's edits is to discuss your concern with them. I would suggest that you detail your concerns on the article's talkpage, and replace your current note on user talk Hiberniantears with something more appropriate for an editorial disagreement. Hiberniantears hasn't edited since all this began, so may well ignore your current messages if you replace them with a more appropriate one. ϢereSpielChequers 16:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

As I have just pointed out above to FisherQueen the issue of content is not the issue I am bringing up here. The issue I am taking up here is what I perceive as gross editor misconduct aggravated by the editor being an administrator. Trusted editors aren't supposed to make blunders on this scale. __meco (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

My 'apparent disinterest' is the only response I can come up with. You seem to be requesting that this admin have his admin buttons taken away, because he made some drastic edits to an article that you disagreed with- even though he didn't use his admin buttons to make those edits, the edits appear to have been made in good faith, and we don't know yet how he would respond to reasonable discussion of the subject, because you haven't tried that yet. It would be absurd to desysop him in this situation, and you don't seem to be requesting any other admin action that I can see. The only reasonable thing to do is work for consensus on improving the article, but you seem oddly disinterested in doing that, and in any case, admin intervention isn't usually needed to work out consensus on improving an article. If I seem disinterested in doing anything, it's because I personally don't see anything for me to do. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If you are only interested in addressing a dimension of this which my complaint doesn't focus on, then perhaps you shouldn't involve yourself in this discussion, certainly not beyond what you have already? And no, I am not requesting the editor be desysoped. I have left any reaction completely up to this forum. You misread constantly what I have stated or requested. __meco (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If you've left any action up to this forum, then the consensus so far seems to be that it wasn't vandalism, it wasn't an admin action, it is a content dispute, and you should discuss it with the other editor. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. So far that seems to be the consensus opinion, although I believe several have clearly missed the essence of my complaint. __meco (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That would be me, I assume. Please feel free to clarify what action you're requesting, because you're right that I don't understand what you are asking us to do. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'd like to see other admins agree that these edits were made in extremely poor judgment. I just looked up the word vandalism in the Wiktionary, and as it implies willfull destruction, I must clearly back off from that position. So, I'd like to see a consensus for something like: "Hey Hiberniantears, those two edits (particularly that second one) were made in gross violation of how we're supposed to make changes to articles in order to improve them, and you being an administrator and thus considered a trusted and experienced editor makes this offence look worse still. So we have decided to reprimand you over this. Consider yourself reprimanded by your peers." Something like that would be fine! __meco (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Well as far as I'm concerned that isn't going to happen. His edits place the article in a state you prefer less. That's about it. Minds can differ as to whether or not cutting down an article like this one is the best way to go about editing it, but I can't imagine anyone is going to treat the edits as a gross violation of our expectations vis a vis collaborative editing. Protonk (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

For background, I've made two edits to the article in question, and both were made yesterday. The first one removed a laundry list of theories by the article subject under the premise of WP:UNDUE. The content that remains is still longer than most articles and presents the "is" of Hoagland, along with a description of why he is notable. I'm not adding unflattering material, or altering the article to present Hoagland in a different light. I then removed the info box because it just didn't seem to add much value to article... a matter of opinion, for sure, and not something I would necessarily be opposed to restoring. That's my ten cents, Meco. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it wasn't vandalism, although the edit summary didn't reflect the reasoning for the edits. However, I don't think the edits were constructive; per WP:BRD, they shouldn't be repeated until consensus in favor is found. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Neutralhomer - Block request for violating sanctions

Despite User:Neutralhomer's extremely inflammatory comment in this latest discussion, I didn't rise to the bait. This thread was archived by Neutralhomer, however, in direct violation of conditions he agreed to in what was termed a "final warning" in order to have an indef block lifted. I have no objection to this thread being closed, but I'm tired of Neutralhomer's attempts to disrupt any ANI discussion that I initiate and ask that the conditions of his unblock agreement be enforced. In an entirely unrelated matter, perhaps a checkuser with nothing better to do might look into the spate of SPA accounts that have recently been attempting to annoy me (such as User:Media parent above). Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

DC, what to do with you. This is exactly what I was talking about. Continous, never-ending, ANI threads on anyone and everyone who seems to piss you off. You dig into archives to get dirt and use that at your will. This isn't your playpen. Might I remind you why we are here. It isn't for MOAR DRAMAHZ! it is to build an encyclopedia constructively, not run off people who piss us off (another activity you think is part of this website). If you can't build that encyclopedia constructively and you think this is a bunch of MOAR DRAMAHZ, then please consult the "sign out" button at the top right of your screen.

Now, as to the reason I closed this thread. The first thread was "dead" and the result was "RBI the socks", the second was "dead" and the result was "PMDrive1061 didn't break NPA" and the third was drawing far too much heat (especially with your "who's sock are you?" comment) and the result was "DC's block has expired". This thread is over, done, finito. It is, in fact, pining for the Fjords (consult Dead Parrot sketch for more on that). There isn't more to talk about. Just endless digs at other users and constant DRAMAHZ! that just isn't necessary. Move on, Dude. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh and per my prior instructions (which I had intend forgotten about) I will leave this to other users and admins. I seriously need a list of prior instructions, my memory sucks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Yup, that was what Neutralhomer was precisely warned not to do. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Jehochman 00:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Yup, and I ain't perfect. I per ask the community to please put a list of my prior restrictions in my userspace so I can remember what the hell they are. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

So, Jehochman, now that I've brought it to your attention and you concur that it is a violation of that agreement, do you plan to do anything about it? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

DC, let me ask you a question. What exactly have I done to you, besides disagree with you, that has pissed you off so bad, that you are currently, actively, looking and asking and admin to block me. What exactly have I done? Besides disagree with you, not accept your points and close your dicussion. What have I done? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Per previous statement: User:Neutralhomer/Sanctions. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I've moved this from a sub-topic of an earlier thread to separate this block request which is only tangentially related and so that the main topic can be closed (which seems to be generally desired). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Ahem. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
• If such prohibitions extend to requests for enforcement of sanctions, I apologize for breaking them and I am willing to accept whatever consequences are deemed necessary. Please note that the extent of my violating my ban has so far been this request, which followed the second overt infringement of Neutralhomer's sanctions, and a courtesy notification to Neutralhomer about the thread. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me quote for the clickably challaged: "User User:Delicious carbuncle is not to discuss, either explicitly nor by allusion, the actions, behaviours, editing, or existence of the users PCHS-NJROTC and NeutralHomer, either together or separately. This means: You are not to interact with them, discuss them, raise issues about them, comment upon issues they raise, or follow them around." .

DC, you discussed me and my actions, probably my exsistence, seperately. You interacted with me, raised issues about me and followed me around (to another talk page). So this isn't a slight infraction, you, as we Navy brats say, "screwed the pooch" on this one.

Now, on the other hand, I screwed up, closed something you started, forgot my restriction, but was called immediately on it. I didn't call you on yours for over a day. I gave you that courtesy. I recommend this be closed, we both walk in seperate directions at a swift rate of speed and find something else to do. Mine will be going to bed, yours...I really don't care. Deal? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I have also made all my restrictions available for all to see as well, something I haven't seen anyone else do...ever (unless they are involved with ArbCom). That is my Good Faith showing. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

While you're busy trying to butcher the messenger. Did you or did you not violate your sanctions? DC's actions are a separate incident and can be handled independently.--Crossmr (talk) 13:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

proposed amended sanction for both

I'm sure I'm not the only one bored with all this back and forth between Delicious Carbuncle and Neutralhomer and I think we need a clear unambiguous sanction to completely halt this never ending time-sink. I therefore propose that

Neutralhomer and Delicious Carbuncle are prohibited from interacting on Misplaced Pages in any form. This means that neither may mention the other nor may they comment on their posts. To be clear, if they are both involved in a particular page or discussion they may not revert or alter any of the other's edits. Nor may they comment on, or respond to, any point raised by the other. In particular they may not raise complaints against the other and are advised to use off-wiki forms of communication to inform an admin that they trust to investigate any breeches of this restriction. Failure to abide by this restriction will result in escalating blocks.

Not my best drafting ever but I think the sense is there. Comments? Spartaz 14:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - We are both under separate sanctions which, as far as I am concerned, constitute a complete interaction ban. I have no objection to formalizing it. Please note that my only involvement with Neutralhomer is to request that their sanctions actually be enforced. I have not responded to their provocative comments and do not intend to. The reason I chose to bring this up on ANI rather than privately communicate with an admin was that Neutralhomer's blocks don't seem to stick, despite their history and virtually constant involvement in content disputes. I would prefer that the matter of their violation of sanctions was dealt with as openly and formally as possible. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Skomorokh forgot to or inadvertantly missed logging the community sanction that is already in force from this discussion. It happens from time to time; I'm going to add that to the log of restrictions so admins know what it is they are enforcing in the future. I'd suggest NH drop any further requests to enforce "violations" of this community sanction that occurred earlier than this timestamp. I'd suggest that DC drop any further requests to enforce "violations" with respect to Gladys' unblock conditions of NH. If either want to continue bickering or for any reason mentioning one another, then I'd support an admin blocking them both.
• In the meantime, perhaps the sanction should be amended to restrict both formally. To Spartaz, I'd suggest stealing the wording that was enacted by the community in relation to Mk5384/OberRanks seeing "technically" the email requirement may be gamed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Why don't you just suggest an amendment and we will work from that. Spartaz 14:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Making a suggestion in the section below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Ncmvocalist, I'm not sure why you are suggesting that I drop my request for Neutralhomer's restriction to be enforced. The admin who placed those restrictions has agreed that they were violated. Do you think that Neutralhomer should not be held to the terms that he agreed to in order for an indef block to be lifted? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Rather, I think you would be blocked for violating community sanctions - although you requested the unblock agreement be enforced, you clearly violated your own restrictions with remarks like: "but I'm tired of Neutralhomer's attempts to disrupt any ANI discussion that I initiate", "I have not responded to their provocative comments", "Neutralhomer's blocks don't seem to stick, despite their history and virtually constant involvement in content disputes", etc. I think you're refusing to drop the stick, which is part of the reason you engaged in conduct that got you blocked a few days ago. This is also consistent with the same sorts of concerns at least one other person raised about your conduct, shortly prior to the original community sanction being imposed on you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
          • You have made it clear in the past that my participation at ANI irritates you, I have the impression from our past interactions here that my participation at ANI irritates you, but you seem to be evading the question. Why would you object to Neutralhomer's restrictions being enforced? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
            • Please substantiate that claim about your ANI participation with evidence. To respond to the other part of your comment, I'm not evading the question at all; either you both will remain unblocked, or you both will be blocked - if you don't understand what that means, nobody can help you. I appreciate that this is not the first time you want to disrupt Misplaced Pages to try and prove a point, but if you don't start paying attention to the concerns about your behavior, more sanctions are likely to become necessary. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
              • I don't need evidence to have an opinion and it really isn't worth our time to discuss it unless you think it is inaccurate. Since there is no disagreement that Neutralhomer violated the his restrictions, your position seems to be that asking for enforcement here constitutes a violation of my restriction. What I'm not clear on is why that necessarily means that either we are both blocked or neither one of us is blocked - surely there is room for us to discuss intent and degree? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
                • You appear more than ready to wikilawyer in the same fashion that Mythdon did prior to his site ban, and I'm not going to feed that sort of behavior anymore. You can presume that the accuracy of your statement is disputed - again, please substantiate it (or strike it). As for the rest, you clearly were not pleased that Neutralhomer's unblock agreement was not being given the level of force you wanted it to be given. While you were reporting the violation (which is legitimate), you went out of your way to violate your own sanctions (which is not legitimate); the same pointy type of editing that got you blocked a few days ago. Had you not made those remarks which clearly went into the territory of the sanction that Gladys proposed and Skomorkh enacted, I would not see a reason for you to be blocked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
                  • Carbuncle has refused to retract her allegations and has refused to substantiate her allegations, and has refused to let anyone else do so. Are administrators going to do anything about this? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
                    • I have refactored my comment to make it clear that this is my impression and opinion, as already stated. Was this really necessary? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed amendment

I don't want to remove the effect of restrictions between DC, NH and PCHS, which are in some respects, vague. So here's a proposed amendment - 4 restrictions, with a boilerplate (BP) accompanying each of the restrictions so as to clarify the restrictions and give clear guidance as to how they can be enforced:

1) Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from, indirectly or directly, interacting with (or making comments in relation to) Neutralhomer (talk · contribs), except to participate in any future discussion that reviews this restriction.

2) Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from, indirectly or directly, interacting with (or making comments in relation to) PCHS-NJROTC (talk · contribs), except to participate in any future discussion that reviews this restriction.

3 Neutralhomer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from, indirectly or directly, interacting with (or making comments in relation to) Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs), except to participate in any future discussion that reviews this restriction.

4 PCHS-NJROTC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from, indirectly or directly, interacting with (or making comments in relation to) Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs), except to participate in any future discussion that reviews this restriction.

BP) This editing restriction shall include a complete prohibition from comments on the respective user talk pages, filing reports on admin noticeboards, reverting edits on articles, commenting in other venues about the other party or their edits, or directly responding to each other's comments on article talk pages. This restriction by itself does not prohibit mutual participation on articles, as long as the editors stay away from each other. The restriction is to be interpreted broadly. If either of the parties feel that the other party has violated this ban or other Misplaced Pages policy, and no uninvolved administrator responds to the violation within a reasonable amount of time, they may notify 1 uninvolved administrator of the incident on that administrators' talk page 12 hours after the original perceived infraction, and if that first administrator does not respond by at least acknowledging seeing the report within 24 hours they may notify a second uninvolved administrator in the same manner (but in no case more than 2 notifications on-wiki). Repeated spurious reports to administrators using this mechanism shall be grounds for blocking for disruption. Violations of the interaction restrictions may result in a block for any time limit up to a week. After three upheld blocks due to violation of this restriction, or other issues, the violating editor will be indefinitely blocked.

Thoughts? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support, as drafter, clarifying the procedure by which requests for enforcement may be made. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
• Why Bother? Neutral Homer was already sanctioned, he violated it, the only result has been some stern language about making it really sure. He was aware of his sanctions, he violated them. if there is no recourse for that, why bother making more?--Crossmr (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Can you please link me to the text of the community sanction? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Neutral Homer linked above to the restrictions he felt he was under and he violated them. He admits he was under them and there is no concern whether or not he felt they applied since he has freely listed them. He was under the restriction not to archive threads started by DC, he did it, nothing happened. If no one is going to do anything there is no point in making more sanctions that won't be enforced. We don't need new sanctions we need someone to enforce the ones that already exist.--Crossmr (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
      • That seems to be true to some extent. All three admins below apparently knew about the restrictions, wheras a lot of people didn't know because it wasn't logged at here until after this incident. The question that needs to be asked now is whether: (1) those admins can be counted on for enforcement of further violations and (2) if history says no, how can the parties request enforcement from someone else? This proposal tries to answer (2). Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Logged or unlogged, he was still made aware of it at the time. It is rankly irrelevant if it was logged or not. What's relevant is that he was aware of it, he violated it, and is now engaging in what appears to be misdirection to distract people from the fact that he should be indef blocked as a result. This proposal does little more than enable that behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 07:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
          • Restrictions are logged so that people cannot forget the exact terms of particular restrictions which end up lost in the archives with time (how many months since he was made aware?). My understanding was that where an editor violates the restrictions, an admin enforces them...but it doesn't make sense for an admin who forgot or doesn't know about a restriction to find out unless they're psychic, or unless they (like everyone else) can see it at the central log of active restrictions. This is coupled with the fact that DC also violated her own restriction under the existing terms - this proposal enables her behavior in the same manner because her restriction was not logged either. Accordingly, admins did not enforce either violation in this case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
            • DCs actions were to make a relevant report on an issue that was directly targeted at them. I would have recommended that they instead emailed a relevant admin or get someone else to do it, but regardless, DCs violation is separate from Neutral Homer's and can be dealt with separately as I already indicated above. It isn't anyone's job to poke someone and constantly remind them of their restrictions. They can either abide by them or not. Even if they were logged, he would have just as much likelihood of forgetting them as he isn't likely to visit the sanctions page today. I also have a very hard time believing someone forgets being on the verge of an indefinite block and what they have to do to avoid that.--Crossmr (talk) 12:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support (with changes noted below) - I do not support the proposal as it stands, but have no issue with it in principle. If the previous restrictions are not enforced, however, I do not hold much hope for this one, especially without the changes to blocks and block lengths that I have suggested. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - (1) There is no reason to include an unrelated editor in the proposal (2) I would prefer an explicit series of escalating blocks (eg one week, two weeks, one month, indef) (3) In fairness to Neutralhomer, blocks for issues unrelated to this interaction ban should not result in an indef block. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
  • This is not an unrelated editor - you were banned from interacting with him at the same time as you were banned from interacting with NH; this simply sets out the formal procedure in which you or he can request the restriction to be enforced. I've copied the wording used from recent interaction bans of this sort, but I have struck the part about "other issues" now as there were multiple restrictions on different issues in those cases; not a series of interaction bans. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Please read the main ANI thread which spawned the interaction ban discussion. It actually had nothing to do with PCHS-NJROTC. I would like to see explicitly noted escalating blocks with an additional proviso that the user may not be unblocked without a discussion of said block on AN or ANI. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
      • You were banned from interacting with NH and PCHS; we don't sanction people unnecessarily, and Gladys clearly found it necessary to restrict you from interacting with PCHS too - the rest of the community agreed. I won't support any such additional proviso, and I don't think the community would either. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Let's try discussion. I'm suggesting that the lengths of the escalating blocks are made explicit. I suggest 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month, indef - does anyone have an issue with that as a start? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
          • I do - this is to end the issues, not let them continue forever. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• No. Excessively complex proposal and unnecessary. Either editors learn to either get along or avoid each other, or we ban them. The fact that Neutralhomer needs a subpage to keep track of all their editing restrictions is an ominous sign. "Treat other editors decently" is all one needs to know. Neutralhomer, could you please stop acting like a pest. Whether you mean to, or not, that's the appearance. Delicious Carbuncle, you're a good content editor; could you please focus on that, and stop taking the bait. Ncvmocalist, could you please stop involving yourself excecessively in matters that don't involve you directly. When you post to a thread, many editor run the other direction because they don't want to get into an endless debate with you. Your joining conflicts in progress often makes things worse rather than better. Thank you, all. I am going to pretend this thread didn't happen, and you ought to go off and behave more cluefully. Jehochman 00:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Concur. Another great example of experience over enthusiasm. My motto is "avoid ANI except where unavodable", and Jehochman could not have put it better, in my view. Rodhullandemu 00:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• Also concur with the above two sentiments. Existing restrictions would be adequate and clear if they were enforced. Its quite clear. NH and DC should be blocked if they interact or comment on each other. Period. End of discussion. Full stop. Fin. Additional verbage is only obfuscatory. --Jayron32 02:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I shouldn't have responded to Spartaz's suggestion? Maybe, but my conscience is clean, and that doesn't change the obvious fact: it's a shame that the three of your views could not be registered when pretty identical proposals were enacted from this discussion and this discussion. In those cases, both parties knew how to request enforcement and did not consider it "obfuscatory", and the sanctions were appropriately logged so people knew what to enforce and how it is enforced. There's no evidence of violations since the time of them being enacted due to the clarity in those terms, which is far more than I can say for those that exist in this case. The substance of what I said stands for itself and the stats are in support of it; but if the vengeful want to start piling on just because of the person who added the proposal, then that's a shame for the project, and a shame for the admins who failed to live up to their promises - the alternative cause for things being made worse here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• I support whatever will stop this from happening again. Neutralhomer has started keeping track of their restrictions, Ncmvocalist and I are friends again, and a couple of admins have made statements that will make them my first stop if this ever needs enforcing. Wrap it up? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

  It would help if you walked away and let others handle the matter. Jehochman 17:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement from Neutralhomer

Been asleep (night owl and insomnia) so I am just seeing all this. I had forgotten about my restriction, that is my mistake. As such, to prevent further mistakes, I have created User:Neutralhomer/Sanctions and put it in userspace for all to see as a matter of full disclosure and a show of good faith. Being that, I have moved on, which I think is best for the whole project, not just ANI. Let's all just move on, per Jehochman, pretend this doesn't exsist and didn't happen, and edit something...I know I am. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

"I forgot" isn't an acceptable excuse. You were on your super duper extra overtime last chance from the sounds of it and trying to buy another with "I forgot" doesn't even approach good faith.--Crossmr (talk) 07:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, what's your favorite, recent contribution to Misplaced Pages? I am not giving you another chance; I am thinking about overlooking your error if you can demonstrate that you've been doing valuable work here. Jehochman 11:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Ddd1600

This guy is i believe going to be nought but trouble. He created this page (deleted as vandalism) which was basicly a screw you[REDACTED] page. Personal attack on User:Carolmooredc another PA on the same editor and also one on me he has also said if he is blocked he will sock , so dunno what can be done about that. mark nutley (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 5 days. I was debating making it an indef block, but I decided to keep it time-limited in hopes that he will shape up. I would have no problem with anyone overturning my block to one of a longer length. NW (Talk) 14:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• What a nice fellow. Why do I suddenly wonder what he'd look like on fire? HalfShadow 18:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Note - Two (at least) oddly uninvolved editors have recently expressed concern over HalfShadow's above comment: 68.28.104.246 and "Rainbow Striped Toe Sock". Hmmm... Doc9871 (talk) 03:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Tagged. Bag at your leisure. HalfShadow 15:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Andrew c (admin) - personal attacks

I'm sick of this.

Historicity of Jesus

Good thing the Misplaced Pages world does not revolve around Noloop's bigotry. We have no policies that say Christians are evil and cannot perform scholarship, or be cited by us. We have no valid policy based reason to exclude such information or sources. Please take your bigotry elsewhere.

I don't want to continue discussing such matters with people who hold such vile religious prejudice.

Noloop didn't consider the journal secular enough because it didn't ban authors based on their religion or some other bigotry.

I'm not sure if your prejudice goes against Jewish individuals as well. And then I don't know if you'll just move the goal posts again and again. I don't want to play any more part in supporting your prejudice, and I'm not convinced that anything will convince you. You have no evidence, outside of your despicable personal prejudices,

Let's see how long it takes for the bigots to come up with their own sourcing rules which exclude people based on where they went to school, or where they worship in their personal lives, etc

Jesus

This is nothing short of bigotry. It's like saying we can't cite Cornel West on topics of African American studies due to racial bias. If you have valid criticisms and specifics, please get into them, but please stop trying to discount sources based on your personal prejudices (edit comment: “more bigotry”)

User_talk:Andrew_c#Personal_attacks

I'm sorry if you find calling it like I see if problematic. I find your continued efforts to discount sources above and beyond WP:RS based solely on a religious litmus test highly offensive. I won't shy away from this: it angers me to see such repeating ignorance and bigotry spouted over and over on Misplaced Pages.

He also says: "I'd be entirely open to independent review of any of my comments. In fact, I'd encourage it, because I have a very strong and clean record here on Misplaced Pages, and pride myself on integrity, and am always open to review and constructive criticism." I went to the RFCU page, but the case doesn't meet the requirement of two editors commenting on his Talk page. I'm as sick as everyone else of seeing my name in this forum. I don't know what else to do. If I were acting like this, I would be blocked and people would be howling for a topic-ban. I'd like to see admins held to an equal standard. Or (gasp) a higher standard. Noloop (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm also a little concerned about Andrew C. Noloop and I filed reports for edit warring yesterday against an editor at Christ myth theory. This wasn't an isolated case of edit-warring. The editor in question has been a serial reverter at Christian-related articles (editing from a conservative Christian position) for a long time, and has been blocked several times this year for 3RR violations. The reverts I posted showed him reverting against multiple editors, yet Andrew's response was that I should be blocked too. It was a response that showed he hadn't looked at the article's history, and hadn't made himself familiar with the reverter's history and blocklog; or else he was familiar with it and was ignoring it. When I looked at his user page, I found he's involved in developing Christian-related content himself. I don't know what Andrew's POV is, but it's worrying if strong personal views are spilling over into not only editing, but also into the positions he takes as an admin.

On the issues of secular sourcing, it's often going to be preferable to try to find that wherever possible. This isn't bigotry, it's an effort to find sources who won't necessarily all agree with one another about fundamental issues. I would never rule out a source in Christian-related articles simply because Christian, but it's also worrying when the only sources used are from theological seminaries, and this seems to happen a lot in these articles. Indeed, at Christ myth theory, there has been an insistence that the sources be specialist biblical scholars, which of course almost guarantees a certain POV. A good mix of sources is always important. SlimVirgin 16:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you think it's appropraite to repeatedly tell another editor they are bigoted and prejudiced? We must use secular sources to write about Christian subjects, and Christian sources to write about secular subjects? Freakshownerd (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Andrew should not have accused Noloop of bigotry just for requesting secular sources. And yes, we must include secular sources when writing anout religious issues, if they exist. We should include all perspectives from all reliable sources, and should not be defining "reliable" so as to exclude secular POVs, obviously. And when there is a specifically Christian POV about a non-Christian issue, that would be included too, if there are reliable sources for it. SlimVirgin 18:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this issue is entirely one sided. Also would we not also have to 'label' athiest sources?Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If a source has made a point of being an atheist activist, I see no harm in pointing that out in the text. But it's less problematic that someone having been educated at a religious school, having gone to a theological seminary, teaching at a theological seminary, and then being used as a reliable source—when at no point in their lives have they been exposed to a non-religious education. Ideally, we should be looking for good sources with no dog in the fight. The problem with these articles (and not only these) that as soon as you find a good academic source with no dog in the fight, editors start crying that it's not an RS because not specialized enough. Hence the importance of sticking rigidly to the sourcing policy, including when it's not producing the desired POV. SlimVirgin 19:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the way Andrew sees it is that nobody accuses atheists of bias in science sources where Noloop does criticize Christians of bias on religious sources. To him it would be comparable to saying that all white sources are acceptable on white articles but that blacks are bias on black articles, which would be bigotry. Just a little clarification of where I think he's coming from. Maybe he should be warned, but I don't think further admin action is necessary.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I would also say there was an element of provocation, as you can see there was (not without some justification) an accusation that Noloop moved goal posts when his objections are met. That does rather engender the kind of temper losing that Andrew c is undoubtedly guilty of (and I agree with Noloop that an admin should know better).Slatersteven (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

What a terrible analogy, it seems almost deliberately provocative. I think a more apt analogy would be accusing members of The Two Plus Two Equals Six Society of bias in the Two plus two article - that is, the primary criticism of Christian sources in the Historicity of Jesus article is that they, by their very upbringing, approach the topic with the conclusion already set in mind. Their research is, overall, better described as "Jesus existed, how can we prove it", as opposed to the more valid "was there a man known as Jesus Christ". That's not to say that they're necessarily aware of their own bias, or even that their conclusions are automatically wrong - just that their conclusions are rightfully suspect. We don't use Moonie "research" for the Sun Myung Moon article, perhaps dwelling on that will help enlighten some as to why Christian sources for this article are so contested. Badger Drink (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

We're allowed to use Scientologists in articles about Scientology and members of the Unification Church in articles about their beliefs, but we should never allow articles to be framed entirely by any group, no matter how respectable. That's the essence of NPOV, and it's the point of the sourcing policy, which takes a non-restrictive view of sourcing. If it's deemed reliable by reasonable people, and if it's clearly on-topic without involving original research to squeeze it in, you can use it. We don't adhere to biblical scholar point of view. SlimVirgin 19:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

My current concern is that Noloops uncompromising demands for secular peer reviewed sourcing has, possibly irreparably, damaged the case for including a broader range of sources in these articles. I think it is also becoming confusing in that there are two issues; the issue of "did jesus exist historically" and "what is the consensus view of scholars" - it's a mealy mess for sure. There is also the inherent issue of a slight lack of secular sourcing (simply by virtue of the topic) --Errant Tmorton166 21:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

This sems to be rehashing the debate that casued this ani, rather then adressing the ani.Slatersteven (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Noloop, a lot of the comments by editors in this discussion has been concerning; including general accusations of yourself about an ingrained religious bias and so forth (which I felt at the time was not at all justified for most of the editors it was directed at). Not that that excuses Andrew c's direct responses; but I can see the rationale behind finding some of the comments about the validity of Christian sources (more in the wording than the meaning/intent) disturbing - that is the sort of double standard not required on other articles. I think the issue is you are a lone voice on this, even those of us agreeing with you on some matters widely disagree with the more extreme stuff; you've taken it to every noticeboard, mediation, arbitration, got the article protected and so on and so forth. Honestly; perhaps it is best just to withdraw from this one. I honestly believe that you're starting to damage the more "conservative" case being made by other editors and which is gaining traction. --Errant Tmorton166 21:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

No, he's not a lone voice, Errant. I agree with him, and I'm guessing most of Misplaced Pages agrees with him (though I've not followed the way he's pursued it and maybe I would disagree with the approach, I don't know). But I do find the attitude at the Jesus articles disturbing. We need secular sources. No one should be accused of bigotry for requesting that, because it's perfectly reasonable. No one is necessarily being anti-Scientology because we don't want to base entire articles on their views. The same applies to articles related to Christianity, animal rights, Michael Jackson, and to everything else. Sources with no dog in the fight are important. SlimVirgin 23:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that no one should use the word "bigot" anymore on these Jesus pages. That would be a good start. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

A better start would be for noloop to stop behaving in a manner that could be described as such. Because if the shoe fits.... Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Its not the fact he asks, he demands and when presented with sources just changes what he has asked for. Moreover as far as I am aware no one has said we cannot use secualr sources, just not being secuular does not preclude a sources use. (though I have not followed the Jesus page), which is effectivly what Noloop seems to be saying. That or we should identify christain source becasue they might be bias (but then so would any source, do we identify American sources on the AWI page?), odd that he seems to ignore that Muslims also belive in Jesus the man (thus its not only chrisitans that bleive in him).

Noloop's behavior should raise serious concerns among everyone. Consider this recent arbitration request, where he betrays his approach to editing anything relating to Jesus. You can also check out this thread if that is not enough to convince you. Ironically, the only person (as far as I can tell) who is insisting on using a limited range of sources is Noloop.

Not that he's against using Christian scholars—but if any scholar, no matter how well-respected in the field, happens also to be a Christian, then Noloop insists on specifically spelling that out. For example, "The Christian scholar Joe Blow says such an such about the historicity of Jesus". That would be like saying, "The Jewish historian Joe Blow says such and such about antisemitism". That sounds bigoted to me, but even if it's not, then I seriously doubt that such an approach is part of Wiki core policies. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Noloop feels that the predisposition of the sources cited to believe the thing they are cited for should be made clearer. That seems reasonable. It's not clear why your antisemitism example is comparable, because it is not contextualised. --FormerIP (talk) 00:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

LOL, does that "predisposition of the sources" apply to atheists too? Should we say, for example, "The atheist biologist Richard Dawkins says such and such about biology?" If that attitude is not bigoted, then at the very least it is POV, which violates a core wiki policy. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, the context is missing (ie the crucial part is what the "such and such" is and whether Dawkins is predisposed to a POV in noteworthy way because he is an "atheist biologist"). if the statement is "God does not exist and I like Charles Darwin", then noting than the source is an atheist biologist is likely to be appropriate. It is abslutely in conformance with WP:NPOV to acknowledge the potential bias of a source. --FormerIP (talk) 01:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The context (i.e., "such and such") is their respective fields. So for an historian, the context is their specialty in history. For a biologist, the context is their specialty in biology. The example you gave above ("God does not exist and I like Charles Darwin") would be valid and appropriate only when scholars are speaking outside their field of expertise. For example, when Dawkins says "there is no god...", he is making a metaphysical claim, and such claims are outside the realm of biology (metaphysical claims belong to the field of philosophy)—so, to note his atheism is indeed appropriate. But when a scholar is using mainstream methodology, to include "Christian" and "atheist" labels (or any other label for that matter) strongly implies a POV by the wiki editor, as if their opinions (i.e., the scholars in question) don't follow the standard methodology of their respective fields and are letting their personal opinions taint their work. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The topic is personal attacks by admins. I'd like to keep the dispute about content off this page. He's not entitled to accuse me of "vile prejudice" and bigotry, even if he's right about the content.

I only documented Andrew's remarks directed at me. Admin Slrubenstein has slung the same arrows: "Calling a bigot a bigot is not antagonisic, it is honest....Your bigotry blinds to to any realistic knowledge of the current state of NT scholarship. ... All you are doing is making a mistake that only a bigot is capable of making: " "I think we can now say he is not only a bigot, but a fanatical bigot. This is not name-calling.".

Admins have been strict with me. I was blocked twice for 6 days, without a 3RR violation. Admins should make judgement calls based on the spirit of the rule; I don't contest the principle. The judgement calls against me were just very strict. I wonder if admins are held to the same standard. Strict standards, applied to these admins, would result in a block for personal attacks.

Another sign that things are out of control is that last night I dreamed of diffs. I am taking a 24 hour break. (After just a few more edits, I mean....)Noloop (talk) 00:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Noloop has problems with his approach, but he is far and away a net benefit to the project with the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart in everything he does. And as Slim says, he's not a lone voice. If anything, he may very well be a majority voice of editors even if his execution leaves something to be desired. I've been around for two knee-jerk attempts to topic ban Noloop, spearheaded by 2 editors. In one attempt it failed with only those two editors supporting. In the other, there were those two editors plus one more. It failed too. The correct course of action at this point for those who view him as disruptive is to acknowledge the community doesn't see it that way, and try to look past the admittedly clumsy presentation Noloop has and dive in to the substance of his objections, which clearly are considered reasonable by the community writ large. -- ۩ Mask 02:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

According to him, page documents my own righteous and pure behavior. Let’s just call it “immaculate conduct." Yes, of course he's a net benefit. I mean, I even feel honored to be in his presence. Let's all hold hands and pray that he will guide us on our way in the journey of wiki-life. LOL. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I see the history of this and related articles as two sides each trying to claim that the other side is in some degree less intellectually responsible than the other. We should not be engaging in such debates here; we simply present all position. There's been I think an effort to portray the idea of non-historicity of Jesus as a fringe position; I think this is wrong--it's been a respectable position argued for millennia; it is not currently fashionable in academic circles, but in the historical sciences such is very far from fringe (and of course saying that there is an historical basis is perfectly compatible with saying that essentially everything in the N.T. accounts is imaginary--which is not in the least a fringe position.) There's also been an effort to say that religious sources on jesus are not as reliable as non-religious sources; I think this is also wrong. Religious scholars have argued for a surprisingly wide number of views on the subject--religious in not = contemporary Christian fundamentalist. Even so, I would not reject such sources--I see no reason on a topic like this why anyone is more likely to be right than anybody else--though I certainly know what position I personally believe to be right, which is another matter entirely. I fid it almost unimaginable that anyone interested in such a topic actually is truly totally neutral, though people of all views have different degrees of freedom from their preconceptions, as well as different degrees of intellectual rigor. One evaluates work on subjects like this with consideration of the author and the publisher, but not by rejecting or downgrading views a priori--this is the very opposite of NPOV.

But agreed, the above is to some extent a digression. To call someone a bigot is a personal attack. It may conceivably be a valid personal attack, but it remains a personal attack. We can only work together by being careful to avoid such wording--even when one thinks it justified. We can only make progress in Misplaced Pages by keeping such views about each other to ourselves. It's time we took action against people who do this after a warning. DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware there has been no warning, besides Noloop would actually be valuable if he did some research and found sources that he thought was appropriate, but instead all he does is demand others find sources which isn't helpful.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 03:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that some action should be taken. Obviously name-calling, i.e. calling someone a bigot, is not appropriate. It is also not accurate, in the case of Noloop. His stated position is repeatedly misrepresented by his critics and their grotesque caricature of his argument is held up as a straw man to be burned in effigy with a "BIGOT" sign pinned to its back. Noloop has been very good about focusing on the issue of inadequate sourcing for the statements that are made in the Jesus articles. See the talk pages for the arguments. Suffice it to say that the behavior of those who oppose the view of Noloop, SlimVirgin, and others who are looking for some secular peer-reviewed sources has been extremely inappropriate at times, and has not been helpful to the project. Noloop has just provided some examples. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Andrew could apologize for name calling, Noloop could apologize for impugning Christian scholars honesty about what other scholars think, and then have a big hug :) Roy Brumback (talk) 05:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It is interesting to see that rather than focus on the issue raised, this has been diverted by trying to make it about the behaviour of editor who posted this, the content of the article, and the discussion on the talk page. This illustrates the problem here - people will not focus on the issues, and the discussion gets nowhere. This method of discussion is never going to be productive (statements intended to illustrate the lines of argument - not actual quotes): We need secular scholarly sources... OK... Here is Bertrand Russell... He is not an expert on the topic... We need secular scholarly sources... OK, but unless they are a professor at a theological college who is an expert in this field, you cannot use them... But there aren't any... So all scholars agree on this, there is no need to qualify that are mostly people holding a particular religious affiliation... and so on, round and round it goes. Pointing out the inherent problem here is not bigotry, and people need to focus on the persistent accusations of bigotry against this editor, as well as the repeated attempts to get him banned, off-article comments warning him to stop editing these articles, and what could be construed as 'bullying' of a single editor who challenges a dominant POV. This really should not be going on here, although I am experienced enough to know this happens in quite a few places here, it would be nice to see people starting to do something about this. - MishMich - Talk - 08:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The debate was obviously heated, and as far as I can see did include an implication that scholars of Christian education were unreliable. Andrew could certainly have phrased his comments better, I could think of several ways of phrasing it so as to convey the same content while not using the word "bigotry" and being above reproach for AN/I purposes. I do not think anything should be done. If both editors haven't gotten the message they need to play it cool in debate from here on in, they never will. I suggest we send this back to the appropriate talk page. This discussion itself constitutes any necessary warning. Obviously, admins need to observe high standards of civility, which I personally try to do myself, but that's not a club to beat the admin with either. Nothing to see here, please disperse.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

So it's only a club to beat non-administrators with, I see. Malleus Fatuorum 11:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Good call. --FormerIP (talk) 12:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that's twice now I've found myself agreeing with Malleus. Worrying :) Wehwalt, Noloop did not say that christian scholars were unreliable. What he said repeadedly was that they were biased. Not the same thing. This is an area where pretty much all sources come at it from a POV of some kind, and SlimVirgin has noted elsewhere that for scholars coming out of the mainly US christian academic field, who seem to be dominant in the current zeitgeist, the POV is notably that the historical Jesus existed pretty much as you see him. This large group has claimed that all scholars agree with them, and Noloop has been seeking evidence from scholars outside the group. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I've asked both Andrew C and Slrubenstein not to make any further personal attacks. Slinging around insults like "bigot" is not acceptable behaviour. If any editors do persist in making personal attacks along these lines, they should be blocked. Fences&Windows 13:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

When I said "unreliable", I did not mean "wrong" or "biased" or anything specific. I simply meant that they couldn't be taken as if they came down from Sinai on stone—aw darn, that's a bad analogy. Running for cover, see you later.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I have not made any personal attacks, at least not in this case. A few examples have come up: Christ myth theory, Jesus, and Historicity of Jesus. I want to make plain that I have not paid any attention to the Jesus myth theory for quite some time and NONE of my comments address any conflict there. But with regard to Noloop's arguments, and those of some other, e.g. Cyclopia, I have to say, I consider bigotry at WP to be a danger any concerned Wikipedian should take very seriously, and oppose. By bigotry I mean an intolerance for the views of others based on their race, creed, or color (in this case, creed seems to be the parameter in play). It is not calling someone a bigot that is the offence, it is the bigotry that is the offence.

Andrew C's comments directed at Noloop have to be put in context. Noloop has been arguing at the Jesus article against a host of sources from scholars trained at or employed by seminaries or divinity schools. Noloop is making an assumption: that since the authors of these books and articles are Christians, they books and articles forward a Christian point of view. This is prejudiced, because Noloop is deciding what the point of view in the book or article is based on the religion of the author. He is not deciding this based on the contents of the book or article. It is bigoted, because he rejects without evidence the possibility that someone who happens to be a Christian might not have other identities, other social statuses, and as a result may have views that are not "Christian."

I wish to be very clear about the issue here. No one is claiming that the Christian point of view is not biased. No one is claiming that an article should promote a Christian point of view. No one is claiming that Christian views shoud not be identified as such. Andrew C certainly has not suggested anything like this, nor have I.

The issue here appears to be whether a particular point of view is Christian or not. The real issue here is, how do we determine what view is being presented? I think that one first has to start with the view itself, look at the contents of the claim, and secondly to look at how the claim itself is being presented, and to whom it is being addressed. Once one has done these things - and I consider this to be basic research, one might then find it useful to provide biographical information about the person presenting the view, it can provide additional context that helps clarify the view. This is all I and Andrew c have ever called for, to my knwoledge.

But Noloop is skipping the first two steps. For him, once you know what religion a person is, youknow his or her views. I admit that people are often divided, divided by gender, for example, but when Kinsey wrote about male and female sexuality, I do not think he was expressing a "man's" point of view. People are also divided by race, creed, and color, and people certainly can express one's views as a person of a particular race, creed or color. Wut we at[REDACTED] cannot assume that just because someone is a Catholic, they are always expressing a papist point of view.

An analogy: Henry Louis Gates is a literary critic and author of a book on an important African-American narrative device The Signifying Monkey. The late John Hope Franklin was a historian and wrote one of the seminal books on African American history, From Slavery to Freedom. William Julius Williams is a sociologist who wrote The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, The Underclass And Public Policy, one of the most important sociological works on African Americans. Now, each of these men is an African American. And each of these books is on an African Americans or some aspect of African Americans culture. I think it would be a profound insult if someone were to add to one of our articles on Blacks "The Black view is expressed in The Signifying Monkey," or "Many African Americans believe (reference to From Slavery to Freedom)," of "A notable black view is found in Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, The Underclass And Public Policy. This would be an insult to Henry Louis Gates, John Hope Franklin, and William Julius Wilson, because it is suggesting that they can only express a "black view" and not "a literary critic's view," or "a historian's view" or "a sociologist's view." But it is also an insult to the academic fields of literary criticism, history, and sociology, because you are saying either one of two things: either these are white disciplines, and can never claim any objectivity but only perpetuate the views of one race ... or you are saying that these fields have no theoretical or methodological standards that provide a basis for declaring something to be scholarly.

Now as to Biblical scholarship - there are some people who have talked about an atheist or secular view in opposition to a Christian point of view. There might be times when this is an appropriate way to sort out the major views (certainly, if the topic is belief in God). But when it comes to Biblical Scholarship, it is not always appropriate. Sure, I understand that this is how the debate may play out when people are debating in high school or at a bar, but it doesn't really reflect the debates among actual scholars. For example, I have heard atheists say the most ludicrous things about Jesus or the Bible. The fact that they do not believe in God doesn't speak at all to their knowledge of Aramaic and Koine Greek, their knowledge of the historical documents that trace back to first or second century Roman-occupied Judea, or of the archeology, or of Second Temple Judaism (the religion in which Jesus grew up). Conversely, Julius Welhausen, the father of the documentary hypothesis, was trained as a theologian and his first teaching position was as a professor of theology. And yet, his theories are among the most radical in Biblical scholarship and played a critical role in the development of "history" as a modern academic discipline. It is true that as his theories of multiple Biblical authorship developed, he felt he could no longer train pastors and left his post. But his mext post was at the Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, the name of which tells you something about how Christian education and critical scholarship (what outsiders might call "secular") were entwined in the 19th century. The fact is this: by the end of the 19th century, Christians were quite divided over the value of the Gospels as historical documents. Now, Noloop and others have pointed out that a number of historians presented by Andrew c (and I would ad by me) were either trained in seminaries, divinity schools or religious or Biblical studies programmes, or teach in seminaries, divinity schools or religious or Biblical studies programs. What they neglect to say is that many of these institutions or programs actually wish their students to learn history, and thus hire historians. The history they wish their students to learn is what is most conveniently called "Biblical history" but if any of you out there think this means using the Bible as a history textbook then you are simply ignorant. Only religious fundamentalists would do that. And yes, there are many out there. But not all Jews and Christians are fundamentalists. There are in fact vigorous debates among factions of Jews and Christians as to who authored Biblical books and when. And there are many major seminaries, as well as Biblical Studies programmes in a wide range of universities, for whom "Biblical history" begins with asking when a book, or even a part of a book, was authored; what cultural, political, and economic factors influenced the authors; and how to interpret passages in the Bible accordingly. Among people who studied in or teach in such programs there is a wide range of views, including the view that Jesus may have existed or probably but not certainly existed; that Jesus was born of a biological mother and father; that he did not claim to be the messiah. These are scholars who may be Christians but who certainly are historians. They use the same methods as historians who study Pericles or Caeser.

By the way, those of you who have not spent a lot of time at a major university might wonder why it is that there is a separate biblical Studies program; you might think that that is a program just for people who "believe in the Bible." You are making a real mistake. perhaps you haven't noticed that in many universities, you won't find Pericles or Caeser being taught in the History Department either. And if you do not understand why you might end up making the bigoted kinds of comments Noloop has made. Here is the deal: history is the study of written sources (archeology looks at non-written sources, but for practical reasons when one goes way back in time there is overlap); the mark of a serious historian is that one is fluent in the language of the sources used. In the 19th century when the modern university was still taking shape, most History departments focused on the history of whatever country the university was in, and because of the nature of 19th century European history, the history of neighboring countries. This meant you might find people who spoke foreign languages, but they were "living" languages. If you have lived in an English-speaking country, you only need a modicum of extra training to be able to use sources from Tudor times. If you want to study the principle sources on Pericles or Caeser, however, you have to learn ancient greek and latin, "dead languages." Most universities created "Classics Departments" which specialized in the study of these languages and written documents in these languages, which meant that the best historians of ancient Greece and Rome did not train in History departments but in Classics departments. This does not mean they were inferior historians; on the contrary, the average history department did not have the resources to train them well. Biblical history requires different language - Aramaic as well as Koine Greek for the New Testament, and for the Hebrew Bible, Biblical Hebrew, Ugarritic, Akkadian, Ancient Egyptian, aven Sumerian. As with Classics, separate departments trained people in these languages and in the study of historical texts in those languages. These can be called Biblical Studies Departments (although they can also be called Ancient Near Eastern Studies Departments). Also, while the best universities had enough students who wanted to study this stuff that they might be able to support a good department, most universities simply do not have enough students to support a good department. If you want to teach in a good department i.e. have several coleagues who also read Aramaic fluently or have done original researchon Ancient Egyptian or Babylonian religion .... your best bet is to go to a liberal seminary; those are the institutions that hire good historians trained in these languages. And that means if you want to get a PhD. in the history of this time and place, your best bet is to study at one of these seminaries. Not because you want to be a priest or minister, but because here is where the leading critical scholars are.

People who are bigoted against anything religious might consider this bizarre, but anyone who is really familiar with how universities are organized, as well as the economics of higher education, will not find anything I wrote surprising. In the US in the 1970s this started to change - there were enough PhDs in Biblical Studies, and enough students and money in higher ed., that many "secular" universities would hire good Biblical historians. Interest in the Classics waned in some universities and Classics Departments fell apart and clacissists were often absorbed into History Departments. So in the 1980s you can find some good universities with history departments with people teaching biblical history or Roman history. But if you think that is how it always was well, you just do not know the history! Now Universities are going through budget crises again, and you better believe that if you are a top scholar in koine Greek and have read original 4th or 3rd century codixes of the Bible and want a job teaching history, you probably wil have to teach at a seminary; most other universities just do not have enough student demand to hire someone with this specialization. The good news is, liberal seminaries do not want theologians to teach Biblical history, they want historians - meaning, people trainined in critical historical methods - to teach them Biblical history.

Now I hope those of you who did not know much about this now understand why you cannot know the point of view of the scholar based on where she got her degree or teaches. You have to read the book or article, determine who the intended audience is, and see what actual arguments the author is making. Some of these Bible scholars may very well be espousing a "Christian" view. But many of them are not.

Now, I realize I am talking about people who may be Christians, who are writing about a portion of Christian history. But remember John Hope Franklin, the black man writing about black history? To reject John Hope Franklin as a source on American history, or to insist that his books are pushinb a "black" point of view, is an insult to him and to all of the historians who have benefitted from his research. It is 'bigoted. Anyone who brackets the man's color and actually reads his work will say "this is the work of a historian." Now, to google the author of a book and see that he teaches at a seminary, or that he was trained in a Biblical Studies Program or a Divinity School, and therefore decide that you are free of the obligation actually to read the books and articles he wrote, or to learn more about the presses or journals in which he is published, and who reads them and you can simply say "Christian point of view" is just as bigoted. When you take this position you are not just insulting the black man who, you are saying, can never study black history as a professional historian, or the Christian who, you are saying, can never study Christian history as a professional historian, you are attacking the whole idea of history as a modern, academic discipline that anyone can study and learn how to do.

As for Andrew c .... well, I have mostly just been trying to explain to you the stuff you ought to know before you attack him. People hav mentioned a few articles here and as I said I cannot comment on his behavior at the Jesus Myth Article. But I have watche dhim edit the Jesus article for years and I have not seen him push any particular POV except to insist that editors use reliable sources and use them appropriately. He is one of a number of editors who consistently insists that scholarly views (and I am refering to critical scholars) be represented adequately and accurately, and that the Jesus article not turn into an article on Christianity. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Schwyz

User:Schwyz started to move several article names from "Province of A" to "A Province" (e.g. , , ). I asked him about the background of these moves , he removed my question as "personal attack" from his talk page (He, btw, seems to prefer to remove any unpleasant notifications ). I'm not aware of any WP policy about names of Provinces, IMO such moves should be discussed first. My attempt to seek consensus was also removed When I started to restore the initial versions Schwyz restored his version again. Is this WP:vandalism? HerkusMonte (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Not vandalism, but certainly not a personal attack. I'd AGF with the page moves... I don't see anything wrong with them, as in English, typically you don't say ... Province of A; you say A Province. And he did give a reason with the page moves; see WP:BEANS please. If he seems uncooperative in the future it may be a problem, but I wouldn't go there yet. Thanks Tommy! 19:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Cumanche's impolite comments

I don't know if this post from an anon user constitutes a violation of WP:CIVIL but it sure is close:

Your lack of knowledge of the topic.

Dear Lechonaro, your comments are amusing! it is clear that you know little about the topic otherwise you would have addressed the issue at hand. You did not respond to the point regarding the accuracy of the topic. If you demonstrated even a semblance of understanding of the topic your comments might be meaningful. This website is intended to share research. about a topic with the rest of the world. You have contributed nothing in the way of research. Have you read anything on this topic other than this page?

Best to you!

Enyoy yourself!

Doesn't this user deserve a warning from an admin at the very least? Although it came from an anon user, it's identical in style and tone to the previous post by user:Cumanche on talk:Genízaro:

The protection of this page should be lifted. A couple of weeks ago a user (Lechonaro) removed "Indian" from an article about American Indians (Genizaros). Every time an attempt was made to revert back to "Indian," Lechonaro became more incensed. Lechonaros changes have resulted in inaccurate information that he inserted just before having the article frozen. The changes clearly reflect that he has little knowledge of the topic. The following statement for example is inaccurate! Genizaros were not "groups, but instead individuals. Moreover, they were not from New Mexico tribes. In fact the state of New Mexico did not exist at the time.

Genízaros were groups from various tribes in New Mexico who were enslaved as house servants, sheepherders, and in other capacities in Spanish, Mexican, and American households in the Southwest, well into the 1880s. For example,

It is unfortunate that an interloper such as Lechonaro can put a freeze on a topic of such great importance after making edits that detract from the accuracy of the page.

Notice that he calls me an "interloper" which I found a bit offensive. Also notice that he has a habit of posting his comments above previous ones to give them more prominence and he never signs any of his posts, which is confusing. With respect to his accusations, I neither added nor removed any information from the article. I simply did a bit of copy editing and suggested a compromise on the usage of the word Indian, neither of which he could bring himself to tolerate. The article's edit history clearly demonstrates this. Also, I've made every effort to be polite to him.

This is a user who has been edit warring with me on the Genízaro article for the past few weeks. I made two attempts to compromise with him but all he did was revert my edits. This lead to a 30-day block on the article which, quite frankly, I welcomed. Lechonero (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

To be honest this doesn't seem like anything out of the ordinary(certainly not the worst) that I've seen on Misplaced Pages that's been passed off as not being uncivil. Maybe you should try proving to him that you do indeed have knowledge on the subject? By the way "interloper" doesn't really have that strong of a negative connotation and you shouldn't take too much offense to it.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to reason with him but he's pretty stubborn. I've admitted to not knowing anything about the subject on the talk page which is way I've limited my contributions to copy editing. I'm afraid he's lying about me adding inaccurate information. The article's edit history clearly shows that. Lechonero (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I will say that looking at the talk page there is clearly a WP:OWN problem here going back over a year. "We the Genizaro people of New Mexico, as a state recognized Indigenous group, pride ourselves in finally being able to define ourselves to the world." is an example. Dougweller (talk) 06:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Persistent removal of a sourced section of criticism on German Misplaced Pages

I have a problem with two German wikipedians who keep reverting (just erasing) the whole section of criticism on that wikipedia. My preferred version would be this. Another version a user seemed to prefer some days ago was this (much shorter, but in my opinion inferior due to lack of details). The section is sourced by a number of articles (yes: not one, but 3 in number) of a German newspaper called Junge Freiheit. It is quite customary to summarize more important criticisms on supposed bias, e.g. we have a whole article Criticism of Misplaced Pages.

The newspaper JF is a perfectly valid source here on Misplaced Pages, just like in the article I referred to a section is based on lecturer Tim Anderson's opinions and another relies on The Christian Post and National Review. The Matthiasb and Pjacobi duo is acting blatantly unconstructively: they never engaged in discussion until I basically enforced it on them (commenting in detail at the article talk page).

Up to that time, they were - quite in line to the criticized manner of editing the dominating clique in German Wikipediadoes - just reverting with general comments in the edit summary. What is more, all of their reverts are blind reverts with non-controversially removed material re-introduced with each careless mechanic revert).

I'll copy recent edit history:

Now, this is just my personal reflection, but having edited German[REDACTED] a bit I can confirm that a certain attitude of censorship and political POV pushing prevails there and these two De-Wiki users behave exactly the same way here. As for me, I am here on English Misplaced Pages just as I was on German Misplaced Pages just interested in neutral coverage, and do not push any political POV whatsoever here on Wikipedias. Neither do I profess censorship, or incidentally - self-censorship.

The arguments Matthias raised in his edit summaries are invalid. Junge Freheit can be used as a source here. They have published a number of articles on Misplaced Pages - their initial impressions were more positive, but they later got more critical, lastly covering a student who used Misplaced Pages for promoting his own conceptions related to discrimination, classism etc. The argument User:Pjacobi raised in his edit summary (“And another number of commentators have critized dewiki for it's right wing bias (because of neolib in economics, many burschenschaften articles, etc). This only tells about the commentators.)” is not convincing at all: if there are other notable criticisms, these can be summarized, too, but this mere fact of their presence is not a reason to censor anything from the version I wrote.

I see this whole affair just as an attempt to censor unpleasant sides of their project. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 17:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

This is an issue which can and should be resolved on the article talk page, and if necessary by other measures to address content disputes.

Only to put it into perspective, not the whole section German_Wikipedia#Legal_issues_and_controversies is "removed". The focus of the content dispute is the subsection Discussion_on_left-wing_bias, which in Miacek's version only tells the opinion of Junge Freiheit (total circulation 25 000 at best).

--Pjacobi (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The issue of the reliability of Junge Freiheit could be raised at WP:RSN. Once it is established that the source is reliable, it will strengthen your case. On the other hand, should the source be deemed non-reliable, then your case is weakened somewhat. Mjroots (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything for administrative attention here; the only thing that could possibly come of this would be blocks for edit warring (and the original poster would probably be the most likely to draw one due to more reverting). So I don't think there's really anything to do here, though like Mjroots said, try RSN. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Junge Freiheit is not a reliable source-it is a right wing publication.

http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2000-1/germany.htm

Nolte is supported mainly by publications such as Junge Freiheit, which describes itself as a newspaper in Germany for “patriotic right-wingers.” In tones reminiscent of the NSDAP, Junge Freiheit has criticized German politicians as “decadent windbags” who “no longer possess an iota of honor,” and calls for “an end to the self-hatred of Germans”

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think reliability is the issue here, Junge Freiheit is a reliable source for its own opinion. It is more a question of due weight and WP:YESPOV. Whether it is permissible to mention that a certain element in the German political landscape is critical of German Misplaced Pages, as evident in the published sources. --Martin (talk) 23:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

No, Junge Freiheit is not one of the accepted WP:Reliable sources at it is considered a extrem right publication by the Verfassungsschutz and it is mentioned as a such in the Verfassungsschutzbericht. --Matthiasb (talk) 08:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Cease with falsifications, Matthias, will you? You have provided no sources whatsoever for your claims of a 'far-right' Junge Freiheit. We do not reject sources based on personal distaste. Even the corresponding article from German wiki explains, that it was formerly labelled as extremist by Verfassungsschutz of two German states: North Rhine Westphalia and Baden-Württemberg, but the Junge Freiheit won a law suit agains the former and eventually both of those dropped the 'extreme right' qualifications of JF from their reports.
The all-German Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz has found rare articles of far-right orientation, but the newspaper itself is not a subject of their monitoring („selbst nicht Gegenstand der nachrichtendienstlichen Beobachtung durch das BfV“).
So, from time to time people of far-right orientation have been interviewed by that newspaper, such articles have been published but this has not been enough to qualify the whole newspaper as right-wing extremist. Similarly, other newspapers from time to time publish pieces written by people of far-left orientation, this not making the newspapers extreme left (German Verfassungsschutz monitors all kinds of extremist tendencies, but the public is more concerned of possible far-right trends, for obvious reasons).
In my opinion, if Matthias still relied on now obsolete reports of Baden-Würtemberg and North Rhine Westphalia, let us also quote the opinions of Bayern VF:

„considering the fact, that the interviewees and authors are almost exclusively people from the democratic spectrum, the Junge Freiheit should be classified as a right-wing conservative newspaper on the right-wing edge of the democratic spectrum.“

(http://www.florian-ritter.de/dokumente/PM_Anfragen_Initiativen/Anfrage_Junge_Freiheit_2005.pdf) According to them, JF can be said to be the most right-wing newspaper within the democratic spectrum. So far there is no reason to assume the authors of those 3 articles I cited are far-right. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 10:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Some descriptions of Junge Freiheit

http://tomgpalmer.com/2005/07/03/yet-more-german-libertarian-voices-condemn-junge-freiheit-and-hoppes-connection/ German-nationalist publication that serves as a forum for the worst fringe elements of German politics, here are a few remarks from Germany. See the thread to an earlier posting for some context (such as the remarks by Hoppe’s defender “Clement,” who insists that the German government is infiltrated with Stasi agents who have conspired to undermine Junge Freiheit). http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,549709,00.html right-wing weekly Junge Freiheit http://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/28/weekinreview/the-world-germany-s-new-right-wears-a-3-piece-suit.html?pagewanted=1 The face of Germany's new right is young. Most of the editors of Junge Freiheit, the movement's unofficial journal, which circulates 35,000 copies a week, are in their twenties and thirties. Junge Freiheit says it is dedicated to fighting "ignorance about our nation, shame, fear of power, anti-authoritarian thought, pacifism, feminism, anti-militarism and obsession with the past."

I have no doubt that a German far right newspaper that fights against "anti-militarism" "anti-authoritarian thought" "fear of power" "obsession with the past" is an unreliable one.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh and another piece of information:according toThe Beast Reawakens: Fascism's Resurgence from Hitler's Spymasters to Today's Neo-Nazi Groups and Right-Wing Extremists by Martin A. Lee, Dieter Stein the founder of JF has called for Germany of 1937 borderes;this means wide ranging territorial demands against Poland.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

So you think that someone's blog is a more reliable instrument than German court rulings or the Verfassungsschutz for qualifying a notable newspaper? Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 15:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Federal Ministry of the Interior of the Federal Republic of Germany(2004) states the weekly newspaper Junge Freiheit (JF, Young freedom) continues to offer a forum for right-wing extremists

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you read? I've already treated that question. I've offered the summary (see above). The VS of the state NRW years ago (until 2005) considered the publication far-right, based on “suspicons about right-wing extremism” of the JF. They ceased to do so after a court ruling (the JF basically won the law suit). Since that time, they even haven't mentioned the newspaper in their yearly reports (though it is being monitored in Baden-Württemberg). Of course, since German Verfassungsschutz monitors such things closely, there have been many passages of criticism on that newspaper (like many others, e.g. Junge Welt is currently qualified as extremist), since there is no censorship of articles in Germany. Nevertheless, the All-German Verfassungsschutz has never considered the newspaper in general as extremist and the newspaper Junge Freiheit is no longer even mentioned in the reports of the Verfassungsschutz (you can download the latest report at http://www.verfassungsschutz.de/. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 15:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Using an edit on German wiki as proof ? Anyway you are confirming that this newspaper is being monitored.

National Socialism of course also exists today as a current in Germany. It does not serve as a model for the NPD, but we try to integrate the national-socialist current, along with the national-liberals and national-conservatives, as insisting on divisions between them only aids our political opponents.”(Junge Freiheit, 24 September 2004, p. 2)

If you believe that this newspaper which makes such statements as above is reliable take it to WP:RS. Obviously the majority of contributors here do not see this publication as such. As to other newspapers-they are not the subject of debate here.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Good ol' Molobo! When rational arguments have been proven wrong (VS controversies), then every WP:OR can go. Where did you cut 'n' paste this passage? Sorry to say, but this is patent falsification. You can check the articles really published on September 24, 2004 p. 2 in that newspaper. Nowhere is such nonsense written there. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 16:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

LGBT adoption and LGBT parenting

For those familiar with him, user Destinero is once again engaging in edit wars on the LGBT adoption and LGBT parenting page. He is not only refusing to allow other users to make any edits but also using profanity and name calling. User Destinero has a very long history of abuses and has been sanctioned many times in the past, although it has never done any good.Tobit2 (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It is strictly prohibited under Misplaced Pages policies to push up religious right propaganda bring out by Tobit2. Everybody can see and check this. What is more, Tobit2 is incapable to discuss thing just because he do not want to read other user comments: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:LGBT_parenting#Tobit2.2C_please_stop_doing_vandalism_immediately.21 --Destinero (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You're being (at least a bit) over the top here. I cannot see any "religious right propaganda" or, as you put it boldly in the talk page's section header, "vandalism". You might not agree with those edits, but you need to talk about it. Simply listing the removed snippets and saying "important information" won't help much. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 20:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Tobit2 cannot just came up and totally change of articles on which there is broad editorial consensus developed over several years and remove sources info. Somebody should explain him Misplaced Pages policies if he is unable to do it himself. --Destinero (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Destinero, this is not a page for slander (besides I am not of the religious right but of a more scientific ilk). Whatever the biases of editors, we must still work together. This page is to report that you are refusing to work with others and instead are reverting their edits without conversation. Moreover, the LGBT parenting article is not one of broad consensus. Most editors, like myself dropped out long ago, because they were simply too tried to work with Destinero. The Talk page reflects this.Tobit2 (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

religious right propaganda? Please don't be silly.--Ancient Anomaly (talk) 22:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Pointing to the fact that Tobit2 is a Catholic editor (see his user page) repeatedly removing important facts about research and rephrasing summaries of research reviews to weak them is definitely not silly, it is needed to be aware of issues. We have deal with editor with catholic agenda here and he can not just came and delete what credible sources says just because he do not like it. --Destinero (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

User Destinero has a very long history of abuses and has been sanctioned many times in the past, although it has never done any good. You mean these two blocks?--Ancient Anomaly (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Tobit2, we'll need to see WP:DIFFs on the alleged violations and concerns before being able to act. Once you supply them then we'll have more info to work with. Basket of Puppies 22:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles (Unconstructive Reverting Other Editors Work)

1) First revert of LGBT parenting of good faith edit

2)Second revert of an edit of LGBT parenting, an edit that had incorporated Destinero's specific criticism.

3)First revert of edit on LGBT adoption; revert claimed POV but edit had only repeated info straight from an article Destinero had added

4)Second revert of good faith edit on LGBT adoption, this one with profanity in the explanation

5) Last edit by Tobit2 on LGBT adoption. It removes little of what Destinero had originally and focuses on adding info directly from sourced article.

Talk Pages (Slander)

1) Refer to last paragraph for first instance of slander

2)Refusal to cooperate, instead tarring other editors with unfounded labels

3) Not sure what to call this? Perhaps an admission from being banned in his native Czech Misplaced Pages>

4)Another instance of name calling, this time another editor is called "incompetent" for note having read 30 pages of an attached document.

If you are so lazy to read the document, then do not write lies about failing to cite any studies where there are dozens of studies cited on several pages that nobody who open the document could overlook them: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:LGBT_adoption&diff=prev&oldid=376622258 Collaboration on Misplaced Pages really requires some fundamental abilities and I actually suspect you got them. --Destinero (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

suggestions

1. Destinero should back off and calm down and voluntarily refrain from editing for some time. Just because he was treated badly on cswiki is not a reason to point his anger to enwiki.
2. Yes, I know he is theme banned on cswiki. However, his ban is still subject to debates after more than six months and is considered unfair by many editors.
3. It's not a good idea to assume bad faith based on the czech wikipedia. The situation there is rather bad - administrators are unwiling to ban/block trolls and clearly disruptive editors, but very willing to block others who lose patience with them and call them trolls. Even obvious bad faith acts are ignored, like inviting others to discuss articles prepared in the user's sandbox and then posting harassment complaints with a very sarcastic tone on the administrators' noticeboard that the contents of his sandbox are being discussed by others.--Ancient Anomaly (talk) 02:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Ancient, each of your suggestions references Destinero's cswiki banning, but the current incident is not on cswiki, and I only mentioned it once to provide context that this is not a language problem only. Destinero's edit warring, unconstructive behavior, and incivility are well documented on enwiki and I have provided fresh examples above in the DIFFs. Should anyone be confident that Destinero will change voluntarily if he has not done so in more than 1 year on enwiki? How does tolerating poor behavior help the Misplaced Pages project?Tobit2 (talk) 04:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

While I may not agree with Tobit on some things, I tend to agree with him on this. I gave up trying to edit some of these articles because the approach to editing on the part of the editor in question was so frustrating. - MishMich - Talk - 08:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

User:DCEvoCE

User:DCEvoCE claims I spam his User_talk:DCEvoCE page when I try to talk to him, he claims my edits were a direct reason for the delisting of the Mega Drive article from GA status, and he claims I should not revert his edits when he removes sourced statements from the article, or when he changes certain words. I did accuse him of vandalism for removing sourced statements from the article multiple times, and DCEvoCE claimed he tried to work with me here however, DCEvoCE never explained to me why he was removing sourced statements from the article. Here is a comparison of the edit he mainly complains about you can see the unsourced statement "Neither console could maintain a definitive lead in market share for several years." To which I expanded and provided two sources to back up.

Today DCEvoCE has been fighting with me and User:Alphathon at the Mega Drive Talk page over what to call the Asian/JP Mega Drive logo. DCEvoCE has pictures of certain Asian games that do not show the logo, while I posted pictures of Asian games that have the logo, which say not for sale in Japan or Korea (to mean they're asian, but not of Japan origin)

This was preluded with me reverting his edits,(with the edit summary "If you have proof of a different logo on an Asian Mega Drive, please show us on the talk page. The Korean MD box has the JP MD logo on it. I have seen no other Asian logo") asking him to post his proof that logo was Japan only in the talk page. He seemed to be very angry I had reverted his edit, saying "@SexyKick, it would be VERY nice if you were to stop the editing war and I highly recommend that YOU provide sources for your claims. Or to put it bluntly: STOP REVERTING MY EDITS! Thank you" in the very post where he finally provided some evidence towards his edit. (sorry if I kind of wrote this paragraph backwards)

Even when presented with proof against his edits, DCEvoCE kept insisting that he was right, and that I had posted no proof.

I suggested to him that he learn more about editing Misplaced Pages, I meant no offense.

DCEvoCE then reported me to User_talk:J_Milburn for "reverting valid edits," J_Milburn had applied a "non-free" template to the Mega Drive article regarding it having three logos. I had at one point, under the advice of another editor, removed the template. J_Milburn reverted that edit, and said it ill advised at best, to which I took to heart. I think this is why DCE chose J_Milburn to report me to.

DCEvoCE claims I have insulted him, I was unaware I had, and promptly apologized.

DCEvoCE finds it unacceptable that I suggested talking with me, or at an articles talk page if I revert one of his changes. DCEvoCE claims I need to provide sources when sources already exist for information I add to article. I do not understand him, and trying to talk with him to clear things up has only complicated the matter.

I appreciate any help in dealing with this matter.--SexyKick 02:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick glance at the edit history of Mega Drive, looks like Alphathon and SexyKick are in an edit war and both violated WP:3RR, WP:BOOMARANG? — raekyT 02:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, me and User:Alphathon aren't in an edit war (at least not IMHO) we're just building on top of each others edits (as well as updating per talk page changes.) We work pretty well together IMHO.--SexyKick 02:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

He changes, and you revert, you make some changes and he reverts then you revert his revert (and a change after that) without a reason given, then he reverts you again. You change a caption, and he reverts. Seems like something's going on here. — raekyT 02:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I posted my side of the story here:

DCEvoCE (talk) 02:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I don't remember you trying to explain to me about there being a Korean Mega Drive, or how it goes under a different name (an edit I made to the article myself, here, before you started talking about it) I do remember you trying to explain to me that it did not have the JP Mega Drive logo on it, which I disagreed with because of the Korean Mega Drive 2 box.

There's also the Korean Sonic & Knuckles box here.

I really think this is just us being victims of miscommunication, but it's still not spam to talk to you on your user page, and it's good manners to talk about removing information, before actually removing it, not necessarily with me specifically of course. Alphathon has told you this too now as well.--SexyKick 03:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This is was what I was trying to explain to you when I guess it seemed like I was telling you to talk about reverted edits with the revert-er. I always try to explain a revert in the edit summary, and I am always open to talking either on our personal talk pages (preferably) or on the article in questions talk page. I know you may think it's annoying at best, but it's kind of required if you want to change established information. I myself have had to discuss certain things with certain editors for months before being able to make even a small change that we wouldn't fight over. But it helps everyone have a better understanding, and respect in the end, since there was no real edit war. I hope we're starting to see more eye to eye now.--SexyKick 03:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

We were talking about whether or not the Japanese logo should be called Asian logo. This was discussed in detail on the article's talk page and on my talk page. And I explained why this wouldn't make much sense in my opinion:

The issue we are talking about here is of a different nature altogether though. DCEvoCE (talk) 05:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You just posted that in the Mega Drive talk page about two hours ago, a tiny bit after you posted your first message here. So I don't think the time line makes sense, no worries though. Coincidentally, if Sega published that Mega Drive into Korea itself with the JP logo on it, that means the JP logo is actually the asian logo. Right?--SexyKick 05:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• This page is not here for you two to continue a content dispute! Stop trying to get each other in trouble and follow dispute resolution, or you'll probably both end up blocked for edit warring. Fences&Windows 13:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to continue discussing content issues. I'd like to discuss SexyKick´s continuous reverting of edits of the Mega Drive article. I don't think it's acceptable that this person keeps reverting any edits made to the article - by both users and admins.

The issue is not related to any specific content at all but the general approach of SexyKick's methods, effectively claiming ownership of the article in question by denying others the right to edit (see raeky's posts in response to the OP). I would expect that if anyone wants to revert a valid edit made by another user you will need the same kind of agreement, approval or explanation as any major potentially controversial edit might require. DCEvoCE (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Off2riorob

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.

Issue has not been handled outside of ANI by approaching Off2riorob directly. Neither does there appear to be any indication this is an administrator issue. --Jayron32 04:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I have received hostile comments from this particular editor, and I note that over the past 48 hours, he has left similar comments on the pages of other users, including statements that they may be banned. I had responded to him on his talk page about not leaving such comments, but in checking his contributions, I see that the pattern has continued. I was horrified to see this comment left on the page of a new editor, a little more than an hour after that person's first contribution to Misplaced Pages, with a statement that "you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages" because he had added unsourced content. In the past two days alone, similarly hostile comments have been left on the talk pages of experienced editors . It's bad enough for that type of invective to be directed to any Misplaced Pages editor, but there is no excuse at all for treating new users in that manner. If nothing else, this person needs a warning. Mandsford 02:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything amiss in the diffs you provided. He seems to be using standard warning templates or otherwise warning editors that they are violating Misplaced Pages policies, and that doing so can result in being blocked (not banned). What's wrong with that? Where's the invective? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

By slapping a brand new user, with a final warning template on first offense and not WP:AGF and WP:BITE, thats whats wrong. The edit he warned for did not deserve such a harsh response. — raekyT 03:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I see. OK, that's a fair complaint. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the template he used was a little too harsh for the newcomer, but apart from that the rest of his posts seem fine.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 03:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

And I'm still not seeing the "invective" referred to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

A heavy Template after a Death By WIkipedia? I would have done the same Weaponbb7 (talk) 03:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It appears he tried to provide a source at least, I wouldn't of gone straight to level 4 in that case, plus he wasn't the person who reverted him, someone else did, and that person appears to have at least attempted to verify his source so assumed good faith. — raekyT 03:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

He tried after the warning, I agree Level 4 might have been a tad strong but Death By Misplaced Pages tends to never look good on us. Weaponbb7 (talk) 03:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a level 3 warning; level 4 warnings always begin with a File:Stop hand nuvola.svg, but level 3 warnings always begin with a File:Nuvola apps important.svg. Nyttend (talk) 03:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops, fair point. — raekyT 03:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Why does this need to be at ANI? I see you notified him of the discussion, but you didn't attempt to discuss your concerns. I wouldn't ask for much in most cases, but this is not a major issue. Maybe a friendly message that perhaps he's being bitey would have sufficed. Shadowjams (talk) 03:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Jayjg

User Jayjg continuously removes the content I have added from Kohen without stating why. I have warned him several times. Please remove his account. Ventura488 (talk) 03:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg has been notified, moved into new section by Weaponbb7 out of the Off2riorob thread

Jayjg has opened a discussion of this issue on the article talkpage, which is the proper procedure. This issue should be discussed there in an attempt to reach consensus. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Marked as resolved. Does not belong here.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Given the OP's misleading comments, this might not be the last you hear from him. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• Ventura488 exceeded the 3 revert limit at Kohen and has had xyr editing privileges revoked by User:Malik Shabazz for 24 hours. This without a single edit by xem to Talk:Kohen. Uncle G (talk) 11:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Misconduct by TK-CP - misusing Twinkle, attacking, not applying good faith

Hello - I would like to bring up a recent issue that other editors and I have had regarding the conduct of TK-CP. Over the last few months, several users have been having issues trying to communicate with TK-CP, as he is often unapproachable (for example, see this edit, or this one, or this one). However, these issues were more easily solved with a forget-and-move-on approach. Most recently, however, the problems have escalated and TK-CP has reverted constructive, good-faith and non-vandalism edits on his talk page as vandalism when he has been warned not to do so, and has attacked and falsely accused me of making comments that I have never made via my talk page.

On July 31, a user by the name of Nuttish posted a message on TK-CP's talk page, requesting that he cease making inflammatory personal remarks towards himself and other editors based on their association with another wiki. Just for the sake of having information, the wiki in question is RationalWiki, a wiki that, in part, is focused on refuting and criticizing Conservapedia, a site that TK-CP is a sysop at. Back to the story: In response to Nuttish's request, TK-CP reverted his clearly non-vandalism edit as vandalism, regardless of the fact that he has been notified in the past that falsely marking edits as vandalism is both not allowed and can be considered a personal attack (see this and this). Nuttish then proceeded to contact TK-CP again, this time asking him to not label his edits as vandalism. I myself, upon seeing this incident, did the same, along with notifying TK-CP to assume good faith and to read WP:VAND for what is and what is not vandalism. TK-CP, regardless of being warned and/or requested to stop labeling non-vandalism edits as vandalism four times to date now, reverted my edit as vandalism, then proceeded to leave me a message on my talk page in the form of a level-one warning template, saying that the reason he reverted my edit was that it involved me talking about things unrelated to Misplaced Pages and trying to promote RationalWiki, which I have never done anywhere on Misplaced Pages. I pointed this out, and requested to see what exactly he was talking about (along with telling him about Misplaced Pages's guidelines regarding user talk pages), but he then proceeded to attack me, telling me to shut up and that I was part of a "public gang-rape", and he accused me yet again of posting unrelated comments to his talk page, this time also saying that I should stop harassing him. I replied again, once again pointing out that his accusations have no base, and he has not replied since.

I was considering taking this to WP:WQA or WP:RfC/U; however, I feel that this is the most relevant spot for this, as I think the intervention of an administrator may be the best solution to the problem, considering that I myself, along with others, have tried to approach him regarding the issue, but he remains uncompliant. TK-CP has been misusing Twinkle to falsely label edits as vandalism and to leave, by my reasoning, an inappropriate warning on my talk page, among other things (which include attacks and not assuming good faith). I'm hoping to see what other's think of this situation and what the appropriate course of action would be from here. I believe that it may be appropriate to remove his ability to use the tool (which must be done by an administrator), among other possible actions (such as a temporary block, etc.). Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Users may remove messages from their usertalk page for any reason they wish. Please pay this no mind. He's allowed to remove notices from his talk page if he chooses, even if they aren't vandalism and are good-faith comments from other users. Ignore it when he does this, and move on. --Jayron32 04:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of that, however, he is labeling the edits as vandalism at the same time (which I would think to be disruptive, and on a personal level, I consider it to be a personal attack), and as a result of approaching him regarding the issue, has performed personal attacks. Even with that in mind, do you still think it is appropriate to move on? ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I misread the situation a bit because the bulk of post above deals with the talk page comment removal rather than the personal attacks. It would be helpful to have diffs of his personal attacks (beyond the mislabeling as vandalism issue, which in my mind is minor). Diffs of comments like the gang-rape one would be helpful in seeing a pattern of behavior that needs addressing. --Jayron32 04:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I actually linked to the section on my talk page where he attacks me - it's located here (apologies for not making it stand out more). I could provide diffs, but I don't think it's necessary, since the whole discussion is right there. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I didn't make myself clear. I read that section on your talk page. I was looking for other diffs which show that such comments are widespread, and that his outburst was not a one-off event. I am looking for evidence of a pattern of behavior rather than a single outburst. --Jayron32 05:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. The attacks you see on my talk page are basically the only example of strong, personal attacks. There are other light instances where he performs undesirable reversions to his talk page, but they are not totally-out-of-line edits, at least when compared to the ones on my talk page. For example, he has labeled edits as trolling and has used the irrelevant basis that a user is a member of RationalWiki (a site that I described in my original post) as reasoning for reverting one's edit to his talk page (for example, see this, this, this, this, this, and this, where in the last one, Nuttish was actually correcting a formatting error). Again, these may be undesirable but are rather minor (especially since a user can remove posts from their own talk page), and are probably especially minor to you since you find mislabeling edits as vandalism to be minor, but I still find the edit summaries of those reverts, among possibly others, to be unnecessary and rather harsh and unhelpful. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Users are free to remove comments from their talk page. I'm very skeptical about most ANI reports about someone crying wolf about "vandalism" and using a technocratic reading of that guideline to do it. I don't think the OP is doing that, and I think TK-CP needs to be less aggressive in these discussions and actually discuss more. Are there any of these issues that occur outside of talk space? Shadowjams (talk) 04:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Basically, the only other talk page that TK-CP has edited is the talk page of Conservapedia itself (that, and his talk page make up the bulk of his edits). While he has been constructively communicative there, I know that he has, on at least one basis, removed another user's comment, labeling it as trolling. I'll see if I can find that example, and anymore if there are any. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I may have misunderstood your question: when you say, "Are there any of these issues that occur outside of talk space?" are you referring to a page outside his user talk space, or out of the talk space in general, into actual articles? ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I meant outside of his talk space, but the other's useful too. I worry that people are taking the "vandalism" term a little too literally and others are using it without knowing or meaning what the people receiving it are hearing. Maybe we need to rephrase that part because it's been a reoccuring issue. As for this issue, I agree, TK-CP has been brusque in these conversations. I don't know if that rises to an appropriate level of disruption though, so, wherever it happens on wiki, are there examples of disruption? Shadowjams (talk) 04:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I worry about it, too, which is why I think it is understandable to let the first few instances go. However, TK-CP's been notified about mis-labeling edits as vandalism several times now, which is why I think the issue is a bit more serious than someone who just doesn't know what vandalism on Misplaced Pages means. The only thing that is really questionable on Talk:Conservapedia is this edit, in which he removes another user's comment to give it a rest as "trolling". A mini edit war comes after that, where an editor undoes TK-CP's removal, then TK-CP re-undoes it, then finally, another user undoes TK-CP's edit again. TK-CP only has 17 article edits, most of which are to Conservapedia itself (you can probably view them yourself quite easily by just looking at the history and using your browser's search function). There are a few instances where his edits are reverted, mostly based on the fact that he is new at editing Misplaced Pages and isn't aware of article structure, etc. (most notably how reliable sourcing works), but that's about it - nothing really questionable or disruptive, especially since he's a new editor here. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, and I'd also note that TK-CP was advised about using the middle and not the red button for TW edits back in April. While the distinction's largely irrelevant, I understand your concern, and I too would find being templated insulting given your obvious experience. I don't think anything that's been done is serious enough to warrant a block or other restriction. As a courtesy, if I were in TK-CP's shoes, I would be more diplomatic: it might get a more positive response. Shadowjams (talk) 05:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense - a friendly message from an uninvolved administrator that asks for a more diplomatic approach to messages may be all that's required for a more positive attitude. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I have to be going now, so I won't be available for any more queries or anything like that. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The users in question have been asked both on and off wiki to refrain from posting to my talk page, and if you bother to examine the page's history, it was mostly to do with administrative questions involving a site other than Misplaced Pages, about which I am most adamant, and I think I am being more than fair to insist users refrain from bringing their disputes with Conservapedia to my personal talk page. Does anyone disagree with my oft-repeated request? This whole complaint involves "gaming the system" and attempting to bring my character into disrepute and make me seem intemperate. Surely if one of the Misplaced Pages administrators were constantly called-out on another site they belong to, for actions they took here, it might tend to make them slightly churlish, as it sometimes does me. I think if administrators of Rational Wiki, which the complaining party is, merely adopted a mature attitude and honor my request to not post to my talk page about things that happen elsewhere, we can all get along famously......but to continue arguments to my own page here, over a simple disagreement as to if their site is indeed a vandal site is silly since they all have my direct email, have contacted me directly before. Why does Misplaced Pages need to be dragged into this? I have no answer. As to abuse of the rollback, I have told those involved, and others, I would consider it vandalism if they continued to bring such matters to my WP page. If the preponderance of Admins here don't think continued argument after being warned repeatedly isn't vandalism and/or harassment, I of course will bow to their opinion and simply roll-back without prejudice. But I cannot assume someone who continues to post after being asked not to, is making a "good faith" post. --TK-CP (talk) 10:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I just have to say that I have an extremely low opinion of "Conservapedia," but as others have said, he may treat his talk page as however he wants, as long as he avoids WP:NPA. Although TK-CP doesn't need to use the condescending "mature" attitude; those posts were fine on his talk, but if he wants to remove them, fine. But he shouldn't label them as vandalism, as it is not WP:VANDALISM. Tommy!

"I have told those involved, and others, I would consider it vandalism if they continued to bring such matters to my WP page." - I'm sorry but you don't get to enforce your own personal definition of vandalism just because it's your talkpage - we narrowly define vandalism for a reason. If you wish to delete and ignore messages on your talkpage that is your prerogative, but please note that deleting a message is the same as "read the message" as far as talkpage messages go (and you cannot subsequently claim you are unaware of the content of any deleted messages) and you should not label these edits as vandalism under any circumstances. Exxolon (talk) 12:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, changed my comments above. Tommy! 12:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with TK-CP that there are plenty of times where users have brought up issues on TK-CP's talk page that have nothing to do with Misplaced Pages, and there is nothing wrong with requesting users to not do such a thing. However, those are not the edits in question, against what TK-CP states. The edits in question are the ones in which TK-CP reverted non-vandalism edits to his talk page, that were indeed related to Misplaced Pages, as vandalism (and in one instance, calling a valid warning of the 3RR a threat). They did not have anything "to do with administrative questions involving a site other than Misplaced Pages". Nuttish's first edit that got reverted as vandalism was asking TK-CP to refrain from reverting edits on Misplaced Pages for merely the author having an association with RationalWiki, particularly pointing to an edit in which they constructively corrected, in an obvious good-faith attempt, a formatting problem caused by another editor on TK-CP's talk page, which was later reverted by TK-CP. While Nuttish's message did have something to do with RationalWiki, it was ultimately related to Misplaced Pages, as it is asking for TK-CP to refrain from using being a member of RationalWiki, or "vandal site", as reasoning to revert ones edit on Misplaced Pages (which, even though TK-CP doesn't want others to bring Conservapedia and RationalWiki into Misplaced Pages, he uses being a member of RationalWiki as rational for reverting one's edit). Nuttish, after their edit got reverted, re-posted, this time asking for TK-CP not to label his edits as vandalism. I did the same, this time notifying him of policy, though he then proceeded to label my edit as vandalism, even though my comment was 100% related to Misplaced Pages, as it was doing nothing more than notifying him of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines regarding labeling edits as vandalism. I'd also like to point out that I was never explicitly asked to not post on TK-CP's talk page; the closest instance was when he told me to "Go someplace else to argue" when we were discussing, back-and-forth, about archiving messages and changing them. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 15:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're already in conflict with TK-CP, it's not a bright idea to post warnings on his talk page. Alert an admin and let them handle it. He should not have called them "vandalism" but, given the history of harassment in the past, I'd be hard-pressed to find this reaction worth more than a slap on the wrist. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

JahnTeller07 on Obama-related pages

Could we please have some administrator help to restore order on Talk:Barack Obama?

JahnTeller07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a 6-week-old account fresh off a block from edit warring on Fox News Channel, is now camping out on the Obama pages promoting a series of unhelpful non-consensus additions admittedly intended to fix Obama's "whitewash" and "liberal bias" in favor of Obama. When his POV / OR proposals are rejected he resorts to edit warring, accusations and name-calling, templating the regulars with POV warnings soapboxing, and simple wikistalking and abuse. (followed me to two unrelated articles to mindlessly revert my latest edits).

The editor has said they are here to "counteract bias" and "censorship", and angrily rejected a "final warning" and other warnings on his talk page, and other cautions and advice from various editors elsewhere. They've been warned about article probation.

There's a precedent for blocking and topic banning banned editors for very similar behavior in these articles - this editor is using some of the very same language and tactics. Of course you're welcome to try to talk sense into them, but it doesn't look very likely that they're interested in productive editing: the message they seemed to get from their last block is that Misplaced Pages admins are biased liberals. Also, we've had extensive socking from a number of editors, so we do have to be careful. There's an IP editor there now, also causing trouble.

Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 05:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 2 weeks for edit warring. Not sure of the precedent for topic banning, but if there is one, it would be appropriate on US politics and coverage. Toddst1 (talk) 05:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Topic banning is a fairly extreme and rare remedy, as compared with a block. I'm thinking of Grundle2600 (an editor I actually didn't mind - discussion here) but there may be others. Grundle posted the same few proposals perhaps a dozen times over the course of a few months. Alas, he is now banned and comes back as a sock... - Wikidemon (talk) 05:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This is also possibly Gaydenver (talk · contribs).--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You should realize though that these people are produced from the near unrestricted left-wing bias here. If you at least tried to maintain a semblance of fairness when covering left and right wing topics then there wouldn't be people like this popping up. But an admin should do something because this does conflict with wikipolicy and won't produce anything constructive. Still though, a topic ban might be a little harsh. Maybe just a 2-week block and a warning? Wikiposter0123 (talk) 06:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You picked up that analysis in the 14 days or so you've been registered on wikipedia? Shadowjams (talk) 06:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the block to indef as the editor appears to be a sock who is here only to struggle against admins. Toddst1 (talk) 08:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It only says 2 weeks still? Tommy!

Fixed. Toddst1 (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Placing runtshit targets on review?

Many admins may be aware of User:runtshit's long history of vandalism and of stalking a particular Wikipedian. Would people agree that it might be worth compiling a list of the stalker's favourite target pages and placing them on permanent preview so that his abuse is never seen by ordinary Misplaced Pages readers?--Peter cohen (talk) 11:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you could just add them to that LTA page above. Thanks, Tommy! 12:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If you mean WP:Pending changes, agree, good idea. Also can someone tell me where to report them for revdel or whatever it is. A few of them happen to be on my watch-list & I noticed they're now being revdeled or similar. Misarxist (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism at iGot a Hot Room

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

At the article, iGot a Hot Room, an IP user has repeatedly vandalized the article, replacing the character names with fictitious cast members, and adds useless information to the plot summary of the episode. I gave the user the Template:uw-vandalism4 template on the talk page, but the use still continues to vandalize the page. I would appreciate if the user would be blocked. I am getting very tired of undoing all of the edits and vandalism. Thank you. WereWolf (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done; 2-week block. (Note: the appropriate venue for reporting vandalism is WP:AIV).  Frank  |  talk  15:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry. This was my first time reporting vandalism, but I appreciate your help! WereWolf (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries. This is a big place.  Frank  |  talk  15:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Triton_Rocker

Triton Rocker has been making a number of fairly insulting edits today at the British Isles Special Examples page. In this diff for example, in a new section entitled "Updated list of Combatants" he accuses a lengthy list of editors of "grooming administrators", sockpuppetry, edit warring and various other insults. Subsequent edits to this list, attempting to remove the insulting bits were reverted and re-inserted by Triton. This has been a controversial subject which we have tried to calm down and have been approaching systematically and it is very disruptive to be trolled like this and forced to spend time repeatedly correcting. I would like to request he be dealt with firmly as it's very frustrating trying to work seriously on the topics in that article without being distracted by this foolishness.

Triton Rocker was blocked recently for 48 hours by TFOWR for violating the British Isles Sanctions and given a final warning today by Skomorokh on Triton's talk page for having a bash at Dave Snowden, who as User:Snowded is another participant in the WP:BISE article. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Tritons actions are clearly designed to be as disruptive as possible, it is certainly beyond the point of someone simply not following the rules correctly. Permanent ban until he accepts never to add British Isles to an article again or harass other editors. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• Note - Recent discussion on this noticeboard may be relevant: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive629#Breech_of_General_Sanction_by_User:Triton_Rocker.  Frank  |  talk  16:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

See also that he created trivial and pointy templates against User:Snowded such as Category:People from Ongar, Category:People from Ongar (district), Category:Ongar, and Template:Too-many-snitches. --HighKing (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Triton Rocker is clearly being absurdly disruptive here. I've had no previous involvement here and would probably have happily indef blocked him at this point - but as always with these disputes, it's probably best that someone who's not visibly British or Irish takes any required action, just for the sake of appearances. ~ mazca 17:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

IP evading restrictions on article creation

174.49.188.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This IP has been attempting to evade the article creation restriction on anonymous users by placing article content on the talk pages of the proposed article. The first one was Talk:The Real World (Ally McBeal episode) on 23 July (), which was moved to the article space shortly after. User was warned about this on 24 July (), was blocked 31 hours on 28 July for other disruptive activity, and today created Talk:Detachment (film) and Talk:They Eat Horses, Don't They? (, ). I moved both to the article space, prodded one and redirected the other. I think a longer block is necessary here. —KuyaBriBri 17:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards